MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
The 4458 meeting of the Brisbane City Council,
held at City Hall, Brisbane
on Tuesday 10 February 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 4458 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL,
HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE,
ON TUESDAY 10 FEBRUARY 2015
Dedicated to a better Brisbane
AT 2PM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS _____________________________________________________________ i
PRESENT: ______________________________________________________________________ 1
OPENING OF MEETING: __________________________________________________________ 1
MINUTES: _____________________________________________________________________ 1
QUESTION TIME: ________________________________________________________________ 1
CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS: _________________________________________ 12
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE _________________________________________ 12
A CONTRACTS AND TENDERING – REPORT TO COUNCIL OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES
FOR NOVEMBER 2014 _____________________________________________________________ 35
B DRAFT DUTTON PARK FAIRFIELD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN _______________________________ 40
C DRAFT CITY WEST NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN ___________________________________________ 41
D LEASE TO MT GRAVATT YOUTH AND RECREATION CLUB INC. _____________________________ 43
E CLEM JONES TUNNEL – PROJECT DEED DELEGATIONS ___________________________________ 44
F
TABLING OF PROJECT DEEDS FOR THE CLEM JONES TUNNEL AND THE GO BETWEEN BRIDGE ___ 45
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE ___________________________________________________________ 45
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – G20 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ______________________________ 47
B PETITION – TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT IN CHATHAMS POST, LARUMA AND LONE PINE STREETS,
ENOGGERA _____________________________________________________________________ 49
C PETITION – NOISE ISSUES—REQUESTING A SOUND BARRIER ALONG IPSWICH MOTORWAY _____ 51
D PETITION – TIMED PARKING RESTRICTIONS IN MINIMINE STREET, STAFFORD ________________ 52
PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE ______________________________________________ 54
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – TRANSPORT PLANNING AND STRATEGY 2014 ________________ 54
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE ___________________ 56
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – MOGGILL ROAD, KENMORE AND WYNNUM ROAD, CANNON HILL,
SUBURBAN CENTRE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS UPDATE _________________________________ 56
ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE ____________________________________ 57
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – ARCHERFIELD WETLANDS ________________________________ 59
B PETITION – OBJECTING TO COUNCIL’S PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO THE DOG OFF-LEASH AREA AT
THE POWERHOUSE PARK, NEW FARM ________________________________________________ 60
C PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL TOP UP, LEVEL AND RETURF THE DOG OFF-LEASH AREA
AND UNDERTAKE DRAINAGE REPAIRS AT NEAL MACROSSAN PARK, PADDINGTON ____________ 61
FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE _____________________________________________________________ 62
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – NOVEMBER 2014 STORM EVENT FIELD SERVICES GROUP RESPONSE
AND RECOVERY __________________________________________________________________ 67
B PETITIONS –– REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL MAKE RECYCLING BINS AND GREEN WASTE BINS
AVAILABLE TO BUSINESSES AS IT DOES TO RESIDENTS ___________________________________ 68
BRISBANE LIFESTYLE COMMITTEE _________________________________________________________ 69
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – CREATIVE COMMUNITIES_________________________________ 72
B PETITION – PETITION CALLING ON COUNCIL TO RECONSIDER ITS DECISION NOT TO RENEW THE
LEASE ON 55 QUEENSCROFT STREET, CHELMER, FORMERLY HELD BY WESTERN DISTRICTS
COMMUNITY AND SPORTING CLUB __________________________________________________ 74
FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE ______________________ 75
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THE ?? MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL,
HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE,
ON TUESDAY ??
Dedicated to a better Brisbane
AT 2PM
A
B
C
D
COMMITTEE PRESENTATION AND REPORT – NET BORROWINGS, CASH INVESTMENTS AND
FUNDING (DECEMBER 2014 QUARTER) _______________________________________________ 75
FINANCIAL REPORTS – (ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, RATES, INVENTORY, ACCOUNTS PAYABLE,
PROVISIONS AND MALLS) FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 2014 ______________________ 76
BANK AND INVESTMENT REPORT – PERIOD ENDED 31 OCTOBER 2014 ______________________ 76
BANK AND INVESTMENT REPORT – PERIOD ENDED 28 NOVEMBER 2014 ____________________ 77
CONSIDERATION OF NOTIFIED MOTION – CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY BRISBANE RESIDENTS
ABOUT PARKS, MEDIAN STRIPS AND FOOTPATHS:____________________________________ 78
CONSIDERATION OF NOTIFIED MOTION – CREATION OF A SHARED ZONE TO IMPROVE SAFETY:
_____________________________________________________________________________ 96
PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:___________________________________________________ 100
GENERAL BUSINESS: ___________________________________________________________ 101
QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: _______________________________ 101
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
THE 4458 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL,
HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE,
ON TUESDAY 10 FEBRUARY 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:
386/2014-15
The Minutes of the 4457 meeting of Council held on 3 February 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.
QUESTION TIME:
Chairman:
Are there any questions of the LORD MAYOR or a Chairman of any of the
Standing Committees? Councillor MARX.
Question 1
Councillor MARX:
Yes, thank you, Madam Chair; my question is to the LORD MAYOR. I
understand that the renewed Shorncliffe Pier is on track to open to the public in
early 2016. Can you please provide an update as to what is happening on this
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
-2important work as I understand that the previous ALP Administration let this
iconic structure slip into a state of disrepair and—
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
Councillor MARX:
—made no commitment to repair it.
Chairman:
Councillor NEWTON! Councillor NEWTON!
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Order! LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor MARX for the
question. The Shorncliffe Pier was built in 1882 and it's served this city
extremely well now over many generations of Brisbane people. It is a pier which
is some 350 metres in length. It is a fact that in recent years it has been subject
to heavy infestation of marine borers. That was relating to the marine conditions
at the time, and that rendered the Shorncliffe Pier unsafe.
I will say this: this Administration, this side of the Chamber, were the only
people to commit to the restoration of that pier. When the costings were
presented in 2012, there was nothing within Labor's costings towards the
restoration of the Shorncliffe Pier. That is a fact.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
LORD MAYOR:
They can squeak and squawk, but that remains a fact.
Chairman:
Order!
LORD MAYOR:
Look, I don't know why you're laughing; it's a fact. It is a fact. Just go back and
have a look at your other documents, and they were checked by some
accountant in Sydney, I recall, and that was the reality.
So, Madam Chairman, having made the commitment, and having put that within
our costings back in 2012, we then proceeded to undertake that work over this
four-year term as we committed. We are at a stage now where around 70 metres
of that pier has been removed. Golding Contractors are undertaking this task.
They have a crane out there in the water, a 58-tonne crane in association with a
barge, and that is a big task, but it will be around April when we will see the
completion of the removal of the existing pier.
That then starts the important task of rebuilding. It will be a restored Shorncliffe
Pier with the same visual effects of the existing pier, but with some
improvements in terms of the infrastructure. The hammerhead end—that is the
section furthest out to sea, out in Bramble Bay—will have an enlarged
hammerhead arrangement.
We have also got an enlarged rotunda as a part of the new construction, together
with some other amenities along the pier itself. So, the pier will consist of
168 girders, some 40 headstocks—they are being manufactured offsite—and 30
of those girders have already been poured. It is an important project. We expect
at this time to see the completion of the project early next year. It is an important
project in the sense that it is also the starting vantage point for the Brisbane to
Gladstone Yacht Race.
One of the aspects of the pier itself has been a desire to see components of it
reused. In other words, to take the timber, where suitable, and to allow that to be
put to good community use. So there are 17 successful applicants in relation to
aspects of the pier. Obviously we will be reusing some of the wood on the pier
itself—furniture and the like. But equally, many community based organisations
will take the advantage now of some of the wood and utilising that.
It effectively will take into account about 60 metres of the length of the pier in
terms of the wood that will be able to be made available for these community
groups. So, groups like Queensland Police Citizens Youth Club, for example,
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
-3they have plans to build a 144-square metre timber deck to allow parents to
watch their children participate in sporting activities such as soccer. You've got
the Sandgate Men's Shed who intend to develop pen barrels and salt and pepper
shakers, and then in turn sell some of those products to the broader community,
to have their own little piece or souvenir of the original Shorncliffe Pier.
You've got groups such as the Sandgate and District Historical Society that will
be developing a commemorative plaque, but also there will be a light pole from
the pier that will become a combined light pole/flag pole outside of the Sandgate
and District Historical Society and Museum. So they are just a few examples of
what are many community groups that will benefit. Some of the schools also
will be building furniture from the leftover materials.
But importantly, the pier will have concrete pylons to ensure that there is
another 100 years of life left. Marine borers will not be able to have an impact
on that new facility, and we look forward to its completion.
Chairman:
Thank you, LORD MAYOR. Before we continue, I would just remind all
councillors that, under the Meetings Local Law, questions shall be asked without
argument or discussion. So I would ask you all to remember that. Further
questions? Councillor DICK.
Question 2
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Chair; my question is to the LORD MAYOR. You recently
decided to award new grass cutting contracts by junking a contract for a grass
contractor with a proven 96 per cent Council compliance record over a 30-year
period. Clearly your new grass contractors aren’t doing the job. Isn't it true that
you were forced to cheaper and inferior contractors to mow the city's parks,
footpaths and median strips due to your mismanagement of the city's finances?
LORD MAYOR:
Well, Madam Chairman, I thank Councillor DICK for the question. Of the 16
contracts that were let—and I might say at the outset that, when those contracts
were let, they of course came through this Chamber. I acknowledge the Labor
Party did not vote for that contract, but then I can't remember a contract that they
have voted for over this term. They generally vote against all tendering contract
matters.
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
LORD MAYOR:
But the important part of that is that they did not speak on that matter of those
grass cutting contracts at all when they came through.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
LORD MAYOR:
Madam Chairman, let me just say this—
Chairman:
Order! Councillor JOHNSTON!
LORD MAYOR:
Let me just say this; there were 16 contractors—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Just a moment, LORD MAYOR. Councillor FLESSER, I would ask you to
withdraw that comment.
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Well, you were using words that were not appropriate in this place.
Councillor FLESSER:
Madam Chair, I said—
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
No, I'm not. It's not language I use, Councillor DICK.
Councillor FLESSER:
I said: are you saying we should have told you? That's what I said.
Chairman:
No, that's—just watch your language. Thank you. LORD MAYOR.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
-4LORD MAYOR:
Thanks, Madam Chair. Look, there were 16 contracts that were let. Ten of those
contracts were existing contractors. I am aware of the contractor that Councillor
DICK refers to. Any contractor who doesn’t get a contract renewed is obviously
unhappy. I can acknowledge that. I accept that. But, Madam Chairman, we have
a Stores Board that examines contracts; they examine the offering of those
contractors. They do due diligence around those contracts.
In this particular case, I have to say that, not in all cases, it is the new contractors
where there have been issues. Some of our existing contractors have also had
issues in relation to grass cutting. That is because the facts are there were 17 wet
days in January—17 wet days. So that was double the normal average for
January, and it was obviously a matter, as I said previously, we didn’t want to go
in and gouge out parts, create unsafe surfaces in those parks. It would have been
irresponsible to have done so.
But I am hoping, with some finer weather, that we will get the grass cutting well
and truly back under control. I think it has improved already. There is no doubt
about that. There are some State verges out there which are not looking too
good, and probably people get confused between what is Council responsibility
and what is State responsibility. That said, I have acknowledged that, in that wet
month of January, it was extremely difficult.
There are a couple of contractors that we are continuing to manage; as I say, not
all new. Some of the new ones are extremely good as well. But I do want to
contrast this with what Labor did, because when Labor last let the grass cutting
contract out, they actually went off to New Zealand to get a grass cutting
contractor.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Point of order—order! Just a minute. Yes, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Madam Chairman, I refer you to your ruling you made just minutes ago that
questions should not contain any argument. The LORD MAYOR is now making
an argument about what the Labor Party did, and in line with your ruling to this
Chamber today, I would ask you to rule that out of order.
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, you are misrepresenting the words that I used. I said
questions shall be asked—a-s-k-e-d—without argument or discussion. I did not
mention answers to questions. You should learn to listen just a little bit better. I'll
even give you the section. Go to Division 4, Question 33, Question Time, point
number 6(c). LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Madam Chairman, if it pleases the Council, I am not creating an argument here;
I am making an observation.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
LORD MAYOR:
I am making an observation as to what happened.
Chairman:
Point of order against you, LORD MAYOR.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
I refer you to that same section, 33—
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, I am not debating it.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
I am not debating, Madam Chairman. I am making a point of order under the
rules.
Chairman:
Yes, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I refer you to section 33, subsection (viii): in
answering a question, the following general rules shall apply—
Chairman:
I don't need it read out, thank you, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
—Neither the LORD MAYOR or Chairman shall debate the subject of the
question. That is what the LORD MAYOR is doing. He is not answering the
question, and I would ask that you draw him back in the spirit of the ruling you
have made today.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
-5Chairman:
I don't agree with your interpretation of how the LORD MAYOR is answering
the question, and I do not uphold your point of order. LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Look, I just made the point, and I will
certainly be raising that more later in the meeting in relation to what Labor
actually did with their grass cutting contract when they last brought it to this
place.
But, Madam Chairman, this—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR:
Cutting the grass, were you? Well, I will take the interjection from Councillor
DICK, Madam Chairman, because I will show you some of the grass cutting that
the New Zealand company that you engaged. That was Klumpp Road, back in
the time when they engaged. I had to get in some other New Zealand help, as
you can see there, to give them a bit of a hand at the time.
Councillor DICK:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Point of order; yes, Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Can the LORD MAYOR explain what date that was?
LORD MAYOR:
I certainly can. It was during the Labor years of 1997 when the—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
LORD MAYOR:
Yes, that is exactly right, and what you did—
Chairman:
Order!
LORD MAYOR:
You talk about jobs here. You went to a council in New Zealand to come and cut
the grass here—to come and cut the grass here. So, Madam Chairman, I make
the point: their record is not flash when it comes to grass cutting. They are not in
a very good position—
Chairman:
Order!
LORD MAYOR:
—on history. It is all very funny for them, and there is good chatter around here,
but I make the point that we have engaged a group of grass cutting contractors. It
was done with a proper evaluation criteria. Only one component of that criteria
was price, and it should be. The Opposition would be reasonably critical if we
did not look at price as a part of the value for money proposition when we are
making assessments.
But we also—and when I say we, we are talking about the Stores Board of
officers here that examine contracts on behalf of this Council. We had a
percentage around capacity, around capability, around quality systems and
around commercial matters.
Chairman:
LORD MAYOR, your time has expired. Thank you. Councillor OWENTAYLOR.
Question 3
Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My question this afternoon is to the Chairman of
Finance, Economic Development and Administration, Councillor SIMMONDS.
This Administration has a strong record of investing in infrastructure and
services for ratepayers while keeping costs as low as possible. Can you please
outline how this is achieved, and give some examples of alternative approaches?
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and thank you very much, Councillor
OWEN-TAYLOR, for the question, because you as much as anyone understand
the importance of strong financial management when it comes to delivering
services for Brisbane ratepayers. The facts of the matter are these: this
Administration over the last couple of years has delivered record funding in new
bikeway infrastructure. We have delivered record funding for upgrades to the
CityCat network this financial year. We have delivered record road resurfacing
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
-6funding. We have delivered a 30 per cent increase in this year alone in asset
maintenance funding.
We have removed more graffiti, cut more grass, provided more cleaning services
than any Labor Administration before us. We, of course, as well, are building
more major infrastructure, including Legacy Way, Kingsford Smith Drive
(KSD), open level crossings and Wynnum Road, than Labor ever achieved. That
is just to name a few examples. Those are the facts, in black and white, in the
budget documents. They are undisputable, and they are being delivered with
rates which are comparatively lower than our other South East Queensland
councils.
So, how have we been able to achieve that? Well, it's worth considering, and the
Chamber would be interested to know that this Administration is continuing to
keep the back of house operating costs down. For example, in the last four years,
in recent history, the Liberal National Party (LNP) Administration has spent 64
per cent less on travel than the previous Labor Administration; we've spent 26
per cent less on cab charges than the previous Labor Administration. We've
spent 65 per cent less on catering than the previous Labor Administration, and
we've spent 68 per cent less on consultancies than Labor in their last term. That's
the reason we are able to put so much money into frontline service. And the
difference is stark.
This Administration has spent over $4.1 billion on capital investments, a 97 per
cent increase on the last previous Labor Administration. I will say that again; we
are spending almost 100 per cent more in capital investments for this city than
Labor ever achieved. On road resurfacing—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
Councillor SIMMONDS:
—this Administration has spent $166 million in the last three years, an increase
of 52 per cent on Labor's paltry spend. There has been an 11 per cent increase by
this Administration on spending on new kerb and channelling over the previous
Labor Administration. We have spent on community halls in the last three years
a whopping $15.6 million, or a 200 per cent increase, on anything that the Labor
Councillors over there ever managed to put together.
We are spending $19.36 million in cleaning costs around the city compared to
Labor's paltry $10 million in their last year in Administration. We have seen
unfortunately from the State Labor candidates at the last election cutting the
grants for graffiti—that is their approach to cleaning graffiti in this city—to cut
funding for it. This Administration has put in, or spent in the last four years, 250
per cent more on cleaning up graffiti than Labor was ever able to do.
You can tell the way that the LNP Councillors are getting on with the job of
delivering services is causing some real internal conflict for those Labor
councillors on the other side. It is tearing at their very soul. They are really
finding it hard to reconcile it themselves. For example, we had Councillor
CUMMING down there on the weekend at the opening of the Manly Visitor
Information Centre—a great project, no one doubts that—and he was very
supportive, willing to take a lot of credit, but it was he and his Labor mates who
voted against the funding last budget. So they are all happy to take the credit, but
when it actually comes to funding it, no, they vote against.
What about Councillor DICK? What about Councillor DICK who talks at every
opportunity about abolishing Brisbane Marketing, while his deputy and
Councillor SUTTON write to me asking Brisbane Marketing to come to their
suburbs and help them. You don't ask an ineffective agency to help your local
businesses. You ask an effective one, and that is exactly what they're doing,
while their Leader wants to cut the funding.
What about their Deputy Leader who talks about putting this city on a roads diet,
while Councillor GRIFFITHS uses the Go Between Bridge and Clem7 91 times
in the last calendar year—91 times. While they've got their Deputy Leader
talking about a roads diet, they're quite happy to use and take advantage—
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
-7Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
Councillor SIMMONDS:
—of the infrastructure.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Councillor DICK interjects. We know that he has lots of time to report on federal
elections. He's got lots of time to campaign in State ones—
Councillor DICK:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Point of order against you, Councillor SIMMONDS. Yes, Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
I know the other side made use of—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Just a minute, Councillor DICK. There is too much noise. Councillor DICK has
called a point of order.
Councillor DICK:
Madam Chair, I know the other side may have given up on ideas, but could you
please bring Councillor SIMMONDS back to the question, rather than just a
complete attack on me and anything that I'm doing?
Chairman:
Thank you Councillor DICK. Councillor SIMMONDS, thank you.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
The little violins are playing for Councillor DICK, but my point is this: I was
asked about other alternative policies, and this is Labor's policy. While ours is to
deliver infrastructure, theirs is to vote against it time after time. They voted
against open-level crossings; they voted against CBD all-ability playgrounds;
they voted against backflow prevention devices; they voted against the
Karawatha Forest Environment Centre; they voted against Frew Park; against
new bikeways; against sports field rehabilitation, mosquito spraying, and—
Chairman:
Councillor SIMMONDS, your time has expired.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
That's those Councillors over there.
Chairman:
Your time has expired, thank you. Councillor JOHNSTON.
Question 4
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Oh, a miracle; thank you, Madam Chairman. My question is to the LORD
MAYOR. In July last year you publicly stated that the reason for undertaking the
Fairfield Dutton Park Neighbourhood Plan was the Bus and Train (BAT) tunnel
and its impact on Dutton Park Station. Yesterday your colleague and LNP
Leader, Lawrence Springborg, stated that the BAT tunnel could not go ahead
and the ALP don't support the project either. Why are you blindly pushing ahead
based on your own reasoning with this unnecessary neighbourhood plan?
LORD MAYOR:
Madam Chairman, I thank Councillor JOHNSTON for the question. It is
certainly the case that the bus and train tunnel appears to be off the agenda. I
don't think there are any doubts about that, given the election outcome, that it is
off the agenda. That said, what is not off the agenda, of course, will be the
growing need for bus infrastructure in South-East Queensland, and that will be a
matter for the State Government to address.
That said, the neighbourhood plan was more than just about the bus and train
tunnel. I think that was a catalyst, there is no doubt about it, that that was a
catalyst, and one of the aspects in terms of the need for a neighbourhood plan in
that area. But it was not the only one. There are many parcels of land in that
location and its proximity to the area around the city which warrants a local
neighbourhood plan in that location.
I know that both Councillor ABRAHAMS and Councillor JOHNSTON have had
briefings with the Divisional Manager around the neighbourhood plan. We have
some documents before Council today in relation to that. So that will be part of
the reports presented today. But we will be proceeding with that neighbourhood
plan in that area, in spite of the bus and train project being put on the backburner
or, indeed, having gone.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
-8One of the things that I do know is that today we live in very uncertain times in
the State arena. When all the dust settles and we've got a formal government in
place, the need for public transport infrastructure—again, which is State
Government responsibility—they won't go away. They won't go away, and there
will need to be some examination in terms of how the future will be addressed.
The Labor Party opposite are always talking about public transport. Well, there
will be a need to look at what is going to be required to address, particularly in
our situation, bus infrastructure in the future. But in terms of the neighbourhood
plan, we will indeed be continuing with it in that location.
Chairman:
Further questions? Councillor McKENZIE.
Question 5
Councillor McKENZIE:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. My question is to Councillor SCHRINNER,
Chairman of the Infrastructure Committee. I understand that last week this
Chamber witnessed the laughable policy of the ALP whereby they encouraged
the development of land that is essential to future infrastructure, and then
suggested that this land could be purchased back at potentially exorbitant costs.
Can you please detail further why this asinine policy would deliver no benefits to
ratepayers?
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you, Councillor McKENZIE, for the
question. It was indeed quite remarkable what we saw in this Chamber last week,
and then what we saw the following day as well—absolutely remarkable. You
will recall that last week we finalised the acquisition of the Indooroopilly
roundabout site. Last week we made it very clear that this was a project that
needed to happen for a future road upgrade. Now, we also made it clear that we
didn’t have a timeframe for that roundabout upgrade or road upgrade at this
time. But this is about planning for the future.
What maybe wasn’t quite clear last week, though, was Labor's position and how
it had changed dramatically since this item first came through Council. On
29 March 2011, this acquisition first came to Council. At that time it was the
decision to go ahead with the purchase. So it was the resumption process. Labor
voted in favour of that. Then, the same year, on 13 September 2011, another
item came through to Council, and I understand that was to pay an advance for
that property. Once again, Labor voted in favour of that purchase.
But last week, when we went to finalise the purchase after protracted
negotiations, Labor suddenly was opposed to the purchase. They said, what a
waste of money. Why are we wasting this money buying a piece of land so that a
luxury car dealer can be there? That is their words. Well, let's be very clear.
When we purchased the land, there was a luxury car dealer there. There was an
Audi dealer on the site when we purchased it.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor DICK!
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Guess what.
Chairman:
Order!
DEPUTY MAYOR:
When we purchased the land, the person who was residing on that land wasn’t
paying any rent. After protracted negotiation with Council—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
DEPUTY MAYOR:
—it became apparent that there was a large outstanding bill of unpaid rent. In
fact, to this day, there is $64,000 in unpaid rent owing to the ratepayers of
Brisbane. It is not owing to Adrian SCHRINNER or Graham QUIRK or any of
us; it is owing to the ratepayers of Brisbane.
The person who owes that money to the ratepayers of Brisbane was standing
next to Councillor DICK during his press conference, and Councillor DICK was
there going, this is unfair, this is outrageous. What a waste of money that
Council would buy this piece of property.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
-9Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor DICK.
DEPUTY MAYOR:
So what we heard, and what we saw from Labor, is that the—
Chairman:
Order!
DEPUTY MAYOR:
—Opposition is supporting people—
Chairman:
Councillor DICK!
DEPUTY MAYOR:
—who owe the ratepayers money.
So, next time you decide you don't want to pay your rates, maybe give
Councillor DICK a call, because he'll go in to bat for you. Do you know what?
He will go in to bat, because when you're in Opposition, you can say all types of
outrageous things and do all types of outrageous things with no accountability,
apparently.
So, I would ask Councillor DICK now to use his relationship with the defaulter
to please help us return that $64,000 to the ratepayers of Brisbane. I am pleased
to say, though, that we now have a new tenant in there who is paying their rent
on time and is paying significantly more rent. But this is just a fascinating case
study in how Labor chops and changes. They will say one thing one time, and
then completely backflip if they see some kind of political point that they can
make. The reality is that we are planning for the future. This is a deal that had to
be done.
Another point that wasn’t made last week was growth in property values in
Indooroopilly. At the moment, it is 4.8 per cent per year compounding. So
property is increasing in value in Indooroopilly, in your ward, Councillor
SIMMONDS, by 4.8 per cent a year. That means in five years' time, the $17
million purchase would have to be a $21.5 million purchase. If we waited 10
years, you can only imagine the growth that would happen.
So, if we did what Labor said and not went ahead with the purchase, ratepayers
would be out of pocket even more than $64,000. They would be out of pocket
millions and millions of dollars, and we, as a city, would be suffering the
consequences of Labor's decision if they were in Administration.
It is a clear example of how Labor doesn’t understand financial management and
doesn’t understand planning for the future. We have done the right thing by
purchasing this site. Even if the upgrade doesn’t happen immediately, it will
need to happen, and it will happen. The decision to buy that site was the right
and responsible thing to do, and shame on Labor for opposing it.
Chairman:
Thank you, DEPUTY MAYOR. Councillor DICK.
Question 6
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Chair; my question is to the LORD MAYOR. On 22
September 2014 you were formally warned that your actions to employ
unprepared grass cutting contractors with insufficient equipment, staff and
resources would lead to inferior grass cutting standards for our city. Why didn't
you heed this advice?
Chairman:
Sorry, Councillor DICK, can I just clarify? At the start of your question, you
asked—what date was that, sorry?
Councillor DICK:
That was 22 September 2014.
Chairman:
Thank you. LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Madam Chairman, that advice was rendered by a person who was putting in a
bid on the contracts. That advice was put in by a person who had an existing
contract.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 10 LORD MAYOR:
The advice was not put to me; I think a copy was sent to me actually at the time,
but what is Councillor DICK suggesting here? Is he suggesting that I should
intervene, that I should get my little paws in and make decisions around
contracts in this city? Well, that would be a nice sort of a how-do-you-do. I'd
love to hear Mr Fitzgerald's opinion on that one.
We have a very longstanding practice in this Council whereby we have the
officers of the Council setting up through a Stores Board mechanism, arms'
length from the elected bodies of this Council, to examine without fear or favour
bids that come in on various contracts in this place.
You have had opportunity, Councillor FLESSER, to experience some of that
over the course of a couple of days. You might recall when you and I made the
decision about the Clem7 tunnel together, we were locked away for a fair period
of time, and some of your colleagues—in fact, you might recall, at the time—
there were six of the eight of us in that room were Labor Cabinet members
during those joint Liberal-Labor Cabinet years. So you understand the process of
how it worked, and how it works—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR:
That was a contract. That was a big contract, the Clem7 contract. Did you forget
that one? You were only locked up for two days with people with secret service
walkie-talkies saying he's going to the toilet now and all this sort of caper. You
know what it was like. So, Madam Chairman, the point being—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR:
Yes, well, back to the grass cutting, it's an example, Councillor FLESSER, I'm
reminding you, of the process. So, the Stores Board do the analysis around
whether it's playground equipment, whether it's grass cutting, whether it's the
myriad of contracts that we bring to this Chamber, and an assessment this
Council—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order! Councillor ABRAHAMS!
LORD MAYOR:
—this Council in the end is answerable to everything. I absolutely understand
that. I have always said that, at the end of the day, I am responsible; I get it. But
the process is what I am talking about today, and the process is, we have, not
only in my time but in the time of previous Lord Mayors had a process whereby
the Stores Board make the determinations.
In the end, I am answerable to the people of Brisbane; I accept that. I am
answerable right now to grass cutting, and we are doing what we can to make
sure that we get out and get this grass cut. We've put several of the contractors
under performance review, as we should, making sure that they deliver on their
contracts.
So let's get back to chores here. A competitive tendering environment. The
tender bids come in. Ten of the 16 had been doing previous work for us under
those tenders. But it's the old story. You pay your money and you take your
chances. Madam Chairman, in this case, the tender bids came in; an officer
assessment was made around those bids and the capability.
But I repeat; I defy any contractor to be able to keep up where you've got 17
days of rain in a month of January. How do you do that without impacting on the
land? How do you do that without creating a gouging effect within the parks.
Then, of course, if we'd gone in and done it, Councillor DICK would be here
saying that I was putting young children at risk because they were creating a fall
environment where they could break ankles, where they could have nasty falls in
those parks. You see, he takes it both ways; that's what he does.
So we have a responsibility; we are exercising that responsibility. I take
responsibility, absolutely. We are doing the right thing here. The contracts, at the
end of the day, were cost competitive, but they have been costs that have been
put in by the contractors. The contractors now must deliver. They have made the
bids. We will hold them accountable to those bids in the interests of ratepayers.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 11 Chairman:
Further questions? Councillor HUANG.
Question 7
Councillor HUANG:
Thank you, Madam Chair; my question is to the Chairman of Public and Active
Transport Committee, Councillor MATIC. I understand that this side of the
Chamber is rightfully proud of its commitment to Brisbane's bikeway network,
with election commitments of $100 million and $120 million in 2008 and 2012
respectively. Can you please provide further information on these commitments,
and if possible detail further the ALP's commitment to Brisbane's bike network?
Councillor MATIC:
Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor HUANG for the question
and for the opportunity to discuss with the Chamber the importance of our
bikeway program across our city, but importantly also this Administration's
ability to deliver on those important outcomes.
Nothing clearly states the huge gap between our side of the Chamber and the
ALP side of the Chamber when it comes to our bikeways program, when it
comes to having a strategic plan, when it comes to having the appropriate
investment, and when it comes to making sure that we are delivering on that
investment.
From the other side, all we hear are snipes and criticisms. We hear disparity in
their position around where they are with cycling. Do they support bicycle
network infrastructure? Do they support upgrades?
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor MATIC:
We just heard Councillor ABRAHAMS say, of course, and yet nothing speaks
more clearly than the actions of those opposite, particularly Councillor
ABRAHAMS, who this week says she supports the bicycle network
infrastructure upgrade, but last week, when there was a petition in this Chamber
to look at improvements in her ward, she chose not to support the petition
recommendation, which was to investigate those upgrades.
She stood in this Chamber and, when consulted on the petition, at first instance
said yes, but then later on got up in this Chamber and said no, and then
pretended that the reason for that was because we were not consulting enough
with bicycle user groups. You see, Madam Chairman, prepared to play the
politics, but not prepared to stand up for her residents to look for those
improvements within her ward. Where was Councillor ABRAHAMS when it
was necessary to put forward a position, to put forward ideas? Nowhere to be
seen. Her position reflects that of the ALP. Nowhere to be seen in this area at all.
Yet this Administration has a very clear vision for delivering bikeway
infrastructure upgrades through this city. It does so through the record
investment of LORD MAYOR Graham QUIRK in the amount of $120 million
in this four-year term. As Councillor HUANG was saying, this follows on from
the record investment of the last Administration of $100 million that was
invested in that term, by Campbell Newman at the time. So, over eight years, we
have a record amount of infrastructure investment in our city, and we have seen
the improvements that that has provided.
We have seen clearly across our city the improvements within that 2008-2012
period the investment in bikeways along Bulimba Creek Bikeway. We have seen
improvements in Indooroopilly; we have seen improvements in Murarrie; we
have seen improvements on the south side; we have seen improvements on the
north side and through Kedron Brook. We have seen improvements across our
city as a whole.
Why? Because this Administration is committed to our bikeway infrastructure
across our city. Because we want to provide safe and accessible pathways for our
cyclists and for our pedestrians as well. Because we want to provide the
opportunities to all of Brisbane's residents to be able to get to where they want
to, because this Administration is also about providing traffic congestion
improvements as well.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 12 We understand through our strategic planning, through our commitment to
Brisbane residents, that by providing choices to all of our Brisbane residents, we
will see improvements in cycling and walking, reduction in traffic congestion, a
cleaner and greener city. Yet where do we see that from those opposite?
Nowhere. What we see from those opposite is just continual criticism. What we
see from those opposite is a lack of investment and foresight in where they want
to be.
In the last term, in the 2012 election, we had a commitment from those opposite
around a variety of projects of $100 million, and an announcement that was
made after LORD MAYOR Graham QUIRK made his announcement of $120
million. Through what they were committing to was a hotchpotch of projects
looking at various projects, looking at bikeways, looking at bridges. A lot of it
was investigation but not about delivery.
This Administration set forward a clear path of where we are going and where
we want to be in the future. That is what clearly defines this side of the Chamber
from those opposite. We are about delivering outcomes, not about playing the
party politics, not about going out there and using different groups to get an
outcome, and not about changing our position when it suits us, like Councillor
ABRAHAMS does. When it comes to investing in bicycle infrastructure around
key nodes that we spoke about last week in the petition, we don't stand up and
present one position and then change our minds half-way through the process
and present a clearly different one. That is what the ALP is renowned for:
jumping backwards and forwards when it suits their politics. But this side is
about delivering.
Chairman:
Councillor MATIC, your time has expired. Councillor DICK.
Question 8
Councillor DICK:
Thanks, Madam Chair; my question is to the LORD MAYOR. Will you
guarantee there will be no more mismanagement or cost blowouts in your
management of the cutting of grass in our parks, gardens and median strips?
LORD MAYOR:
Madam Chairman, what I will guarantee to Councillor DICK is that we will
continue to mow the grass far more often, whether we are talking about parks,
whether we are talking about minor roads or major roads in this city, where we
have responsibility for those roads, far more times than Labor ever did. It comes
down again to this notion that talk is cheap, and the hypocrisy flowing out of this
question is nothing short of astounding.
When they had the opportunity to do it, they didn't. They didn't, Madam
Chairman. We are doing many more cuts a year now than Labor did up until the
end of their time in office in 2004. We continue to remain committed to doing
that. I will give you this undertaking, Councillor DICK, I will continue to drive
officers to make sure that we get performance from the contractors. They have
tendered a price. Those prices have been accepted. They have tendered on the
basis of certain undertakings.
But I will also promise you this. I am not going to force contractors into land
where that land is soaking wet, where it would gouge out that land, because that
is not in the interests of those people utilising parks in this city; it is not in the
interests of safety around those park users. But where the ground is in a
condition where it can be mown, I will be absolutely demanding performance
from our contractors.
Chairman:
That ends Question Time.
CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS:
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 13 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 2 February 2015, be adopted.
Chairman:
Is there any debate?
LORD MAYOR:
Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Just a few quick things before getting to
the substantial report itself. Firstly, the month of February is Heart Research
Month. I just raise that. Obviously an important part of this nation is the work
and research work done around heart disease. This month also is Ovarian Cancer
Awareness Month. Again, something where this nation continues to undertake
important research work in that space.
We also saw on 2 February the United Nations World Wetlands Day. That marks
the signing of the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty around
wetland areas.
I had the opportunity to join with my colleague Councillor Julian SIMMONDS
and with Councillor Peter CUMMING last Saturday at the opening of the
Wynnum Manly Tourism and Visitor Information Centre.
It is an initiative largely driven by the Chamber of Commerce in that area, but an
initiative which I think is good for Wynnum. It is an initiative that allows them
to get out and promote their part of our city. As we know, both bayside areas are
very much like townships within the City of Brisbane. Even though we are a
thriving metropolis today as a city, they maintain that township feel, and that is a
good thing. It is part of that great mix of offering that Brisbane has. I just wish
them every success down there with their new site. It has a good arrangement. It
is obviously waterside, and it is mixed with a café, and I think it will be very,
very successful where it is located.
A good band of volunteers are also engaged in that particular exercise down
there, all committed to their local area, and again I just wish David Farley as
President of the Manly Chamber of Commerce and all his team every success
with that new venture. Council provided some financial support towards that. It
was about $75,000 by way of a direct grant, and $75,000 loan over a three-year
repay period as a hand-up, and that is located at the William Gun jetty. I
certainly recommend any of you that are down Wynnum Manly way to pop in
and have a look at it. They are certainly out there promoting it, and good luck to
them.
The items on the agenda today—firstly item A is again contracts and tendering.
The first of those is the supply and installation of a playground at Phil Denman
Park at Jamboree Heights. The successful tenderer there is M&N Enterprises Pty
Limited at a price of some $253,760. It achieved the highest value for money
index. It is not the cheapest, as you can see; it is a little dearer than the cheapest,
but it has achieved the highest value for money.
The next one is the sports field and hard court condition rehabilitation. That is a
$1,105,000 project, and there are three tenders there. TIS Pty Limited that has
got that for the project A, the North Region Major Works, and the South Region
Major Works has also gone to TIS Pty Limited, as has the Central Control
System.
The other areas there—we've got Technigro which is a $331,000 tender. They've
got parts project D and E, and they have also received a category B there, project
E testing. The Walton Bridge rehabilitation—Moggill Constructions have been
awarded the tender here at $535,000. Again, they were not the cheapest bid. The
cheapest bid went to Dovell Constructions Pty Limited. Again, just to give you a
flavour, why you'd go to Moggill Constructions? In this case, the methodology
for Moggills means that the bridge would be closed for a period of four weeks as
opposed to Dovell's proposal which would close the bridge for 15 weeks. So,
again, taking those factors into consideration, the cheapest tender was not
recommended by Stores Board. They have recommended that it be Moggill
Constructions on the basis of reduced inconvenience to the people of Brisbane.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 14 The next item is that of the community facilities improvement program. This is
building repairs and upgrade works to a range of community facilities—
Chermside Bowls Club, the Federal Band building at South Brisbane, the
Waterloo Bay Leisure Centre at Wynnum, the Inala Art Gallery and Kedron
Former Substation. So, ProBuild Industries, a $444,000 tender on this occasion.
The next one was Mt Ommaney Library refurbishment, item 6, and that has gone
to ProBuild Industries as well, a $530,000 bid. That was the cheapest bid in this
case, and again they have also achieved the highest value for money index.
Organisational Services—TTR Improvement Actions, Akamai Technologies Pty
Limited, a $670,000 tender bid there successful.
Bridgeport Communications have been awarded a tender, again for TTR
Improvement Actions, and the supply and delivery of hardware store items and
the retail supply of general hardware within Council has gone to a panel
arrangement, J Blackwood & Sons Pty Limited. We've got Coventry Group
Limited t/as Konnect, and Bunnings Group Limited, all receiving parts of the
bids there on the panel arrangement.
There are other parts to that. They are listed there on page 4. There is a whole
range of panel providers under different subcategories that are listed for
Councillors to observe.
Item B is the draft Dutton Park Fairfield Neighbourhood Plan. This is the second
of two neighbourhood plans that we are undertaking this financial year. The
Dutton Park and Fairfield areas present a lot of planning potential. It is
recognised as an area of growth in the new City Plan 2014. The presence of a
multitude of healthcare facilities means that we can really help to coordinate
future planning in that particular area.
The draft Neighbourhood Plan aims to achieve a number of objectives for that
area, including unlocking economic potential, supporting health and scientific
research, improving accessibility to major transport infrastructure networks. The
boundary areas include South Brisbane, Woolloongabba, Dutton Park, Highgate
Hill, Fairfield and Yeronga. The planned boundary includes these extra suburbs
to help respond to major education, health and scientific precincts.
There is a constant interjection happening, Madam Chairman, but I will just
ignore it. The planned boundary includes these extra suburbs, as I said, regarding
health and education. The larger Neighbourhood Plan—it's a larger area than we
would normally do, but there is significant economic and development
opportunities within that area. The plan aims to respond to some of the important
aspects of the area that ensure future planning is coordinated, to build on that
health services investment already undertaken. For example, the Mater Hill
Hospital investment. That precinct extends across Dutton Park, South Brisbane
and Woolloongabba.
The planned area incorporates these two major health precincts, to coordinate
development around the future planning that they wish to undertake. We have
the scientific services such as the Eco Science precinct. That includes that area
of development potential as well as Yeronga TAFE and the Royal Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) site. These were opportunities to
consider the areas. There will be a debate on this later, Councillor. You can have
your say, and I am sure you will.
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON! If you continue to interject, you will be warned.
LORD MAYOR:
The last statistical estimate for this plan area showed that there was a total of
some 9,276 dwelling houses and 13,713 employees within the area. We expect
again to see a growing area of health and science, particularly around research,
in that precinct.
Chairman:
LORD MAYOR, before you continue, your time has expired.
387/2014-15
At that point, the LORD MAYOR was granted an extension of time on the motion of DEPUTY MAYOR,
seconded by Councillor Ryan MURPHY.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 15 Chairman:
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Item C is a draft City West
Neighbourhood Plan. This is an area which of course includes some landmark
sites, ranging from Suncorp Stadium through to the Victoria Barracks and the
Normanby Hotel. The draft plan aims to build on the work already undertaken
for the draft Spring Hill Neighbourhood Plan which is, as Councillor COOPER
likes to highlight, our city's oldest local plan.
A lot has changed in that area, and the plan is now home to over 1,000 people
and 540 dwellings. This plan, a much smaller one, but it is about celebrating and
protecting the strong heritage and traditional values of the area, the character and
revitalising areas and giving life to underutilised spaces as well as celebrating a
strong entertainment presence that exists within this neighbourhood plan area.
The renewal strategy is the first step in the neighbourhood planning process,
allowing the local community and businesses to make significant contributions
about what they would want to see happen in their community. So, it is a great
opportunity for local residents to become involved and to participate from the
ground up in terms of that planning process. That applies to any of the
neighbourhood plans we undertake.
So, Madam Chairman, feedback to the draft strategy will then inform the
drafting of the Neighbourhood Plan with formal public notification of the draft
neighbourhood plan expected in the early to mid-part of 2016. There's a number
of other aspects to that, but that gives an overview.
The next one is the lease of the Mt Gravatt Youth and Recreation Club. This is a
25-year lease that has been sought, and we are recommending that on this
occasion. This is a club that is about to undertake significant expenditure. There
have been some improvements by way of infrastructure and improved facilities
on the ground. They have had some government support at different levels
around that.
But they also want to borrow significantly to further expand their facilities, to
create a community hub for the future around sport and recreation. To do that,
they need the certainty in terms of those loan borrowings and that undertaking.
So we are proposing and recommending in this Council today a 25-year lease be
granted to the Mt Gravatt Youth and Recreation Club.
The next item, item F, is that of the Clem Jones Tunnel project deed
deliberations and delegations. As Councillors will recall, 23 May 2006 saw
Council enter into a project deed with Rivercity Motorways. That was back in
the days of a joint Labor-Liberal Cabinet in this place. Then, on 13 December,
Queensland Motorways Groups (QML) took ownership of the concessions for
Clem7. By way of a separate sale process, the QML also took ownership of
concessions, not the infrastructure itself, but the concessions around the Go
Between Bridge and Legacy Way. What this proposes to do is to bring together
those aspects under a single delegation.
The State Government's Tollway Declaration requires that Council must make
public any material changes to tollway deeds, including any changes in
ownership. Queensland Motorways was sold to the Sun Group Consortium on 2
July 2014, and at that time, as I mentioned, Go Between Bridge concessions
deed was amended to reflect that change of ownership.
Since that time, the Clem7 project deed has also been amended to reflect the
change in ownership and align the operation and administration of the Clem7
with other toll roads controlled now by the Sun Group Consortium. This
submission simply allows the amended deeds for Clem7 and the Go Between
Bridge to be tabled in Council.
There can be no doubt that the transition of all of our toll roads to one operator
will be a good outcome for Brisbane motorists. It essentially means that there is
now one network in which all of the tolling systems and pricing can be
streamlined to make that user experience a more consistent one across the tolling
products.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 16 If we can go back for a moment to item E, the project deed delegations, through
the other submission, through submission no. F today—
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Order!
LORD MAYOR:
—Through item F today, we see the tabling of an amended project deed for
Clem7 which reflects the new concession ownership by Sun Group Consortium.
But now that the sale is complete and the project deed has been updated, it is
appropriate for the project deed delegations for Clem7 to be brought into
alignment with the other Council toll roads.
As such, this submission proposes that the power and authority to manage all
aspects of the deed on a day-to-day operational basis of these contracts be
delegated to the Chief Executive Officer. This is the arrangement in place for the
Go Between Bridge already. It is the arrangement in place for Legacy Way, and
this will simply streamline the processes for all of the Council toll roads. The
management of our toll roads by one operator is a good outcome for Brisbane,
Madam Chairman, and hence it is recommended.
Chairman:
Further debate? Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Thanks, Madam Chair, and I rise to speak on all the items—I'll give it a go. I
will start with contracts and tendering. I am going to say publicly today that
Labor Councillors won't be voting for these contracts and tendering. The LNP
Councillors often like to say we don't support contracts and tendering. For a very
good reason, Madam Acting Chair. Just in the one, two—
Chairman:
I'm actually not acting, Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Sorry, Madam Chair. With four pages of the E&C document today, this Council
and this LNP is asking us to rubber stamp approximately $28 million worth of
contracts. In anyone's language, that is a lot of responsibility that we as the
elected officials have placed upon us. If we've learnt anything after 12 long years
of the LNP in charge of this city, and the LORD MAYOR who has sat in this
Council for 30 years, when you have been around a long time, you get lazy and
mistakes happen.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
Well, that's what happens with long-term governments. We are seeing that time
and time again. I only need to use as a contrast to the example, which we have
had a little bit of debate today, about the grass cutting contracts. Now, $13
million, there is very good reason Labor Councillors don't support the contracts.
If you just listen to what the LNP say, they always say the same thing: trust us.
Well, after the result of that one example, the people of Brisbane can't trust the
LNP anymore. It is not good enough—and Madam Chair, I want to read into the
record a quote that the LORD MAYOR said today about contracts in Question
Time. He said, pay your money and you take your chances, when it comes to
contracts.
Well, Madam Chair, I don't subscribe to that philosophy at all. The over 25,000
ratepayers I am privileged to serve in this community don't subscribe to that
philosophy at all. Do you know what, Madam Chair? I think the majority of
hard-working—
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Point of order against you, Councillor DICK. Yes, Councillor SIMMONDS.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Madam Chairman, Councillor DICK has been speaking for some time now; he is
yet to ask a single question or speak to any specific item within the contracts and
tendering report. In fact, he has spoken about contracts which simply aren’t in
this report at all.
Councillor DICK:
Sure.
Chairman:
Yes, thank you, Councillor SIMMONDS; I was aware of that.
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will return—
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 17 Chairman:
Back to the item, Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
I will return—I think I have made my point about why we won't be supporting
the contracts today. For example, we are asked to spend on category A2, project
D, aeration and weed control—okay—without a detailed explanation about how
that will be implemented, about what the LORD MAYOR's guarantees have. He
gets up and just reads out the name of the contract and what the money is worth.
That doesn’t cut it, just like the grass isn’t being cut in this city, so does the word
of this LORD MAYOR. So I won't be supporting these today, Councillor
SIMMONDS. You can get up and take points of order against me all you want,
but you are being exposed for being negligent—
Chairman:
Councillor DICK, to the item and through the Chair, thank you.
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Chair. So the LNP Councillors are being held to account
today for their negligence in not doing their job.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Point of order against you, Councillor DICK. Yes, Councillor SIMMONDS.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
I just wonder if Councillor DICK will take a question as he always offers to.
Chairman:
Councillor DICK, will you take a question?
Councillor DICK:
Madam Chair, with five items, I'll take one at the end if you can remind me.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Well, you forgot last time, so try and remember this time.
Chairman:
Councillor SIMMONDS!
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Thank you, Councillor DICK.
Seriatim—Clause D
Councillor Milton DICK requested that Clause D, LEASE TO MT GRAVATT YOUTH AND RECREATION
CLUB INC., be taken seriatim for voting purposes.
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think their defence says it all today. Their defensive
attitude.
Madam Chair, I want to move on to item B and item C, the draft Dutton Park
Fairfield Neighbourhood Plan, and the draft City West Neighbourhood Plan.
Now, reading through—I know these are procedural resolutions, to get the ball
rolling, but in light of the serious, I guess, and dramatic announcements from the
LNP Acting Leader or Premier yesterday, whoever he is, about the BAT tunnel
now being scrapped by an LNP Government, Madam Chair, I draw to your
attention and to the Chamber's attention and to the LORD MAYOR's attention,
when this came to announcement, and the LORD MAYOR tried to wriggle
around today and re-write history, he said, on 22 July 2014, “The reason for this
neighbourhood plan was not about future development in that growth area or
those suburbs”.
He is rewriting history now. He said, “Through this infrastructure project—
namely the BAT tunnel—it will generate a fair bit of market interest. So we need
to get on the front foot with this now and have the conversation with the local
people. It is a matter of some priority because of the focus—this was after the
announcement about the changes to the BAT tunnel—on the Dutton Park
Station”.
So, Madam Chair, we are having a neighbourhood plan because the then LNP
Government, aided and abetted by the LNP Council, wanted a project that was
never going to stack up. We all knew that. It never had funding. It was just
another LNP pie in the sky project. It was never going to come to fruition.
Everybody knew that. It has been junked, the minute the election was over, by
the LNP. That is why we're having this neighbourhood plan today.
I think it would be prudent for the LORD MAYOR to rethink this, rather than
now trying to cobble together an argument about why we're having this
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 18 neighbourhood plan. The facts are clear. We are only in this position because the
LNP Council went down the path to support the then LNP Government about a
project that was never going to come to fruition.
So, Madam Chair, I really would ask the LORD MAYOR, and perhaps other
councillors today may want to debate this, particularly Councillor ABRAHAMS,
and I will defer to Councillor JOHNSTON, as the local Councillors, about the
process involved and whether we should be going down this process today.
I just bring your attention, Madam Chair, to when you actually read the—it's a
pretty standard set of operating procedures about the reasons why you have a
neighbourhood plan. I bring the Chamber's attention to paragraph 17 on page 6
on the Draft City West Neighbourhood Plan—the reasons behind it. They are
listed in dot points: to provide fine level planning provisions for the City West to
accommodate economic growth in discrete precincts, to provide clarity about the
protection of character housing precincts in this area.
Interestingly, when you read the draft Dutton Park Fairfield Neighbourhood
Plan, there are no reasons why we are having this neighbourhood plan. This is
the first time we have been wheeled in a neighbourhood plan without any
reasons why. But we all know why they had to be scrubbed out, and why the red
pen went through when it came to Civic Cabinet. They couldn’t say we're doing
this because of the BAT tunnel. They couldn’t say this because the then LNP
State Government told us to do it.
Look, let's be really clear on this: we are now in a position because of poor
decisions rushed through in a political fix. So I am hoping that we will see
further debate on this today, and actually an honest explanation from the LNP as
to why we are in this position.
Chairman:
Yes.
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, because we will be supporting that lease today. When it comes to
delivering quality improvements, we will always support that, as long as it stacks
up. I do note that is a 25-year lease, so that they could apply for further longterm funding. Previously the club had a five-year lease on the site that expired in
2013.
The Council has already provided $600,000 for new field lighting on two
sporting fields. The Commonwealth Government has committed $2 million and
the State Government around three-quarters of a million dollars for the
construction of a new car park, indoor sports centre, change room and amenities.
The club is still applying for additional funding to complete the facility
development. So that is good to see Councillor ADAMS delivering in her own
ward. That is good as the Chairman. But I certainly hope other facilities across
Brisbane can use that as some examples, so that we see improvements for people
playing sport and particularly emerging sporting stars of the future.
Just moving on to another main item today, which are clauses E and F, the Clem
Jones tunnel project deed delegations and F, tabling of project deeds for the
Clem Jones tunnel and the Go Between Bridge. There are a number of items in
here, and I will bring your attention to page 3, section 4, amendment of
performance.
I specifically want to highlight today my concerns. The specification shows
that—and I quote from the document today—the call for a 1800 community
inquiry telephone service. So this is the inquiry hotline if you need information
about use of these tolling projects. The hours for the Clem7 tunnel would be
reduced from 24 hours to 12 hours per day—so between 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. My
question is: why? Why are we asking for approval for that today?
We only need to look at the media reports on 15 January, the truth be told, that
even after the reboot for Clem7, patronage has now collapsed by another
1 per cent. We are nowhere near the 116,000 vehicles that should be travelling
on the Clem7; we are down to 26,000, so a long way from that. If anything, we
need to be encouraging access to information for people to use these tolling
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 19 projects. Let's not forget, it is the LNP Council that has leased our tolling rights
for the Clem7 for 45 years, and the Go Between Bridge for 50 years.
Chairman:
Councillor DICK, your time has expired.
388/2014-15
At that point, Councillor Milton DICK was granted an extension of time on the motion of Councillor Helen
ABRAHAMS, seconded by Councillor Kim FLESSER
Councillor DICK:
Thank you, Madam Chair, I won't be too much longer so I can take Councillor
SIMMONDS' question.
For the Go Between Bridge, Council receives regular reports and updates from
the operators. I want to know where these reports go, and will the LORD
MAYOR commit today to making them available, either through the Council
website or, indeed, we'll have better luck with that than actually bringing
anything in through to this Chamber, but it certainly would be good for debate to
regularly occur with those reports coming in. Is there proper attention being paid
to them? I call on the LORD MAYOR today to table all of those reports.
On page 68, clause 10.4, under Complaints, the Concessionaire must
immediately notify Council in writing if any complaint, other than toll user
complaints, is made if any proceedings are instituted or threatened, and a letter
of demand is issued or an order or direction is made. There is a series of notices
of damage and accidents, a series of concessionaire's risks with traffic, revenue
and tolling on page 122.
We know that the toll road KPIs are listed on page 216 to 218 in the schedule 10
KPI assessment system. This includes KPIs of operations, administration,
maintenance, toll road user service and satisfaction, accuracy of information.
There is a lot in these reports today, and I have gone through them, and I would
be very keen to get an explanation from the LORD MAYOR about why we are
moving down this path of not providing the relevant information or, if it is not
being made accessible and open to the public, these projects have delivered a
huge amount of debt to Brisbane but not necessarily any congestion benefits.
We all remember the big fat lie from Campbell Newman about a big fat cheque
being delivered, that it wouldn’t cost ratepayers any money for the Go Between
Bridge, and we still owe $245.9 million on the Go Between Bridge. Clem7, we
still owe $423 million, and of course, Legacy Way is $905.6 million. So, overall,
Council owes $2.3 billion in debt and around $1.5 billion of that is from these
tolling projects.
So this is a serious decision that we are being asked today. I know the LORD
MAYOR wants to gloss over this, but in my opinion, we are put in a severe
financial difficult arrangement as a result of these decisions. Perhaps that is the
reason why we aren’t delivering on the basics. Perhaps that is the reason why we
can't see the grass cut across our city. However, for those reasons, we won't be
supporting those items today, and I am happy to take Councillor SIMMONDS'
question.
Chairman:
Councillor SIMMONDS.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Just back on contracts and tendering,
given that Councillor DICK did not ask any specific questions in the debate
today, in Question Time, in the Committee this morning or in fact request any
files of me at all, could he just confirm that the reason the Labor Councillors are
opposing the contracts and tendering is not because they don't have enough
information but just because their only policy is opposition for opposition's
sake?
Councillor DICK:
Madam Chair, I was pretty clear about why we're not supporting the contracts
today, but I will be crystal clear for Councillor SIMMONDS. Councillor
SIMMONDS, you can't deliver basic projects, and you are wasting ratepayers'
money. So when you start delivering on your services that you should be for the
hard-working ratepayers of Brisbane, when you start delivering ratepayers value
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 20 for money, when you stop misleading them by not telling them the truth, I will
start supporting the contracts.
Chairman:
Further debate? Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Yes, Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on items A, B, C, E and F. So it's D that
is being taken seriatim?
Chairman:
Yes.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Right. Okay, Madam Chairman, I thought perhaps the Planning Chair would
stand up and speak as to why the Dutton Park Fairfield Neighbourhood Plan has
been brought forward. I am extremely concerned at what this Administration is
doing with this neighbourhood plan.
I do not support this neighbourhood plan going forward as one of the two local
Councillors for the area. I was briefed before Christmas by Council officers, and
I raised a series of genuine concerns about the boundaries as they have been
marked out in this neighbourhood plan, and there was no response from this
Council. I followed up on Friday, and I received an email, a belated email, about
the matter. But this Council is not listening to local Councillors or the
community.
I am extremely concerned that the LORD MAYOR has stated today, clearly
stated today, that the reason he is pushing this plan forward now is for economic
and development purposes. There is no other reason that he has given us today
other than those two things. That is in stark contrast to why he said he was doing
this in the Brisbane Times online last year. We have heard some of that from
Councillor DICK.
Let's be clear. Even when he said the reason for this neighbourhood plan is
because of the developer interest around the Dutton Park rail station because of
the BAT tunnel—even when he said this last year, the BAT tunnel was not a real
project. It was still in its planning stages. We have heard and seen in the last two
weeks that this project and the murky financial model that supported it has been
thoroughly rejected by the community.
The LNP, through their new Leader, has said this project will not be going
ahead. The ALP did not support it, and they certainly haven’t provided any
funding for it. So let's be clear; the only reason given by the LORD MAYOR
when he announced this was because of the BAT tunnel. The BAT tunnel is
dead, yet this LORD MAYOR is pushing a neighbourhood plan into an area that
already has the best protections under our city planning regime to ensure the
area's character and amenity is preserved. He is doing that simply for the
purposes of developers. I do not support that.
The areas in my ward—which they haven’t even got this right; they have not
even got this right, Madam Chairman. It is clear the map shows—
LORD MAYOR:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Yes, point of order against you, Councillor JOHNSTON. Yes, LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Madam Chairman, I take strong objection to the proposition being put forward
by Councillor JOHNSTON that these measures are being put forward only for
the purposes of developers. I take personal objection to that, and I ask that she
withdraw it.
Chairman:
Yes, Councillor JOHNSTON, I'd ask you to withdraw that comment please.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Righto, Madam Chairman, I'll withdraw it and I'll clarify with a direct quote
from the LORD MAYOR in his own speech here earlier today. The only reason
he has given today for this project to go ahead, now the BAT tunnel is dead, is
for the significant economic and development opportunities in this area. Now,
Madam Chairman, who does developments? Developers do developments,
Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON—
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Developers do developments—
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 21 Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, you are imputing motive, and again I ask you to
withdraw those comments. LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Yes.
LORD MAYOR:
Madam Chairman, I claim to be misrepresented because I have been misquoted.
Chairman:
Thank you, LORD MAYOR. Councillor JOHNSTON—
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, keep your comments to the plan. I have warned you
twice in relation to the imputing of motive, so please watch what you’re saying.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Well, Madam Chairman, I am repeating what the LORD MAYOR has said here
today, that this is about economic and development opportunities in the area—
significant economic and development opportunities in the area.
What I will point out is that I am here to represent the community, the residents
who live in these suburbs. They are concerned, as they have been through the
city planning process, of the unfettered and inappropriate development that is
happening in our residential suburbs. This area is a unique area, particularly in
the suburbs that I represent. It has character housing. It is low density, and it is
low to medium density. There are significant parklands, and these are areas that
we want to preserve.
It is only a year ago that the LORD MAYOR and the DEPUTY MAYOR stood
up in this place during the City Plan debate and said we want to preserve
Brisbane's backyards. Well, Madam Chairman, I don't believe that, and this
neighbourhood plan is another example of how they are trying to push
inappropriate development through the planning regime in this city.
There is no raison d'être for this neighbourhood plan. It was not proposed as part
of the City Plan 2014. It is a completely manufactured neighbourhood plan for a
specific purpose as the LORD MAYOR outlined in July last year. That purpose
is gone, and yet the LORD MAYOR is pushing ahead. We as a community
rightly are questioning why he is doing this, and it is not on.
They have not even had the guts to say the names of all the suburbs that are
included in this neighbourhood plan area, and it absolutely includes parts of
Annerley. But they don't even want to mention that. What is going to happen?
They'll put out all their marketing around the place on this neighbourhood plan
and forget to tell the Annerley residents who are about to get up-zoned. I've seen
how this process has worked. I don't support it.
This murky process has no legitimacy based on the LORD MAYOR's
conflicting statements about why it is going ahead as a priority. Remember last
year—this is a priority—he has bumped off Councillor FLESSER's
neighbourhood plan which that community actually wants, and he is not doing
the neighbourhood plan for those residents, but he is pushing ahead with one that
I don't support and I suspect that Councillor ABRAHAMS doesn't support.
LORD MAYOR, listen to your local Councillors. You have got this wrong. I
will be moving a procedural motion later in the debate to put this matter on hold,
because it is going ahead at the wrong time. I am concerned that the residents in
my community will be the losers in this. We know that the boundaries have been
drawn to include parts of Yeronga which are more than two kilometres away
from the Dutton Park station, because it is a significant State Government site
that they want to sell.
Now this is for Newman. He's gone, and the LORD MAYOR is still pushing
ahead. The RSPCA site at Fairfield—sold by the State Government. These
significant parcels of State Government land, assets that the Newman
Government has sold off in my community, or have announced that they want to
sell off, and the LORD MAYOR is still riding on that man's coat tails and he is
going to push development opportunities through in those areas with this
neighbourhood plan. It is wrong.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 22 They are splitting suburbs that should not be split. They are dividing
communities. You will have residents around these significant sites who aren’t
even included in the neighbourhood planning process. This is poor policy
making; it is a developer-driven agenda from this LORD MAYOR, and I
absolutely do not support it, LORD MAYOR. You need to withdraw this matter,
withdraw it. I will put it on hold in a procedural motion later, but you have got
this completely wrong—
Chairman:
Through the Chair, please, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
—completely wrong, Madam Chairman.
Yeronga is not a community of interest with South Brisbane, yet it is in the same
neighbourhood plan. There are so many problems with this neighbourhood plan,
and we still have only heard one reason from this LORD MAYOR as to why it is
going ahead. Well, I know the real reason. I saw it in Sherwood and Graceville.
They forced greater density on communities that did not support it, and I
absolutely will fight this tooth and nail. I will stand up for the community that I
represent, because this is bad planning; this is bad policy, and this is the wrong
way to deal with appropriate planning in our area. I do not support it.
Just briefly, I certainly won't be supporting items E and F. I am extremely
concerned about the financial mismanagement of this Council, so I will be
abstaining on those two items if I get the opportunity.
Finally, on contracts and tendering, I have been consistent in this place for years
now about the fact that we have delegated away the powers of this Council to
oversight financial decisions. On every opportunity I have opposed delegations,
and we are seeing the outcome of those poor delegations coming home to roost
now. This Council does not get a say on major financial transactions.
The contracts and tendering report is showing up where these problems are, and
I note the criticism here earlier from I think it was the Finance Chair essentially
saying the Labor Party doesn’t support these decisions. We are only being asked
to note them. We don't even get a say in whether they are yes or no. The decision
has already been made, and they are brought up here for a rubber stamp from
this Council. I don't support that process, but I am prepared to allow you guys to
govern because you have the numbers in this place. That is generally how it
works, unless you are in The Courier-Mail and they think pretty much anyone
can do it. But I don't support—
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, your time has expired.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
—the delegation of power. It's bad financial management.
Chairman:
Further debate? Councillor MATIC.
Councillor MATIC:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak in respect of item C in a calm and
more appropriate fashion without allegation or without fairy tale or without
scaremongering.
Chairman:
Sorry, Councillor MATIC, just a moment; LORD MAYOR, you had a
misrepresentation.
LORD MAYOR:
Thanks, Madam Chairman. The extent of that misrepresentation was the words
that I was using were economic development, not economic and development. It
is a completely different thing.
Chairman:
Thank you, LORD MAYOR. Sorry, Councillor MATIC.
Councillor MATIC:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. As I said, I rise to speak in respect of item C, the
draft City West Neighbourhood Plan, and to talk about what is actually a very
important process within the ward of Toowong. This neighbourhood plan takes
in some key areas, historical areas of the ward, including Petrie Terrace, sections
of Milton, Caxton Street, the Normanby; the plan extends down to Neil
Macrossan Park and incorporates Suncorp as well.
It is important to note that, within that Petrie Terrace precinct are some of the
oldest plans of our city, yet despite the age of the planning, the city has grown.
The residents within that area have continued to present opportunities for
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 23 themselves, not only in where they live but of course where they run their
businesses. So it is appropriate for us to look at that area and to do a refresh to
consider the old planning processes and what is more reflective of what is there
currently now but also importantly what will be there in the future.
As the LORD MAYOR said as well, economic development is an important part
of what we consider within these areas, and that is absolutely pivotal within this
neighbourhood plan area. As I said, we've got Caxton Street, we've got the
Normanby as well, and Suncorp. We’ve got vibrant precincts that have been
there for a very, very long time and will continue to be so. The demand in those
areas continues to grow.
Caxton Street is itself an area that continues to evolve. It has benefited greatly
from Suncorp, and the needs of the local community, the needs of the economic
development of our city continue to develop within that precinct, so it is
important that the proposed plan is reflective of the needs of the community and
of the business owners within that precinct as well.
The same is said for the Normanby as well which sits on the edge of this plan,
and the growth within that precinct and what needs to be addressed for the future
needs of all of those residents and the business owners to find a balance in being
able to meet all of those needs.
But importantly also, in addressing the needs of the local community, this plan
also goes a long way towards recognising and protecting the historical and pre46 Queenslander values that is in the Petrie Terrace precinct. There are
townhouses, there is accommodation there that go back to the turn of the century
and that are being utilised these days as either houses or as offices as well. So
this neighbourhood planning process is about evaluating the opportunities for
growth; it's about finding the opportunities for economic development; it's about
protecting the character values of the terrace as well.
I certainly look forward to this plan going forwards and providing all of the
residents and businesses within the precinct the opportunity to engage in this
important process to put forward their ideas and to put forward a plan and a
process through the planning process a vision for the future and what we can do
to enhance the precinct and also protect its values as well.
Chairman:
Further debate? Councillor FLESSER.
Councillor FLESSER:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to speak a little bit about the deeds for
the Go Between Bridge, item F, I think it is.
Chairman:
Sorry, items E and F?
Councillor FLESSER:
Just item F.
Chairman:
F, okay.
Councillor FLESSER:
Just the Go Between Bridge, part of it. I think it's important that councillors here
are well aware of exactly what is being proposed here. The history of the Go
Between Bridge is pretty long in this Council Chamber, and there were certainly
a lot of promises made by the LORD MAYOR and also Campbell Newman
about how much it would cost and how much it was going to give back to
ratepayers. We all remember the big promise that was made in the Council
Chamber here about how the bridge was going to be cash positive and the
Council wouldn’t have to put any money down, and it will actually generate a
big fat cheque. Remember when that happened on 30 August 2005?
What is happening today is, I suppose, something that is topical for not just
Brisbane's ratepayers but also the people of Queensland, because what we are
looking at here is the privatisation of a Council-owned bridge. The bridge cost
ratepayers $338 million. I understand the State Government sort of contributed
$50 million to it, but we still owe $245 million. So who are we actually giving it
to?
If we look at the project deeds, we're assigning all the rights to the bridge to a
company called GBB Operations Pty Limited of 7 Randall Street, Eight Mile
Plains. So this is something owned by the ratepayers of Brisbane not that long
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 24 ago, quickly sold off to QML for a deal with the Northern Link tunnel, or the
Legacy Way tunnel for somewhere between $450 and $950 million. I think the
way the tunnels are being used, I think the $450 million figure is going to be a
lot closer to the mark of what we actually get.
So we're giving away a Council asset for 50 years—now, I would say that is
privatisation—for 50 years. I don't know, the LORD MAYOR might argue, no,
it's a lease and we get it back at the end. That is something we need to consider,
when ratepayers get it back in the end. In the deed, like the deed for the Clem7
tunnel, it is quite long and it is very detailed, and some of the details in there are
very clear and explicit as far as protecting the asset and making sure when it
does eventually come back into ratepayers' hands, it's been well looked after,
well maintained, and that ratepayers do actually end up with an asset and not a
liability.
So, Madam Chair, I am bit concerned about this GBB Operations Pty Limited.
The E&C actually says it is going to Sun Group Consortium, but that's not what
the deed actually says—it's this GBB Operations with what sounds like a house
address at Eight Mile Plains. The LORD MAYOR is saying the real owners are
Transurban, a public company; Australian Super—a superannuation fund; and
also another company called Tawreed. I don't know anything about Tawreed
other than I've done a quick internet search, and there is a similar company
operating in Saudi Arabia. So if that is the company that is a part-owner now of
what was previously owned by the ratepayers, we are going from a publicly
owned bridge, owned by the ratepayers of Brisbane, $338 million paid by
ratepayers, we still owe $245 million, and it is now going to be operated by the
Sun Group Consortium, or is it being operated by this GBB Operations Pty
Limited who this deed has been made out to?
So I think there are some questions there, and hopefully the LORD MAYOR
might be able to answer and give us some assurance that who we're actually
assigning the deed to the Go Between Bridge to is actually an organisation that
will be able to fulfil all the requirements of the deed. We have seen it—I am not
sure how many pages there are, probably more than 100 pages, like the Clem7
tunnel—but does this company have the financial backing? Does it have a
reputation to be able to maintain and properly operate this bridge? Will it
actually give back the bridge to Brisbane's ratepayers in 50 years' time as an
asset and not a liability?
We have heard all the promises before, when Campbell Newman sat here
waving his arms around about how it was going to produce a big fat cheque.
Well, Madam Chair, I think there are some questions I have raised here today,
and I hope that the LORD MAYOR might be able to shed some light on who
this GBB Operations are and who actually are the new owners of the bridge that
actually was paid for by the ratepayers of Brisbane.
Chairman:
Further debate? Councillor COOPER.
Councillor COOPER:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair; I rise to speak to items B and C of the
report. I note that there has been quite a bit of discussion as to why Council
nominated to do the neighbourhood plan for the Dutton Park Fairfield
Neighbourhood Plan. If you actually go back, there was a media release sent out
from the LORD MAYOR last year talking about a range of reasons as to why
Council was proposing to do those sorts of—
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON!
Councillor COOPER:
I would suggest that the media release would be something that generally would
be available. I don’t think that you would have any reason for a secrecy about a
media release. I know that Councillor JOHNSTON can infer all she wishes to
do, but the facts of the matter are—
Councillor interjecting.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 25 Chairman:
Just a moment, Councillor COOPER. Councillor JOHNSTON, you have been
constantly interjecting through all of the speeches on the Administration side.
Once more and I will formally warn you. Thank you, Councillor COOPER.
Councillor COOPER:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I read directly from that. The third
paragraph, so right up front it says, Fairfield was already identified as a future
growth node under City Plan 2014. Wow, it's a mystery to us in this Chamber as
to why this area needs to be investigated for a neighbourhood plan. So it
specifically says in that media release, both Dutton Park and Fairfield will
benefit from a neighbourhood plan to address changing community needs.
It also talks about how that neighbourhood plan is a good opportunity to ensure
the heritage character of the area is maintained, while facilitating future planning
around this key transport corridor. What a surprise! This is a location that was
nominated in a strategic plan when we put forward City Plan 2014. This is an
area rich in transport options. This is an area that many people have talked about
the opportunities that it provides to really create particularly a precinct with a
focus on the medical facilities that it encompasses. There is no mystery. It is
self-evident that this is an area that Council absolutely has the opportunity to
work with local residents and to consider its future and make sure all of that is
carefully outlined in a new neighbourhood plan.
So this plan boundary includes locations such as the Princess Alexandra, the
Mater Hill precinct. It's got Boggo Road, the Princess Alexandra busway, Park
Road, Dutton Park and Fairfield railway stations, the Eco Science precinct, the
former Yeronga TAFE and the RSPCA site. So it is absolutely rich in areas that
need to be carefully considered to make sure that we manage them as they grow.
So that is absolutely no surprise to us—
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Point of order; yes, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Madam Chairman, I am currently looking at the LORD MAYOR's website and
there is no press release that I can see—
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, resume your seat.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
—and I am concerned Councillor COOPER is misleading the Chamber.
Chairman:
Resume your seat. Councillor COOPER.
Councillor COOPER:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. So this area, also with the Mater Hill
precinct, also includes the new Lady Cilento Children's Hospital—
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Yes, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
I just seek a ruling on my point of order about—
Chairman:
I do not uphold your point of order, and I am not about to debate what is or isn’t
on the LORD MAYOR's website. Councillor COOPER.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor COOPER:
I recall, Madam Chair—
Chairman:
Order!
Warning – Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON
The Chairman then formally warned Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON that unless she desisted from
interjecting/obstructing the proper conduct of the meeting she would be suspended from the service of the
Council for a period of up to eight days. Furthermore, Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON was warned that, if she
were suspended from the service of the Council, she would be excluded from the Council Chamber, anteChamber, public gallery and other meeting places for the period of suspension.
Chairman:
Councillor COOPER.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 26 Councillor COOPER:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I recall us spending a week long in this Chamber
debating City Plan 2014. It was very, very clear that this was an area of great
interest. That was specifically discussed as part of that debate with City Plan. So
there is absolutely no way that the local Councillor could say that she was
unaware of that, or did she not participate in the debate for City Plan 2014,
because I do recall she was in attendance at some stages of the debate.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Point of order; yes, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Claim to have been misrepresented.
Chairman:
No, that is not misrepresentation, and you know that.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Yes, it is, Madam Chairman. Councillor—
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON—
Councillor JOHNSTON:
—COOPER said that I—
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, you are on a warning. If you are going to argue—
Councillor JOHNSTON:
She quoted—
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, it is not misrepresentation. Resume your seat.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
I move dissent in your ruling, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Resume your seat.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
She's verballed me and I have the right to correct it.
Chairman:
Resume your seat. Councillor COOPER.
Councillor COOPER:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. So the inclusion of both of these hospitals
allows us to create a health precinct and help support any future expansion of
these facilities. We also have a range of education and research hubs that
certainly do have some ambitions to grow, and as a city we are very supportive
of those sorts of opportunities.
As I said earlier, it's an area rich in public transport with three railway stations,
two busways and a combination of major roads in the area. So any planning that
we do will ensure that we improve any infrastructure within the boundary of the
neighbourhood plan. This is also an opportunity for us to carefully look at the
existing character housing, making sure that it's got appropriate protections in
place, and I know that there have been a number of neighbourhood plans—
Councillor SUTTON, if she was here, would concur that the Bulimba
Neighbourhood Plan was certainly a good opportunity for us to make sure that
heritage protection was carefully put in place as part of that neighbourhood plan.
So it's certainly got a number of key objectives that we hope to be able to
facilitate through the plan. It is expanding on that area's competitive advantage
for economic and employment growth; it's about making sure that the growth is
created through intensification of health and science services; and it's about
providing opportunities for business support and retail services to meet the
current and future needs of that area. And, of course, always improve
accessibility to major transport and infrastructure networks. So that is really
what we are on about with the Dutton Park Fairfield Neighbourhood Plan.
With respect to the City West Neighbourhood Plan, I thank the Local Councillor
for his very careful and considered comments. This is a particular
neighbourhood plan that is very much taking on or continuing the work of the
City Centre Master Plan, so this really did set up the need for further
investigation of this plan area which is nearly 30 years old. That seems relatively
young to us, Madam Chair, but in terms of a neighbourhood plan, it is certainly a
good opportunity to review it.
Specifically we are keen to encourage the local community to be involved to see
what they want to have happen in their local area. Spring Hill, Petrie Terrace
area has got a fantastic opportunity for promotion and revitalisation of that area,
specifically as a lifestyle hub. There is a high level of character and heritage
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 27 values that we want to protect and promote in that particular neighbourhood
plan, and there are a range of key precincts which will be focused on,
particularly the entertainment facilities and precincts in the plan, such as the
Normanby Hotel, Suncorp Stadium, Caxton Street precinct, and the Barracks
retail and dining centre.
There has been, of course, as Councillor MATIC pointed out, a huge amount of
success with Caxton Street, and we just want to make sure that continues and
improves in the years to come. These entertainment precincts are very important
features of our city's identity, so the plan is about enhancing their roles as well as
finding a balance with activating the economy during the day, so a 24-hour
economy for those local areas.
We also want to see opportunities which certainly may come forward into the
future to think about sites such as Victoria Barracks. This is, of course, home to
some Commonwealth heritage buildings, with 23 buildings on site in total.
Those range from buildings constructed in the 1860s through to the 1970s. These
places were connected to defence, communications, customs and other
government activities. It is included in our heritage overlay, and of course will
require continued protection. So these sorts of sites are important for us to
consider and to make sure that, as our city continues to grow, that they are
carefully protected and that any future development that might occur in that
particular precinct carefully responds to those particular issues.
There are also opportunities in the neighbourhood plan to consider public and
active transport needs, to make sure that we get improved pedestrian and cycle
access between that precinct, the city centre and the river's edge. So, Madam
Chair, a neighbourhood plan is about a whole range of things, and we look
forward to engaging with both of these communities as we go forward and
consider the opportunities in our beautiful city. Thank you very much.
Chairman:
Further debate? Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I enter the debate on item C and item B. It is
interesting to follow both the LORD MAYOR, the local Councillor and the
Chair for Planning and just hear and reflect back what they said about the City
West Neighbourhood Plan. The LORD MAYOR told us of the 1,000 people who
reside in this area, and that the intention of the neighbourhood plan was to
celebrate and protect the character housing in the area, to look at the
underutilised spaces and to certainly look at the development of the
entertainment spaces.
Interesting, the local Councillor was much more into protecting and fine tuning
the character areas, and to permit work and play within those properties.
Councillor COOPER—it was full bore development—Council has to develop
the sites for entertainment precincts and make opportunity of the Army barracks
and other facilities.
All of this area is in character residential zone, except a small strip that is in the
district centre zone. I would suggest they have sufficient protection in that zone
which permits entertainment activity as well as office activity for the City Plan
to achieve that. But it maybe I don't have the wisdom that the LNP have on that
side.
But certainly what I wish to go on the record is those small sites, which are some
of the smallest allotments in Brisbane with character houses that are very close
together, have no protection for the excesses of an entertainment precinct, of
people, of noise, late at night every night. So there is a real challenge to the LNP
to achieve their focus of a growing dynamic entertainment area but yet protect
the residential amenity in tin and timber houses, one layer of timber between you
in your bed and someone who's had a great night and intends to keep on having
that night. So we will look forward to what happens in that neighbourhood plan.
But, Madam Chair, I am much more interested in the Dutton Park
Neighbourhood Plan. It does have a boundary that is one of the more interesting
boundaries, because it is obviously created in such a way to ensure that things
like the Yeronga TAFE and some of those other sites are incorporated into it.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 28 Highgate Hill, which is a character residential area, has been incorporated in, yet
I have no idea, apart from some development by some people along the river that
is well out of kilter from the existing character plan, why that would be included.
So I am concerned, and I do believe it is inappropriate to put Highgate Hill in
this plan. There is no development potential in this suburb. But it was very
interesting to hear the debate that we have heard today. We heard the LORD
MAYOR say quite clearly that there are many parcels of land in the vicinity that
warrant—and he was talking about Dutton Park; he mentioned Dutton Park—
many parcels of land in the vicinity that warrant a Neighbourhood Plan, that
there were development opportunities within the plan area. So I would agree that
was the only rational for the Neighbourhood Plan that he mentioned.
Councillor COOPER gave us a greater focus, and that was all of the health
services of the Mater and the Princess Alexandra (PA) Hospital. Well, Madam
Chair, my understanding of those health services is they are on state land; they
have grown very effectively up and out within their precincts, and I don't support
their growth, if that is the intention behind Councillor COOPER's words, into the
character residential that immediately abuts it. That was the only reason given.
So we've now got opportunities, development opportunities, and we've got the
health precinct.
But if we go back to the only information that we were given, which was the
press announcement in the Brisbane Times by the journalist Kim Stephens,
whom we all know was a very excellent reporter and got her facts correct, she
doesn’t once mention the hospital. She doesn’t once mention sites that provide
an economic opportunity. Instead of which, she quotes the LORD MAYOR in
italics, “it is a matter of some priority because of the focus of the Dutton Park
station. Infrastructure”—and by that the LORD MAYOR is referring to the BAT
tunnel—“will generate a fair bit of market interest”.
So, Madam Chair, why can the media say one thing and the LNP Councillors
today say a completely different thing. It just needs to be answered
appropriately, or otherwise the community will not believe that the arguments
are for the health services, and now belatedly the desire to protect the character
housing. The City Plan protects character housing. Just have a look at this plan.
Here is the Dutton Park station, right there. This is pink—character housing infill
zone for the whole extent of the neighbourhood plan with the exception of the
hospital precincts and, once again, the District Centre development along
Fairfield Road.
So, the extent of this plan is character housing. I want to go on the record: if the
LNP are serious about defending that character housing, they will have my
support for that part of the Neighbourhood Plan. But if they are not sincere, they
will not have my support for the Neighbourhood Plan. You leave Dutton Park
railway station, you walk 100 yards and you are into three streets that are in the
character infill Housing Zone with, some of the most intact houses in Dutton
Park.
The LORD MAYOR also said this was an area for a growth corridor. Councillor
COOPER defended him, mentioning the Fairfield growth corridor in the City
Plan 2014. But I would like to present what was in the Brisbane Growth
Corridor in the City Plan flier, and there is no growth corridor for Dutton Park—
no growth corridor for where this plan has its central area. It was not in the City
Plan proposal when the BAT tunnel project showed the loss of Dutton Park
railway station.
It was only when the community won the battle to keep their railway station that
the LNP, in a knee-jerk, underhand and, one could say, bitter response, decided
that we needed a neighbourhood plan for that area, and suddenly transport
infrastructure was the reason as seen in the press release. Well, the major bus
service that is there to the university has been there for many, many years; the
railway station has been there for many, many years without any change. So why
would suddenly, just because the community saves a railway station, do we
suddenly need a neighbourhood plan which puts the character housing under
threat?
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 29 I am very aware there is a card-carrying member of the LNP that has got a site
right next to this railway station—
Chairman:
Councillor ABRAHAMS!
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor KNAPP! Councillor ABRAHAMS, you are imputing motive and I
would ask you to withdraw that comment.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Madam Chair, thank you, because you know what? I didn't. You assumed I was
going to impute motive, but I may have said—
Chairman:
Well, you have.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
I might have said I wish him well, Madam Chair. So, you assumed—I didn’t get
the opportunity to say. Madam Chair, my—
Chairman:
You were making inferences that were very obvious in a political forum,
Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
No, you didn’t wait until the sentence was finished, Madam Chair. Therefore—
Chairman:
Don't lecture me. Get on with your debate.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Now we actually know, because even though the
document's report doesn’t tell us the reason for this neighbourhood plan—
Chairman:
Councillor ABRAHAMS, your time has expired. Further debate? Councillor
MURPHY.
ADJOURNMENT:
389/2014-15
At that time, 3.56pm, 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 4.00pm.
UPON RESUMPTION:
Chairman:
Further debate?
Chairman:
Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Seriatim—Clause B
Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS requested that Clause B, DRAFT DUTTON PARK FAIRFIELD
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN, be taken seriatim for voting purposes.
Clause B lie on the table
390/2014-15
Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS moved, seconded by Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON, that the motion for the
adoption of Clause B, DRAFT DUTTON PARK FAIRFIELD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN, of the report lie on
the table. Upon being submitted to the Chamber the motion was declared lost on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Nicole JOHNSTON and Helen ABRAHAMS immediately rose and called for a
division, which resulted in the motion being declared lost.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 7 -
The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Milton DICK, and Councillors
Helen ABRAHAMS, Peter CUMMING, Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS,
Victoria NEWTON and Nicole JOHNSTON.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 30 NOES: 18 -
The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK,
DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors
Krista ADAMS, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Margaret de WIT,
Vicki HOWARD,
Steven HUANG,
Fiona KING,
Geraldine KNAPP,
Kim MARX,
Peter MATIC,
Ian McKENZIE,
David McLACHLAN,
Ryan MURPHY, Julian SIMMONDS, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.
Chairman:
Further debate on the E&C report? Councillor ADAMS?
Councillor ADAMS:
Sorry, Madam Chair. I rise to speak on Item D on the report, the Mount Gravatt
Youth and Rec lease extension. I thank the chamber for their support as has been
indicated so far for this lease extension for Mount Gravatt Youth and Rec. I have
to say I'm very, very proud of this club. They've been going for many, many
years now on the old tip site on Mount Gravatt-Capalaba Road. They are
actually the amalgamation of 18 different sporting clubs, hence why they're
called the Youth and Rec Club because they have got so many different sports
involved on the site.
Predominantly though most of their sporting clubs are actually called Eagles. So
there was a debate over whether it would be the Eagles sports hall because
there's Eagles baseball and Eagles Lacrosse and many other Eagles teams in
there as well. But they did decide on the Mount Gravatt Youth and Rec and that
is the name of the hall as well. Bruce Wilson, the president there and the
committee are obviously volunteers as all of our local community and sporting
groups are, and they have done an absolutely amazing job to get to where they
are at this point of time in the seven years that I've been working with them.
We were sitting in a little rotted out demountable on the side of the baseball
diamond seven years ago and now it is a spectacular nearly $3 million hall that
they are residing in. There is a large Olympic size basketball court at the
moment—or two courts I should say. It is a design that has a, if you can imagine
it's like a butterfly design so on either side of the basketball courts they have got
matching amenities, gyms, gymnasiums, offices, canteens. At the moment
they've only got one half of the butterfly wing done.
So the extension of this lease will give them the opportunity to go and take
responsibility in getting a loan out so that they can develop that second part of
the sports hall to make sure that it is also sustainable, because the idea is that
they will have meeting rooms and places where people can get together, that can
be out for hire which will help then the running of the field as well. I thank the
LORD MAYOR in the last election to his commitment of the $600,000 towards
the lighting and it did help to finishing off some of the car-parking as well.
With so many people on the field now it is absolutely fantastic that when there
are so many sporting clubs that they can use it late into the evening and they can
actually compete under the lights at the correct Lux as well. To my Federal and
State colleagues from both sides, because it is a changing landscape out in the
Mansfield and Bonner electorates. So it is from both sides that we have got
Federal and State Government but we will work with them to make sure that we
can support them in the coming years to finishing their dream which started as I
said about 10 or 15 years ago, is very close to there but this lease will go a long
way to supporting a fantastic local club. Thank you.
Chairman:
Further debate? DEPUTY MAYOR.
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Yes, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak on Item F, the project deeds for Clem7
Tunnel and Go Between Bridge. We heard some debate about this particular
Item earlier and in particular Labor councillors raised two major concerns that
they had. The first was that the enquiry line was being reduced from 24 hour
operation to 12 hour operation. Councillor DICK suggested that with the traffic
volumes we need to do better apparently. Well the reason that that enquiry line
is being reduced is because it's being brought into line with the Queensland
Motorways Enquiry line which is 7am to 7pm.
Now Queensland Motorways has long held the Gateway Bridge, the Gateway
Motorway and the Logan Motorway which carries hundreds of thousands of
vehicles a day. They have operated as a State Government company for most of
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 31 their existence on an enquiry line of 7am to 7pm. So it's been okay for the
Gateway Bridge, the Gateway Motorway and the Logan Motorway to have an
enquiry line open from 7am to 7pm and so we suspect it will also be okay for
the Clem7 and Go Between Bridge enquiry line to be open consistent with that
Queensland Motorways enquiry line. So that is the reasoning behind that
change.
But Councillor FLESSER made some comments which obviously he was on the
same bandwagon as his colleagues at the State level about privatisation and the
big bogeyman of privatisation. He suggested that we were privatising these
assets to some kind of shady company based at a residential address in Eight
Mile Plains. That's what he said. So I checked out this so-called residential
address. I typed it into Google and what comes up, Queensland Motorways
Headquarters, Queensland Motorways Headquarters. It's easy to find. It's in the
technology park. It's not a residential address at all.
Councillor interjecting.
DEPUTY MAYOR:
That was the State Government's own technology park where Queensland
Motorways is indeed based and now Transurban is based. So it's not some kind
of dodgy residential operation as Councillor FLESSER suggests. Now he asks
who are we assigning this deed to? Who are the new owners? Does this
company have a financial backing? Well I'm happy to answer these questions.
First of all there are three investors in these assets and I want to make it clear
upfront we're not selling the assets. The LORD MAYOR said this. We're selling
the right to operate the tolling concession.
So the asset remains owned by the ratepayers of Brisbane and will continue to do
so. What we're selling is the right to collect a toll plus on a downside the
requirement to maintain these assets in good working order. So that requires an
investment of millions of dollars a year by the concession holder. So these
concession holders are Transurban. Now Transurban is number 1,
AustralianSuper number 2 and Tawreed Investments number 3. Transurban is an
Australian company that's listed on the ASX and is in fact in the top 20
Australian companies on the ASX.
It's a company that was founded in Australia in 1996, has hundreds of employees
and in fact owns toll roads in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and internationally.
So it has a record across a whole range of assets—well I shouldn't say owns toll
roads, operates toll roads in those places. So they operate five of Sydney's toll
roads, they operate the CityLink in Melbourne and obviously they've got now
these concessions here in Brisbane as well as concessions in the United States;
so a very reputable company.
AustralianSuper; this is a superannuation fund with more than two million
members, Australians, they are Australians; has $84 billion in funds under
management. So once again one of Australia's largest superfunds investing in
these Brisbane City Council assets. Finally—
Councillor FLESSER:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Point of order.
Councillor FLESSER:
I was just wondering if Councillor SCHRINNER might take a question.
Chairman:
DEPUTY MAYOR?
DEPUTY MAYOR:
If I have time at the end. Tawreed Investments and Councillor FLESSER said I
don't know who these people are. There is someone like them in Saudi Arabia
apparently. Well once again I thought okay if I was Councillor FLESSER what
would I do? I'd Google it and so I Googled it. What I found that name is very
familiar because Tawreed was one of the investors in the Port of Brisbane when
Labor privatised in 2010. When Labor signed a 99 year lease, Tawreed was one
of the investors. So apparently Councillor FLESSER's questionable investor was
a very good investor for the Bligh Labor Government.
At the time Labor Treasurer Andrew Fraser said this is a quality group of
investors with the skill and balance sheet to ensure the future development of the
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 32 port. So he said this is a very good financial transaction. So it was good enough
for Labor to sell off the lease to the port for 99 years to a group of investors
including Tawreed but now they're questioning this same group. It goes to show
the hypocrisy that we've seen both at a local level and a State level, where Labor
has privatised many assets over the years.
We saw a whole range of national assets privatised by Labor governments.
We've seen state assets privatised by Labor governments and now suddenly
Labor is against privatisation. We know that they're against it in Opposition but
when they're in government they're all for it. So once again Labor has been
exposed as being hypocritical on this issue. The reality is this deed is reflective
of a deal which will deliver a major financial benefit to the ratepayers of
Brisbane. That benefit will range between $1 billion and $1.58 billion going
forward. Now that benefit is made up of cash payments and it is also made up of
costs avoided.
So I mentioned before that this requirement to maintain the toll roads and
operate them comes at a great expense. Over the first 10 years of operation we're
anticipating that there will be around $650 million of expenses that we don't
have now as a Council because those expenses have been transferred across to
the concession operator and the investor. So the cost of operating the toll roads,
the cost of maintaining them is now in private hands. $650 million in costs that
the ratepayers of Brisbane don't have, plus cash payments on top of that that will
deliver a return to the ratepayers of Brisbane going forward.
So as I said the value of this benefit will be between $1 billion and $1.5 billion.
So this is a good deal for the ratepayers of Brisbane. The tabling of these deeds
reflects I guess the nuts and bolts of that deal. It's something that was announced
by the LORD MAYOR some time ago back in 2013 and this is one of the final
parts of making that deal come into place. So I thank councillors on this side of
the chamber for their support. It's a shame we can't have bipartisan support on
this deal, particularly given that Labor went to the last election promising to
privatise these assets remember, remember?
Ray Smith said he was going to sell off the tolling rights for the Legacy Way
Tunnel at the last election but now supposedly they've got concerns about it. So
as I said this is a good deal. I thank councillors on this side for their support and
hopefully Labor councillors will see the light and support it too. Thank you.
Chairman:
Yes, Councillor FLESSER.
Councillor FLESSER:
I understand that Councillor SCHRINNER will take a question.
Chairman:
DEPUTY MAYOR, you're prepared to take Councillor FLESSER's question?
Councillor FLESSER:
Yes, I just wondered if Councillor SCHRINNER could advise whether GBB
Operations is a shelf company and if it is what's the private finance arrangements
and guarantees between this company and Transurban, AustralianSuper and
Tawreed.
Chairman:
DEPUTY MAYOR.
DEPUTY MAYOR:
That's certainly a holding company, that is correct and this is the normal way
that a lot of assets such as this are held. In fact if you look in the deed here,
Queensland Investment Corporation who were the previous owners of these
concessions had a whole range of holding companies themselves. They're listed
actually in this document. So there was about six or seven different holding
companies that Queensland Investment Corporation had for their various assets
and the new investors will operate a range of holding companies for their assets.
This particular one relating to the Go Between Bridge is mentioned here in this
document.
There's nothing questionable, there's nothing untoward about it. It's the way that
large businesses operate and hold their assets. So yes, Councillor FLESSER, this
particular company is a holding company and it is backed by the full resources
of the three investors that I mentioned.
Chairman:
Further debate? LORD MAYOR.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 33 LORD MAYOR:
Well thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, it has been
interesting to hear the debate today. I just want to make a few comments just in
regards to some of things that Councillor FLESSER said at first. During the
course of the debate Councillor FLESSER mentioned something about a $50
million contribution that the State Government made to the Go Between Bridge.
Well, Madam Chairman that simply didn't happen. There's no $50 million
contribution that was made. We funded that bridge. We did so willingly.
Over the history of Brisbane, Madam Chairman, there have been bridges built,
some by Council, some by State Government, Madam Chairman. This of course
was a toll bridge. I don't know if there was some expectation around the fact that
this would be completely covered by the toll but Madam Chairman, the fact of
the matter is we have a bridge there. It's serving a wonderful purpose in our city
and will continue to do so. It's also interesting to hear the criticism of Clem7
these days.
I mean I remember vividly the signing of the Clem7 agreement, Madam
Chairman. It was done with a majority Labor Council at the time, with Campbell
Newman as the Lord Mayor and myself as the Chairman for Transport and
Major Projects. Madam Chairman, the interesting thing just to recall again when
we named it the Clem Jones Tunnel there were great cries that it ought to have
been named the Jim Soorley Tunnel because the process had been started by the
former Labor Administration. So it is interesting how they try to just change the
facts around history, Madam Chairman, in this place and disown things at a
moment's notice.
Madam Chairman, I've always applauded the CityCats—
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:
Order.
LORD MAYOR:
—right back in 1996 that was the case but—that was the case Councillor
GRIFFITHS - but I have always conceded that it was a measure which proved to
be a good measure and I acknowledge that today. I suppose proof of the
pudding; this Administration has taken a number of CityCats on the water from
eight when we took office through to now being a total of 20 CityCats out there
on the water in just the last decade. So, Madam Chairman, I concede that, I'm
just waiting for you to concede about the Clem7 though Councillor GRIFFITHS
with your interjections, you might want to concede something along those lines.
Madam Chairman, the fact of the matter is that on the issue of the Go Between
Bridge and Legacy Way, Madam Chairman, we have because of that
arrangement the opportunity to proceed with Kingsford Smith Drive and
importantly, I don't know, she's not here today to contradict her colleagues, but
Councillor SUTTON would be distraught because Wynnum Road Upgrade
Stage 1 is also very much a part of those, the funding of it, is very much a part of
what is before us today with Go Between Bridge and Legacy Way.
So I just want to make some closing comments regarding the Dutton Park
Fairfield Neighbourhood Plan. No question about it, Madam Chairman, when we
introduced this plan last year, I said very clearly that it was being brought
forward because of the bus and train tunnel. That's matter of fact. But it was
always, Madam Chairman, on the list to be done; it was on the list of
neighbourhood plans.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Yes, point of order against you LORD MAYOR. Yes, Councillor JOHNSTON?
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Madam Chairman, the LORD MAYOR is misleading the Chamber. The only
neighbourhood plan under the City Plan 2014 for this area was the Moorooka
Stephens Neighbourhood Plan. This plan was never contemplated under City
Plan, either 2000 or 2014.
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON the LORD MAYOR is not misleading the chamber. I do
not uphold your point of order.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 34 LORD MAYOR:
So, Madam Chairman, this neighbourhood plan was on our list of plans. Madam
Chairman, though what did happen and I absolutely say this. When I stood up
and said that it was being brought forward it was on the basis of the Bus and
Train Tunnel proposal because we knew that proposal was certainly going to
generate interest in the marketplace. I said at the time that we needed to get
ahead of the ballgame in relation to it. But it was on the list. Madam Chairman,
over the last period of six months or more that we have been now looking at this,
there's been considerable resources of this Council that have been invested into
getting it to this stage.
Madam Chairman, it is not my intention to now just set those resources that have
been invested aside and not proceed. There are other very, very good reasons
why there needs to be a neighbourhood plan in that location. That's why it was
on our proposed list, Madam Chairman, in the first place. So, Madam Chairman,
that is why very clearly we will continue with the work that's already been done
to date and get on and do it. So, Madam Chairman, those few words I certainly
commend the report to the chamber.
Chairman:
I will put the motion for Items A, C, E and F. All those in favour say aye.
Clauses A, C, E and F put
Upon being submitted to the meeting the motion for the adoption of Clauses A, C, E and F of the report of the
Establishment and Coordination Committee was declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Victoria NEWTON and Kim FLESSER immediately rose and called for a division,
which resulted in the motion being declared carried.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 18 -
The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK,
DEPUTY MAYOR,
Councillor
Adrian SCHRINNER,
and
Councillors
Krista ADAMS,
Matthew BOURKE,
Amanda COOPER,
Margaret de WIT,
Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP, Kim MARX,
Peter MATIC,
Ian McKENZIE,
David McLACHLAN,
Ryan MURPHY,
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.
Clause B put
Chairman:
I will put the motion for Item B. All those in favour say aye.
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.
Thereupon, Councillors Helen ABRAHAMS and Victoria NEWTON immediately rose and called for a
division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 18 -
The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK,
DEPUTY MAYOR,
Councillor
Adrian SCHRINNER,
and
Councillors
Krista ADAMS,
Matthew BOURKE,
Amanda COOPER,
Margaret de WIT,
Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP, Kim MARX,
Peter MATIC,
Ian McKENZIE,
David McLACHLAN,
Ryan MURPHY,
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.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 35 -
Clause D put
Chairman:
I will put the motion for Item D, all those in favour say aye.
Thereupon, Councillor Kim MARX and the LORD MAYOR immediately rose and called for a division, which
resulted in the motion being declared carried unanimously.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 26 -
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,
Julian SIMMONDS, Andrew WINES, and Norm WYNDHAM, and the Leader of
the OPPOSITION, Councillor Milton DICK, and Councillors Helen ABRAHAMS,
Peter CUMMING,
Kim FLESSER,
Steve GRIFFITHS,
Victoria NEWTON,
Shayne SUTTON and Nicole JOHNSTON.
NOES: Nil.
The report read as follows
ATTENDANCE:
The Right Honourable, the Lord Mayor (Councillor Graham Quirk) (Chairman); Deputy Mayor (Councillor
Adrian Schrinner) (Deputy Chairman); and Councillors Krista Adams, Matthew Bourke, Amanda Cooper,
Peter Matic, David McLachlan and Julian Simmonds.
A
CONTRACTS AND TENDERING – REPORT TO COUNCIL
CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR NOVEMBER 2014
OF
109/695/586/2
391/2014-15
1.
The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.
2.
Sections 238 and 239 of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 (“the Act”) provide that Council may delegate
some of its powers. Those powers include the power to enter into contracts under section 242 of the
Act.
3.
Council has previously delegated some powers to make, vary or discharge contracts for the
procurement of goods, services or works. Council made these delegations to the Establishment and
Coordination Committee and Chief Executive Officer.
4.
The City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 (“the Regulation”) was made pursuant to the Act. Section 227
in Chapter 6 (Part 4) of the Regulation provides that: (1) Council must, as soon as practicable after
entering into a Contract under this chapter worth $200,000 or more (exclusive of GST), publish
relevant details of the Contract on Council’s website; (2) the relevant details must be published under
subsection (1) for a period of at least 12 months; (3) also, if a person asks Council to give relevant
details of a Contract, Council must allow the person to inspect the relevant details at Council’s public
office. ‘Relevant details’ is defined in section 227 Chapter 6 (Part 4) (4) as including: (a) the person
with whom Council has entered into the Contract; (b) the value of the Contract; and (c) the purpose of
the Contract (e.g. the particular goods or services to be supplied under the Contract).
5.
The Chief Executive Officer provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed.
6.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE REPORT OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 36 FOR NOVEMBER 2014, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.
City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 – Chapter 6 – Contracting
Details of Contracts Accepted by Delegates of Council for November 2014
Contract/Quote No. and
Delegate Nature of Contract/Quote
Unsuccessful Tenders
Successful Contractor/s
Arrangeme
Purpose
and Quotes including VFM
including Tendered Price and
nt and
achieved
Value for Money (VFM) Index
Estimated
achieved
Maximum
Expenditur
e
BRISBANE
INFRASTRUCTURE
Lump sum Supply and
Outdoor Escapes Pty Ltd
1. Contract No. A100015-09/10- CPO
Installation of a
Achieved VFM of 34.5
50
Playground
$253,760
Installation at Phil Sure-Play Pty Ltd
M&N Enterprises Pty Ltd
Denman Park,
Achieved VFM of 34.4
(trading as Playscape Creations)
Jamboree Heights
– $253,760
Achieved highest VFM of 38.1
CPO
Lump sum Sports Field and
2. Contract No. 530216
Hard Court
Category A1 Projects A, B and C
$1,105,679 Condition
Category A1 Projects A, B
Rehabilitation
(Projects
and C
Project A – North Region Major
A,B and C)
Works
Project A – North Region
Major Works
TIS Pty Ltd – $706,254
Achieved highest VFM of 1.28
Hancey’s Turf
Achieved VFM of 0.91
Project B – South Region Major
Works
Project B – South Region
Major Works
TIS Pty Ltd – $323,440
Achieved highest VFM of 2.82
Hancey’s Turf
Achieved VFM of 1.87
Project C – Central Control
System
Project C – Central Control
System
TIS Pty Ltd – $281,252
Achieved highest VFM of 3.21
Hancey’s Turf
Achieved VFM of 2.27
$450,125
(Project D
and E)
Category A2 Project D –
Aeration and Weed Control
Category A2 Project D –
Aeration and Weed Control
Technigro – $331,698
Achieved highest VFM of 2.92
TIS Pty Ltd
Achieved VFM of 2.50
Hancey’s Turf
Achieved VFM of 1.93
Prices Approval,
Tendered Start/End
Dates and
Term
$250,750
Approved
: 23.10.14
Start:
$253,236 01.11.14
End:
Within 16
weeks
Approved
: 06.11.14
Start:
06.11.14
End:
Within 28
$1,021,773 weeks
$496,143
$408,870
$372,259
$482,380
$123,500
Category B Project E – Testing
Technigro – $118,427
Achieved highest VFM of 74
Category B Project E –
Testing
$122,417.2
9
STRI
Achieved VFM of 67
Australian Sports Turf
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 37 Contract/Quote No. and
Successful Contractor/s
including Tendered Price and
Value for Money (VFM) Index
achieved
3. Contract No. 530233
Delegate
CPO
Moggill Constructions Pty Ltd –
$535,206
Achieved highest VFM of 1541
4. Contract No. 530241
Probuild Industries Australia
Pty Ltd – $530,086
Achieved highest VFM of 16.32
Walton Bridge
Rehabilitation
CPO
Schedule of Variable Message
rates
Signs (VMS)
Safety
Refurbishment –
$244,170
Construction
CPO
Lump sum
Probuild Industries Australia
Pty Ltd – $444,782
Achieved highest VFM of 19.90
6. Contract No. 530272
Lump sum
Contract/Quote
Purpose
Unsuccessful Tenders
Prices Approval,
and Quotes including VFM Tendered Start/End
achieved
Dates and
Term
Achieved VFM of 66
Doval Constructions Pty Ltd
Achieved VFM of 989
$530,796
$535,206
Abergeldie Constructions Pty
Ltd – $244,170
Achieved highest VFM of 30,716
5. Contract No. 530260
Nature of
Arrangeme
nt and
Estimated
Maximum
Expenditur
e
$444,782
CPO
Lump sum
$530,086
Community
Facilities
Improvement
Program – Package
2
Albergeldie Constructions Pty $700,100
Ltd
Achieved VFM of 893
$682,399
Queensland Bridge and Civil
Trading as Cragcorp Pty Ltd
Achieved VFM of 879
Moggill Constructions Pty
$285,122
Ltd
Achieved VFM of 26,305
Hawley Constructions Pty Ltd $560,222
Achieved VFM of 15.08
Building Solutions Brisbane
Pty Ltd
Achieved VFM of 13.47
Building repairs
and upgrade works
to community
facilities at the
following sites:
 Chermside Bowls
Club
 Federal Band
Building, South
Brisbane
 Waterloo Bay
Leisure Centre,
Wynnum
 Inala Art Gallery
 Kedron former
substation
Mt Ommaney
Premis Solutions Pty Ltd
Library
Achieved VFM of 13.16
Refurbishment
Signature Projects Pty Ltd
Achieved VFM of 12.25
$549,515
$634,450
$673,370
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
Approved
: 13.11.14
Start:
14.11.14
End:
Within 11
weeks
Approved
: 20.11.14
Start:
20.11.14
End:
Within 20
weeks
Approved
: 20.11.14
Start:
24.11.14
End:
Within 20
weeks
Approved
: 06.11.14
Start:
06.11.14
End:
Within 25
- 38 Contract/Quote No. and
Successful Contractor/s
including Tendered Price and
Value for Money (VFM) Index
achieved
Delegate
Nature of
Arrangeme
nt and
Estimated
Maximum
Expenditur
e
Contract/Quote
Purpose
BRISBANE LIFESTYLE
Nil
BRISBANE TRANSPORT
Nil
CITY PLANNING &
SUSTAINABILITY
Nil
OFFICE OF THE LORD MAYOR & CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Nil
ORGANISATIONAL
SERVICES
E&C
Schedule of TTR Improvement
7. Contract No. 0006237-000
rates
Actions
Akamai Technologies Pty Ltd –
$670,000
$670,000
8. Contract No. 510050
E&C
Bridge Point Communications –
$770,000
9. Contract No. 510190
Category 1 – Store Items (Panel
and Preferred Supplier
Arrangements)
Panel Arrangement for subcategories A (General
Hardware) and B (Hand Tools)
• J. Blackwood & Son Pty
Limited T/A
Blackwoods/Total Fasteners
– $203,928*
Achieved highest VFM of
37.56
• Coventry Group Ltd trading
as Konnect – $235,555*
Achieved VFM of 33.03
• Bunnings Group Ltd –
Schedule of
rates
$770,000
CEO
Corporate
Procuremen
t
Arrangemen
ts –
schedule of
rates
$22,500,000
Unsuccessful Tenders
Prices Approval,
and Quotes including VFM Tendered Start/End
achieved
Dates and
Term
Box and Co Pty Ltd
Achieved VFM of 11.07
$727,435
A Dart & Co Pty Ltd
Achieved VFM of 9.49
$680,000
Contract entered into without Not
seeking competitive tenders applicable
from industry in accordance
with section 2.4 (Sole or
Select Sourcing) of the
Contract Manual pursuant to
the City of Brisbane Act 2010.
working
days
Approved
: 07.07.14
Start:
15.07.14
End:
14.07.15
Max.
term:
Two years
TTR Improvement Contract entered into without Not
Approved
Actions
seeking competitive tenders applicable : 07.07.14
from industry in accordance
Start:
with section 2.4 (Sole or
15.07.14
Select Sourcing) of the
End:
Contract Manual pursuant to
14.07.15
the City of Brisbane Act 2010.
Max.
term:
Two years
Supply and
Approved
Delivery of
: 25.11.14
Hardware Store
Category 1 – Store Items
Start:
Items and the Retail (Panel and Preferred
01.12.14
Supply of General Supplier Arrangements)
End:
Hardware
(initial
term)
Panel Arrangement for sub30.11.17
categories A (General
Hardware) and B (Hand
Max.
Tools)
term:
Nine years
Offers not shortlisted
Thomas Warburton Pty Ltd
(VFM not calculated as prices
were submitted for only a
limited number of items for
this category and almost all of
the individual item prices
were the highest tendered.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 39 Contract/Quote No. and
Successful Contractor/s
including Tendered Price and
Value for Money (VFM) Index
achieved
$182,772*
Achieved VFM of 32.83
* Final tendered price is based on
tendered prices for 277 items for
which prices were provided by all
tenderers, multiplied by
purchased quantities in 2013/14.
Panel Arrangement for subcategory C (Fasteners)
• J. Blackwood & Son Pty
Limited T/A
Blackwoods/Total Fasteners
– $264,224**
Achieved highest VFM of
28.99
• Coventry Group Ltd trading
as Konnect – $306,534**
Achieved VFM of 25.38
Preferred Supplier
Arrangement for sub-category
D (Bagged Cement)
• River Sands Pty Ltd –
$129,413
Achieved highest VFM of
61.97
Delegate
Nature of
Arrangeme
nt and
Estimated
Maximum
Expenditur
e
Contract/Quote
Purpose
Unsuccessful Tenders
Prices Approval,
and Quotes including VFM Tendered Start/End
achieved
Dates and
Term
There were insufficient items
to establish a comparable
basket of goods).
Panel Arrangement for sub$290,128*
category C (Fasteners)
*
Offers not shortlisted
Thomas Warburton Pty Ltd
Achieved VFM of 21.37
Preferred Supplier
Arrangement for subcategory D (Bagged
Cement)
Coventry Group Ltd trading
as Konnect
Achieved VFM of 38.72
$154,970*
*
$355,711*
*
J. Blackwood & Son Pty
Limited T/A
Blackwoods/Total Fasteners
Achieved VFM of 21.87
Panel Arrangement for subcategory E (Timber)
Panel Arrangement for subcategory E (Timber)
• Thora Wholesale Timbers –
$214,264
Achieved highest VFM of
23.80
• JS & JC Griffiths – $243,352
Achieved VFM of 18.70
• Bunnings Group Ltd
(waterproof ply only) –
$379,961
Achieved VFM of 15.79
• Endeavour Foundation***
(social enterprise exemption
for supply of timber stakes
only)
Preferred Supplier sub-category
F (Paint – Stencil)
All tenderers who submitted a
price for this sub-category
have been included on this
panel arrangement.
$83,724**
Preferred Supplier subcategory F (Paint – Stencil) $113,073*
*
J. Blackwood & Son Pty
Limited T/A
Blackwoods/Total Fasteners $126,976*
Achieved VFM of 9.15
*
Coventry Group Ltd trading
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 40 Contract/Quote No. and
Successful Contractor/s
including Tendered Price and
Value for Money (VFM) Index
achieved
Delegate
Nature of
Arrangeme
nt and
Estimated
Maximum
Expenditur
e
Contract/Quote
Purpose
Unsuccessful Tenders
Prices Approval,
and Quotes including VFM Tendered Start/End
achieved
Dates and
Term
as Konnect
Achieved VFM of 6.88
• Signet Pty Ltd (Signet) –
$52,829**
Achieved highest VFM of
15.37
Bunnings Group Ltd
Achieved VFM of 4.73
** Final tendered price is the
estimated total spend for the subcategory based on the tenderer’s
average price per item. Purchased
quantities are not available
*** Endeavour Foundation is
recommended to continue as a
preferred supplier as they comply
with the criteria under the social
enterprise exemption in
accordance with the objectives of
the Annual Procurement Policy
and Contracting Plan (APPCP).
Category 2 – Retail Hardware
(Panel Arrangement)
• Bunnings Group Ltd
Highest discount off
recommended retail price of
40%
• Coventry Group Ltd trading
as Konnect
Discount off recommended
retail price of 23%
Category 2 – Retail
Hardware (Panel
Arrangement)
Thomas Warburton Pty Ltd
Discount off recommended
retail price of 35% for general
hardware and 55% for
fasteners.
J. Blackwood & Son Pty
Limited T/A
Blackwoods/Total Fasteners
Discount off recommended
retail price of 20%.
Thomas Warburton and
J.Blackwood & Son were not
shortlisted for Category 2 –
Retail Hardware as they were
assessed as not having the
retail outlets to provide
adequate geographical
coverage.
ADOPTED
B
DRAFT DUTTON PARK FAIRFIELD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
152/160/516/399
392/2014-15
7.
The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the information below.
8.
Council proposes to amend Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the planning scheme) to include the draft Dutton
Park Fairfield Neighbourhood Plan (the draft Neighbourhood Plan) and to make consequential
amendments.
9.
The planning scheme commenced on 30 June 2014. The inclusion of the draft Neighbourhood Plan is a
major amendment to the planning scheme. Statutory Guideline 02/14 (the Guideline) sets out the
process for making a major amendment.
10.
Amendments will also be required to be made to the Priority Infrastructure Plan (PIP) in Part 4 of the
planning scheme. Recent amendments to the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 deem the PIP to be the
Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP).
11.
Should Council decide to proceed with the proposed amendment, the Guideline requires Council to
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 41 provide the Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning with the following:
a copy of the Council decision;
a written statement about the nature and details of the proposed amendment (Attachment B,
submitted on file) which includes an indicative map of the draft Neighbourhood Plan area
(Attachment C, submitted on file); and
a written statement of the state interests expressed in the South East Queensland Regional
Plan 2009-2031 (the Regional Plan) and the State Planning Policy (SPP) that Council
considers relevant and how those state interests are integrated within the proposed amendment
(Attachment D, submitted on file).
12.
The Guideline also introduces a new process for amending a planning scheme for a LGIP. Council is
required to decide to make an amendment to the LGIP and consult with any relevant state agencies
about transport matters and the distributor-retailer to the extent that they are affected by the proposed
amendments to the LGIP, before preparing the amendment.
13.
The Divisional Manager provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed.
14.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE AS PER THE DRAFT RESOLUTION AS SET OUT IN
ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.
Attachment A
Draft Resolution
TO AMEND BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 TO INCLUDE THE DRAFT DUTTON PARK
FAIRFIELD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
As:
(i)
Council decides to amend Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the planning scheme):
(a)
(b)
pursuant to Step 1.1 of Stage 1 of Part 2.4A.1 of Statutory Guideline 04/14 (the
Guideline) under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, to include the draft Dutton
Park Fairfield Neighbourhood Plan and to make consequential amendments; and
pursuant to Step 1.1 of Stage 1 of Part 2.4B.1 of the Guideline to make an
interim local government infrastructure plan amendment to the local government
infrastructure plan in Part 4 of the planning scheme,
then:
(i)
Council directs, pursuant to Step 1.4 of Stage 1 of Part 2.4A.1 of the Guideline, that the
Minister be provided with:
(a)
a written statement advising of this decision; and
(b)
a copy of Attachment B and Attachment C which set out the nature and details
of the proposed amendments; and
(c)
a copy of Attachment D which sets out the state interests expressed in the South
East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031 and the State Planning Policy (July
2014) which the Council considers relevant and how the Council proposes to
integrate those in the proposed amendments.
ADOPTED
C
DRAFT CITY WEST NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
152/160/516/401
393/2014-15
15.
The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability provided the information below.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 42 16.
Council proposes to amend Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the planning scheme) to include the draft City
West Neighbourhood Plan (the draft Neighbourhood Plan) and to make consequential amendments.
17.
The draft Neighbourhood Plan will guide future development in the City West area and will aim to
advance the following objectives:
to provide fine level planning provisions for the City West area;
to encourage high quality design that contributes to a strong sense of place and an improved
public realm;
to accommodate economic growth in discrete precincts;
to enable opportunities for living, working and playing in areas well serviced by amenities and
transport; and
to provide improved clarity about the protection of character housing precincts.
18.
The inclusion of the draft Neighbourhood Plan and consequential amendments (the proposed
amendment) is a major amendment to the planning scheme. Statutory Guideline 04/14 (the Guideline)
sets out the process for making a major amendment.
19.
Amendments will also be required to be made to the Priority Infrastructure Plan (PIP) in Part
4 of
the planning scheme. Recent amendments to the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 deem the PIP to be a
Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP).
20.
Should Council decide to proceed with the proposed amendment, the Guideline requires Council to
provide the Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning with the following:
a copy of the Council decision;
a written statement about the nature and details of the proposed amendment (Attachment B,
submitted on file) which includes an indicative map of the draft Neighbourhood Plan area
(Attachment C, submitted on file); and
a written statement of the state interests expressed in the South East Queensland Regional
Plan 2009-2031 (the Regional Plan) and the State Planning Policy (SPP) that Council
considers relevant and how those state interests are integrated within the proposed amendment
(Attachment D, submitted on file).
21.
The Divisional Manager provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed.
22.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE AS PER THE DRAFT RESOLUTION AS SET OUT IN
ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.
Attachment A
Draft Resolution
TO PROCEED TO AMEND BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 TO INCLUDE THE DRAFT CITY
WEST NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
As:
(i)
Council decides to amend Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the planning scheme):
(a)
pursuant to Step 1.1 of Stage 1 of Part 2.4A.1 of Statutory Guideline 04/14 (the
Guideline) under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, to include the draft City
West Neighbourhood Plan and to make consequential amendments; and
(b)
pursuant to Step 1.1 of Stage 1 of Part 2.4B.1 of the Guideline to make an
interim local government infrastructure plan amendment to the local government
infrastructure plan in Part 4 of the planning scheme,
(i)
Council directs, pursuant to Step 1.4 of Stage 1 of Part 2.4A.1 of the Guideline, that the
Minister be provided with:
(a)
a written statement advising of this decision; and
then:
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 43 (b)
(c)
a copy of Attachment B and Attachment C which set out the nature and details
of the proposed amendment; and
a copy of Attachment D which sets out the state interests expressed in the South
East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031 and the State Planning Policy (July
2014) which Council considers relevant and how Council proposes to integrate
those in the proposed amendment.
ADOPTED
D
LEASE TO MT GRAVATT YOUTH AND RECREATION CLUB INC.
161/445/439/202-02
394/2014-15
23.
The Divisional Manager, Brisbane Lifestyle provided the information below.
24.
Mt Gravatt Youth and Recreation Club Inc. (the Club) has been a long term lessee at F.R. Caterson
Park, 730 Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road, Mansfield, and has requested a 25-year lease. Their previous
five-year lease commenced on 1 May 2008 and expired on 30 April 2013. The lease renewal has been
delayed due to the Queensland Government resuming land for the purpose of constructing a road,
which has prevented Council from finalising a survey plan for the leased area.
25.
The site includes two football fields, a baseball field, a newly constructed multi-purpose indoor sports
centre and car parking facilities.
26.
The Club has requested a 25-year lease to secure further funding to facilitate the completion of a staged
facility development.
27.
Stages of development include:
Proposed – construction of a new two storey building to accommodate a gymnasium,
amenities, and conference room and office space.
Underway – installation of field lighting to two sporting fields (expected to be completed in
January 2015). Council provided $600,000 for this project.
Completed – construction of car park and a multipurpose indoor sports centre accommodating
two indoor courts, change rooms and amenities. Funding assistance was provided by the
Australian Government ($2 million) and Queensland Government ($730,000) for this project.
28.
The proposed facility development will benefit the Club and community by providing:
gymnasium facilities for club members and the community;
an additional meeting space for community groups; and
social functions for different community groups.
29.
The Club is applying for grant funding to complete the facility development.
30.
Under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, an application to reconfigure a lot is required when leasing
parts of a lot for a period exceeding 10 years. As the club has requested a long term lease, it is their
responsibility to lodge a development application with Council to reconfigure a lot. The
reconfiguration of a lot must be approved prior to the execution of this lease.
31.
The Divisional Manager provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed.
32.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE AS PER THE DRAFT RESOLUTION AS SET OUT IN
ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.
Attachment A
Draft Resolution
TO ENTER INTO A LEASE WITH MT GRAVATT YOUTH AND RECREATION CLUB INC.
FOR F.R. CATERSON PARK, 730 MT GRAVATT-CAPALABA ROAD, MANSFIELD
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 44 As:
(i)
Council is the owner of lots 71 and 73 on SP250398 Parish of Tingalpa, F.R. Caterson
Park, 730 Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road, Mansfield, which is the subject of a lease to Mt
Gravatt Youth and Recreation Club Inc.; and
(ii)
Mt Gravatt Youth and Recreation Club Inc. has requested to be granted the lease over
Leases E and F on SP259770, Parish of Tingalpa, F.R. Caterson Park, 730 Mt GravattCapalaba Road, Mansfield,
then Council approves:
(i)
entry into a lease for 25 years with Mt Gravatt Youth & Recreation Club Inc. for part of
F.R. Caterson Park, 730 Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road, Mansfield:
(a)
in accordance with the terms for lease as set out in Attachment B, submitted on
file; and
(b)
otherwise on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Divisional Manager,
Brisbane Lifestyle and the Chief Legal Counsel, Brisbane City Legal Practice.
(ii)
Mt Gravatt Youth and Recreation Club Inc. making an application to reconfigure a lot.
ADOPTED
E
CLEM JONES TUNNEL – PROJECT DEED DELEGATIONS
112/445/302/82
395/2014-15
33.
The Executive Manager, City Projects Office provided the information below.
34.
On 23 May 2006 Council entered into a project deed with the RiverCity Motorway Consortium (RCM)
for the Clem Jones Tunnel (CLEM7) concession, formerly known as the North-South Bypass Tunnel.
35.
On 13 December 2013 the Queensland Motorways Group (QML) took ownership of the concession for
CLEM7. By way of a separate sale process, QML also took ownership of the concessions for the Go
Between Bridge (GBB) and the Legacy Way Tunnel (future concession).
36.
On 16 June 2014 Council consented to the proposed sale of QML with respect to CLEM7, GBB and
Legacy Way tollway concessions to the Sun Group consortium comprising Transurban,
AustralianSuper and Tawreed. Completion of the sale occurred on 2 July 2014.
37.
All transactions were effected by novation, assignment and amendment of project documents for each
concession. This has resulted in a new Project Deed for the CLEM7.
38.
Now that this subsequent sale is complete, it is appropriate for the project deed delegations for CLEM7
to be brought into alignment with the other Council tollways. It is proposed that the power and
authority to manage all aspects of the day to day operation of these contracts be delegated to the Chief
Executive Officer (CEO).
39.
The Executive Manager provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed.
40.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE AS PER THE DRAFT RESOLUTION AS SET OUT IN
ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.
Attachment A
Draft Resolution
TO APPROVE THE PROJECT DEED DELEGATIONS FOR CLEM JONES TUNNEL
(CLEM7)
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 45 As:
(i)
Council has entered into a new Project Deed Agreement in respect of the CLEM7;
then Council:
(i)
Resolves to delegate to the Chief Executive Officer under section 238 of the City of
Brisbane Act 2010 the power and authority to administer all aspects of the management
and operation of the CLEM7 Project Deed.
ADOPTED
F
TABLING OF PROJECT DEEDS FOR THE CLEM JONES TUNNEL AND
THE GO BETWEEN BRIDGE
112/445/302/82
396/2014-15
41.
The Executive Manager, City Projects Office provided the information below.
42.
On 16 June 2014 Council consented to the proposed sale of the Queensland Motorways Group (QML)
with respect to the Clem Jones Tunnel (CLEM7), Go Between Bridge and Legacy Way tollway
concessions to the Sun Group consortium comprising Transurban, AustralianSuper and Tawreed.
Completion of the sale occurred on 2 July 2014.
43.
An amended project deed for CLEM7 (the Project Deed) as set out at Attachment A and an amended
concession deed for the Go Between Bridge (the Project Deed) as set out in Attachment B were
prepared and agreed with Sun Group as a result of the sale.
44.
Section 105Z of the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 requires that the Project Deeds resulting from
these transactions be tabled in the Council Chamber.
45.
The Executive Manager provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed.
46.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE CLEM JONES TUNNEL PROJECT DEED AND THE GO BETWEEN BRIDGE
PROJECT DEED, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, SUBMITTED ON FILE AND
ATTACHMENT B, SUBMITTED ON FILE RESPECTIVELY, BE TABLED IN THE
COUNCIL CHAMBER.
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 3 February
2015, be adopted.
Chairman:
Is there any debate? No debate?
Chairman:
Councillor NEWTON.
Seriatim—Clause A
Councillor Victoria NEWTON requested that Clause A, COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – G20 TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT, be taken seriatim for voting purposes.
Councillor NEWTON:
Yes, thank you, Madam Chair, I rise to speak briefly on Items B, C and D just to
simply state that Labor councillors have concerns about the petition responses in
relation to each of these particular items. Our concerns are that in a nutshell what
has been requested by the petitioners hasn't been adequately addressed in the
petition responses, Madam Chair. We think that more could have been done in
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 46 order to support each of these residents and ensure that a satisfactory outcome
could be sought.
Chairman:
Further debate? Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor GRIFFITHS:
Yes, Madam Chair, and I rise to speak against this Item, Item C and that's
requesting sound barriers along Ipswich Motorway. I just want to make it really
clear that I'm actually not opposed to the sound barriers along Ipswich Motorway
but the original information I was given it was yes, some barriers will happen at
some time in the future. So what I was opposed to was the actual timeframe for
the installation of these barriers which was from the information I received noncommittal to any firm timeframe at all.
Can I just say there were two issues in particular with regards to these barriers.
The first one related to residents dealing with noise from Ipswich Motorway that
comes from Ipswich Motorway down into the area of Rocklea. So obviously the
noise was the one thing. But the second thing was actually pollution. It's the
amount of rubbish that collects from this section of Ipswich Motorway that falls
onto or into the residential area of Rocklea. Council has very poor track record
of collecting this rubbish and we have an even worse track record in terms of
maintaining this area at all.
This section of Ipswich Motorway between Granard Road and Muriel Avenue is
actually the responsibility of the Brisbane City Council. For all intents and
purposes, despite raising it with the LORD MAYOR, despite raising it with
Local Assets, we seem to think that that part of the road is not part of Brisbane.
As one of the main corridors for people entering the city from the south western
suburbs, it's disappointing how we treat this area. I'd go so far as to say I think
it's probably the most poorly maintained section of road on the south side of
Brisbane, but I challenge someone else to find a worse section of road and how
Council maintains it. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Further debate? Councillor WINES.
Councillor WINES:
Thank you, Madam Chairman, I rise quickly to discuss item B, the petition for
traffic management in Chathams Post, Laruma and Lone Pine Streets, Enoggera.
Can I begin by thanking the residents for their thorough and considered petition
to this place of which the table has been included inside this report. I'd also like
to take a moment to thank the officers again for their thorough consideration of
that request. As you can notice inside sections 27 through 29, it is a
comparatively low used suburb with 150 vehicles per day north and 129 vehicles
south each day.
There were none of the 1063 vehicle movements for the week who were
recorded as speeding in Laruma Street. These sorts of low levels and high regard
for safety are accorded across that neighbourhood. So I want to thank those
drivers. However I do recognise the concerns of local residents. Some solutions
are provided in the recommendation and I'm aware of their concerns and will
continue to work to satisfy those.
Chairman:
Further debate?
Councillor KING:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Councillor KING.
Councillor KING:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise briefly to speak on item D with the petition
that's come forward from residents and business owners in Minimine Street,
Stafford. Madam Chair, I've been out and spoken to the residents, sorry, the
shop-owners, a couple of times. The Council officers have been out to try and
work with the business owners. The issue here, Madam Chair, is some business
owners want four hour restricted parking and some want two hour parking
restrictions.
The problem, Madam Chair, if we put in two hour parking restrictions in this
particular business precinct, some of the businesses will be affected by their day
to day trade, Madam Chair. This is not fair on businesses that cannot operate if
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 47 Council goes in and puts restrictions into this particular area. Madam Chair, I'm
continuing working with the local businesses to see if we can come to
compromise and work together which is exactly what the petition response says.
That we'll work together with the businesses to try and reach agreement with
those owners. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Further debate? DEPUTY MAYOR? No. Okay.
Chairman:
Clause A put
I will put the motion for Item A.
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.
Chairman:
I'll put the motion for Items B, C and D.
Clauses B, C and D put
Upon being submitted to the meeting the motion for the adoption of Clauses B, C and D of the report of the
Infrastructure Committee was declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Helen ABRAHAMS and Victoria NEWTON immediately rose and called for a
division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 18 -
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,
Julian SIMMONDS, Andrew WINES, Norm WYNDHAM and Nicole JOHNSTON.
NOES: 6 -
The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Milton DICK, and Councillors
Helen ABRAHAMS, Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS, Victoria NEWTON,
Shayne SUTTON
The report read as follows
ATTENDANCE:
Deputy Mayor, Councillor Adrian Schrinner (Chairman), Councillor Ian McKenzie (Deputy Chairman), and
Councillors Margaret de Wit, Milton Dick, Victoria Newton and Norm Wyndham.
A
COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – G20 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
397/2014-15
1.
Simon Belfield, Branch Manager, Congestion Reduction Unit, Brisbane Infrastructure Division,
attended the meeting to provide an update on G20 Traffic Management. He provided the information
below.
2.
The presenter gave an overview of the G20 Leadership Summit and the members and staff involved
including 26 world leaders, seven heads of international organisations, 4,000 delegates, 3,000 media,
6,000 media and 6,500 police.
3.
An organisational chart of the event governance was shown.
4.
The Traffic and Transport Working Group included:
G20 Taskforce
Brisbane City Council:
Office of Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer
Congestion Reduction Unit
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 48 -
-
Brisbane Transport.
Queensland Police Service (QPS)
Traffic – G20 Group
Dignitary Protection
Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR)
Corporate Operations
Translink
SEQ Operations
COMCAR
Australian Federal Police (AFP)
Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC)
Australian Government Treasury
Department of the Premier and Cabinet (State)
Australian Federal Police
Attorney General’s Department
Queensland Ambulance Service
Queensland Fire and Emergency Services
Department of Health (State).
5.
A slide showing the G20 road user hierarchy was shown.
6.
There were around 19,500 delegates, support staff, media and security staff associated with the event.
7.
The estimated traffic generation included:
bus/coach transport operations 3,150 trips
motorcades 330 trips
1000 people drove 400 COMCARs completing around 2,300 trips
35 baggage trucks with over 200 trips.
8.
The actual number of hire cars/taxi/limousine trips was unknown; however some delegations hired
around 100 additional vehicles.
9.
The impacts on the road network included:
temporary lane/road closures installed throughout the CBD around single-use hotels and the
Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre (BCEC) at South Bank
Victoria Bridge was closed
William Jolly Bridge, Captain Cook Bridge and the Go Between Bridge were impacted by
temporary closures
full and rolling closure of roads for motorcade movements
restrictions on pedestrian and cyclists movements in CBD and South Bank
reductions in on-street parking in the CBD
closure of busways and bus stations
closure of rail line adjacent to BCEC and South Brisbane station.
10.
A slide was shown with a detailed diagram overview of the Council Coordination Centre.
11.
The role of the Congestion Reduction Unit was:
representing Council on the G20 Taskforce Transport Working Group
providing strategic and operational advice on Brisbane’s road network
conducting detailed reviews of the Traffic and Transport Plans, Traffic Management Plans and
Traffic Control Plans
participating in G20 simulation exercises
providing specialist road safety and traffic engineering advice on road/lane closures
issuing temporary road closure certificates to support the event
consulting with the stakeholders impacted by the G20 event such as the construction industry
providing specialist traffic signal engineering support
conducting road network field surveillance to ensure temporary traffic controls were compliant
and maintained throughout the event
providing technical advice on parking sign changes and civil works
assisting with the provision of parking changes to accommodate media and events,
conducted traffic analysis and modelling and reviewed models prepared by the Taskforce
providing advice on the preparation of the G20 Notification Plan
providing IT specialist support to Council and the Queensland Police Service
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 49 -
conducting risk assessments and implemented controls to reduce the enhanced threat of cyber
security attacks to the network systems.
12.
The role of the Brisbane Metropolitan Traffic Management Centre (BMTMC) was to:
manage the road network on behalf of the BMTMC partners in cooperation with QPS
provide network operational and technical advice on traffic management arrangements
coordinate the movement of motorcades
provide advice related to the greater Brisbane road network
provide a 24/7 operational facility to stakeholders who required direct visibility of and access
to the greater Brisbane road network
provide the single source of traveller information for G20 and business as usual through 13 19
40
assist with the provision of road network intelligence
monitor and proactively managed planned and unplanned incidents on the road network as it
related to G20 and business as usual.
13.
The road user experience included:
an extensive media campaign to plan their journeys
a reduction in traffic volumes and pedestrians within the greater CBD
reduced public transport services within the CBD
limited access to roads throughout the CBD and South Bank
some delays to allow for motorcade movements
high presence of police, security staff and media
footpath closures to facilitate security fencing
on-street protest activity.
14.
A graph detailing the reduction of vehicles on the road was displayed.
Motion
15.
During the presentation, the Committee moved a motion of thanks from the Infrastructure Committee
to the G20 Traffic Management Team and the Congestion Reduction Unit on the very successful
management of the G20 event.
16.
After the debate, the Chairman put the vote to the Committee and the motion was declared carried with
all voting in favour.
17.
Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Belfield for his
informative presentation.
18.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
B
PETITION – TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT IN CHATHAMS POST, LARUMA
AND LONE PINE STREETS, ENOGGERA
CA14/876069
398/2014-15
19.
A petition from residents of Enoggera, requesting traffic management in Chathams Post, Laruma and
Lone Pine Streets, Enoggera, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 21 October 2014, by
Councillor Helen Abrahams and received.
20.
The Branch Manager, Transport Planning and Strategy, Brisbane Infrastructure Division, supplied the
following information.
21.
The petition requests Council to consider three different solutions:
a cul-de-sac in Laruma Street to completely eliminate the rat-running
an integrated series of traffic-calming devices designed to reduce rat-running and cornercutting on blind corners
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 50 -
22.
a series of traffic signs and road line-markings designed to reduce rat-running and also limited
traffic calming devices to reduce corner-cutting.
Twenty one households agreed that something needs to be changed. Households indicated their
preferences to each of the solutions as follows:
SOLUTION
1 – Cul-de-sac –
closing Laruma Street
2 – Traffic calming
3 – Sign, lines and
traffic-calming
1
7
2
0
3
0
NO
12
NOT INDICATED
1
7
5
6
10
4
5
2
0
3
2
23.
Seven households indicated their first preference was ‘closing Laruma Street’ with 12 households
indicating they did not want this solution. Seven households indicated their first preference was ‘traffic
calming’ with six indicating this as their second preference. Five households indicated their first
preference was to introduce a series of ‘signs, lines and traffic-calming’ with 10 indicating this as their
second preference.
24.
Lone Pine and Chatham Post Streets are part of a local road network to the north of Laruma Street
providing direct access to residential premises. The northern precinct has a single connection to the
south via Laruma Street, with all other access to the east via Wardell Street intersections.
25.
The petitioners state that a large volume of non-local traffic use Laruma Street and the northern
precinct to travel to nearby schools, contributing to frequent speeding and corner-cutting at a number of
locations.
26.
Traffic surveys were conducted at two sites within the northern precinct in October 2014; midblock in
Laruma Street and in Lone Pine Street near the intersection with Wardell Street. The Laruma Street site
was chosen as it is the only corridor for traffic travelling between the northern and southern precincts.
The Lone Pine Street site was identified by the petitioners as of particular concern due to the potential
risk from speeding motorists.
27.
The Laruma Street traffic survey recorded average week day volumes of 279 vehicles, evenly
distributed between 150 vehicles per day northbound and 129 vehicles per day southbound. The peak
one hour flow was at 3pm, with almost 60 cars using the street in the hour on average. The speeds
recorded during the traffic survey revealed excellent compliance with the 50 kilometre per hour speed
limit, with none of the 1,663 vehicles movements captured over the week being over the speed limit.
28.
The Lone Pine Street traffic survey recorded average week day volumes of 88 vehicles, evenly
distributed between 41 vehicles per day eastbound and 47 vehicles per day westbound. The peak one
hour flow was also at 3pm, with 10 cars using the street in the hour on average. The speeds recorded
during the traffic survey revealed excellent compliance with the 50 kilometre per hour speed limit, with
a single one vehicle out of the 600 vehicles movements captured over the week being over the speed
limit.
29.
The traffic survey results for both sites indicate daily traffic volumes well below the 1,200 vehicles per
day that may be expected in busy local streets. The average peak hourly volumes do not exceed one
vehicle per minute and has exceptionally good compliance with the speed limit by all road users.
30.
A review of crash records since 1992 did not reveal any crashes in or near Laruma Street or the
northern residential precinct. While it is acknowledged that not all minor crashes and near misses are
reported to the police, the absence of any documented incidents over the previous 20 years suggests
that the local road network has been operating at an acceptable level of safety.
31.
The closure of Laruma Street was not supported by the majority of petitioners and is not warranted on
either safety or amenity grounds.
32.
In view of the high demand for Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) works throughout the city,
precincts with unreasonably large volumes of traffic, frequent speeding or poor safety histories are
considered to be high priority candidates for treatment.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 51 33.
The Lone Pine Street precinct does not warrant LATM treatment due to the low volume of traffic,
absence of speeding vehicles and excellent safety record.
34.
Each intersection within the precinct was assessed against the State Government guidelines to
determine whether Stop signs were warranted. In all cases the available sight distance substantially
exceeds the minimum necessary for drivers to safely negotiate the intersection.
35.
Corner-cutting at bends and intersections is typically related to drivers being reluctant to reduce their
speed and choosing instead to take wider paths. The exceptionally low speeds recorded in the traffic
surveys do not suggest that speeding is common within the precinct.
36.
However, centre line markings and limited parking restrictions at the Lone Pine and Chathams Post
Streets bend would improve delineation and visibility without impeding driveway access to nearby
premises. Markings installed in Laruma Street at Lone Pine Street would more clearly define the
intersection and separate turning movements.
37.
A small concrete island has also been listed for installation in Laruma Street at Lone Pine Street.
Funding for installation of the island is not currently available but will be sought in line with citywide
priorities.
Funding
38.
Funding for the installation of line markings at the Lone Pine Street and Chathams Post bend and in
Laruma Street is available under the General Amenity allocation.
Consultation
39.
Councillor Wines has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
40.
The Branch Manager recommends as follows and the Committee agrees, with Councillors Milton Dick
and Victoria Newton dissenting.
41.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED OF THE TRAFFIC SURVEY RESULTS, AND
THAT IT IS NOT PROPOSED TO CLOSE LARUMA STREET OR INSTALL LOCAL AREA
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DEVICES. HOWEVER, PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND
PARKING RESTRICTIONS WILL BE INSTALLED AT THE LONE PINE STREET AND
CHATHAMS POST BEND AND IN LARUMA STREET TO IMPROVE DELINEATION. THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SMALL CONCRETE ISLAND FOR INSTALLATION IN LARUMA
STREET AT LONE PINE STREET HAS BEEN LISTED FOR CONSIDERATION IN
FUTURE BUDGET PROGRAMS.
ADOPTED
C
PETITION – NOISE ISSUES—REQUESTING A SOUND BARRIER ALONG
IPSWICH MOTORWAY
CA14/892527
399/2014-15
42.
A petition requesting Council prioritise the funding, design and construction of approximately 400
metres of sound barriers along the eastern side of Ipswich Road Motorway along the southbound onramp, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 28 October 2014, by Councillor Ryan Murphy,
and received.
43.
The Branch Manager, Transport Planning and Strategy, Brisbane Infrastructure Division, supplied the
following information.
44.
The petition contains 57 signatures. Of these 56 are Rocklea residents and there is one from Tarragindi.
45.
The petition requests that Council prioritise the funding, design and construction of approximately 400
metres of sound barriers along the eastern side of the Ipswich Road Motorway on-ramp, which runs
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 52 parallel to De Hayr Street, Rocklea.
46.
A preliminary assessment has been undertaken which confirmed that approximately 50 densely-planted
mature trees are in place along the southern side of the ramp, and these trees act as a natural trafficnoise buffer. The assessment also found that due to grade differences between the ramp and motorway,
the construction of a noise barrier wall along the ramp would be relatively ineffective in providing
additional traffic noise mitigation.
47.
Volume 1—section 6.3.6 of the Queensland Government’s Department of Transport and Main Roads
Transport Noise Management Code of Practice states that sound barrier walls must be located at least
1.5 metres behind guardrails for safety reasons. This ensures the performance of a guardrail’s ability to
contain an errant vehicle isn’t negatively affected by the presence of a noise barrier, which themselves
are considered traffic hazards. As a guardrail is currently in place along the southern side of the access
ramp, the safe construction of a noise barrier wall, at least 1.5 meters behind the guardrail, would
require the removal of mature trees, the existing natural traffic noise buffer. Due to the grade of the
roadside, a 3.8 metre high noise barrier wall would be required in places, which may have a negative
impact on visual amenity.
48.
The need for traffic-noise mitigation measures, such as noise-barrier walls, is typically assessed as part
of major road upgrade projects. If traffic-noise modelling identifies the need for noise-mitigation
measures as part of these projects they can be integrated into the road design to ensure they deliver the
maximum effectiveness and benefit with respect to noise attenuation, cost, safety, and visual amenity.
It is recommended that the construction of alternative noise-mitigation measures along the ramp are
considered as part of any future road upgrade projects for this section of Ipswich Road.
Funding
49.
Funding is not available to undertake the design and construction of sound barriers within Council’s
Moving Brisbane Program.
Preferred Option
50.
It is the preferred option that upon Ipswich Road being upgraded, the investigation for the design and
construction of additional traffic noise mitigation measures along the eastern side of Ipswich Road and
the on ramp, parallel with De Hayr Street, Rocklea will be included.
Consultation
51.
The Councillor for the Moorooka Ward, Councillor Steve Griffiths, has been consulted and has noted
he does not support the allocation of funding to investigate the design and construction of additional
traffic noise mitigation measures along the eastern side of Ipswich Road and on ramp, parallel with De
Hayr Street, Rocklea.
52.
The Branch Manager recommends as follows and the Committee agrees, with Councillors Milton Dick
and Victoria Newton dissenting.
53.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PREFERRED
OPTION ABOVE AND OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
D
PETITION – TIMED PARKING RESTRICTIONS IN MINIMINE STREET,
STAFFORD
CA14/892629
400/2014-15
54.
A petition requesting Council to provide time-limited parking in the street in front of the business at the
eastern end of Minimine Street, Stafford, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 4 November
2014, by Councillor Andrew Wines, and received.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 53 55.
The Branch Manager, Transport Planning and Strategy, Brisbane Infrastructure Division, supplied the
following information.
56.
Council has received a petition containing 219 signatures. The 219 signatures represent three residents
of Minimine Street, five signatures from two businesses on Minimine Street and 211 visitors from
outside Minimine Street.
57.
The petition requests Council to provide time-limited parking in the street in front of the business at the
eastern end of Minimine Street, Stafford. There are approximately nine businesses along this section of
Minimine Street including a pharmacy, medical centre, hair and beauty salon and other various small
businesses.
58.
Minimine Street is classified as a Neighbourhood Access Road and primarily provides access to
residential buildings and local access streets and may be used to carry public transport. Typically, these
roads carry up to 6,000 vehicles per day and have speed limits of up to 50 kilometres per hour.
59.
Minimine Street pavement width is approximately nine meters in the vicinity of the shops and currently
has only one section of 30 minute parking outside property 20, with the remainder unrestricted parking.
The parking demand in this section of the street is moderate due to the local shops and two bus stops
between Canonbar Street and Webster Road.
60.
A dashed centre line has recently been installed along Minimine Street and yellow no-stopping lines at
the two intersections (Canonbar and Goorama Streets) to assist drivers negotiating and parking in this
section of Minimine Street.
61.
An investigation and onsite inspection has now been conducted and the following advice is provided.
Timed-parking restrictions
62.
In some locations throughout Brisbane where there is a high demand for parking, time-limited or shortterm parking restrictions are considered to encourage the turnover of parking spaces throughout the
day, potentially making spaces available for businesses, residents and visitors of the area to use.
63.
Because the installation of such restrictions can disadvantage businesses and residents who rely on all
day unrestricted on-street parking (they would not be exempt from the restrictions), Council only
considers the installation of timed-parking restrictions in local streets that display a high demand, such
as those near major transport hubs or shopping centres.
64.
Council inspected the site and the immediate road space outside the businesses would benefit from the
installation of timed-parking restrictions to assist with the turnover of parked vehicles. Beehive Hair &
Nail did support the original petition and requested four-hour parking restrictions as the minimum,
whereas the UDC Pharmacy indicated a preference for two to three-hour maximum restrictions.
Council explained to Beehive Hair & Nail that other businesses requested two to three-hour
restrictions. As a result, Beehive Hair & Nail no longer support the petition if they cannot have fourhour restrictions and requested that the parking remain unchanged as they have not experienced any
problems within the past 15 years they have been in business.
65.
Council spoke to the UDC Pharmacy and explained Beehive Hair & Nail’s position and clarified that
Council would require support from all the directly-affected businesses prior to the implementation of
timed-parking restrictions. Therefore, at this time Council is unable to proceed with the implementation
of timed parking restrictions due to objections from Beehive Hair & Nail.
66.
Council suggested to the UDC Pharmacy that they will need to get all the businesses to agree and if this
is possible, Council would be more than happy to implement appropriate timed parking restrictions.
The UDC Pharmacy understood and thanked Council for meeting with them on site.
Preferred Option
67.
It is the preferred option that the head petitioner be advised that unless Council has support from all
businesses it is unable to install timed-parking restrictions at this time.
Consultation
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 54 68.
The Councillor for Marchant Ward, Councillor Fiona King, has been consulted and supports the
recommendation.
69.
The Branch Manager recommends as follows and the Committee agrees, with Councillors Milton Dick
and Victoria Newton dissenting.
70.
RECOMMENDATION:
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 3 February 2015, be adopted.
Chairman:
Is there any debate?
Councillor MATIC:
Thank you, Madam Chairman, just briefly the committee presentation was the
Transport Planning and Strategy branch’s 2014 achievements and there was an
informative presentation on the number of key aspects of what has been rolled
out in 2014. In particular, Madam Chairman, the enormous amount of work done
by officers in the area of access and inclusion around our CityCat terminals and
the ground-breaking work that they've done with the gangways in order to make
them DDA compliant, irrespective of what time of the day and what stage the
tide of the river is at, Madam Chairman.
It's that kind of innovation and forward thinking that I think should be applauded
in what the officers are doing, but also, Madam Chairman, they've done a
substantial amount of work in their strategic planning and rollout of our bicycle
ways across our city, strategically planning all of our projects in advance making
sure that they provide connectivity and safety, and then importantly, Madam
Chairman, utilising the funds allocated by the LORD MAYOR to deliver those
outcomes. We've seen a number of high profile rollout bikeways across our city,
Kedron Brook and Bicentennial Bikeway will continue to look at a number of
key projects on the north side or Brisbane incorporating black spot
improvements as well.
I also want to acknowledge the work the officers have done in the area of
Cycling Brisbane and of course Active School Travel. The commitment of
officers in all of those areas continues to provide great motivation to all of them
and to also provide a key example of our branches and our Administration has
given to public transport. Of course, Madam Chairman, the twentieth CityCat, it
was what we called the G20 Cat, was also rolled out so continuing our strong
investment in our infrastructure and the rolling out of our CityCat services
throughout the city.
Chairman:
Further debate?
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
–
TRANSPORT
PLANNING
AND
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 55 -
STRATEGY 2014 ACHIEVEMENTS
401/2014-15
1.
Brett Turville, Branch Manager, Transport Planning and Strategy Branch, Brisbane Infrastructure
Division, attended the meeting to provide a presentation on the achievements of Transport Planning
and Strategy Branch in 2014. He provided the information below.
2.
Transport Planning and Strategy released the ‘Towards an accessible and inclusive Brisbane’
multimedia video. The video reinforces that Council is committed to delivering inclusive and
accessible infrastructure and services. The video received a Lord Mayor’s Inclusive Community
Champions Award.
3.
The Gangplank Redesign project undertaken by Transport Planning and Strategy is aimed is aimed at
improving accessibility for users and was trialled at Teneriffe. The new design gangplanks are now
being manufactured and installed to align with the current ferry terminal construction program.
Currently, new gangplanks are located and in use at the Bulimba and Milton terminals. An image was
shown of workers installing a new gangplank.
4.
Cycling Brisbane was launched at King George Square in March 2014. The Cycling Brisbane website
is designed to be a “one stop shop” for all things cycling with easy and fast access to a wide range of
essential cycling information. In 2014, Cycling Brisbane:
acquired Over 4200 members
enlisted 48 sponsors
rolled out 112 cycling skill courses
organised 13 events including Ride to Work Day, Green Heart Fair, Rio Tinto Ride to
Conquer Cancer.
5.
The following actions were taken as part of the Better Bikeways for Brisbane Program.
Council’s first automatic bikeway counters were installed.
Bike skills training sessions were rolled out.
Key suburban bikeway links at Williams Park, Klumpp Road and Ekibin Park were
completed.
Construction of the Bicentennial Bikeway Stage 4 started.
The design for major commuter corridor projects was completed.
6.
The upgraded Bulimba Ferry Terminal was officially opened by the Lord Mayor on Sunday
14 December 2014. This upgrade includes a unique Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA)
compliant gangway. It has been designed to accommodate two ferries at a time and also meets the
Q500 (one-in-500-yeard) flood standard.
7.
The 20th CityCat, Nar-dha, was launched as a tribute to the G20 Leaders Summit. Nar-dha means
Nudgee or place of black ducks. This ferry featured a special G20 wrap and is fully DDA compliant.
8.
A new Blue CityGlider stop was installed on Skyring Terrace, Newstead, to support residential and
employment growth in the area. The CityGlider stop has been located to provide an easy-to-use and
navigate bus network and respect the heritage and urban design of the area. Its design is compliant with
the DDA.
9.
The Active School Travel Program celebrated 10 years of operation. The program encourages methods
of travelling to school other than by car. Having involved 88,000 children from over 150 schools, the
program has resulted in:
an 18 per cent reduction of vehicle traffic across the year and up to 77 per cent at some
schools on dedicated days
a 14 per cent increase in children walking to school.
10.
A ‘bike bus’ was also trialled successfully. A ‘bike bus’ refers to the use of a predetermined route by
students who cycle to school. Along the way, they meet with other students, who are also on bicycles,
and continue in a group.
11.
Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Turville for his
informative presentation.
12.
RECOMMENDATION:
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 56 -
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 3 February 2015, be adopted.
Chairman:
Is there any debate?
Councillor COOPER:
Very briefly, Madam Chair, I particularly want to thank all of the business
communities, the property owners who have been so incredibly supportive of
these two proposed suburban centre improvement projects. Both as you know
very well, Madam Chair, particularly Moggill Road, Kenmore, it was a bit of a
battle. You and I were there trying to encourage people to embrace this concept
but they have certainly embraced it now with an absolute vengeance. We had a
great turnout at the morning tea and certainly construction has already
commenced on 12 January, and we are looking forward to that project
proceeding and expecting completion mid-year.
We also had the two local—so thank you, Madam Chair, as the local councillor
for your excellent support for this particular proposal. It was very much
appreciated. In addition we had a SCIP proposal for Cannon Hill. Again we saw
the two local councillors in that case come along and really encourage people to
take this as a great opportunity for their local area. Councillor MURPHY he was
a very, as a brand new councillor, he was incredibly passionate about this great
opportunity. Certainly Councillor SUTTON was also equally keen to see this
happen for her local area.
So thank you to all of those involved but particularly I want to thank the property
owners who are putting their faith in Council and are forming a very strong
business partnership with us to invest in their local areas. I think that the results
will speak for themselves. We have 44 SCIPs across this city and they are great
ways for our local businesses out in the suburbs to see them transform and
blossom and to certainly encourage business investment into the future. Thank
you very much.
Chairman:
Further debate?
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.
The report read as follows
ATTENDANCE:
Councillor Amanda Cooper (Chairman), Councillor Vicki Howard (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Helen
Abrahams, Geraldine Knapp, Shayne Sutton and Andrew Wines.
A
COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – MOGGILL ROAD, KENMORE AND WYNNUM
ROAD, CANNON HILL, SUBURBAN CENTRE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
UPDATE
402/2014-15
1.
Tabitha Goodreid, Urban Designer, Urban Design, Infrastructure Coordination and Urban Design, City
Planning and Economic Development Branch, City Planning and Sustainability Division, attended the
meeting to provide an update on the Moggill Road, Kenmore and Wynnum Road, Cannon Hill,
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 57 Suburban Centre Improvement Projects (SCIP). She provided the information below.
2.
The presenter gave an overview of the SCIP program background which started in 1996. There have
been 44 SCIPs completed across the city. In 2012, eight SCIPs were committed to over four years,
Kenmore and Cannon Hill are two that have received support to progress. The primary aim is to
improve the surrounding development and give it a commercial edge and create a high quality,
accessible, safe setting.
3.
Images of newly-installed furniture and pavement upgrades were shown, which included urban stools,
exposed aggregate, a single bike rack, 240 litre bin, bench seat with arm rests, drinking fountain and
bench seats with no arm rests.
4.
A map and timeline of the Kenmore SCIP program area was shown. The area is a DC1 (District Centre
1). The opening event is scheduled to be held mid 2015.
5.
The presenter displayed the streetscape design and explained some of the design elements which will
include new pavement works for the entire centre, bus stop upgrade, two dozen trees being planted,
street furniture and installation of two history signs. Before and after artist’s impression pictures were
shown of the streetscape design.
6.
Artist’s impressions of the public artwork at Wal Cocking Park titled Growth by Matthew Harding and
public artwork by Pamela Denise called This Track were shown.
7.
The presenter spoke about the Kenmore SCIP launch of construction, and showed images of the launch
and construction.
8.
The Cannon Hill SCIP is a smaller centre than the Kenmore SCIP area. The area is a DC2 (District
Centre 2) and is based on a very busy road with high visibility.
9.
The Cannon Hill SCIP streetscape design was shown. The presenter explained that as part of the SCIP
there will be footpath works for the whole centre, a bus stop upgrade, 21 new street trees and Council’s
Congestion Reduction Unit will be upgrading the intersection.
10.
Before and after artists impressions were shown of the Cannon Hill SCIP streetscape design.
11.
An image of public artwork at Barrack Road called Tree by James and Eleanor Avery was displayed.
12.
Both construction projects are running concurrently. Construction plans are displayed in the local ward
offices.
13.
Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Ms Goodreid for her
informative presentation.
14.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
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 3 February 2015,
be adopted.
Chairman:
Is there any debate?
Councillor BOURKE:
Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, just very briefly. There were three Items
on the committee agenda for last week; there was a presentation on the
Archerfield Wetlands and the work that Council is currently undertaking in
Archerfield Wetlands, as well as two petitions relating to dog off-leash areas.
Just touching on Archerfield Wetlands, Madam Chairman, it's a 75 hectare
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 58 parcel of land that Council owns along the Oxley Creek Corridor. It serves a
number of functions, Madam Chairman. Not only is it a hub of biodiversity but
also it serves a flooding function for the city, Madam Chairman.
We all know that the city is built on a floodplain. The Oxley Creek Catchment,
Madam Chairman, can suffer significant flooding not just from river but also
from creek flooding. This parcel of land, Madam Chairman, which Council
acquired back in 2003 serves as I said a number of functions, as well as serving
as a flood detention or an area where the two creeks meet, Madam Chairman.
Obviously these are vital for protecting local residents and local businesses when
it comes to flooding in that part of the world.
But, Madam Chairman, Council has since purchasing this block of land,
undertaken a number of and quite significant works to improve not only the
water quality but also the biodiversity, the diversity of plants that are found on
the site, Madam Chairman, and also looking to how we can open up this site for
human recreation. I'm not talking about sports fields or anything like that,
Madam Chairman. I'm talking about opportunities for members of the
community who want to go, learn more about some of the local plants and
animals that might live in this parcel of land or along the Oxley Creek Corridor,
Madam Chairman.
So the work that we've been undertaking through the commitment by the LORD
MAYOR in last year's budget and also in this year's budget is around providing
access, Madam Chairman, for vehicles to do maintenance work, looking at some
substantial re-plantings of vegetation. The site was quite degraded including a
number of invasive species of plants, Madam Chairman, and so we've already
conducted some removal of those invasive species but obviously there is more to
do, and obviously trying to replace that vegetation so that we can still provide
homes for local fauna as well, Madam Chairman.
So it is an exciting project. It is a great body of work. We've worked closely with
the Oxley Creek Catchment Association, as well as a number of adjoining
landowners, Madam Chairman. I know Councillor COOPER has been working
through the development application space over a number of years to make sure
we continue to protect and preserve not just Archerfield Wetlands but other
blocks of land along the Oxley Creek Corridor.
Two petitions, Madam Chairman, both relating to dog off-leash areas, one in
Councillor MATIC's area, and one in Councillor HOWARD's ward. Madam
Chairman, Item C which is petitioning Councillor MATIC's ward relating to
drainage and turf at the dog off-leash area near Macrossan Park is a positive
outcome, Madam Chairman. Councillor MATIC, I know, has committed some
funds out of his Footpath and Parks Trust Fund to do some of the work while
Council, out of our recurrent budget, will be conducting some of the other work.
The item B, which is an interesting one, is a petition relating to alterations to the
dog off leash area at the Powerhouse park at New Farm. This dog off leash area,
Madam Chairman, was built by the same local councillor who built the one at
Neal Macrossan Park, who's no longer with us in this place, and both dog off
leash areas present their own problems.
The one at Neal Macrossan Park has a lot of flooding issues because of its
location right in the bottom of the park and its proximity to adjoining residents.
So there was a plan put forward to remove the existing entrance at Lamington
Street for the dog off leash area at Powerhouse park and move it to a different
part of the dog off leash area to reduce the noise associated with opening and
closing gates, the dogs running over to greet other dogs at the gate, because of its
proximity to people's homes. The residents down there did not want the change
and so we have the petition before us today and the response is there, Madam
Chairman, suitably meeting the expectations of the residents.
Again, Madam Chairman, I leave it for debate in the chamber.
Chairman:
Further debate. Councillor MATIC.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 59 Councillor MATIC:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'd like to speak briefly about item C and Neal
Macrossan Park. Neal Macrossan Park is located at Milton directly opposite
Suncorp Stadium. It's right next to the skate bowl. It has a great history as a local
park for children of all ages.
One of the important things that came out of this petition response, which I so
strongly support, was the need of local residents in using that dog off leash area
park. Because it is an inner city park, and inner city suburb, Madam Chairman,
there is a great amount of use that the dog off leash area receives. So when the
petition came in from residents in respect to this, I strongly supported it. I had
spoken to residents previously about this particular improvement and I thought it
was necessary to be able to utilise the Park and Footpath Trust Fund to make
these changes now.
I'd like to certainly thank the LORD MAYOR for initiating the Park and
Footpath Fund to provide us the flexibility to undertake these projects as needed,
and certainly Councillor BOURKE and committee for supporting this request for
the payment. I certainly look forward to the works being done and providing this
necessary improvement to local residents. As their local councillor, always
happy to support and listen to the needs of locals in respect of park
improvements and these much needed improvements to the local facilities.
Chairman:
Further debate. Councillor BOURKE? No.
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, Geraldine Knapp and Ryan Murphy.
403/2014-15
A
COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – ARCHERFIELD WETLANDS
1.
Rachel Greenfield, Principal Program officer, Oxley Creek Improvement Program, Major Projects and
Asset Coordination Team, Natural Environment and Sustainability Branch, City Planning and
Sustainability Division, attended the meeting to provide an update on Archerfield Wetlands. She
provided the information below.
2.
The Archerfield Wetlands are a regionally significant wetland owned by Council. The wetlands site is
approximately 75 hectares in size and is located within the lower Oxley Creek Catchment at 12
Boundary Street Oxley. It is adjacent to Archerfield Airport (north east) and south of the current
Ipswich motorway. Two major creek systems, Blunder Creek (and its tributary Hanley’s Creek) to the
west and Oxley Creek to the east, traverse the site and the wetlands lie within a significant waterway
corridor. This corridor is particularly important in the context of the surrounding landscape, which is
dominated by residential and industrial development.
3.
The site is a State recognised wetland that is relatively large in size and somewhat unique in the respect
that there are few other wetlands like this in the Brisbane local government area. The wetlands are
currently dominated by Typha and are largely a permanent wetland. It supports a high diversity of
reptile, amphibian and insect species and in particular avian fauna, and contributes significantly to
water-quality treatment from Blunder and Hanley Creeks.
4.
Historically the site was used for an abattoir and cannery. This operation was run by Foggit Jones Pty
Ltd for nearly 100 years; some evidence of this operation is still evident on site. The eastern portion of
the site has historically been used for cattle grazing. Prior to European settlement Archerfield Wetlands
and surrounds were home to the Jagera people.
5.
A map was shown displaying the diversity of the adjoining land.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 60 -
6.
Council purchased the Archerfield Wetlands in 2003 as part of an overall objective to improve the
waterway health of the Oxley Creek Catchment. Wetlands provide significant water quality treatment
benefits.
7.
Since purchasing the wetlands Council has funded and undertaken a mixture of technical investigations
and on-ground works aimed at improving the existing functioning of the Archerfield Wetlands. This
has included the re-planting of riparian vegetation along the banks of Oxley Creek, installing fencing to
protect the riparian zone, improvement of maintenance tracks on site, removal of a culvert in Oxley
Creek and weed management.
8.
The Archerfield Wetlands Master Plan included studies in a number of areas including environmental
assessment of the site, flooding and cultural heritage. The Archerfield Wetlands Ecological Restoration
Plan considers the on-ground works such as re-vegetation, strategic weed and mature-tree management,
and habitat restoration associated with the restoration and rehabilitation of the wetlands.
9.
Council is aware that the value of its initial investment in the Archerfield Wetlands has grown
substantially over time. Population growth and associated development lead inevitably to increased
volumes of stormwater and therefore increase the value of sites such as the Archerfield Wetlands due
to its water-quality benefits. Council has pro-actively sought to build on its holding at the Archerfield
wetlands by successfully concluding land dedication negotiations with surrounding industrial
landholders which will ultimately increase the size of the overall wetlands and hence its value.
10.
The Archerfield Wetlands Master Plan identifies that in the future the wetlands could contribute to
supporting community connectivity along a green Oxley corridor with accessible green spaces and
waterways.
11.
The wetlands are an area of significant conservation value containing some remnant tracts of
vegetation. It also has both wetland and riparian habitat for some significant fauna species and is used
as passage by raptors and other birds. The wetland provides food and habitat for a range of bird
species. It is of extreme importance to migratory wader species and for ground-dwelling birds that
require dense cover.
12.
In the future maintenance tracks could double as a wetland trail system that provide public access to the
wetlands during dry periods. This trail system would allow the community to experience a wetland
environment and heighten community understanding of the nature of the wetlands. During wet periods
the wetland could be appreciated from the elevated boardwalks and lookouts associated with the shared
pedestrian/cycle track that skirts the site.
13.
Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Dr Greenfield for her
informative presentation.
14.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
B
PETITION – OBJECTING TO COUNCIL’S PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO
THE DOG OFF-LEASH AREA AT THE POWERHOUSE PARK, NEW FARM
CA14/890924
404/2014-15
15.
A petition was presented to Council on 4 November 2014, by Councillor Vicki Howard, and received,
containing 85 signatures asking Council not to close the existing entrance to the dog off-leash area at
the Powerhouse Park (D1535) and relocate it to another location.
16.
The petitioners gave the following reasons:
Removing the entrance gate facing Lamington Street and removing the concrete footpath
made no sense and was wasteful.
The current entrance is in shade and the location provides safety.
The alternate entrance located closer to the Powerhouse is more difficult to access because of
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 61 the Powerhouse markets and other activities.
17.
In consultation with Councillor Vicki Howard, Councillor for Central Ward, officers from Council’s
Asset Services Central Region placed notices on the fence at the Powerhouse Park dog off-leash area
requesting community feedback for possible changes to the dog park. This consultation was as a result
of several complaints to the Lord Mayor regarding lack of maintenance by some users of the dog park.
18.
Councillor Howard had also carried out consultation with the residents of Cook Apartments, located
next to the dog park. Previous complaints from residents of Cook Apartments had been about dust,
smell and the noise of gates being slammed from the dog park. However, there was an overwhelming
response to the community consultation requesting that Council not relocate the entrance gate or
change anything else with the dog park.
Consultation
19.
Councillor Howard has been consulted and supports the recommendation below.
20.
The Executive Manager recommends as follows and the Committee agrees.
21.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the petitioners be advised that COUNCIL WILL NOT REMOVE THE CONCRETE
PATHWAY OR RELOCATE THE EXISTING LAMINGTON STREET ENTRANCE GATE
TO THE DOG OFF-LEASH AREA at the Powerhouse Park, following feedback from the
community.
ADOPTED
C
PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL TOP UP, LEVEL AND
RETURF THE DOG OFF-LEASH AREA AND UNDERTAKE DRAINAGE
REPAIRS AT NEAL MACROSSAN PARK, PADDINGTON
CA14/930190
405/2014-15
22.
The Executive Manager, Field Services Group, Brisbane Infrastructure Division, supplied the
following information.
23.
The petitioners are requesting that Council fix the drainage in the dog off-leash area and repair the turf
to provide adequate protection for dogs and users of the facility. A petition with 111 signatures has
been presented to the meeting of Council held on 11 November 2015, by Councillor Matic, and
received, requesting the installation of turf and drainage improvements in the dog off-leash area in Neal
Macrossan Park, Paddington. The petitioners state that the turf within the dog off-leash area is in poor
condition and in need of maintenance.
24.
The Neal Macrossan dog off-leash area is a heavily-used facility in Paddington. The scope of works for
this upgrade will include drainage works to alleviate the water problem within the facility. Concrete
dog voids with double gates will be constructed at the entries to ensure safe access to the facility.
25.
Council’s Asset Services West Region had previously identified safety issues with the fence, turf and
drainage and received funding in the 2014-15 capital budget to undertake works at the Neal Macrossan
Park dog off-leash area. Works on the fence will commence in December 2014, with drainage works to
be completed in early 2015. Turf will be repaired and replaced where necessary.
26.
Councillor Peter Matic, Councillor for Toowong Ward, has agreed to fund the upgrade of the turf and
drainage improvement from the Ward Footpath and Parks Trust Fund.
Funding
27.
Capital funding in addition to funds from the Ward Footpath and Parks Trust Fund will be used for the
upgrades.
Consultation
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 62 -
29.
Councillor Matic has been consulted and supports the recommendation below.
Customer impact
30.
The installation of a new fence, as well as turf and drainage remediation will enhance the usability of
this heavily-used dog off-leash area. The new fence will allow owners of small dogs to use the facility
as the new fencing will be able to contain their dogs. New or repaired turf and drainage will provide a
better playing surface for the dogs.
31.
The Executive Manager recommends as follows and the Committee agrees.
32.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the petitioners be advised that COUNCIL HAS ALLOCATED CAPITAL FUNDING TO
ASSET SERVICES WEST REGION FOR REPLACEMENT OF THE FENCE AT THE DOG
OFF-LEASH AREA IN NEAL MACROSSAN PARK, PADDINGTON. COUNCILLOR MATIC
HAS AGREED TO FUND THE TURF UPGRADE AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FROM THE WARD FOOTPATH AND PARKS TRUST FUND. THESE TWO PROJECTS
WILL INCLUDE THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW FENCE, TURF REPAIR OR
REPLACEMENT AND DRAINAGE WORKS, TO BE COMPLETED IN EARLY 2015.
ADOPTED
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 3 February 2015, be adopted.
Chairman:
Is there any debate?
Councillor McLACHLAN:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. Before us are two items. At item A, the response
from the Field Services Group to the November 2014 storm event. As the first
meeting back for the session, it was important to update the Committee and
therefore the Chamber on the response to that storm event which I'm sure
everyone still recalls very well on the afternoon of 27 November, when that
almost category two cyclone ripped through the city. Wind gusts of 144
kilometres an hour and 6000 lightning strikes, and hail the size of tennis balls
that caused damage to 22,000 homes and a lot of cars. Certainly by virtue of the
number of auctions that are still taking place in Hamilton Northshore I can tell
you that a lot of cars were damaged.
For the city, of course, there was a big clean-up response required and the
committee report—or the officers reported—on what the response of the Field
Services Group was to that storm. In the immediate aftermath of the storm, road
sweepers were out with an increased number to get the city's streets clear again
so we could get back to business as quickly as normal.
Regrettably, I guess, this is becoming an almost ordinary course of business
event for the Field Services Group after a big storm, and I guess also that we get
a little better each time. We know what to do and how to do it to provide the
services across the city wherever they may be. But we know when power's out
that there'll need to be a bank of bins put out, so spoiled food when power's
down in particular suburbs, can be dumped so people can get on with their lives
as quickly as possible; that the streets are cleared and made functioning again as
quickly as possible, and we deal with the aftermath as quickly as possible
afterwards.
So that was including 60,000 square metres of green waste that was collected
and which is currently being matured for reuse as mulch, I'm pleased to say.
But—and we're still seeing an ongoing program of response to that storm as
trees are replaced and other damage is repaired.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 63 But that was the report, Madam Chairman, and again it shows the expertise of
the group of workers within the Field Services Group who immediately can
respond to an event like that, get on with the business of getting the city back on
its feet and allowing everybody to get on with their ordinary course of business.
Madam Chairman, item B was a petition relating to a request for recycling bins
to be made available for businesses. The reason that that can't be made available
is because that would be contrary to the rules of the ACCC. The recycling
services that Council provides are in a competition space. There are other
providers of recycling services and to provide that service to businesses when
they've got the capacity to buy that service from other providers would be
contrary to the ACCC rules, and that point has been made and that's the response
accordingly to the petitioners. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Further debate. Councillor CUMMING.
Seriatim—Clause B
Councillor Peter CUMMING requested that Clause B, PETITIONS –– REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL
MAKE RECYCLING BINS AND GREEN WASTE BINS AVAILABLE TO BUSINESSES AS IT DOES TO
RESIDENTS, be taken seriatim for voting purposes.
Chairman:
Thank you.
Councillor CUMMING:
Thank you. Also, in relation to Item B, it's the petition for equal treatment of
business ratepayers in the supply of waste management services in Brisbane.
Currently, Brisbane's ratepayers pay $72.36 a quarter, which is $289.44 a year,
for waste management charges. This is the same as residential ratepayers.
However, for their money business ratepayers only receive on general waste bin
collected on a weekly basis.
Residential ratepayers get a 240 litre yellow recycling bin collected fortnightly in
addition to the one general waste bin. Further, they have the right to a 340 litre
recycling bin in addition for a one-off $30 fee. Further again, they can obtain a
green waste recycling bin for $30, a one-off fee, and also a recycling service of
$18.63 a quarter. So for the same waste management charges, the business
ratepayer gets a far lesser service.
This petition highlights this and calls for equal treatment for business ratepayers,
equal treatment that is for the same fee. Now, there are plenty of business
ratepayers who do not recycle. They are not interested in paying additional fees
to a private contractor or to Council. I believe if they were supplied with a
yellow bin at their option, plus an information program, then they would recycle.
They would fill their yellow bin with recycled materials. If they found the
yellow bin was regularly full, they would pay the extra $30 and get the larger
bin, or another bin.
This Council has a problem. The amount of material that could be recycled but is
not is very significant. The Council has not been able to reduce this problem to
any great degree. Council is not within cooee of zero waste, nor will it be any
time in the future. I believe my proposal—sorry, petition proposal will
encourage greater recycling by business. Unless their landlords have organised
it, many small businesses do not recycle, nor do they have any opportunity to
recycle.
They receive many items in cardboard boxes and these get put out in general
waste bins, yet cardboard boxes are a waste recycle project that groups like Visy
thrive on. So, Madam Chair, no pun intended, there is a great opportunity going
to waste here.
I've been informed many small businesses actually do have yellow recycle bins
that do get picked up every fortnight without an extra charge, and that Council in
some places—small business areas around Brisbane—tends to turn a blind eye to
this practice.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 64 But anyhow, Madam Chair, businesses are effectively paying a higher charge for
a lesser service, and I think that's wrong. The alternative for Council, if it were to
adopt a fair and equitable policy towards business ratepayers, would be to reduce
the waste management charges for business. Businesses get a pathetic low grade
service and should not be charged the same amount as residential ratepayers.
Also, as I said earlier, the green waste option would be viable for some small
businesses. Many of the family owned businesses have a small bit of grass and
some landscaping on their business sites and they would be able to use the green
waste bin as well.
So, Madam Chair, the LNP portrays itself as a friend of small business and yet in
many cases, including Council's waste management charges, it is the party
whose policies rip off small business and treat them as second-class citizens.
What is required is equal treatment for equal charges, or a reduction in charges
for businesses for the low grade, inferior service that they are receiving. I will
not be supporting the response to petition and neither will my colleagues and,
hopefully, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Chairman:
Further debate. Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Yes, thank you. I rise to speak on Item A. I think I did support Councillor
CUMMING's petition in committee so I will do that again in the chamber, for
nothing if not consistency purposes.
But, Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on Item A. I want to make a few remarks
about the storm recovery process that's under way around our city, or not under
way around our city, depending on your perspective.
I don't doubt for a minute that prior to Christmas, this Council did put resources
in to the immediate aftermath of the supercell storm. I could see that action
happening in my ward and we were very grateful for that in the lead up to
Christmas, particularly with the number of community events that were held in
our parks, events like the Fairfield Community Carols and other significant
events of the season.
However, it is clear to me now that the momentum before Christmas has
evaporated and this Council is now attempting to incorporate a huge disaster
recovery process into ordinary business operations. Now this is what failed so
spectacularly after the floods, and I am concerned by Councillor
McLACHLAN's comments today that he feels we have learned the lessons of
those previous natural disasters, like the floods and the Australia Day storms,
because I feel that we have and I can see that we have not.
Our Parks' officers have been left to undertake all of the normal parks activities
that they do, plus undertake the recovery and rehabilitation process. They are
doing two massive jobs and, of course, they cannot do that with the same amount
of people and the same amount of resources. It is a failure of this Administration
that we have not had a mini budget for storm recovery, we have not had a
taskforce set up to deal with the replacement project for replanting some 6000
trees that are missing throughout our city; and our communities are crying out
for help.
Now, I can see very clearly that the everyday business of this Council is not
getting done. We can see things like the grass being mowed and, yes, we've had
the debate about the contractors, but I suspect it's because our resources are
overloaded in dealing with summer and in dealing with the storm event.
I can see that our Parks' officers are struggling just to keep the parks upgraded
and the roadsides upgraded. We are having issues with general maintenance.
Now it's not reasonable for this Council to ask these officers to essentially
perform two tasks. That is their ordinary job, which is a full-on job making the
amenity of this city shine and making our community and natural resources
function and maintained to a high level. That's a big job in and of itself.
But it seems we're asking them to do at the moment is to do a second job on top
of that. That's the recovery and rehabilitation process after the storms. Now, I'm
sure everybody's read them. I put quite a few questions on notice about this
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 65 matter. I've raised them with Councillor McLACHLAN. I've raised them in
writing with the manager of Local Asset Services, and directly with the LORD
MAYOR. I've been discussing these issues for the last couple of months and I'm
not getting satisfactory or any answers in some case about how the recovery
process is being resources, is being funded, and timeframes that we can discuss
with our community about how the recovery will unfold.
Every single day I get multiple requests about our parks. At the moment, I am
telling them what I believe in good faith to be the case that, yes, I have asked
Council to undertake a rehabilitation project that includes the community.
This is extremely concerning because it's taken two years to recover after the
floods and I do not want to see the same delay happening again in our areas after
the supercell storm response. It is incumbent on this Council to undertake some
revisions to make sure that there is adequate funding and resources to upskill and
to up-resource our officers so they can respond to this storm event.
Now, I made a suggestion to the LORD MAYOR last week that if he wants to
find some additional money, I made a suggestion. There is $22 million in this
year's budget for Brisbane marketing. I suggested that there be a 10 per cent cut
to their budget and $2 million be put into a storm recovery fund to assist in the
recovery and rehabilitation efforts. I look forward to his response to that
suggestion.
In the scheme of the budget for Brisbane Marketing it is a minor change. Now, if
the LORD MAYOR does not think that is suitable I will go to the budget again
and I will come up with another area—
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
—where—
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, this item is about one particular event only.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Yes.
Chairman:
What you're saying should be done in general business, not under the Field
Services Committee report. This is about one particular storm event and—
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Yes.
Chairman:
—and a summary of what occurred.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Yes, Madam Chairman, and—
Chairman:
You've gone way beyond that.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
I'm talking about how we need to respond to the storm event, Madam Chairman,
and—
Chairman:
No, you're talking about future storm events.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
No, no.
Chairman:
You're talking about—no, you're talking about something that's well away from
the storm that happened on 27 November, so please get back to the item.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Let—I apologise, Madam Chairman, if you’ve taken that impression but the only
thing I am talking about here is the storm from November in 2014 and our
recovery and rehabilitation plan for that, which I feel is deficient and I feel needs
to be properly resourced so we can respond. I'm clear I'm not talking about other
events. I did mention the lessons of the flood but, Madam Chairman, I am
talking about the supercell response. I want to give this LORD MAYOR
practical suggestions on how we can improve that response, because the on the
ground action is not happening.
There is a big tree still down on a public footpath outside Fairfield rail station.
Now, it's nearly two and a half months since this incident occurred. I don’t think
that should be the case. I just don’t think that should be the case. Why sort of 10
weeks after a major storm event have we got a public footpath outside a busy
train station blocked?
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 66 Now, I'm told it hasn't been forgotten because I have raised it and I've asked
what's happening. There are parks that still have not had trees removed that were
downed during the storm. I have two significant memorial parks that suffered
extensive damage and whilst there's been minimal clean-up effort in them, there
is no replanting and rehabilitation plan to deal with the impacts of the storm, and
these are World War I living memorials. We're two months away from Anzac
Day and I'm extremely concerned that we will not have these parks on the way
to a healthy recovery—I'm not saying it will all be done, but on the way to a
healthy recovery, by Anzac Day this year.
I would like Councillor McLACHLAN—in summing up today, Madam
Chairman—to tell us the answers to the questions that I have put on notice. How
much funding exists for the recovery effort now? How many extra resources,
that is people and money, have been put into the recovery effort now? These are
important things we need to clear; and will you undertake to work with the local
councillors and give us a clear plan for rehabilitation and recovery so we can talk
to our community and manage their expectations, because at the moment there is
a vacuum, a silence and, like Malcolm Fraser likes to say, if we are not being
given information about a situation, we are entitled to fear the worst.
That is the space that I'm being left in at the moment. I am very concerned that
we are not going to get done what we need to do and after three natural disasters
in four years, we can do this better. I urge this Council to take onboard my
suggestions. I've put them in writing to the LORD MAYOR, I've raised them in
Committee with Councillor McLACHLAN, and I am raising them in the full
Chamber today so that we can get clear action.
What is happening now is not right. Our officers need to be resourced to do their
day jobs and they need additional resources, both personnel and funding, to
properly respond to the recovery and rehabilitation process since the storm.
Chairman:
Further debate. Councillor McLACHLAN.
Chairman:
I will put the motion for Item A.
Clause A put
Upon being submitted to the meeting the motion for the adoption of Clause A of the report of the Field Services
Committee was declared carried on the voices.
Chairman:
I'll put the motion for item B.
Clause B put
Upon being submitted to the meeting the motion for the adoption of Clause B of the report of the Field Services
Committee was declared carried on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Helen ABRAHAMS and Peter CUMMING immediately rose and called for a division,
which resulted in the motion being declared carried.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 17 -
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,
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
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 67 -
ATTENDANCE:
Councillor David McLachlan (Chairman), Councillor Norm Wyndham (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors
Peter Cumming, Nicole Johnston, Kim Marx and Ian McKenzie.
A
COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – NOVEMBER 2014 STORM EVENT FIELD
SERVICES GROUP RESPONSE AND RECOVERY
1.
Matt Anderson, Branch Manager, Urban Amenities Branch, Field Services Group, Brisbane
Infrastructure Division, and Brad Wilson, Acting Branch Manager, Asset Services Branch, Field
Services Group, attended the meeting to provide information on response and recovery operations
carried out by the Field Services Group (FSG) during the storm event that hit Brisbane in November
2014. They provided the information below.
2.
On the afternoon of 27 November 2014 a supercell storm hit Brisbane resulting in:
- wind gusts of up to 144 km/h
- approximately 6,000 lightning strikes
- hail the size of tennis balls
- hail damage to at least 22,000 homes and more than 50,000 cars
- more than 614 fallen power lines.
The Bureau of Meteorology described it as one of the worst storms to hit Brisbane in a decade.
3.
Council’s immediate response was as follows.
- The Local Disaster Coordination Centre and Regional Incident Management Team prepared to
stand up and intelligence was gathered to plan a response.
- Urban Amenities and Asset Services teams addressed immediate tasks such as fallen trees,
blocked roadways and overflowing drains.
4.
The presenters showed photographs of street signs damaged by the strong winds.
5.
To collect fallen tree debris the number of road sweepers was increased from nine to 15 on Friday 28
Nov 2014. The sweepers removed 97 tonnes of green waste from the streets of the CBD and several
key suburbs. In total, 290 tonnes was collected between 27 and 30 November 2014. Ninety loads of
240 litre bins full of green waste were collected in the CBD.
6.
Images were displayed of a bus stop in the CBD before and after it had been cleaned.
7.
Damage to Council parks included:
- 53 parks required full or partial closure
- significant damage to natural and cultural values
- damage to some of the city’s most significant and historic parks
- low level damage to some park infrastructure.
8.
A number of parks were closed to ensure the safety of the public. High profile and use parks were
given priority when scheduling work and reopening parks.
9.
Photographs were shown of damaged and uprooted trees in the City Botanic Gardens.
10.
Trees in all regions of the city were damaged during the storm, with up to 5,735 trees lost or removed.
Ongoing wet weather has limited access to parks. The clean-up operation is ongoing and replacement
planting is expected to commence in late February.
11.
The presenter showed a photograph of a large tree trunk, weighing nine tonnes, being loaded on the
back of a truck.
12.
Free green waste disposal was introduced at all four Council transfer stations between 28 November
and 7 December 2014. There were a total of 19,908 visits to transfer stations with 6,516 for general
waste and 13,392 for green waste. A total of 6,973 tonnes of waste were received. This comprised of
3,779 tonnes of general waste and 3,194 tonnes of green waste.
406/2014-15
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 68 -
13.
From 1 to 19 December 2014, the Waste and Resource Recovery Services Team performed additional
kerbside large item collections in 62 storm affected suburbs for storm affected items, debris and waste.
14.
The Waste and Resource Recovery Services team established 10 perishable drop off points for suburbs
affected by prolonged power outages.
15.
Activities led by Urban Amenities Branch allowed the storm response to continue and reduced the
ongoing impact on cyclical maintenance programs.
16.
Green waste collection services took place in 5,278 streets with over 60,000 cubic metres of green
waste collected. Mobility devices were used for the first time in a response context. The operation was
completed without any injuries.
17.
Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Anderson and Mr
Wilson for their presentation.
18.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
B
PETITIONS –– REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL MAKE RECYCLING BINS
AND GREEN WASTE BINS AVAILABLE TO BUSINESSES AS IT DOES TO
RESIDENTS
CA14/949152 and CA14/939939
407/2014-15
19.
Two petitions from residents of Wynnum and the surrounding suburbs, requesting that Council make
recycling bins and green waste bins available to businesses as it does to residents, were presented to the
meeting of Council held on 18 November 2014, by Councillor Peter Cumming.
20.
The Executive Manager, Field Services Group, Brisbane Infrastructure Division, supplied the
following information.
21.
The petition contains 42 signatures and the ePetition has 16. The petitioners object that while
businesses pay the same waste management charges as residential ratepayers, they do not get a yellow
recycling bin, the right to purchase a larger recycling bin for $30.00 or the right to purchase a green
waste recycling bin. The petitioners believe commercial ratepayers should be treated the same as
residential ratepayers.
22.
Under the City of Brisbane Act 2010 (the Act) Council must provide a waste service to all rateable
properties within Brisbane, whether that is residential or commercial. However, no part of this Act
requires the provision of a recycling service. The recycling service is provided to domestic residents in
line with Brisbane’s Towards Zero Waste Strategy – Clean and Green City, which is focused on
reducing waste going to landfill. In 2008, the Lord Mayor made an undertaking to offer a recycling
service to businesses in Brisbane.
23.
However, it needed to be taken into account that there was an existing, commercially viable, recycling
collection industry operating on a ‘fee for service’ basis to businesses in Brisbane. When Council
entered the commercial recycling market, in order to be compliant with the Australian Competition and
Consumer Commission (ACCC), a fee was required to be charged to businesses so as not to undercut
the current market. Council’s current commercial recycling service is a ‘user pays’ service, and any
other style of service would undermine the current commercial operators and contravene ACCC
competition principles.
24.
Businesses are in fact able to apply to Council for a recycling bin. However, the following cost-per-lift
fee scheme applies.
A 240 litre bin costs $5.65 per lift, offered weekly or fortnightly.
A 340 litre bin costs $7.90 per lift, offered weekly or fortnightly.
A bulk bin costs $17.80 per cubic metre, offered weekly only.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 69 -
25.
Invoices are emailed to businesses quarterly and therefore a credit application is required. Council does
extend services to the business in advance of payment.
26.
All rateable properties, residential or commercial, are eligible for a green waste recycling bin. As the
green waste bin can only be charged to the rates account of a property, the rates account holder needs
to provide permission for the addition of the green waste bin service and charge. The green waste bin is
serviced fortnightly and on the alternate week to the standard recycling week. This is at a cost of
$74.52 annually or $18.63 per quarter.
27.
Council’s current recycling service provided to businesses allows businesses the option to use Council
or a commercial operator, whichever best suits their needs operationally and financially. If Council
were to engage further into the commercial recycling market, there would be significant effect on this
industry.
Funding
28.
If Council were to enter further into the commercial recycling market and provide a non-user pays
recycling service to businesses, a large amount of extra funding would be required to manage and
facilitate this. This would not be a financially viable option for Council to engage in.
Consultation
29.
Councillor Peter Cumming, Councillor for Wynnum Manly Ward, has been consulted and does not
support the recommendation.
Customer impact
30.
The petitioners’ may have a perception of unfairness towards options Council provides for recycling
servicing to businesses. However, if Council were to enter further into the commercial recycling
market, there would be a huge impact on the current commercial recycling operators and the recycling
industry in Brisbane.
31.
The Executive Manager recommends as follows and the Committee agrees, with Councillors Peter
Cummings and Nicole Johnston dissenting.
32.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED OF THE FOLLOWING:
COUNCIL’S CURRENT RECYCLING SERVICE PROVIDED TO BUSINESSES DOES
ALLOW BUSINESSES THE OPTION TO USE COUNCIL’S RECYCLING SERVICES OR A
COMMERCIAL OPERATOR, WHICHEVER BEST SUITS THEIR OPERATIONAL AND
FINANCIAL NEEDS. IF COUNCIL WERE TO ENGAGE FURTHER IN IN THE
COMMERCIAL RECYCLING MARKET THERE WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ON THE CURRENT MARKET. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE CURRNT
ARRANGEMENTS REMAIN IN PLACE.
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 3 February 2015, be adopted.
Chairman:
Is there any debate?
Councillor ADAMS:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I go to the committee report from last week I
would just like to update the chamber on the fantastic work that our council
officers have been doing on a very long project over the last 12 months, which
started in March last year about some cat urine-type smells around Moorooka
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 70 and is leading to an outcome in one of the businesses that we see in Moorooka
that we've been working with over the last six months.'
So this has been a very, very complex matter. Obviously, a smell is a very
difficult thing to actually track. There was a lot of complaints early last year in
March to June and we did immediately put an environmental health officer onto
work full-time to try and figure out what the concern—where this smell was
actually coming from.
So as part of the investigation we visited more than 20 different industrial
businesses. We did a whole lot of measuring, undertaking activities, looking at
where odours could actually come from, to determine the source of the odour.
Obviously, you've got to remember when you're talking about tracking odours
you're looking at weather conditions, if it rained, if it was windy, if it was cold, if
it was warm. All of those things go in to actually try and establish conclusive
evidence beyond a doubt that it was one company.
So it took quite a time to progress to a point where we were comfortable that the
company in question, EGR—and I'm happy to name the company because we
are working with them and they are aware of that as well—could be the source
of the main cat urine smell that we were discussing. It was very complex and we
do believe there still are some other issues that are not EGR but the complaints
have markedly dropped off in the last few months as well.
So in June we were advised that we're going through another lot of activities to
try and track down what the processes were. We went through EGR and worked
with them on their water treatment systems, on all of their plants, maintenance
and how they conduct their business, and they did a lot of work to try and
upgrade their water treatment systems and scrub them all out and clean them all
out.
We did get a significant reduction in complaints at that point of time, which
probably led us to the idea then that we were looking at EGR because they did
some works and we got a reduction in complaints as well.
In July last year that led us to actually issue an investigation notice so we could
start the environmental investigation and, of course, do a far more detailed study
in what the actual source of the odour was.
It did take a bit of an extension of time for EGR to do those studies, because as
you can understand it is quite a complex investigation that they did—they had to
get done as well. We went out to an independent expert, industry expert, who
said, yes, for them to actually complete the level of investigations that we require
it will take them a couple of months to get that down and get it right.
So we did give them an extension to 19 November. We kept on them with
progress reports to make sure that they were doing the work and they were
getting it done. We were very happy when the progress reports came in on the
methodologies that they were using, and the practices that they were using with
their specialists, to actually pinpoint the cause of what these odours were.
What we finally got to then was the report in November. I do understand the
local councillor was provided with a copy of that as well. It was a summary
report and at the time, it took a bit of time again for our experts to get across the
subject matter and make sure that we could analyse all the contents and findings
as well.
We also made sure that we involved the Department of Environment and
Heritage Protection, as it came under their purview with the State legislation,
and also the Department of Science, Information, Technology, Innovation and
the Arts, who assisted in the review of the report as well.
So that report that we got in actually did show that EGR was responsible for
some of the odour nuisance but not necessarily the entire odour nuisance as well.
But we do believe that we needed to work with EGR to fix up what they were
causing, and that is the process that we have taken since then.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 71 So in December with EGR, we issued them a Transitional Environmental
Program (TEP). So a TEP is a program to set them on the right track to make
sure we know exactly what activities of concern that they are doing on the site
and what they are doing to make sure they prevent any nuisance in the future as
well. The TEP also outlines timeframes in which these works should be
completed.
We got the draft TEP in at the end of January and we're now going through that
very closely to make sure that they are taking every appropriate step to reduce
the odour nuisance.
So we have had a meeting with them since they brought that in. They are on
track to make sure that they have got that all completed by 31 March this year.
We are making sure that there is no issues that arise in the future.
Can I also say, in credit to EGR, that they have been working on this very well
and they are actually also speaking to DA about a relocation of their businesses
to another site they've got a little further south. With that movement to a new site
they will look at a significant upgrade to their equipment on the type of works
that they would be doing with their water treatment. So all new equipment will
lead to a much better outcome and, in this case, it was a better outcome to start
again on a new site than trying to retrofit on the site that they had at Moorooka.
I see that the councillor was well and truly kept informed right throughout the
period from June through to January, as all of these came in, and we did speak to
many, many residents through correspondence, through emails, on phones.
Obviously, it was in the media as well. I would like to commend the Council
officers for the work they've done here. Not only have we seen a massive drop in
the number of incidents in the odours reported to Council but we've also seen a
really balanced and sensible approach to moving forward to resolve this issue for
the residents of Moorooka, and also to make sure that the business can keep
operating. It's been there since 1973.
We do support the businesses but obviously we need to make sure that the
residents well and truly have their amenity sorted as well. So I thank Moorooka
residents for their patience. It has taken some time but as I outlined there were
reasons why it took a bit of that time as well.
So I'd also like to invest—to acknowledge the principal investigating officer,
who knows who he is and Councillor GRIFFITHS knows who he is too, because
he did a lot of after hours observations and inspections to try and find the cause
of this odour and reduce its impact on Moorooka residents. I thank him for that
extra time that he has taken as well.
So we are right on track then to get a final draft back to EGR, probably some
time next week, which is well in advance of the statutory period, and then we
can see a great outcome for the Moorooka residents and for EGR as well. But of
course, we ask any residents, if there's still an odour we will be out there to see
what it is. But as I said, we have had a massive reduction—I think only a handful
since 19 October, which was the last time we sent through and did our
investigations. About 15 since the middle of November, which is a marked
reduction since what we were seeing at the beginning of last year as well.
We report every complaint—we go out and investigate every complaint, I should
say, and have a look at what the weather conditions were at the time to see if we
need to do any more work in that area as well.
To the committee, Madam Chair, last week we looked at multicultural festivals,
in particular BrisAsia, which we launched last Friday night, which is a fantastic
party of—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor ADAMS:
—Bollywood, Bombay Royale. Yes, Councillor WYNDHAM, you were there.
There were a few councillors. It was fantastic to see so many people enjoying the
light—the lantern festival and coming up and sharing a bit of Bollywood magic.
It was called Surf Disco—[Surf, Rock, Disco, Space Disco and Lone Spaghetti],
which I couldn't really figure out what that was. But it was very, very good and
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 72 very entertaining. We have more than 400,000 residents and visitors that have
been involved in our multicultural festivals over the last 12 months. It is fantastic
to see that we are going from strength to strength in this market from refugee
weeks to lantern festivals to Paniyiri to the Ironside School which has a Sri
Lankan experience to the Zillmere Festival, Italian Week and many, many
others. They are all about advertising and celebrating our uniqueness and our
diversity. I'm very proud that Brisbane Lifestyle can support them through the
LORD MAYOR's festival and events budget line each year. It's been getting
bigger and bigger each year as well, I may say.
It's great to see that the local communities are getting involved and producing
these festivals as well for our communities. Of course, BrisAsia, as I said,
launched on Friday night, Chinese New Year coming up, there is so much
happening that is Asia for this month. Please don't miss out. Also in the
Committee last week, we had a petition about a request not to renew a lease at
Chelmer. That is with a long-term existing sporting club. However, we have
gone out to EOI to see if there's other local groups for managing this site. The
sporting club involved is more than welcome to put in for the EOI and it'll be
dealt with through the panel as all of our EOIs are with rational eyes to see that
we are using our sporting facilities right across Brisbane to the best of their use.
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 – CREATIVE COMMUNITIES
1.
Georgina Siddall, Acting Creative Communities Manager, Connected Communities Branch, Brisbane
Lifestyle Division, attended the meeting to provide an update on Creative Communities. She provided
the information below.
2.
Council demonstrates its commitment to a multicultural Brisbane through services and initiatives for
people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Council currently funds 37 Multicultural
festivals and events through Service 4.1.1.1 Festivals and Events, representing a total value of
$451,809 in the 2014-2015 financial year. The funding aligns with Council’s Corporate Plan 2012-13
to 2016-17 themes including thriving arts and culture, social inclusion and our vibrant, creative city.
3.
Buddha’s Birth Day Festival, delivered by Buddha's Light International Association since 1997, is one
of the most popular multicultural festivals and events supported by Council. The festival boasts
attendance of 180,000 people across three days.
4.
Multicultural festivals and events give Brisbane residents the opportunity to truly experience the
diverse cultures that make our city unique. These festivals and events are delivered across Council
wards, with a higher volume of events happening in The Central and The Gabba wards. In 2013-2014,
410,000 residents and visitors to Brisbane attended one of Brisbane’s many multicultural festivals and
events.
5.
Each year since 1976 Brisbane’s Greek community has taken Brisbane residents and visitors on a
journey of discovery, a celebration of dance and music, a gastronomic tour through secret recipe books,
rich in history, colour and passion. Today, Paniyiri is now the benchmark which all of Brisbane’s
multicultural celebrations are judged. Delivered by the Greek Orthodox Community of St George in
The Gabba Ward’s Musgrave Park, 2014 saw Paniyiri’s crowds peak at 55,000 visitors.
408/2014-15
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 73 6.
Smaller but no less significant is Multicultural Taste of the World Festival delivered by the Brisbane
Malayalee Association. More than 25 discreet ethnic communities participated to share food, music,
entertainment and culture in a fun family atmosphere. Taking place at Keong Park, Stafford, in the
McDowall Ward, this newly funded festival attracted over 2,500 visitors.
7.
Council assists Multicultural festivals and events in the development of capacity, service delivery and
connection to the people of Brisbane in the following ways:
Funding, funding agreements, and partnerships: Better understanding and more responsive
compliance with funding agreements, enhanced relationships between Council and
participants
Marketing festivals and events: Increased profile of festivals and events, audience
development, Brand awareness and best practice communication tactics
Legislative and other requirements: Better understanding and more responsive compliance
with legislative and other requirements, enhanced relationships between Council and
participants.
8.
World Refugee Day Community Festival is unique as it celebrates the contribution new and emerging
refugee communities are making to Brisbane and South East Queensland. Delivered by the
Multicultural Development Association the festival attracts around 10,000 visitors and includes a
citizenship ceremony, cultural performances, food, community and market stalls, children’s activities
and a colourful sports program with soccer and volleyball tournaments. Council has supported this
event since 2005.
9.
The annual Parkinson Multicultural and Dragonboat Festival delivered by the Hakka Association of
Queensland also celebrates social cohesion and cooperation and encourages harmony. Over 7,500
visitors come to enjoy a program that includes dragon dancers, the blessing of the dragon boats and a
thrilling show of stamina as seven amateur groups compete against seven corporate teams to become
the ultimate dragon boat champions of Forest Lake.
10.
Multicultural festivals and events also celebrate a diversity of faiths in the Brisbane community, such
as Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Hinduism. Examples include: Eidfest (Moorooka),
Chanukah in the City (Central), Indian Bazaar (Wishart), Diwali Festival of Lights (Central), Christmas
Party in the Grove (Enoggera) and Vesak (Walter Taylor).
11.
Multicultural festivals and events showcase local creativity and generate economic outcomes for local
creatives. In 2013-2014, multicultural festivals and events provided employment for 11,920 artists and
arts workers.
12.
Festivals and events also provide volunteer opportunities. Volunteering can be a form of professional
development by students, emerging artists and artsworkers. Volunteering is also a great way for people
from multicultural and newly arrived communities to become involved in local life. In 2013-2014,
3158 volunteers contributed over 30,000 unpaid hours to Multicultural festivals and events, many of
which would not exist without volunteers.
13.
In 2014, the One Place Many Cultures Zillmere Festival transformed into a weeklong celebration of
cultural activities during Cultural Diversity Week. It includes an Indigenous ceremony, market day,
street party, art exhibition, street performances, storytelling and sports. The festival is delivered by
Jabiru Community Youth and Children’s Services and attracted over 1,500 attendees in 2014.
14.
Multicultural festivals and events stimulate the broader economy. For every dollar Council invests in
multicultural festivals and events the sector leverages an extra $6.50.
15.
Italian week is an opportunity to showcase the strong relationships which Queensland and Australia
share with Italy. Italian Week is delivered by Italian Week Pty Ltd and attracts 10,000 visitors annually
to its events which include food, film, coffee, art, music and fashion.
16.
Council also funds the Brisbane French Festival on Bastille Day, the Africa Day Festival on Africa
Day, St Patrick’s Day Parade on St Patrick’s Day, Korean Festival Day when Korean’s celebrate
Chuseok (Harvest Festival) and United Nations Day.
17.
Although it is not funded under Service 4.1.1.1 – Multicultural Festivals and Events, the BrisAsia
Festival has become Council’s signature multicultural festival, providing opportunities for Council to
develop local, national and international partnerships. BrisAsia Festival 2015 will be held from Friday
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 74 6 February – Sunday 1 March 2015.
18.
The Chairman thanked Ms Siddall for her informative presentation.
19.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
B
PETITION – PETITION CALLING ON COUNCIL TO RECONSIDER ITS
DECISION NOT TO RENEW THE LEASE ON 55 QUEENSCROFT STREET,
CHELMER, FORMERLY HELD BY WESTERN DISTRICTS COMMUNITY
AND SPORTING CLUB
CA14/996380
409/2014-15
20.
A petition was presented to Council on 2 December 2014, requesting Council reconsider its decision
not to renew the lease on 55 Queenscroft Street, Chelmer, formerly held by Western Districts
Community and Sporting Club (the Club).
21.
The Divisional Manager, Brisbane Lifestyle provided the information below.
22.
The petition contains 71 signatures.
23.
The Club’s lease with Council over the oval and clubhouse expired on 20 November 2010 and the Club
was allowed to remain on the land while new lease terms were being negotiated.
24.
Council sought to resolve these negotiations in October 2014 and requested the Club provide
information to support their lease renewal. Council reviewed the information provided by the Club and
decided not to renew the lease, as the information provided did not adequately demonstrate the Club’s
viability and capacity to manage this community facility.
25.
The Club was advised that Council would undertake an open Expression of Interest (EOI) process for
the lease of Chelmer Recreation Reserve. The EOI was advertised in late January 2015 and will be
finalised by late March 2015.
26.
The Club may remain on the land during the EOI process and is able to make an application. Should
the Club not be successful during the EOI process, it will be required to vacate the premises. An
interim management plan is being prepared to protect all existing user groups of this community
facility. This plan will only be implemented should the Club’s application be unsuccessful and they are
required to vacate. The plan would be effective for the period between the Club vacating and the new
tenant taking possession.
27.
Council is committed to the equitable allocation of land and facilities to the Brisbane community and
promotes optimal use of these in cooperation with residents and community organisations. As a result,
existing user groups will have the opportunity to either submit an EOI for tenure or negotiate their
continued use with the successful tenant.
Consultation
28.
Councillor Nicole Johnston, Councillor for Tennyson Ward, has been consulted on 18 December 2014
and is in agreement with the recommendation.
29.
The Divisional Manager therefore recommends as follows and the Committee agrees with Councillors
Newton and Griffiths abstaining.
30.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT
RESPONSE SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, submitted hereunder.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 75 Attachment A
Draft Response
Thank you for your petition requesting Council reconsider its decision not to renew the lease on
55 Queenscroft Street, Chelmer, formerly held by Western Districts Community and Sporting Club (the
Club).
The Club’s lease with Council over the oval and clubhouse expired on 20 November 2010 and the Club
was allowed to remain on the land while new lease terms were being negotiated.
Council sought to resolve these negotiations in October 2014 and requested the Club provide
information to support their lease renewal. Council reviewed the information provided by the Club and
has decided not to renew the lease, as the information did not adequately demonstrate the Club’s
viability and capacity to manage this community facility.
The Club was advised that Council would undertake an open Expression of Interest (EOI) process for
the lease of Chelmer Recreation Reserve. The EOI was advertised in late January 2015 and will be
finalised by late March 2015.
The Club may remain on the land during the EOI process and is able to make an application. Should
the Club not be successful during the EOI process, it will be required to vacate the premises. An
interim management plan is being prepared to protect all existing user groups of this community
facility. This plan will only be implemented should the Club’s application be unsuccessful and they are
required to vacate. The plan would be effective for the period between the Club vacating and the new
tenant taking possession.
Council is committed to the equitable allocation of land and facilities to the Brisbane community and
promotes optimal use of these in cooperation with residents and community organisations. As a result,
existing user groups will have the opportunity to either submit an EOI for tenure or negotiate their
continued use with the successful tenant.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Ms Jacqui Cowell, Community Facilities
Operations Projects Team Leader, Connected Communities, on 3403 8888.
Thank you for raising this matter.
ADOPTED
FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Councillor Julian SIMMONDS, Chairman of the Finance, Economic Development and Administration
Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor King, that the report of that Committee held on 3 February 2015, be
adopted.
Chairman:
Is there any debate? Any debate on the finance report?
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 AND REPORT – NET BORROWINGS,
CASH INVESTMENTS AND FUNDING (DECEMBER 2014 QUARTER)
109/800/148/1
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 76 -
410/2014-15
1.
Paul Oberle, Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Finance, Organisational Services Division, presented a
report to the Committee on Council’s net borrowings for the quarter ended December 2014. The report
details the corporate cash holdings invested and the status of Council’s funding activities.
2.
The presentation provided a market and economic review, and a summary of the following issues in
relation to Council’s investments:
cash position
cash activity review
earnings on investments
funding capability
borrowings
facility performance
leasing exposure.
3.
The Chairman thanked the Chief Financial Officer for his informative presentation. The report is
presented for noting by Council.
4.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE REPORT BE NOTED.
ADOPTED
B
FINANCIAL REPORTS – (ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, RATES,
INVENTORY, ACCOUNTS PAYABLE, PROVISIONS AND MALLS) FOR
THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 2014
134/695/317/460
411/2014-15
5.
The Divisional Manager, Organisational Services Division, 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 September 2014.
6.
The Chairman and Committee noted the report. The financial reports (accounts receivable, rates,
inventory, accounts payable, provisions and malls) for the period ended September 2014 are now
presented for noting by Council.
7.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE IFNORMATION CONTAINED IN THE REPORT BE NOTED.
ADOPTED
C
BANK AND INVESTMENT REPORT – PERIOD ENDED 31 OCTOBER 2014
134/695/317/3-03
412/2014-15
8.
The Chief Financial Officer, Organisational Services Division, provided the Committee with the
monthly summary of Council’s petty cash, bank account and cash investment position as at 31 October
2014.
9.
During the October 2014 period, total Council funds held by banks and investment institutions (per
general ledger) increased by $65.3 million to $409.2 million excluding trusts (Ref:1.4). The net
increase is mainly due to increased working capital borrowings from QTC.
10.
Council funds as at 31 October 2014 held by banks and investment institutions (per statements) totalled
$420.7 million (Ref 2.4 + 3.1). The variance relates to timing differences between transactions
recorded in the general ledger and those reflected in the bank statements.
11.
Unreconciled bank receipts and payments relate to reconciliation variances at the end of the period.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 77 The majority of these transactions have since been reconciled.
12.
Surplus funds are invested daily with approved counterparties.
13.
The Chairman and the Committee noted the report.
14.
The Bank and Investment Report for the period ended 31 October 2014 is presented for noting by
Council.
15.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE REPORT BE NOTED.
ADOPTED
D
BANK AND INVESTMENT REPORT – PERIOD ENDED 28 NOVEMBER
2014
134/695/317/3-03
413/2014-15
16.
The Chief Financial Officer, Organisational Services Division, provided the Committee with the
monthly summary of Council’s petty cash, bank account and cash investment position as at 28
November 2014.
17.
During the November period, total Council funds held by banks and investment institutions (per
general ledger) decreased by $40.3 million to $368.9 million excluding trusts (Ref:1.4). The net
decrease is mainly due to repayment of working capital borrowings from QTC.
18.
Council funds as at 28 November 2014 held by banks and investment institutions (per statements)
totalled $371.1 million (Ref: 2.4 + 3.1). The variance relates to timing differences between
transactions recorded in the general ledger and those reflected in the bank statements.
19.
Unreconciled bank receipts and payments relate to reconciliation variances at the end of the period.
The majority of these transactions have since been reconciled.
20.
Surplus funds are invested daily with approved counterparties.
21.
The Chairman and the Committee noted the report.
22.
The Bank and Investment Report for the period 28 November 2014 is presented for noting by Council.
23.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE REPORT BE NOTED.
ADOPTED
Chairman:
Councillors, I draw your attention to the notice of motion at item 5a on the
agenda. But before we proceed with that, I would just note that there's an
increasing trend in this place for some councillors to absent themselves for
extraordinarily long periods of time during council meetings. I note Councillor
SUTTON that you didn't actually take up your seat until five past five this
afternoon, you came in for a couple of divisions and that was it. I don't think
that's what the ratepayers of Brisbane expect of their councillors.
Councillor DICK:
Point of order, Madam Chair. Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
I'm speaking, Councillor DICK:
Councillor DICK:
I'm taking a point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Yes, Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Can you confirm currently that the LORD MAYOR is not in the chamber?
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 78 Chairman:
Councillor, I have yet to see somebody not be present for the first three hours of
a meeting. But the LORD MAYOR—we can easily go back, I can go back to
previous lord mayors. The LORD MAYOR was here till well after afternoon tea
and he is the LORD MAYOR of the city. There are times when it is quite
appropriate and there are reasons why councillors are absent for lengthy periods
of time. I'm just noting in the records that I have noticed an increased tendency
for some councillors to be absent not just for period of time but for very long
periods of time.
Councillor DICK:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
I am simply noting that. Yes, Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
I would also note, under your direction, that the LORD MAYOR has not been
here for an hour and a half.
Chairman:
You can note whatever you like, Councillor DICK, I'm making a very valid
point about the expectation of residents of this city. They expect when they elect
a councillor that that councillor attends a council meeting and works on their
behalf.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Yes, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Could you please advise this Council how many days you were absent from this
Chamber last year to undertake a paid position at the Local Government
Association of Queensland?
Chairman:
Resume your seat Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Would the ratepayers of this city appreciate your absence from this place?
Chairman:
Resume your seat.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON, will you please move the motion.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
If I haven't been here, I'm not here. I at least have an apology put in for my
absence. There is no apology put in at all today. Councillor SUTTON, please
move the motion.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Do you want, Councillor SUTTON, to move the motion or not, Councillor
DICK?
Councillor DICK:
Yes.
Chairman:
Well remain quiet.
CONSIDERATION OF NOTIFIED MOTION
– CONCERNS
EXPRESSED BY BRISBANE RESIDENTS ABOUT PARKS, MEDIAN
STRIPS AND FOOTPATHS:
(Notified motions are printed as supplied and are not edited)
414/2014-15
The Chairman of Council (Councillor Margaret de WIT) then drew the Councillors’ attention to the notified
motion listed on the agenda, and called on Councillor Shayne SUTTON to move the motion. Accordingly,
Councillor Shayne SUTTON moved, seconded by Councillor Peter CUMMING, that—
This Council notes the concerns expressed by Brisbane residents about the poor and untidy state of Brisbane’s
parks, median strips and footpaths caused by a failure to deliver routine grass cutting – a basic council service.
This Council acknowledges there have been real issues with the new contractors engaged to cut the grass in
Councils parks, and on footpaths and median strips.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 79 -
This Council calls on the Lord Mayor to publicly release all information related to the new grass cutting
contract including:
The full tender document circulated to potential contractors
The tender scores issued of each of the applicants tendering for the job
The weighing applied to each tender category
The mowing area(s) assigned to each contractor
The evidence of capacity to deliver provided by each successful and unsuccessful tenderer
Details about previous experience in delivering similar contracts provided by the successful and
unsuccessful tenderers
Number of complaints about lack of grass cutting received in December 2014 and January 2015
Detailed steps Brisbane City Council has taken to rectify this situation.
Chairman:
Debate?
Councillor SUTTON:
Thank you, Madam Chair. The Labor councillors decided to move this motion
today because, like residents across this city, we have serious concerns about
how this Council Administration is looking after one of the most basic council
services, and that being the mowing of grass. I believe the grass mowing contract
as it has been awarded raises serious questions about the competence of our
procurement processes and the LNP's Civic Cabinet's decision making.
The buck ultimately stops with the LNP Civic Cabinet and the LORD MAYOR
who I believe have demonstrated gross incompetence in allowing this contract to
be approved. It shows a lack of attention to detail that this city cannot afford and
our ratepayers do not deserve. It shows that after 12 years of running this city,
this is as good as we can expect from an LNP Administration that is clearly
asleep at the wheel.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor SUTTON:
Madam Chair, in response to your comments as well, it's important to note that
the ALP councillors were given access to the tender document file at 10 to two
this afternoon. Ten minutes before the start of the Council. So by way of
explanation of my absence, I have been sitting in the Caucus room going through
masses and masses of documentation so that I can prepare for this debate this
afternoon.
Madam Chair, perhaps if this Administration was more open and transparent in
their decision making, and that they had have allowed us access to these files
prior to 10 minutes before the start of this Council meeting, I suggest to you that
perhaps I wouldn't have had to spend such an extensive length of time this
afternoon going through those documents.
This critical information, it is important to note, is still not in the public domain,
which is why this motion is important today and support of this motion is
important today. Because I am acutely aware as I give my opening comments to
this speech that thanks to changes to the City of Brisbane Act, introduced by
Campbell Newman as former Premier of this State, that if I release these details,
I can be criminally charged. The penalty can go so far as a jail term.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor SUTTON:
So that's what this Administration and the LNP have delivered to this state and
this city in terms of openness and transparency in this decision making. But onto
the more important things. Today, I can advise that my cursory glance, my
cursory examination of the associated documentation shows that the LNP Civic
Cabinet chose to cut the grass mowing budget of this Council by $5 million
rather than opt for providers who could actually do the job.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor SUTTON:
We know that contractors who have been cutting this city's grass for years with
compliance rates above 95 per cent were dumped for providers who were
cheaper but far less capable. As I will explain in more detail a little later on, in
one instance this Council chose to give a grass mowing contract to a provider
who didn't own enough mowers to do the job.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 80 Councillors interjecting.
Councillor SUTTON:
So I want to share with you some examples from the files that I have read today.
Again, at the outset, I advise that I have deliberately removed the name of the
supplier and the wards being serviced to protect myself against any type of legal
or code of conduct action that maybe lodged against me if I was to reveal those
particulars.
So, example number 1. For one particular ward, two separate contractors were
awarded contracts for the mowing of parks and roadways but both of these
contractors were identified as high-risk options in operational terms. They were
cheaper but the LNP Council had clear warning that they weren't up to the job.
Example number 2, in three north side wards, the supplier awarded the contract
for roadway mowing was identified as an extreme risk in operational terms, but
again it was also noted that they were the cheapest across the board. Example
number 3, a supplier won a contract to service the roadways in three south side
wards despite every assessor raising questions about whether this supplier had
sufficient equipment to do the job.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor SUTTON:
So under the category details of plant and equipment to service the contract
category, here are some of the comments of those assessing the tender. List of
equipment does not seem sufficient to service offer.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor SUTTON:
No detailed plans to source additional equipment. No rego details provided for
mowers. So they really did give a mowing contract to a company that didn't own
mowers.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor SUTTON:
Madam Chair, Civic Cabinet would have received a copy of this spreadsheet,
which I cannot table, but I show for the purposes of demonstrating that I've
actually had a chance to have a look at it. This spreadsheet actually notes the
operational risk of the suppliers that we were endorsing. I note that it says that
there were nine low-risk suppliers provided with contracts, 11 moderate risks, 24
high risk suppliers were engaged and a further eight extreme risk providers were
engaged.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor SUTTON:
In a number of these cases, there were low risk or moderate risk options with the
incumbent, that were available for this city to engage. However, on all of these
occasions, the higher risk—the higher operational risk supplier was awarded the
contractor.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor SUTTON:
Yes, they were all cheaper. Councillor JOHNSTON, I take that interjection
because that clearly was the motivation for this contract. Because here is the
advice provided to the LNP Civic Cabinet about the new providers. I'm just
going to read. So, new supplier number 1. They were the cheapest rate. New
supplier number 2, they were $64,000 below the current rate. Supplier number 3,
their rates are below the current rate in all portions ranging from $70,000 to
$124,000.
Supplier number—new supplier number 4, they were the cheapest tenderer
submitted for all 52 portions and was the cheapest. Number 5, are a new
supplier, second lowest price. Lowest price in another ward and third lowest
rates in another ward. Finally the sixth new provider, the new supplier was a new
supplier and they were the second cheapest for what they tendered for.
So clearly—now, Madam Chair, I have nothing—I have nothing against trying
to achieve operational savings for the ratepayers of Brisbane. But as the old
saying goes, if a deal sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Only a fool
would think that you could cut $5 million from a service budget like grass
mowing, asking the new people to do the exact same amount of work. Only a
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 81 fool would think that you could cut $5 million from the service budget with no
on-the-ground consequences.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor SUTTON:
So while the LORD MAYOR and possibly the Finance Chair and the Field
Services Chairman were congratulating themselves on the $5 million cuts that
they had just achieved to the grass mowing contract, what they didn't tell
Brisbane residents is that they needed to get ready for their parks to be unusable
and dangerous or that the grass on their median strips would be so long they
can't see oncoming traffic, creating an unsafe situation in a number of wards
around the city.
If you don't think—and if you think I'm exaggerating on that, you are wrong.
That has been reported and complained about in several wards across the city.
Where people can't see oncoming traffic. Not good enough. Not good enough at
all. So it really is true that this LNP administration can cut the budget for
anything and everything but they can't cut the grass.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor SUTTON:
I contend that this LNP administration has gone down this track because after
years of poor and reckless financial management, they have to cut spending on
core and basic council services. Labor has always said that we would end up in
this position when we see core and basic services cut because of the massive
tunnel debt ramped up by Campbell Newman and continued by LORD MAYOR
Graham Quirk.
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON, your time has expired.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Further debate, Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, look, I'm happy to speak to
this motion and to respond to some of the issues that have been raised by
Councillor SUTTON and also to address some of the claims that have been made
by Councillor DICK in the media over the last couple of weeks about this event.
Madam Chair, the weekend that's just passed is the first in several weeks in
Brisbane where the operation of two-stroke mowers and whipper snippers
weren't the only things that could be heard from our suburban backyards. I didn't
fire up the Victa over the weekend, that's the first weekend in several weeks
where it's stayed in the shed and I recall that this time last year it was in the shed
gathering dust. So conditions do change from year to year and season to season.
But those who broke out the mowers over the weekend told me that it was a
one-catcher run over the lawn rather than a three-catcher run. So thankfully that
seems to indicate the rapid rate of grass growth over the last few months has
started to slow down. Madam Chair, my local hardware store reports that the
hottest-selling item in January was whipper snipper cord. The local garage told
me that during January they did a roaring trade in the sale of petrol in five litre
cans and two-stroke oil. Mower shops are quoting—
Councillor SUTTON:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Point of order. Yes, Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
I just have to ask the relevance of Councillor McLACHLAN's content given that
it's nothing to do with the lawn mowing contract. It is specifically about the lawn
mowing contract. What local businesses happen to sell in January and December
has actually got nothing to do with the service provision—
Chairman:
I think what Councillor McLACHLAN is saying is relevant to the argument
being put forward in the motion. Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN:
So—
Chairman:
I don't uphold the point of order.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 82 Councillor McLACHLAN:
The point is, and the precise relevance is that the issue that Councillor SUTTON
has been talking about is not just a contractor issue. There are contractor issues
and I'll come back to that point in a few moments. But the reality is that in their
debate in the media in the past few weeks about this issue, the ALP has
attempted to say that it's got nothing to do with the weather; there has been no
weather impact on what we've been seeing across the city in December and
January in terms of grass.
They're climate deniers. They're climate deniers. They don't believe the evidence
of their own eyes. Yes, we've looked at the truth that's been provided by Bureau
of Meteorology (BoM) and this has been reported in the media as well. October
was the driest month in a long time, the driest October forever I believe, or in a
long time at least. Only a few millimetres of rain over the course of October and
that was following a long dry period. But that drought in the south east broke in
November big time and we saw that with a run of wet weather right through
November, as reported by BoM, including the super-cell storm on 27 November.
So November total of rainfall in Brisbane, 142 millimetres. The average
November rainfall in Brisbane is around 100 millimetres. So well and truly
above the average. That pattern, Madam Chairman, continued through December
and January. December did see an average total rainfall over 13 days and in
January we had wet days on the 1st, the 2nd, the 3rd, the 4th, the 6th, the 8th, the
9th, the 12th, the 13th, the 14th, the 20th, the 21st, the 22nd, the 23rd, the 24th,
the 28th and the 30th.
So, Madam Chairman, 322 millimetres was the January total for Brisbane, 22
millimetres at the airport, 243 at Archerfield. These are the official wet weather
days for Brisbane during November, December and January. Look, these are
facts that can't be denied that when you combine that sort of rainfall with
January's typical wet and hot, humid conditions, you've got the perfect
conditions for growing grass. The only deniers of this fact are the ALP.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor McLACHLAN:
One of the grasses that response is particularly well to these conditions is
paspalum. Paspalum is that grass that looks like forest of miniature palm trees
and even after 24 hours after the mower goes over, it's sticking its head up and
putting the seed pods up and it makes the area look like it hasn't been mowed. So
look, this is a reality check. I see Councillor SUTTON shaking her head, but this
is a reality check, of the circumstances that the city was confronted with during
November, December and January.
Chairman:
Order.
Councillor McLACHLAN:
Now—so it's been a tough season. A tough season not just for the Council, for
all providers. Not all the roadways and curb sides in Brisbane are Council's
responsibility, Councillor SUTTON. You talk about grass that you cannot see
over while you're driving a car, well Sandgate Road, Gympie Road, Beaudesert
Road, Granard Road, Centenary Motorway are just some of our major
thoroughfares in the city that the Department of Main Roads maintains. Long
stretches of roadside are beside railway lines that are the responsibility of QR to
maintain.
I've actually got some photos here, Madam Chairman, I'm happy to table these,
about the conditions that prevail along Sandgate Road, or did prevail along
Sandgate Road till the Department of Main Roads mowed them the other day. I'll
table these in due course. So here we are, Madam Chair, on the curb side along
the footpath, Council-maintained area, and it looks neat and tidy. In the middle
of the road, the centre island—
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Councillor McLACHLAN:
—Department of Main Roads' responsibility, grass that's—
Chairman:
Point of order. Councillor McLACHLAN, just a moment. Point of order. Yes,
Councillor JOHNSTON.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 83 Councillor JOHNSTON:
Madam Chairman, I believe Councillor McLACHLAN is impugning motive
when he says that State Government is apparently responsible for not mowing
the council verges.
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, I do not uphold your point of order. Councillor
McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. Here we are on Sandgate Road coming up to
Roscommon Road, so grass that is up over the bonnets of vehicles, no doubt
about that, responsibility of the Department of Main Roads. I'm pleased to see
that that grass has now been mowed, but we know the Department of Main
Roads contracts allows their contractors to go out about six times a year, as
opposed to what we're able to do with the Council contract which is to mow
where we have responsibility for roadways at 12 times a year.
Madam Chairman, what else do we have to say about this issue? I went out in
response to claims made by Councillor DICK about various conditions in parks.
One of the parks that Councillor DICK was talking about when he was in the
media the other day was the Hidden World park in Fitzgibbon. He made some
fairly colourful claims about the condition of the park and I thought I'd better go
and have a look for myself, because I've learnt from experience that Councillor
DICK's claims are generally unsubstantiated.
I've got some photos here of the Hidden World Playground. Now, it's important
to understand that the Hidden World Playground is at the bottom of a remediated
landfill site. So a big area that was a landfill, now been remediated, one corner of
it is now a kids' playground, the Hidden World Playground. Look, I agree it
needed a mow, there's no doubt it needed a mow. It was at the end of a two-week
cycle, but it was pretty clear to see—and I'll table these photos as well—it's
pretty clear to see what's happened when the contractors have got down there.
The paths have been whipper snipped, you could get in there quite easily to the
playground. No problem getting into the playground. But the areas of grass
either side of the pathway were very wet. It had been raining and they were
soggy. To the LORD MAYOR's point earlier about not sending in heavy
equipment onto wet ground, is entirely valid. If the heavy equipment had been
over that grass and trying to mow it when it was completely wet, they would
have ruined the turf and we would have been up for a big remediation bill and a
rehabilitation bill and probably some injury claims as well from some people
turning their ankles in the divots created.
So the contractors didn't go in at the end of that two weeks, they couldn't go in
over the weekend because kids were playing in the playground, and it was
mowed on Monday. That's the reality of contract management that sometimes
the conditions don't allow for the precision that's apparent on paper with the
contracts to be executed. The contractors have used their judgement to go in
when they're best able to. That's the reality of the situation at the Hidden World
Playground.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor McLACHLAN:
Look, in regards to the contracts, to the points that have been raised by
Councillor SUTTON, yes, in November Council did enter into new contracts for
grass cutting in parks and along roadways, those roadways for which Council
has responsibility, and yes, and we've said this in the debate that's occurred in the
media, there have been some contractors who've struggled to fulfil the terms of
the contract that they've entered into. But Madam Chairman, and to the points
that have been made by Councillor SUTTON, the contracts issued were not
revolution, they were evolution. Of the 16 contractors that are currently cutting
our grass, which is nearly 800 million square metres each year in Brisbane, 10
were contractors who were previously employed by the Council. So only six of
those were new
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor McLACHLAN:
The 10 existing contractors got 36 portions of 52 portions that were divided up
under the terms of the contract, in terms of roadways and parks divided amongst
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 84 the 26 wards, the new contractors got 16. So look, some of the contractors, the
previous contractors who were unsuccessful this time have been speaking out,
they're unhappy about not getting work this time. Now that doesn't come as a
huge surprise that if they didn't get a contract, they're unhappy with it.
But the issuing of the contracts followed the process that we've always followed
of the issuing of all Council contracts. We have over 1000 contracts in place for
the supply of services at any given time in Council. The expression of interest
was advertised, mowing contractors interested in working here in Brisbane put in
their prices for the work and the Council didn't set what that rate would be.
The parcels of work were awarded on a combination of the submitted prices and
their capability and credentials. It's not the case—it's not the case that the lowest
price won. None of those businesses—
Chairman:
Councillor McLACHLAN, your time has expired. Further debate, Councillor
CUMMING.
Councillor CUMMING:
Thanks, Madam Chair. Well, dear oh dear, what a response, Madam Chair.
We're going back to domestic household contractors et cetera. I'd say January
was a typical Brisbane January, hot and wet. That's a typical Brisbane January
and a lot less rain—a lot less rain that we've had in recent years. I can recall a
few years there was floods in January and a lot of rain. A lot of rain.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor CUMMING:
We still managed to cut the grass, Madam Chairman. The reality, the facts are
that this Administration—
Chairman:
Order.
Councillor CUMMING:
Excuse me. This Administration has allowed Council to approve grass cutting
contractors who have tendered ridiculously low prices, have no proven ability to
do the job and in some cases own no mowing equipment before being given the
tender. The documents that Councillor SUTTON's been diligently studying,
some of them were described as part of the tendering process as high risk or
extreme risk, and guess what? They still got the contract.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor CUMMING:
So how is that possible? How is that possible, Madam Chairman? The Council is
paying some of the new contractors 1.6 cents per square metre, some people in
the industry have told us that, where the usual price would be 5.5 cents a square
metre. So it's ridiculously cheap and in fact a suspect price, a suspect price. No
contactor doing the job properly and paying their workers the current correct
wages could do the work this cheaply.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor CUMMING:
You've got to wonder what wages the workers are being paid—
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Point of order against you, Councillor CUMMING. Just a minute, Councillor
SIMMONDS. Yes, Councillor SIMMONDS.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
I think he's going very close to impugning motive that some of these people—to
insinuate that some of these people are not paying correctly according to the
awards and their legal obligation.
Chairman:
Yes, Councillor SIMMONDS. Councillor CUMMING.
Councillor CUMMING:
Madam Chairman, there's got to be some reason for being able to tender such a
low price, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
No, that's impugning some sort of motive.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor CUMMING:
Well that's what I thought, Madam Chairman, if they weren't using mowers that
would keep the cost down. That would keep the cost down, yes. The fuel price
has come down a little bit, yes. But, Madam Chairman, I'll continue, the cost
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 85 reduction of course is a mirage as ratepayer-funded flying gangs are having to be
sent up to fix up the mess which is an exercise in damage control.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor CUMMING:
Madam Chairman, I think it's very unfortunate this is core Council business and
something that the Administration should be paying close attention to, not
allowing these sort of dubious contracts to be entered into. The Administration
has admitted that five of the new contractors had been watch listed already and
that—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor CUMMING:
Five from six. Five from six, so they're great. As Councillor SUTTON said, if it's
a price that seems—if it's a ridiculously good price, it's probably too good to be
true and there's something suspect about it, Madam Chair. This Administration
should have been aware of that. It's a low grade amateurish tendering process,
it's a disgrace to Brisbane City Council, which used to be one of the leaders in
local government before the LNP took over.
I think Council needs to release all the documents listed in the notice of motion
so that interested parties, the media—I'm sure the media would be very
interested in those documents—and ourselves can scrutinise the obviously
defective process. Further, Council should be appointing independent auditors to
review the process. The process indeed is a complete embarrassment and the
LNP Administration should hang its head in shame and act in accordance with
the notice of motion.
Chairman:
Further debate, Councillor SIMMONDS.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and I rise to speak against this motion.
First of all to clear up a couple of falsehoods. You do have to watch what the
Labor councillors say because they will lead you down the garden path, Madam
Chairman, and they're quite happy not to let the facts get in the way of a good
story.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Point of order against you, Councillor SIMMONDS. Yes, Councillor
JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Madam Chairman, Councillor SIMMONDS is impugning motive by claiming
that Labor councillors are lying or making falsehoods.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Never used the word.
Chairman:
He didn't use those words, Councillor JOHNSTON, you're the one using them.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
He did, Madam Chairman, and that's impugning motive.
Chairman:
No, he didn't. I do not uphold your point of order and don't—you're on a
warning. You make it up as you go along.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Despite the brief interlude by the chief
Labor cheer-person over there, you do have to be careful—and I've said it
before, they don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. For a start, Madam
Chairman, I have never known a time in this Council, and I've asked around my
colleagues—never known a time in this place where all procurement documents
are open to the public.
There are always contractual issues, this furphy that Councillor SUTTON, that
this is all because of the Newman Government, garbage. Simply wrong, isn't
true. Isn't true.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Procurement items in this place have always been subject to commercial and—
Councillor SUTTON:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Point of order against you, Councillor SIMMONDS. Yes, Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
I claim to be misrepresented.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 86 Chairman:
Thank you.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Okay, she's going to clear up the mess afterwards, that's fine. Madam Chairman,
this is a very—Madam Chairman, this is a very competitive market. This is a
very competitive market. There are quite a number of people in this space, both
experienced operators and people who want to get a start. Councillor SUTTON,
this is—and this is incredible from the shadow—I'll remind people that she is the
Shadow Finance Spokesperson. If Labor were elected, she would be in-charge of
your rates and whether or not your rates went up. She would be in charge and her
attitude is, well we should have gone back to the tenderers and asked them to
tender more.
Sorry guys, I know you were the company—I know you were the mowing
company but hey, we're Council, we know everything. You need to charge us a
higher price. Please.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Add a zero or something.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:
Point of order against you, Councillor SIMMONDS. Yes, Councillor
JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Now, Madam Chairman, Councillor SIMMONDS is clearly impugning motive
on Councillor SUTTON. He's stating that she was saying that people should be
going back to retender for these contracts, Madam Chairman. Not only did she
not say that, that's impugning motive. In line with your previous rulings—
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:
—I ask you to bring him back to the subject.
Chairman:
Councillor JOHNSTON, I ask that you stop calling these spurious points of
order and wasting the chamber's time. This is a debate and the Finance Chairman
has every right to rebut what Councillor SUTTON may have said if he believes
it's not accurate. Councillor SIMMONDS.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Well thank you, Madam Chairman. I don't know what other conclusion to draw
from Councillor SUTTON's comments. We know that when it comes to their
financial policies, they only believe in poor and reckless financial management,
they believe that they have a blank cheque in terms of rates, to hike up people's
rates. Their average rate increases when they were in Administration were over
five per cent. They put it up over six per cent four times in just 10 years, Madam
Chairman.
Councillor SUTTON:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Point of order against you, Councillor SIMMONDS. Yes, Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
Sorry, my apologies. On the point that Councillor SIMMONDS just made about
me stating that I wanted to increase rates, he said that—
Chairman:
No, he didn't mention your name, Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
No, he just said that my solution was to increase rates. I would like to claim
misrepresentation on that as well.
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON, that's not what I heard Councillor SIMMONDS say. I
heard Councillor SIMMONDS referring to Labor councillors.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Okay, yep, Madam Chairman, well what Councillor—I will come back to the
item. What Councillor SUTTON did say is that we would be a mug for taking
the savings. Well you would be a mug not to let a competitive process work out
the best price. You'd be a total mug. This is a very, very competitive
environment. I didn't, the procurement people didn't go out and say, we want this
price. This is the price that was put forward by the people in a competitive tender
process.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 87 I don't know what else—I don't know what other conclusion to draw from
Councillor SUTTON's comments that she either wanted me to dictate a price to
them or she wanted me to go back after they quoted a cheaper price and ask
them to charge more. Those are her only other two options. Those are the other
only two options.
Let's—so that's price. Let's deal with this furphy, this total furphy that, oh, they
didn't even own mowers. Garbage. Total and utter garbage. These are all, every
single one of them, an experienced operator. It is not unusual when somebody
tenders for new business that they have to gear up. An existing mowing
contractor, if they win new work, will have to buy another mower or two, fair
enough. But every single one of these are experienced operators.
As Councillor McLACHLAN pointed out, not only are 10 of the 16 already our
contractors but all of them have other clients. For example, these are some of the
other clients and previous experience of the new contractors, the so-called ones
who don't even own a mower. This is who they mow for. Gold Coast City
Council, Sunshine Coast City Council, Logan City Council, Hills Grammar,
Kedron-Wavell Services Club, Technigro, Department of Transport and Main
Roads, SEQWater, other—another one also mows for Gold Coast, Logan and
Queensland Urban Utilities. Moreton Bay Regional Council and the Australian
Defence Department, Madam Chairman.
So any suggestion that these people, quote unquote from Councillor SUTTON,
don't own a mower, is garbage. Because they are doing it right now. Of course
you have to gear up when you work. I've never known a person to submit a
tender and go, hey I've submitted a tender, quick, I better go buy a couple of new
mowers on the chance that I might get it. They'd be broke in two seconds flat.
This is how divorced Councillor SUTTON and the other Labor councillors are
from reality.
Madam Chairman, and the facts of the matter are these, is that this Council,
through—as Councillor McLACHLAN has mentioned, has continued
monitoring this situation. They will take performance action where required.
These savings haven't been banked, Madam Chairman, we will spend what we
need to to make sure of an adequate level of service within the city. That's what
we've done in other areas, like tree pruning and all the rest of it, and that's what
we will continue to do here.
Because the facts of the matter are that we spend 50 per cent more on grass
cutting than Labor councillors ever did.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Than Labor councillors ever did. We will continue to spend more because we
believe in a higher level of service than those opposite ever did. They had their
chance, they were on this side of the chamber once, they could have introduced
as many cuts as their hearts could have contended but they didn't, Madam
Chairman. Whereas this Administration has, we will continue to meet our
standards and we'll monitor that going forward.
In addition, as Councillor McLACHLAN's pointed out, price is never the sole
determining factor. There are a number of other criteria including their
capability, their capacity, their quality systems and environment management
and workplace health and safety systems and also their commercial environment,
Madam Chairman. But I make this point, I would have Labor councillors going
bananas if we handed a $13 million or $15 million a year contract to one supplier
and not given good Brisbane companies a chance, they'd be going nuts.
Absolutely bananas.
Imagine what would happen if I handed it to a New Zealand city council, whoa,
boom, the place would explode. The fact of the matter is, let me read you some
of these addresses of these companies. This is where they are, Newstead,
Bridgeman Downs, Caboolture, Manly West, Birkdale, Burbank, Virginia.
Madam Chairman, these are good Brisbane companies trying to make a go of it,
give them a chance, I say to the Labor councillors, give them a chance.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 88 Ten of them have already worked for us and have done well previously, six are
new but they're good, local companies who have got local experience. Give them
a chance. Why are you so quick to jump down their throats, they're learning new
routes. They've had to deal with record wet weather and yet quick you are—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Quick you are, you always—well this is the hypocrisy of them Madam
Chairman, they're all laughing but this is the hypocrisy, because I know they've
stood up in this place before and they've said, you must give Brisbane companies
a chance. Why aren't you mandating that Brisbane companies have to get the
work?
Here, what we've done, what our procurement officers have done is they've
given 16 local companies a chance, six of them who are new, and here we have
the hypocrisy of the Labor councillors jumping up and saying, oh because they
haven't got it in the first four weeks, right, boot them out. Boot them out. Let
contract managers do what they need to do, performance manage some of the
contractors—and we will continue to monitor them.
But I can make this promise to the Brisbane residents. That our standard of
mowing and grass cutting will always be better than the Labor councillors
opposite because when they had their chance, they didn't do it.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Now we've spent—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor CUMMING.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Madam Chairman, because we spend 50 per cent more than those opposite ever
did when they were in administration. So, Madam Chairman, I firmly reject this
motion, I firmly reject the insinuations of the Labor councillors that this
procurement process was not done in the most appropriate fashion. Our
procurement officers are very, very fine and upstanding people. They do it
without fear or favour.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Well, okay, Councillor GRIFFITHS scoffs, if he's got some evidence, stump up
or shut up, okay? Before you impugn council officers—
Chairman:
Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Madam Chairman, they're very quick to impugn officers, aren't they?
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
But they're very slow—they're very slow—
Chairman:
Order.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
—stumping up any evidence.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Order. Councillor SIMMONDS.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, they're very slow stumping up any
evidence. We haven't seen it. What we have seen—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
What we have seen is a competitive tender process with a number of different
criteria, both financial and non-financial, where the best people have got the job
including 10 who were already contractors, six who were new, and what we see
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 89 is the Labor councillors giving them all of four weeks, including the wettest
January that we've had in a number of years, to give it a go, Madam Chairman.
Well, we will continue to monitor this situation. Residents can be assured that
our grass cutting performance will be well above anything of the Labor
councillors and Brisbane residents can be assured that if they let Councillor
SUTTON onto the treasury benches, she'll be asking suppliers to pay far more
than they currently are.
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON, misrepresentation.
Councillor SUTTON:
Yes, Madam Chair. I've only got one, is that right? Or are you going to give me
the second one?
Chairman:
Whatever you want.
Councillor SUTTON:
Okay, well I'll take the two then. The first claim to be misrepresented is that
Councillor SIMMONDS alleged that I claimed that the reason—that commercial
in confidence documents had never been released and that was all because of
the—and I had blamed the Newman Government for not releasing the—for the
documentation. That is not what I said, what I highlighted was the changes that
the Newman Government had made to the City of Brisbane Act that talked about
the penalties against me if I released information publically, which is why the
motion was—this motion is important.
Chairman:
To the next one, please.
Councillor SUTTON:
The second misrepresentation was that Councillor SIMMONDS claimed that I
wanted ratepayers to pay more for lawn mowing contractors. In fact I was at
pains to say I support looking for operational savings, however, I questioned this
Administration's decision of trying to achieve $5 million in savings when clearly
the contractors that have been selected were not up to the job.
Chairman:
Thank you, Councillor SUTTON. Further debate, Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Look, thanks, Madam Chair, and I want to bring the chamber back to the reason
why this motion is being moved tonight. Disappointingly, well not
unsurprisingly, we've heard from the LNP that it's everyone else's fault.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
That it's—listening to Councillor McLACHLAN, it was the parents' fault for
complaining on the north side. Listening to Councillor McLACHLAN, it was
Scott Emerson's fault or the former government, Queensland Rail's fault.
Listening to Councillor SIMMONDS, it was somehow Councillor SUTTON's
fault that true to form, Madam Chair, the only people who aren't listening to this
debate are the LNP themselves.
Because, Madam Chair, I stand here tonight on behalf of residents who have
contacted me and who are disappointed that their parks and their streets and their
suburbs are not being attended to by this Council. The first step we need to get
tonight, when the LORD MAYOR gets up to speak, is for him to apologise to
the ratepayers of Brisbane. To actually admit that there is an issue. Not all the
excuses from Councillor McLACHLAN about what his local hardware store is
talking about whipper snippers or whether he's mown his grass.
You know what, through you, Madam Chair, no one cares whether you've mown
your grass or not, Councillor McLACHLAN. They do care in my ward and the
south side and the north side of Brisbane that we aren't delivering the service that
people expect, that's the first thing. Now I've seen what the LORD MAYOR's
going to do tonight, he's going to read out clippings from what Labor did, this
typical spin from the LORD MAYOR. He said, you bet.
So we're going back in time 18 years. He's going to give the example of this
happened under Jim Soorley—
Chairman:
Get to the item please, Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
Well, Madam Chair, it's predictable. What I want the LNP Council—
Councillor SUTTON:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 90 Chairman:
Yes, point of order. Yes, Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
I'm just seeking your clarification on that ruling. I think that your direction to
Councillor DICK was to not talk about clippings from 18 years ago and to get
back to the item—
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:
—I'm just asking for clarification if that is your ruling.
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON, I'm suggesting that Councillor DICK might like to talk to
the content of the motion that you've put forward. Instead of trying to predict
what the LORD MAYOR might be going to say. That's what I was saying; I
thought that was pretty clear. What don't you understand?
Councillor SUTTON:
Well I just want to know if that when I get up to speak, and when other people in
this chamber get up to speak, that whether or not they will be able to reference
material from 18 years ago.
Chairman:
Look, resume your seat; I don't uphold your point of order. Again, I come back
to spurious points of order. That was nonsense. Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:
I'll continue, Madam Chair, I'm happy to be proven wrong that the LORD
MAYOR won't step back in time. But I'm pretty sure he will.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
Madam Chair, look, what we've also heard apart from all the blame and all the
excuses, is that—and I like this one, it's an evolution not a revolution—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
That's right. We've got everything that doesn't work, whether it be CityCycle or
now the grass cutting, is an evolution not a revolution. Well I'm here to say
tonight, Madam Chair, cutting the grass isn't a revolution or an evolution. It's a
basic service that this Council is not delivering. Let's strip all the politics out of
this, what our ratepayers want is service delivery and they're not getting.
With respect to Councillor SIMMONDS, you know what? Yes, we all want to
support local businesses, yes we want to do the right thing by them, Councillor
SIMMONDS, yes, council officers are never in the wrong, we acknowledge that
and you hide behind them all the time. But for goodness' sake, admit that there is
a problem with long grass in our city.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
Get out of your luxury offices and walk around the streets. The first problem—
the first sign is always admitting there is a problem, Madam Chair, tonight. Stop
the denial, stop the facts that there is no problem whatsoever and it's everyone
else's fault, and just be honest with the ratepayers of Brisbane and say, you know
what? We chose the cheaper option. That's what you did. You were warned by
your own documents, the warnings are clear, Madam Chair. The warnings are
clear.
When this came to Civic Cabinet, I want to know, did you read the documents?
Or did you all just get worried about getting out of the room and getting into the
ratepayer funded lunch? Because, Madam Chair—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
Well answer the question then. Someone get up and say, I raised this as a
concern at Civic Cabinet, I raised the issue. Did anyone speak out or did you all
just sign the paperwork and walk out the door? Madam Chair, because the
information supplied to Civic Cabinet—and I want to quote it because
Councillor SIMMONDS sort of seems to believe that they live in a bubble and
the Civic Cabinet, when they get the contracts and tenderings, just kind of sit
back and it's all approved and none of them have any responsibility. Well they
do, Madam Chair.
If I was sitting in Civic Cabinet, you know what, if I heard the words—regarding
a contract I was about to sign off on and bring into this Council, the list of
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 91 equipment does not seem sufficient to service the offer. No detailed plans to
source additional equipment and on the list it goes. When I saw, Madam Chair—
if I saw, extreme danger—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
—extreme danger next to a provider, I'd want to ask questions. I'd want to say,
you know what? What if we don't meet our targets? Will the grass be cut? Look,
I've listened carefully and the LORD MAYOR can—because there's a lot of data
being provided about the rain. We heard that tonight.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
We heard that about—but interestingly we've heard a lot about rain days. But
have we actually had the data about how much rain we've received?
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
So I was waiting, all the spin and all the lines. So the rainfall figures are
interesting for January. So for 2011, 2012, 2013, you know what, Madam Chair?
We had more rainfall than this January.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
That's right. That's right, Madam Chair, that's right. That is exactly right.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:
So Councillor McLACHLAN saying, that's a lie. So he's saying that's a lie. So,
Madam Chair, it's really simple, they need to provide that data tonight. If this is
what they're hanging their hat on, that it's all wet weather is the reason. But it's
not, Madam Chair, because we know by walking around the streets of Brisbane
and talking to local residents who are just fed up and frustrated and don't want
any more spin from the LNP Council, they just want the grass mown.
They expect their potholes filled, they expect the footpaths maintained, they
expect their rubbish collected, they want the basics. This is how far the LNP
have drifted away from what their core [being] here. This is what happens when
you have a long-term council sitting on the benches for 12 years and a LORD
MAYOR who's been sitting in the chair in this Council for 30 years. They think
near enough is good enough, they think, oh well, just give them a go, just wait
and see.
We should be demanding and we should be delivering the highest level of
service to ratepayers. You know what's happened in 18 years? You know what
happened in 18—rates have gone through the roof. You know what's happened
in 18 years, Madam Chair? You know our service charges have gone through the
roof. More importantly our debt has gone through the roof.
I maintain today, the reason we are in this position is because the LNP know that
they needed to cut $5 million out of this budget from $18 million, down to $13
million and this is the consequences of them cutting. Because we don't have the
money to spend on these services. Well, Madam Chair, the buck stops with the
LORD MAYOR, the buck stops with Councillor McLACHLAN. Stop blaming
everyone else, stand up and actually admit that there is a problem and outline a
way to fix this. You can start the first step tonight by supporting this motion so
that the ratepayers of Brisbane get a little bit of dignity and humility back from
their Council, and apologise for us letting them down.
Don't worry about history lectures, LORD MAYOR, start dealing with today,
stop focusing on the past.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Further debate, LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Yes, thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Well, talk about lectures. We've just
had a great one from Councillor DICK. Yes, he's an expert from where he sits.
He's never had the task of administering. But, Madam Chairman, I have been
here and I have seen the Labor party in action when it comes to administering.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 92 Once again tonight, we've heard nothing from Councillor DICK about what they
would do.
How many times will they cut the grass in Brisbane each year? Will they revert
back to what Labor was doing when they lost Administration in this city, Madam
Chairman? Because if they do, we know that the grass will be cut many times
less in our parks, many times less on minor roads and many times less on major
roads in this city, than what we do today.
Councillor NEWTON:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
LORD MAYOR:
In the last 10 years—
Chairman:
Point of order against you, LORD MAYOR. Yes, Councillor NEWTON.
Councillor NEWTON:
Madam Chair, you were quite clear in your ruling that we weren't to forward
project and predict what people were doing into the future, Madam Chair. You
pulled up Councillor DICK for projecting what the LORD MAYOR might be
saying. The LORD MAYOR, in his turn, is now projecting what a Labour
Administration may do into the future, Madam Chair. I ask that you draw him
back to the item at hand and—
Chairman:
Councillor NEWTON, I don't need a lecture and I don't need my rulings
challenged constantly. He is the LORD MAYOR of this city, he has every right
to defend the motion that you have put forward. LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:
Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Of course, I wouldn't have to project,
Councillor NEWTON, if you came up with a policy occasionally. If you
presented in very precise terms rather than the usual motherhood nonsense that
we get out of the Opposition, Madam Chairman. What they would do. What they
would do.
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR:
You'd get the grass cut, there you go. Another motherhood statement. A
motherhood statement with—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON.
LORD MAYOR:
With no backup as to how you would achieve that. Now, Madam Chairman, it is
a fact—
Chairman:
Order.
LORD MAYOR:
It is a fact that this administration cuts the grass many more times each year than
the Labor Party did when they had the chance in Administration. Now, Madam
Chairman, it's also a fact that Councillor SUTTON, I think it was, and
Councillor DICK reiterated it, most inaccurately suggesting that somehow this
was about achieving $5 million in operational savings. That was an outcome out
of a competitive tendering process.
Now if we were negligent, if we were out there and saying, well look, forget
about your best bid, add some more dollars in fellows, add some more dollars in,
you'd rightfully have us down at the ACCC. Rightfully have us down at the
ACCC. As a competitive tendering process, people are asked across this city on
anything—whether it's grass cutting, whether it's construction, to put their best
figures forward. To put their best figures forward.
When I used the term earlier, pay your money and take your chances, that's what
I was referring to. They put—they expend some money on putting a bid in, they
put their best possible bid in and, Madam Chairman, it is then up to the
assessment of those bids in the best interests of the people of this city. But it is
true also—and they've criticised the tender outcomes, Madam Chairman, these
are local companies. Local companies, 10 of which were doing the job
previously.
It is a fact that when it came to their putting out tenders, Manukau in New
Zealand got a $2.3 million contract in 1997. That equates today to $3.6 million if
you add an inflationary line through it. That's what Labor did. They talk about
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 93 local jobs, but that's what they did when it came to grass cutting. You know what
they did, Madam Chairman? Because Manukau couldn't gear up, what this
Council did at that time is they then leased a range of equipment to them which
convened the contracts that they'd let at that time which stated that no materials
or services shall be supplied to the principal. That's what they did to get them out
of trouble.
So, Madam Chairman, words are cheap. I've heard what they've had to say here
today but I've seen what they did also in Administration. Now you've called for
an apology, Councillor DICK. I would have thought if you'd listened to my
response in question time that I made it absolutely clear that I take responsibility
for these things in the city. That's my job as LORD MAYOR to do that. I've said
also very clearly in question time that we are going to continue to demand the
outcomes from these contractors until we get this sorted.
I believe it will be sorted fairly quickly but to deny the fact that January was a
wet month—and I'll come back to your statements on that in a moment and your
reference to 2011 and 2013—to deny the fact that there was 17 days of wet
weather in January is to deny a reality. It was the case. Now, why was there
more rain in January 2011? Perhaps we had a flood, Madam Chairman. Perhaps
we had a few days of torrential rain in what was otherwise not too bad a month
in terms of weather.
We had absolutely torrential rain in those three days, giving a major flood in this
city. Of course we had more rain in January 2011. Then of course we had the
Australia Day weekend we all recall, late January, in 2013. Again, leading to
major issues in this city both on a storm and minor flooding basis. So, Madam
Chairman, the motion today is simply a nonsense. I've indicated that we will get
on top of this quickly, we will ensure that those people that have put forward a
price on a competitive and equal tendering basis, will be required to fulfil their
contracts. We will be seeking that from them.
If they don't measure up in a reasonable period, we'll get someone who will. It's
that simple. But in the meantime, we're going to work with them to make it work
and to do so in the interests of the people of this city. But I guarantee one thing,
Madam Chairman. That we have and will continue to have in place the number
of cuts within the arrangements much, much more than ever the Labor Party
supplied.
We are committed to it and will continue to work to make it happen.
Chairman:
Further debate? Councillor JOHNSTON?
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Very briefly, Madam Chairman, there are a couple of matters that I would like to
place on the record. Firstly, it is clear to me today from the glib way that
Councillor McLACHLAN and Councillor SIMMONDS addressed this matter in
the debate that they are not serious about getting the best for our ratepayers in
this city. They are not serious about listening to the community when genuine
issues are being raised about the status of maintenance in our community.
Now they cannot fail to know, because I know in my ward and I suspect every
councillor knows, that there are problems. It is the worst Newman-esque
behaviour to simply say we know best, your concerns are irrelevant, we're doing
it our way, and you people over there 150 million years ago did something that
wasn't right and therefore you've got no reason to raise this.
Now that's pretty much been their argument here tonight, and that fails the
people of our city and that concerns me. But I've got one question—one
question—and I urge any member of Civic Cabinet to stand up and answer this
single question: were you told in the spreadsheet that Councillor SUTTON has
that there are multiple contractors that are a high risk, an extreme risk and a
moderate risk in Civic Cabinet, and did you proceed to engage those contractors
against the advice that we have heard here today?
That is the issue at the heart of this. It is about poor financial management and it
is about incompetence in governance. Answer that one question. Any of the
Civic Cabinet members who signed off on this I put it to you and I ask you to
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 94 stand up, Madam Chairman, and tell us if you were told that information and
explain to our community why you ignored it.
Chairman:
Further debate. Councillor SUTTON?
Councillor SUTTON:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I intend to respond to a number of points that were
made in the debates by those who participated, probably with the exception of
the LORD MAYOR because as far as I can hear all he did in terms of his
contribution to the debate was to back up the DeLorean, turn on the flux
capacitor and start talking about things that had happened 18 years ago.
I'm not interested in what has happened in the past; I am interested—18 years
ago when I was still in high school—I am interested in what is in the interests of
Brisbane residents going forward and how we are going to get the city's parks
mowed.
Firstly on rainfall, I've got the monthly rainfall breakdown from the Bureau of
Meteorology and I just want to inform Councillor McLACHLAN, the LORD
MAYOR and Councillor SIMMONDS that in December—not January,
December 2011—we received 132.4 millilitres of rain compared to December
2014 we received 124.4 millilitres of rain. Therefore we received almost 10
millilitres more rain back in December 2011 than we did in December 2014.
In January 2012, following on from December 2011, we received 343.4
millilitres of rain. That is more than the 322.4 millilitres of rain that we received
in January 2015. So can we take this independent agency's reporting of the
average Brisbane rainfall to once—unless Councillor BOURKE is interjecting
that the Bureau of Meteorology is wrong, because if he knows better than the
Bureau of Meteorology I think we should all pack up and go home and put
Councillor BOURKE in charge of running the country, because he clearly knows
better than everybody else.
Madam Chair, let's put that furphy to bed. We received more rain in 2011/2012
December/January than we did in December 2014/January 2015 and the grass
didn't get as out of control as it did this year. This is a problem with the
contractors; it is not a problem with managing the—it is not a problem caused by
the rainfall. This is a problem because your poor decision-making put people—
gave contracts to people who were not up to the job.
Second I want to talk about the spurious comments that were made by
Councillor SIMMONDS and Councillor McLACHLAN about the competitive
process tender—competitive process for this tender. Never, never did I say we
should not look for savings in our contract. I look here through this spreadsheet
carefully, as I would have done had I been in Civic Cabinet, had I been in
Councillor SIMMONDS' chair, and you know what I would have done, I would
have looked at the prices being offered by the incumbent who was still offering
up savings and had a low risk bar against them. I would have said how come the
incumbents are still giving us savings and not cheap savings.
I've got one here where we went in a south-side ward where the incumbent
offered up a $40,000 saving. It was identified as a low risk contract, but you
know who you gave it to Councillor SIMMONDS? Do you want to know who
you gave it to? You gave it to the—
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON through the chair.
Councillor SUTTON:
Through you, Madam Chair, you guys awarded it to the high risk contractor
because he provided $80,000 worth of savings. So you would prefer to give it
someone who wasn't up to the job but saved you money. All these protestations
that price was not the only indicator, Madam Chair, the evidence speaks for
itself.
Right across the city we have parks, footpaths and median strips that are sitting
there un-mowed. Even today this issue has not been resolved. There are still
complaints coming in. There are still complaints coming in daily. They have not
got this situation under control. They made the wrong decision. They only
engaged six new contractors.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 95 You're right Councillor McLACHLAN I'll give you that. It's the only thing that
you got right today, you did, but five of them are on a warning. How do you get
five out of six wrong? How do you get five out of six wrong? How do you not,
in your little Civic Cabinet papers that you toddle along to on Monday—Madam
Chair, through you—and open up a document—I've only got a photocopied
version here, but they all had bright red bars next to them. How do you not just
even have a glance at that and say gee—
Chairman:
To the front, to the front—
Councillor SUTTON:
—hang on a second, not just stamped approved, rubber stamped, on we go,
because it doesn't matter. Quality of service doesn't matter to you, none of you,
and it is incompetence. It is laziness, it is poor decision-making and it is poor
and reckless financial management that have got you into this situation because
you know you have to cut costs wherever you can, because you hooked this
Council into a program where we were just building tunnels regardless of the
consequences of poor—regardless of the consequences to poor Council services.
We said years ago that we would end up in this situation and now the chickens
have come home to roost. Brisbane City Council resident I'm afraid need to get
used to this while this LNP Administration continues to hold the reins of power
in this place—
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:
Point of order against you Councillor SUTTON. Yes, Councillor SIMMONDS?
Councillor SIMMONDS:
Will the councillor take a question?
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON?
Councillor SUTTON:
How could I resist a question from Councillor SIMMONDS.
Councillor SIMMONDS:
I was just wondering if she was aware that the costs of debt under this
administration is four per cent of the Budget, whereas 13 per cent under the
previous Labor Administration.
Councillor SUTTON:
What I am aware of, Madam Chair, is that this Council had zero debt—zero
debt—and in the space of four—at one stage—
Chairman:
To the motion Councillor SUTTON please.
Councillor SUTTON:
Sorry, Madam Chair, I was just answering Councillor SIMMONDS' questions
because we went from zero debt to $2.5 billion worth of debt—
Chairman:
I don't know how, I can't see the relevance.
Councillor SUTTON:
—in the space of about two years thanks to the program—his financial
management and the projects that they—
Councillors Interjecting.
Councillor SUTTON:
Yes, went zero to $2.3 billion in the space of what two years under his
stewardship and under the stewardship of the LNP. So well done Councillor
SIMMONDS, well done.
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON for the umpteenth time please speak through the chair.
Councillor SUTTON:
Yes, Madam Chair. I'm now finished, I'm now finished. I'm now finished
answering Councillor SIMMONDS' question unless he has another one for me,
because I'm always happy to take question from Councillor SIMMONDS. I'm
always happy to take questions from Councillor SIMMONDS.
Madam Chair, I guess the saddest thing about this is we heard no humility. All
we heard—and from Councillor SIMMONDS it was the worst, from
Councillor—poor old Councillor McLACHLAN over there who just does his
best to get by and muddle through, the Mr Fumble of Brisbane City Council—
Chairman:
Councillor SUTTON that's very uncalled for and I would ask you to withdraw
that comment please.
Councillor SUTTON:
Madam Chair, if Councillor McLACHLAN takes of offence or you do on his
behalf I'm happy to apologise, but all we—we have heard no humility, we have
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 96 heard nothing except excuses. We have heard spin from the LNP councillors
who tried to blame it on rainfall, despite what the facts point out.
We talk about them trying to argue that I am calling for some type of skewed
competitive tender process which is not the case, which is not the case. What I
want are contractors that can mow the grass. What I want is contractors that own
lawnmowers. I want my parks in my ward as every councillor does—we want
our parks mowed. Brisbane residents want our parks mowed. That is all we are
seeking and clearly something—and the roadsides yes—clearly something very,
very wrong—went very, very wrong with this procurement process and mainly
because these councillors opposite fail to ask the questions, fail to have the due
diligence and the care and consideration in awarding these contracts.
They should hang their heads in shame and they should have the decency to get
up and at least say we made a mistake, because that is what they did, because
after 12 years they are lazy. They are lazy and they think that it doesn't matter
what they do. They think that they will be sitting in those seats forever and a day
and whatever they want to do they can do. Well it's not the case. It's not the case
because people are noticing, and it is this type of decision-making that is going
to bring them unstuck. If they want to continue to display the arrogance and
contempt for Brisbane residents that they have shown as part of this debate
today, well they will hear from those residents because guess what, people are
sick of being treated like fools. They're not going to take it anymore and they
need to lift their game.
As there was no further debate, the Chairman submitted the motion to the Chamber and it was declared lost on
the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Milton DICK and Shayne SUTTON immediately rose and called for a division, which
resulted in the motion being declared lost.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 8 -
The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Milton DICK, and Councillors
Helen ABRAHAMS, Peter CUMMING, Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS,
Victoria NEWTON, Shayne SUTTON and Nicole JOHNSTON.
NOES: 18 -
The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK,
DEPUTY MAYOR,
Councillor
Adrian SCHRINNER,
and
Councillors
Krista ADAMS,
Matthew BOURKE,
Amanda COOPER,
Margaret de WIT,
Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP, Kim MARX,
Peter MATIC,
Ian McKENZIE,
David McLACHLAN,
Ryan MURPHY,
Julian SIMMONDS, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.
CONSIDERATION OF NOTIFIED MOTION – CREATION OF A
SHARED ZONE TO IMPROVE SAFETY:
(Notified motions are printed as supplied and are not edited)
415/2014-15
The Chairman of Council (Councillor Margaret de WIT) then drew the Councillors’ attention to the notified
motion listed on the agenda, and called on Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON to move the motion. Accordingly,
Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON moved, seconded by Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS, that—
This Council prioritises creation of a shared zone to improve safety and to better delineate the carriageway
from the footpath between the existing pedestrian crossing near Softstone Street and the speed bumps near
Tennyson Reach apartments on King Arthur Terrace, outside the Queensland Tennis Centre, as a matter of
urgency in the 2015/16 Budget, ensuring that 20 KPH speed signs are installed as a priority and all existing
landscaping is retained.
Chairman:
Is there any debate?
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 97 Councillor JOHNSTON:
Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise today on behalf of the Tennyson
Residents Association (TRA) and the residents of the Tennyson Reach
Apartments to deal with a serious safety issue in my ward.
It has been raised with me over a number of years now that the current traffic
arrangements along the King Arthur Terrace extension in the busy precinct that
runs between the Tennyson Reach Apartments and the Queensland Tennis
Centre and Ken Fletcher Park and Council's business opposite Yeerongpilly and
other land, that there are significant traffic and safety concerns with how this
road is working.
We know from Council's own traffic studies that there are up to 10,000 vehicles
a day using this very narrow carriageway and there are significant near misses
with pedestrians who are crossing between the Tennis Centre, the parkland area
and the apartments.
It is a huge concern to the Tennyson Residents Association that there is gameplaying going on between this Council and the State Government, and by the
State Government I'm referring to the former Newman Government.
I bring this motion forward today because the LORD MAYOR who has now left
the chamber has told residents of the Tennyson Residents Association that they
should raise this issue with me. Well, Madam Chairman, I have helped them
with petitions in the past and this Council has ignored their issues with respect to
that. So today I have moved a motion to ensure that their very serious issues are
dealt with.
Now, Madam Chairman, the TRA had written to the Queensland State
Government asking them to include the redesignation of this area as a shared
zone as part of the Yeerongpilly Transit Orientated Development (TOD). Now
the State Government has finalised this master plan and this area is not included
within the TOD boundary. Let me say that again—it is clear from the State
Government's finalised master plan and the State Planning Regulatory Provision
(SPRP) that this section of King Arthur Terrace, that is the area between the
Softstone Street roundabout and the Tennis Centre is not within the TOD area.
Now, Madam Chairman, the problem that we have is the LORD MAYOR has
written to the Tennyson Residents Association telling them that this part of the
road is within the TOD area. So there is buck-passing going on between the State
Government and between Council.
Now just a few days ago on 22 January the president of the Tennyson Residents
Association got a letter from the LORD MAYOR and that letter states,
“regardless of the Council administration's position on this matter, the State
Government is ultimately responsible for the development of the Yeerongpilly
TOD and Council is obliged to incorporate what the State Government's position
is on this site in the City Plan”.
Well, Madam Chairman, the State Government has said clearly in writing to the
Tennyson Residents Association that this section of road is not within the TOD.
The LORD MAYOR continues to say incorrectly I believe that it is.
This part of King Arthur Terrace is a Council road, There is no question that it is
within our area of responsibility to make significant safety and traffic
improvements such as reducing the speed, such as delineating the shared zone
better, such as ensuring that when future traffic volumes, which are expected to
increase significantly once the Yeerongpilly TOD development has been
delivered, can be safely accommodated in this precinct.
Now, Madam Chairman, today I want this Council to make a clear commitment
to Tennyson residents that their safety comes first; that we will ensure that no
child who is going to the park or going to a tennis lesson is hit by a car crossing
in an area that looks like a shared zone but is actually a district access road.
We cannot put people's safety at risk and I am asking that we prioritise the
creation of a shared zone which will only be a few thousand dollars in the
2015/2016 Council Budget.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 98 The Tennyson Residents Association want to see a mandatory 20 kilometre per
hour speed zone and they want to ensure that the existing landscaping, the
beautiful trees and native gardens that are in existence, can be retained into the
new shared zone area.
These are things I support, Madam Chairman. This issue is too important to
allow to fall between the cracks of the State Government and this Council, and I
state again for the record, the State Government has clearly advised that this
matter is not within the Yeerongpilly TOD area. I call on this LORD MAYOR
and this Administration to support this motion to ensure that we can improve
safety in this extremely busy part of the suburb of Tennyson. I urge all
councillors to support this motion.
Chairman:
Further debate? DEPUTY MAYOR?
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Yes, Madam Chairman. As Councillor JOHNSTON has indicated, this issue has
been around for a little while and there's certainly been lots of correspondence
back and forward in the past. There's been petitions, there's been letters to the
LORD MAYOR and there's been a range of investigations that Council has
undertaken as a result.
I have in front of me a copy of a letter that was sent to the president of the
Tennyson Residents Association and given that it's been sent not to a private
individual as a private resident but to a president of a community organisation or
community group, I feel it's appropriate that this can be shared around, because
obviously the intent of the letter is for the president to share it around to
members.
So I'll read out the section of this letter that I believe is appropriate and this is
from the LORD MAYOR to the president: I can see that you feel strongly about
the installation of a shared zone and note that we have corresponded a number of
times about this issue. Each time Council has undertaken a thorough
investigation and seriously considered the concerns of residents.
As you are aware, there are a number of traffic-calming devices including speed
platforms, slow points and roundabouts to moderate traffic speeds along King
Arthur Terrace. There is a zebra crossing adjacent to the Ken Fletcher Park along
with several other pedestrian crossing points including pedestrian refuges to
allow pedestrians to safely cross the road in two stages. There is also pedestrian
warning signage in place to remind motorists to be alert to the presence of
pedestrians.
To further enhance safety for pedestrians, dedicated paths have been built to
provide safe access to the Tennis Centre and parklands. All of these measures
have been specifically designed to ensure the safety of pedestrians and local
residents.
With regard to shared zones, I can advise that these are generally only provided
on roads in commercial or shopping centres where the road does not form part of
a through traffic route. As King Arthur Terrace is used by through traffic, it is
not considered suitable for a shared pedestrian zone at this time.
While I appreciate this is not the response you were hoping for, I trust it helps
explain Council's position.
So indicating that this matter has been looked at on a number of occasions—and
I've finished quoting the letter now obviously—and indicating that not only the
LORD MAYOR but also Council officers in the appropriate section of Council
have investigated this. The reality is for this section of King Arthur Terrace to be
designed to shared zone, it would have to change in three ways, and those ways
are it would need to be a local access road rather than a neighbourhood access
road—and this is the advice I've been provided by officers; it must operate as a
10 to 20 kilometre an hour speed zone rather than a 50 or 60 kilometre an hour
speed zone which is designated as appropriate for a neighbourhood access route;
also traffic volumes would have to be significantly less than what they currently
are.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 99 Now I understand that in road planning there's a bit of a chicken and egg
argument where people in that area will say yes we agree that all those things
should be the case, and I'm sure that they want all those three things to be the
case. I'm sure that they want this street to be a local access street or a
downgraded street. I'm sure they want the speed limit to be lower and I'm sure
they want there to be less traffic using the road, but the reality is roads,
according to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and speed limits,
road designations and speed limits are determined by a range of factors. These
factors aren't something that Council has dreamt up; these factors are something
that are set by the Queensland Government and used by all councils across the
state.
Those factors have a look at the amount of traffic that are actually using a street,
and in this case there is a large volume of traffic using King Arthur Terrace.
That, according to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices would
indicate that there is a strong demand and indeed a strong reason for this to be a
neighbourhood access route, because in the end motorists want to use it for that
purpose. In fact it has been designed for that purpose. King Arthur Terrace and
this section has been designed to meet the requirements of a neighbourhood
access route and that is reflected in Council's road hierarchy plan.
So essentially while I can understand what residents are calling for and they
would like to see a section of this street downgraded, the reality is there is a
strong demand for this route in the local access—in terms of the local road
network, and as a result, a shared zone cannot be accommodated.
The LORD MAYOR has explained why and this has been investigated a number
of times, so unfortunately the Administration cannot support this motion.
Chairman:
Further debate? Councillor NEWTON?
Councillor NEWTON:
Point of order, Madam Chair? I just wish to draw to the Council's attention and
to the Chamber's attention and to read into the record that Councillor OWENTAYLOR has been absent from the Council chamber for up to three hours so far
today.
Chairman:
Councillor NEWTON I will advise the Chamber that Councillor OWENTAYLOR had to leave because of a family emergency.
Councillor DICK:
Point of order, Madam Chair?
Chairman:
Yes, Councillor DICK?
Councillor DICK:
It just goes to show that sometimes that does happen.
Chairman:
Councillor DICK if you had had the good grace to wait until I'd finished saying
what I was going to say when you interrupted me earlier you would have heard
what I intended to say on that matter—that there are often times when it is quite
legitimate for councillors to have to leave in a hurry and in Councillor OWENTAYLOR's case that was the case. But you interrupted before I could even finish
what I was saying.
Further debate? Councillor JOHNSTON?
Councillor JOHNSTON:
Yes, Madam Chairman. I'll sum up very briefly and I think we've had some
progress today. Somebody from the LNP opposition actually spoke to my
motion and attempted to at least give us their reasons for not supporting the
motion.
Now, Madam Chairman, I would like to comment on those particularly. Firstly,
in the letter that the DEPUTY LORD MAYOR read out, he stated that it's not
usual for shared zones in areas other than commercial or shopping centres or not
part of a through route. So the tennis precinct at Tennyson is entirely unique. It is
very easy to compare it to a commercial area. You can at any time have
hundreds of people on foot, if not thousands at certain times, and certainly more
than even a commercial shopping centre.
It does include commercial uses. There is a major restaurant in this precinct, and
I think that reason certainly does not bear merit when you look at the nature of
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 100 the precinct, the volume of people it is supposed to accommodate and the way in
which the road and pedestrian paths are so closely connected, that causes the
safety that we are discussing.
Now, Madam Chairman, for example—just to give people an example—the
footpath almost looks identical to the road carriageway surface. It is very hard to
distinguish where the footpath stops and the road starts.
Now I will point out the following: I believe Councillor ABRAHAMS might
help me out here. Is it the Southbank TAFE that is down there in that Southbank
precinct and is it Ernest Street that is a through street I believe? Tribune, is it
Tribune? Thank you. Tribune Street which is a through street linking Merivale
and Grey. It runs between the two campuses of the Southbank TAFE and it is a
designated shared pathway, speed limit 10 kilometres per hour.
Now that's an educational use. It is a through road. It is very clear that this
Council does have the power to undertake safety improvements and has done so
in other parts of the city. They just don't want to do it in this case and that is
disappointing, Madam Chairman. I feel they're letting down the residents of
Tennyson who every day see the near misses, see the accident, and who are
genuinely concerned somebody will be killed or hurt badly if there is an accident
in this area.
So, Madam Chairman, I don't accept the DEPUTY MAYOR's explanation here
today. I think we've seen why this is a unique precinct that would qualify under
the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and we have seen that this
Administration has supported such a shared zone in another part of the city. I
urge all councillors to vote for this motion today and to support improved safety
for pedestrians and vehicles in Tennyson.
As there was no further debate, the Chairman submitted the motion to the Chamber and it was declared lost on
the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Nicole JOHNSTON and Steve GRIFFITHS immediately rose and called for a division,
which resulted in the motion being declared lost.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 1 -
Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON.
NOES: 16 -
DEPUTY MAYOR,
Councillor
Adrian SCHRINNER,
and
Councillors
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, Julian SIMMONDS,
Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.
ABSTENTIONS: 7 -
The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Milton DICK, and Councillors
Helen ABRAHAMS, Peter CUMMING, Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS,
Victoria NEWTON and Shayne SUTTON.
PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Yes, Madam Chairman, I have a petition from residents of—
Chairman:
Yes, DEPUTY MAYOR?
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Oh sorry.
Chairman:
Thank you.
DEPUTY MAYOR:
Sorry. I have a petition from residents of the Wynnum Manly Ward and this is
actually an original of a petition that I think a copy was submitted of last week.
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 101 So I think Councillor CUMMING might have jumped the gun. This is the
original petition here.
Councillors Interjecting.
Chairman:
Yes, Councillor CUMMING.
Councillor CUMMING:
Last week's petition was supplied by the Council staff.
Chairman:
Further petitions? Councillor WINES?
Councillor WINES:
Excuse me, I have a petition from residents of Upper Kedron regarding an issue
in the Glenwood Estate.
Chairman:
Councillor DICK?
Councillor DICK:
Thanks, Madam Chair. I have petitions, two petitions, one regarding objecting to
unit developments and a secondary petition regarding chickens in townhouses.
Chairman:
Sorry, was that chickens in townhouses?
Councillor DICK:
Correct.
Chairman:
Any further petitions? Councillor MURPHY?
Councillor MURPHY:
Yes, Madam Chairman, I have a petition requesting traffic-calming in
Amberjack Street, Manly West.
Chairman:
Further petitions? Councillor MURPHY?
416/2014-15
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.
CA15/95390
Councillor
Ryan Murphy
CA15/95350
Andrew Wines
CA15/83996
CA15/95465
Milton Dick
Milton Dick
Topic
Petition to have traffic calming in Amberjack Street,
Manly West
Requesting that Council install a privacy screen at the
Glenwood Estate in Ferny Grove
Objecting to unit development in ParkVue, Oxley
Requesting that Council ban chickens from townhouse
developments and multi-unit dwellings
GENERAL BUSINESS:
Chairman:
Councillors are there any statements required as a result of a councillor conduct
review panel order? Councillors are there any matters of general business? I
declare the meeting closed.
QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:
(Questions of which due notice has been given are printed as supplied and are not edited)
Submitted by Councillor Nicole Johnston on 4 February 2015
Q1.
What is the total cost to date of the November 2014 super cell storm:
damage to Council assets and facilities; and
Council’s recovery costs?
Q2.
What is the estimated total cost to Council of the November 2014 super cell storm?
Q3.
Under what 2014/15 Budget programmes, schedules and reserves are the super cell storm damage and
recovery costs being funded? Please provide a list?
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 102 -
Q4.
Have any claims for recovery of super cell costs been made under the national disaster funding
arrangements? If so how much has been:
claimed to date by Council;
paid to Council; and
estimated to be claimed in future by Council.
Q5.
Two new blue community facility name signs for the Sherwood Community Centre and Sherwood
Kindergarten were recently installed on the corner of Thallon St and Sherwood Rd, Sherwood. Please
provide the total cost and name of the entity that paid for each sign?
Q6.
How many bus stops are there in Brisbane?
Q7.
How many bus stops in Brisbane include a bin within the bus stop zone?
Q8.
How many bus stops in Brisbane include a shelter?
Q9.
How many bus stops in Brisbane include a seat?
Q10.
How many insurance claims were made against Brisbane City Council or Council’s insurance company
in:
2013-14 and
2014-15?
Q11.
How many insurance claims have been resolved, settled or paid out by Council or Council’s insurance
company in:
2013-14 and
2014-15?
Q12.
What is the total cost of insurance claims have been resolved, settled or paid out by Council or
Council’s insurance company in:
2013-14 and
2014-15?
Q13.
What are the top 10 types of insurance claims (by number and or cost) that that been lodged with
Council or Council’s insurance company in:
2013-14 and
2014-15?
Q14.
Who or what part of Council made the decision to ignore Council’s electoral signage laws and allow an
unlimited number of candidate corflutes to be erected during the recent State Government election?
Submitted by Councillor Victoria Newton on 5 February 2015
Q1.
Please advise the total cost of the preparation of the City Botanical Gardens Master Plan including but
not limited to consultants, staff resources, printing, map preparation.
Q2.
Please advise how many complaints Brisbane City Council’s Contact Centre (via all forms of contact
email, phone, online request form and SMS) were received in relation to mosquitos in January 2015.
Q3.
Please advise how many complaints Brisbane City Council’s Contact Centre (via all forms of contact
email, phone, online request form and SMS) were received in relation to grass cutting in Council parks
and road verges in:November 2014
December 2015
January 2015
Q4.
Please advise the total number of customer requests were received by the Brisbane City Council’s
Contact Centre (via all forms of contact email, phone, online request form and SMS) in:November 2014
December 2015
January 2015
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]
- 103 Q4.
Please provide a detailed breakdown of all the costs associated with the $20M allocation to the
Shorncliffe Pier Renewal Project.
RISING OF COUNCIL:
7.02pm.
PRESENTED:
and CONFIRMED
CHAIRMAN
Council officers in attendance:
James Withers (Senior Council and Committee Officer)
Shivaji Solao (Council and Committee Officer)
Billy Peers (Personal Support Officer to the Lord Mayor and Council Orderly)
[4458 (Ordinary) meeting – 10 February 2015]