· Web viewAs the LORD MAYOR’s previous budget has outlined, it’s this Administration’s strong commitment to the School of Arts. It is a classic building within our city and

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

The 4582 meeting of the Brisbane City Council,held at City Hall, Brisbaneon Tuesday 26 February 2019at 2pm

Prepared by: Council and Committee Liaison OfficeCity Administration and Governance

Dedicated to a better Brisbane


THE 4582 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL,HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE,ON TUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2019

AT 2PM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS_______________________________________________________________i

PRESENT:________________________________________________________________________1

OPENING OF MEETING:____________________________________________________________1

MINUTES:_______________________________________________________________________1

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:____________________________________________________________2

QUESTION TIME:__________________________________________________________________4

CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS:___________________________________________37ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE___________________________________________37

A ANNUAL OPERATIONAL PLAN PROGRESS AND QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 2018___________________________________________________________53

B MAJOR AMENDMENT TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 – SANDGATE DISTRICT NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN__________________________________________________________________________54

PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE_______________________________________________55A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE METRO LOCAL TRAFFIC NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS –

SOUTH BRISBANE AND CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT____________________________________61B PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL INSTALL A FOOTPATH ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF

ARMADALE STREET, ST LUCIA, FROM RYANS ROAD JOINING THE EXISTING FOOTPATH FURTHER DOWN ARMADALE STREET_________________________________________________________63

INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE___________________________________________________________64A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – INLAND RAIL UPDATE____________________________________67B PETITION – REQUESTING AN ASSESSMENT OF TOWNSEND STREET, QUEENS PARADE AND

SEAVIEW STREET, BRIGHTON, FOR IMPROVED SPEED LIMIT SIGNAGE AND POSSIBLE SPEED BUMP_________________________________________________________________________________68

C PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL MAKE CHANGES TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND SAFETY ON VENNER ROAD, ANNERLEY______________________________________________________71

D PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL INSTALL WILDLIFE CROSSING SIGNAGE ON ARCHER STREET, GUMDALE______________________________________________________________________72

CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE_____________________________________________________________73A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – HOW COUNCIL IS MEETING ITS DWELLING TARGETS____________74B PETITION – OBJECTING TO A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 97, 99 AND 107 STANWORTH ROAD,

BOONDALL (APPLICATION REFERENCE A004924122)____________________________________75C PETITION – OBJECTING TO A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 97, 99 AND 107 STANWORTH ROAD,

BOONDALL (APPLICATION REFERENCE A004924122)____________________________________77ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE______________________________________78

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – THE CHANGING NATURE OF PARKS_________________________79B COMMITTEE REPORT – BUSHLAND PRESERVATION LEVY REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED

DECEMBER 2018_________________________________________________________________81C PETITIONS – REQUESTING COUNCIL RENAME THE RIVERSIDE PARKLAND AT HERITAGE CLOSE,

YERONGA, ADJACENT TO THE FORMER RHYNDARRA MILITARY HOSPITAL SITE AS ‘RIGBY PLACE’, AND RENAME THE ESPLANADE PARK, YERONGA, AS ‘RON GOELDNER PARK’_________________82

FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE_____________________________________________________________83A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – 104 OR MORE__________________________________________84

[4582 (Ordinary) Meeting – 26 February 2019]




AT 2PM

LIFESTYLE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE___________________________________________85A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – LIBRARY GARDENS: LEARNING, SHARING AND COMMUNITY_____86

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE________________________________________88A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – MAJOR EVENTS 2019____________________________________88B COMMITTEE REPORT – BANK AND INVESTMENT REPORT – DECEMBER 2018_________________90

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:_____________________________________________________90

GENERAL BUSINESS:______________________________________________________________91

QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:__________________________________94

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:________________________95





AT 2PM

PRESENT:The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Graham QUIRK) – LNPThe Chairman of Council, Councillor Angela OWEN (Calamvale Ward) – LNP

LNP Councillors (and Wards) ALP Councillors (and Wards)Krista ADAMS (Holland Park)Adam ALLAN (Northgate)Matthew BOURKE (Jamboree)Amanda COOPER (Bracken Ridge)Fiona HAMMOND (Marchant) Vicki HOWARD (Central) Steven HUANG (MacGregor)Kim MARX (Runcorn)Peter MATIC (Paddington)Ian McKENZIE (Coorparoo)David McLACHLAN (Hamilton)Ryan MURPHY (Doboy) (Deputy Chairman of Council)Kate RICHARDS (Pullenvale)Adrian SCHRINNER (Chandler) (Deputy Mayor)Julian SIMMONDS (Walter Taylor) Steven TOOMEY (The Gap) Andrew WINES (Enoggera)Norm WYNDHAM (McDowall)

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

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

Independent Councillor (and Ward)Nicole JOHNSTON (Tennyson)

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

Chairman: I remind all Councillors of your obligations to declare material personal interests and conflicts of interest, where relevant, and the requirements of such to remove yourself from the Council Chamber for debate and voting, where applicable.

Are there any apologies?

There being no apologies, Confirmation of Minutes, please.

MINUTES:516/2018-19

The Minutes of the 4581 meeting of Council held on 19 February 2019, copies of which had been forwarded to each Councillor, were presented, taken as read and confirmed on the motion of Councillor Andrew WINES, seconded by Councillor Steven TOOMEY.


PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:Miss Selena Ferguson – Classifications of littering practices within suburban regions and her experiences from participating in a one-week rubbish collecting challenge

Chairman: I would now like to call on Miss Selena Ferguson who will address the Chamber on classifications of littering practices within suburban regions and share her experiences from participating in a one-week rubbish collecting challenge.

Please proceed, Miss Ferguson, you have five minutes.

Miss Selena Ferguson: Madam Chairman, LORD MAYOR and Councillors, good afternoon. My name is Selena Ferguson and I am an 18-year-old environmental engineering student at Griffith University. I have been in Scouts for 12 years and this is where my environmental awareness began.

The question I find myself asking is: why are we polluting our local and global environment with materials that could be reused? This question can seem daunting in complexity in scale, requiring the continuation of global and multi-disciplinary approaches. So I decided to take a step back. I wanted to physically explore one important aspect of our waste issue at the grass roots level. I decided to commit seven days to collecting rubbish and surveying our suburban litter situation around the MacGregor area.

I did this to prove to myself and to others how much of a difference one person can make. Each day I was outside by 5.30am riding my pushbike and towing a trailer which I built. Nothing compares to getting out there and doing this in the community, but to give you a glimpse into my experience, please try and predict the answers to my questions as I tell you how my challenge went.

The number of suburbs I crossed into was seven. The number of people who smiled at me—it was amazing, I lost count. The number of people who thought I was being paid was too many. The number of hours collecting litter was 64 hours. The volume of rubbish I collected, after I jumped on it to compress it, was 3.7 metres cubed, and the number of kilograms of rubbish I collected and disposed of was over 200 kilograms.

I discovered that there was more to littering practices than we think. After three years of rubbish collecting experience, I can predict with surprising accuracy the types of rubbish and even particular items which are likely to be found in a given location. I can predict where this rubbish will be within a certain park based on the location of park facilities, typical direction of wind and distance from the nearest shops.

I have endeavoured to convert these many hours of experience into a guide: the four classifications of littering practices in suburban regions. Number one, the most common litter that we see are what I call ‘fairly discards’. These are the cigarette butts, paper, food and drink containers which are discarded at bus stops or along sidewalks on a daily basis. These items are either collected by Council or washed away within a couple of weeks while being replaced with new discards. The prominent motivation for this type of littering is: it’s just a small item, someone else will pick it up. Otherwise, it doesn’t matter.

Number two, I like to call this littering practice ‘sneaky toss-aways’. This occurs in car parks, secluded paths, the side of highways or high speed roads. People toss away larger daily consumption items like full shopping bags, cartons of empty beer bottles and food packaging. When no one is watching, some may think: I can’t be held responsible; it’s easier than taking it with me.

Number three, when the decisions of a few make a large impact. I call this ‘mass dumping’. Variably sized household items and domestic rubbish is dumped most commonly in bush areas, particularly near parks, main roads, or unit housing. The small percentage of people who do this must think: I need to get rid of this now; I just don’t have the time to do it properly.


- 2 -

Number four, the unfortunate littering practice I call ‘gathering’. Gathering is an assortment of any littered items occurring most commonly in waterways and gullies. The source of this rubbish can be from direct dumping or transportation by wind or water. We don’t conceive that that bottle that we left at the bus stop would end up here. Although at the time it may seem like just one bottle, 500 years from now this one bottle will be thousands of pieces of plastic spreading toxins into our oceans. This little bag of tiny plastic fragments is made from this bottle, and this is why I am here.

My name is Selena Ferguson, I am young, I am passionate, and I am keen to get involved in community initiatives surrounding the environment, waste or litter. If you are interested in collaborating or hearing more, please find my card in the afternoon tea room. If I can collect 200 kilograms of rubbish in just one week, imagine what we can do together. Thank you for listening.

Chairman: Thank you, Miss Ferguson.

I would now like to ask Councillor HOWARD to respond please.

Response by Councillor Vicki HOWARD, Chairman of the Field Services Committee

Councillor HOWARD: Well, Selena, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to respond to you on behalf of the Chamber. I had the pleasure of meeting you at the Lord Mayor’s Awards, and also the pleasure of introducing you to my local historical society who were absolutely thrilled to hear from you. So we, of course, are delighted that you’ve joined us today and I’d like to thank you for all the wonderful work that you do to help keep Brisbane clean, green and sustainable.

I’d like to take this opportunity to commend you as a remarkable, community-minded young lady who’s widely respected by not only your peers, your fellow students and teachers, but also by the Councillors here in this Chamber today. I know that Councillor HUANG, in particular, has met with you to support you in your environmental endeavours, and I would like to join Councillor HUANG in offering you our continued support, and I’ll certainly be taking your card this afternoon.

Selena, your passion for the environment and helping others has been recognised as part of the Lord Mayor’s 2018 Australia Day Awards ceremony where the LORD MAYOR awarded you the Young Citizen of the Year, and we can all see why that occurred right here today.

Having heard your passionate presentation to Council, I am sure everyone in this Chamber can appreciate why you were such a deserving recipient. You set a great example for not only young people, but, for all of us here in this Chamber and everyone in Brisbane. Here at Council, we are also very passionate about keeping Brisbane clean and green, and we’re always keen to hear new and innovative ideas and opportunities to work with our communities to create an even cleaner and greener Brisbane. But it’s people like you that are out there walking the walk and talking the talk that make people sit up and listen, and know that there’s a way that we can all contribute.

So, Selena, thank you for your incredible passion. I would particularly like to thank you for setting the great example that we can all achieve by working together, and I think that was a timely reminder. I jotted down some of the data that you gave us, like seven suburbs in seven days—that’s pretty good. Also to know that you can collect over 200 kilograms just on your own. So it’s a timely reminder of what can be achieved as a community, especially with this upcoming Clean Up Australia Day, and that will be this Sunday, 3 March, so I am sure that you will be out there amongst that. Last year’s event saw 15,000 volunteers pick up more than 700 tonnes of litter. So we’re very excited that you can add to that.

So we encourage everyone to get involved. Council also has our 104 and more program. I’m sure that you’re aware of that. I think if everyone in Brisbane joined in the challenge that you’ve set them, that litter would surely become an endangered species, which is what we’re setting out to do. So once again, thank


- 3 -

you, Selena, not only for taking the time to come in and speak to Council, but also for the incredible work that you do to keep Brisbane clean, green and sustainable. Thank you.

QUESTION TIME:

Chairman: Councillors, are there any questions of the LORD MAYOR or a Chairman of any of the Standing Committees?

Councillor ALLAN.

Question 1

Councillor ALLAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. In the media yesterday, it was reported that the State Government is seeking to introduce changes to Queensland’s local government electoral system. Can you please update the Chamber on what changes you are aware of and what this will mean for Brisbane City Council?

LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor ALLAN for the question. Well, Madam Chairman, on the weekend there has been an announcement of a couple of so-called reforms to local government. My understanding is that there are a stack more announcements to come in this space.

Madam Chairman, let me be clear today: these are not electoral reforms, they are election strategies. Madam Chairman, the word ‘Belcarra’ will come up, make no mistake about it. This will all be hidden behind the word ‘Belcarra’. But, Madam Chairman, it is my understanding that many of the reforms, so-called, that we will hear about are very much not about Belcarra; indeed, they are about trying to achieve an electoral outcome.

Now, the reality in this place, Madam Chairman, is that Labor here have gone backwards at each of the last four elections. They now, as a State Government, clearly, through Minister Hinchliffe, see that they have to intervene—interfere, I would say, in the electoral processes of Brisbane City Council.

But, importantly, let’s have a look at the two announcements today. One is Belcarra. We accept that and we would be supportive of reforms related to the Belcarra report. In relation, however, to the other, which is an announcement that there will be compulsory preferential voting (CPV), if you look at the EARC (Electoral and Administrative Review Commission) Report that came out immediately after the Fitzgerald Inquiry, it specifically recommended against compulsory preferential voting.

But even more recently, Madam Chairman, former Lord Mayor of this place, Jim Soorley, was appointed by the State Government to head up a panel to review the operations of the Electoral Commission of Queensland, the ECQ. In that, on page 21 of that report, it said this: ‘The panel supports the current optional preferential voting (OPV) system for local government elections for all mayors and councillors in divided councils and FPP—that’s first past the post—‘for councillors in undivided councils.’ So there are different voting systems around the State relative to local authorities.

So, Madam Chairman, that was a very clear and a very recent recommendation from that report. But this change does not just affect Brisbane. These changes are going to be across the State of Queensland. We have just had a tropical monsoon that has devastated some cities and certainly many, many local or rural councils around this State. They are in the process of trying to recover communities that are looking down the face of no income for three years on many of the properties associated from that devastation.

We have many other areas of this State devastated by drought. At a time when these communities ought to have stability of leadership, ought to have consolidation within those communities and have the community leaders


- 4 -

focused on that recovery, now, according to Minister Hinchliffe, we have to have this broad ranging debate, apparently, which he wants finalised by the middle of this year around electoral reform. So, forget the priorities of needing to recover communities; it’s now all about electoral strategies dressed up as reform.

Madam Chairman, you might say, well, why? Again, this is not a Belcarra agenda. It is a political agenda and we will not support political interference. We will not support what is a blatant approach, an objective which is to see a leg up, a benefit for Labor, whether it’s here in Brisbane or whether it’s in the rural areas of this State or in the regional towns and cities around Queensland.

Madam Chairman, the Minister who presumably is acting with the knowledge of the government, needs to think again because I don’t believe that communities around this Sate, at a time when they are addressing in many areas devastation, will cop a debate around let’s change the electoral laws.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR.

517/2018-19At that juncture, the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, moved, seconded by Councillor Andrew WINES, that the Standing Rules be suspended to allow the moving of the following motion

In relation to the Local Government Minister’s plans to change the Council voting system.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Madam Chairman, what we’ve just heard from the LORD MAYOR is quite clearly an urgent matter. It has only just come to Council’s attention. It has only just come through reports in The Courier-Mail within recent days that this State Government wants to change fundamentally the way elections work at a council level, not just for Brisbane City Council but across the State.

This is being done without any forewarning, without any community consultation, and we’ve heard from the LORD MAYOR they want to ram it through by the middle of the year. Now, anyone that knows about the parliamentary system knows that usually, with major changes, they have inquiries, they have reviews, they take months, they take even years, sometimes. Yet this one, for some strange reason, needs to be rammed through by the middle of the year. This is quite clearly urgent, Madam Chairman. Everyone can see that and I ask you to support urgency on this matter.

Chairman: I will now put the motion for urgency to debate a motion on the State Government changes to the voting system for councils.

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

Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR, would you like to present your motion and if you could read it please; and Councillor WINES, if you could re-second it when the DEPUTY MAYOR reads it, thank you.

518/2018-19At that juncture, the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, moved, seconded by Councillor Andrew WINES—

That this Council objects to the State Government’s plan to manipulate the local government electoral system in Queensland to benefit the Labor Party.

Chairman: Thank you, DEPUTY MAYOR, to the motion please.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Madam Chairman, when the Fitzgerald Inquiry was handed down, I was just 12, so I was a kid just about to become a teenager, and I know that there are many


- 5 -

people in our community who have heard the name Fitzgerald or Tony Fitzgerald, but do not really remember what that was about.

Someone wise once said that people who forget history are doomed, or condemned, to repeat it. So, today, I want to start back from that point in history, because it’s quite clear there’s a timeline of events here which have led us to today which are very, very important for people to be aware of.

We had a State where corruption was a real issue. Tony Fitzgerald was appointed to do an inquiry into that corruption and to make recommendations to clean up the State of Queensland, and he did. And he did. When in the late-1980s he presented his report, it included many recommendations, but two critical recommendations were the creation of the CJC (Criminal Justice Commission), which has now become the CCC (Crime and Corruption Commission), and also the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission (EARC). So that was all about the voting system and making sure the voting system was fair.

Now, the Electoral Administrative Review Commission went forward with the support of both sides of politics and it, once again, produced a series of recommendations. First and foremost, and right up the top of that list of recommendations, was the introduction of optional preferential voting. Now, I’ve actually got the report here back from 1991, where this was recommended. It quite clearly says that optional preferential voting was a fair and very democratic method of people voting.

In particular, it talks about the fact that people shouldn’t be forced to vote for candidates they don’t want to vote for. Under optional preferential voting, you’ve got a choice. You can put 1 next to a person or you can fill out every square, or you can actually just fill out two squares—entirely your choice. That is a really democratic way of doing it and it means that people have choice in who they vote for, and don’t have to vote for people that they don’t want to vote for. That’s a really basic democratic principle that we should all support, Madam Chairman. It has been in place since the early 1990s. So for decades that has been the case.

For decades, that has had the support—broad-ranging support across the community, across politics, and that has been unchanged until one important thing happened. I have to say that that important thing that happened was Councillor SRI’s election in 2016, the first Green to be elected, either to the State or the Council. There was a Green before in the State, but they weren’t elected. They switched sides.

So Councillor SRI, when he was elected, scared the living hell out of the Labor Party and, more importantly, scared the living hell out of the Deputy Premier. Literally they were petrified. So they didn’t mess around. They did what the Labor Party always does, which is to act in their own political interests, and they rammed through, without warning, changes to the voting system to benefit themselves. They did this leading up to the 2017 election. They rammed it through without warning, without any inquiries, without any committees, without any public consultation, they rammed it through.

Everyone knows about the really respected election commentator, Anthony Green. Here’s what Anthony Green said at the time: ‘Now, in a matter of two hours, the Queensland Parliament has abandoned a method of voting that was recommended by a post-Fitzgerald Inquiry, the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission, way back in November 1990. No submissions, no inquiry, no committee, no warning, just the moving of an amendment in Committee to an Opposition bill.’ He goes on to say: ‘With no Upper House in Queensland, there is no chance for a second opinion on the matter.’

Now, this is a really respected and unbiased political commentator. He was shocked. Guess what? The Labor Party got away with it. They got away with it. The community let them get away with it. Guess what happened then? They got re-elected, they got extra seats, and Jackie Trad was elected on LNP preferences.


- 6 -

If it wasn’t for compulsory preferential voting, Jackie Trad would be re-training somewhere. She’d be in the Labor Party headquarters waiting for the next election. But the reality is, because of that change, Labor won the election and the Deputy Premier was safe.

Now, because they got away with it, they’re going to do it again. They’re going to do it again. They think: we got away with it last time, we’re going to get away with it again. They can’t win elections in this place based on vision and policy, so they have to win by hook or by crook and that is what’s going on here. They are going to bring this forward; they’re going to ram it through and the only chance that anyone has of stopping it is if the community says no.

We will say no. We will fight this, but the community has to say no. The community has to accept that this is not a way that a democracy should operate. This is not following due process. This is not something that should be rammed through. If you can’t rely on a system to continue to operate without someone changing the goal posts continually, then you can’t have confidence in the democratic system. So that’s what it’s all about.

Now, as the LORD MAYOR said, there is no recommendation in Belcarra, no recommendation from the CCC to make this change. In fact, in the Electoral Commission review of the last Council election, there was no recommendation to make this change. So where has it come from? Where has it come from? Are there councils across Queensland asking for this to happen? Are there residents asking for this to happen? As far as I can tell, there’s only one person who’s on the record asking for this to happen and that’s the Leader of the Opposition, Peter CUMMING—

Councillors interjecting.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Now, interestingly, when I was going through this report of the EARC, something really stood out to me because there were various submissions made by members of the public—

Councillor interjecting.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Yes, you did. Yes, you did—


DEPUTY MAYOR: Look, I was convinced it was a different Peter Cumming. I was convinced; surely it’s not the same Peter Cumming. But Peter Cumming made a submission to this. Now, he’s been in Council for 25 years. He’s been here for 25 years, so I guess he was interested in politics at the time and he made a submission. Guess what he was concerned about at the time? Political manipulation of the electoral system—


DEPUTY MAYOR: Now, his submission, Peter Cumming’s submission says—and I quote: ‘The proposal leaves the system wide open for future political manipulation. As previously stated, the reliance on the media and pressure groups in keeping any particular government of the day honest so that the government possibly couldn’t think of manipulating the system to advantage itself is incredibly naive.’

So, where is young Peter? Where is young Peter? Is young Peter still there? Come out, young Peter. We like young Peter, because young Peter was concerned about ethics and principles and morals. Young Peter had ideals; he was concerned about fairness. Yet, jaded Peter, Opposition Peter, wants to change the rules to benefit himself. And he’s led the charge on it. It is a disgrace. It is so blatantly manipulative, it is so blatantly cynical that, if the community knew about this—and we’re going to make sure they do—they will backlash.

They will backlash in a way that the people of Brisbane backlashed when a certain government tried to change the rules on Clem Jones. Now, I don’t remember that. I wasn’t around, but I’m told on good authority that the same thing happened in reverse, and guess what? The people of Brisbane jacked up.


- 7 -

Guess how many seats? Guess how many seats the side of politics won in this place where they tried to manipulate the system? One. One.

One out of 21. It was a landslide. And guess what? If the people of Brisbane get to know what’s going on here, they will jack up in the same way. They will punish this kind of behaviour, because it lacks fairness. It is un-Australian to do this and change the rules in the way that they’re proposing to do. Just because they got away with it in the State Parliament and the State election, I can tell you we will not rest until people know about this, and we will not let them get away with it, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Further speakers?

Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Madam Chair. The proposed changes, the proposed introduction of compulsory preferential voting will be a great thing for democracy in Queensland, Madam Chair—


Councillor CUMMING: It will mean—

Chairman: Order!

Councillor CUMMING: It will mean—

Chairman: Order!

Councillor CUMMING: It will mean a consistent voting system for all three levels of government—the Federal Government, the State Government and the Brisbane City Council. It will mean the reintroduction of compulsory preferential at council level which had operated for decades very satisfactorily right up until the EARC report.

I’ve got to say I was critical of that EARC report because, for a start, you could have written the political knowledge of the people who wrote it on the back of a postage stamp, for example. They were very—their knowledge of politics or democracy was very limited, as you can see from the recommendations they made.

So a system which is consistent through all levels of government will be a great system. And, of course, it won’t always vote—it won’t assist the Labor Party, Madam Chair. It depends on the political situation at the time. We’ve got country areas of Queensland where there’s been groups that have taken a lot of votes off the National Party or the LNP. One Nation, various other parties like that that have taken a lot of votes off people and if they’re the third or fourth party in the number of primary votes, their preferences will decide who gets elected. Compulsory preferential voting will be essential for the LNP to get their candidate elected ahead of the Labor Party. So it just depends on what part of the State you’re talking about, Madam Chairman, and there’s nothing to stop One Nation or some other conservative party running candidates in Brisbane City Council election and getting a vote up near where the Green vote was, Madam Chair.

So, Madam Chair, compulsory preferential voting will be a great system for the Brisbane City Council. It will be good in country areas too, because instead of the local mayor being able to rely on the people from the town or something like that and ignore most of the rest of the area, they’ll be forced to take into account the interests of all of their electorate and not restrict themselves to—because, of course, optional preferential voting if people don’t—

Councillor GRIFFITHS: Point of order—

Chairman: Point of order against you, Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor GRIFFITHS.

Councillor GRIFFITHS: I can hear Councillor BOURKE speak, Madam Chair, but I can’t hear Councillor CUMMING speak. This is—give him a chance.

Councillor CUMMING: Thanks—


- 8 -

Chairman: Councillor—

Councillor CUMMING: Thank you very much—

Chairman: Just a moment, please.

Councillor CUMMING: Oh, sorry.

Chairman: Councillor GRIFFITHS, there have been people calling out across both sides of the Chamber.

I ask all Councillors to show respect to speakers when they are speaking.

Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor CUMMING: Of course, the argument that you shouldn’t be forced to vote for people you don’t like is a very weak argument. If that’s extended across the board, that means you shouldn’t have vote at all. In other words, we should get rid of compulsory voting, which is a great part of the democratic system in Australia where we get one of the highest proportions of the population voting of any country in the world and leave countries like the UK and, particularly, the USA absolutely for dead. So that is a pathetically weak argument, Councillor SCHRINNER, and you’d do well to abandon that one.

In relation to Councillor SRI, whether it was optional preferential or not wouldn’t have made any difference in his election because he got a better vote than the Labor Party, Madam Chair, and good on him. Next time, we’ll be aiming to get a better vote than he does and we’ll win the election in that way. So optional preferential or compulsory preferential didn’t make a difference in relation to Councillor SRI’s election, Madam Chair.

So overall, look, this is a pathetic argument that has been put up by the Administration. Consistency across all levels of government will be a great thing for democracy in Queensland. It will put Queensland back in the situation we were before the 1990s, the decades where we had a democratic system. The corruption, of course, the corruption of the political system in Queensland was because of the rorting of the electoral boundaries by Bjelke-Petersen and his cronies, Madam Chair, where Labor electorates had 30,000 on the roll and all the little country electorates had 10,000. Yet, if you voted in Kingaroy, your vote was worth three times as much as people in Brisbane, Madam Chairman. It was a disgraceful system, the gerrymander, the Bjelke-Petersen gerrymander.

When the electoral boundaries were re-drawn, the National Party submission wasn’t publicised. It wasn’t available to anyone to look at. It was given in secret to those doing the redistribution. It was a disgraceful system and it was great that we got rid of that system, and it’s meant a better democracy for Queensland. Thank you.


Councillor RICHARDS.

Councillor RICHARDS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. As the LORD MAYOR noted earlier, we’re all aware of the natural disasters that have battered our State—floods in North Queensland and long-term drought in the west, which has now been inundated by what is termed, ironically, a dry flood. The toll in human misery, stock losses and infrastructure damage is astronomical and still to be determined.

Yet, last Thursday local government areas in South East Queensland were preparing to meet the wrath of tropical cyclone Oma, and what was Local Government Minister Stirling Hinchliffe doing while Oma was bearing down on us and devastation was being wracked in Townsville and other government areas? He called a meeting with the LORD MAYOR to reveal coming changes to the Queensland council election system. Interesting timing, Madam Chairman, considering so many local government areas are suffering natural disasters.

One would think the Local Government Minister would be focused on supporting Queensland’s local communities who are suffering from destruction,


- 9 -

damage and ruin, and the impending problems that could have been caused by Oma as it neared the coast.

Interesting or opportunistic cynicism, Madam Chairman, the Minister for Local Government pondering ways to ensure his political allies in local government, particularly Brisbane City Council here, the people behind me, to wrest control of the city. Where is his concern for those affected whilst properties are still underwater, cattle are rotting in the paddocks, and families are left homeless, all possessions are lost, not to mention the disease and mental health problems starting to be revealed as the weeks go by? It’s a sad indictment of a Minister, who ignores his responsibilities to the populace in time of need, takes unprincipled action to propose changes to legislation to politically gain power at the next council elections in Queensland.

Madam Chair, the people of Queensland have not been considered. This is a ploy to strip their democratic right from them. It is clear that this blatant attempt by the Labor State Government to bring in this legislative amendment, is to advantage their political colleagues who stand for council.

You will recall, Madam Chairman, the speech in this Chamber, the very first one I heard from the Opposition Leader in 2016, was calling for compulsory preferential voting. Then, post the 2016 Council election, the State Government instigated a review into the conduct of the 2016 local government elections. Madam Chair, I note that the former Labor Lord Mayor, Jim Soorley, was the Chair of that report. He was also the campaign director for Luke Smith, the Logan Councillor who made wrong decisions like the Ipswich Labor Council.

Interesting that this Labor document created post the 2016 council elections note that compulsory preferential voting was always considered a risky but necessary measure to ensuring Queensland Labor could win elections in the changing electoral space.

So, a little history: in March 2016, Labor lost all but five Brisbane City Council wards, including one to the Greens. The LNP primary vote dropped by just over seven per cent, but Labor gained less than two per cent, with the majority going to the Greens. So, as the DEPUTY MAYOR said earlier, due to these results, that worried Labor at more than just a local government level, especially in the key State electorates such as Deputy Premier Jackie Trad’s seat of South Brisbane.

Even more worrisome is, as I mentioned earlier, the Opposition Leader here in this Chamber used his first speech in 2016 to call for uniformity of voting systems across all levels of government. Yet, Madam Chairman, 54 of Queensland’s 77 councils are not divided into wards or divisions, as they employ a first past the post system.

So, Madam Chairman, it is glaringly obvious that the only reason the Labor State Government wants to scrap optional preferential voting is to bolster Labor’s ranks in the Brisbane City Council. Forget about the people of Queensland’s democratic choice. So, Madam Chair, I too will go on a little history of the Fitzgerald Inquiry. They exposed various governmental malpractices.

So an excerpt from the report says: ‘Where there is no opportunity for external appraisal and criticism, either because of a lack of suitable mechanisms or an absence of information, the possession of authority can result in a self-fulfilling cynicism. This cynicism both causes and, in turn, is magnified by misconduct. Institutions become corrupt or inefficient because of the attitudes of those who work within them, and the corruption and inefficiency are factors which cause such attitudes to persist.’

So in closing, Madam Chairman, a key point to note in the Fitzgerald Report states: ‘When a government creates a bureaucracy, peopled by its own supporters, or by staff who are intimidated into providing politically palatable advice, the government is effectively deprived of the opportunity to consider the full range of the relevant factors, including but not confined to political considerations in making decisions.’


- 10 -

So, Madam Chair, these words are a direct quote from the Fitzgerald Report. Eerily, they could be describing the selfish, decision-making culture that smothered democracy in the discredited Labor-controlled Ipswich City Council. Unfortunately, exposure of that Labor-influenced culture has tainted all councils in Queensland.

The intention of the Minister for Local Government to introduce compulsory preferential voting at local government level reveals Labor’s naked fear that it cannot win control of the Brisbane City Council by the more democratic system that currently exists. The Minister’s undemocratic political opportunism rejects the principles of good government, espoused by the Fitzgerald Inquiry, and should be condemned for what it is.


Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: Thank you, Madam Chair. Talk about long bows, Madam Chair. To equate this to cattle left rotting in fields after torrential rain in Townsville is absolutely ridiculous. We just heard from Councillor RICHARDS that the LORD MAYOR was briefed last week on this and I assume in that briefing that he received last week—we didn’t receive a briefing last week. The LORD MAYOR got a briefing last week—


Chairman: Order! Order!

Councillor CASSIDY: And, as the LORD MAYOR outlined in the answer to the question earlier, consultation is about to take place on this, and that’s what we’ve read in the media as well. So how this is so urgent I’m not entirely sure, Madam Chair. This is a reform as the Leader of the Opposition has said. It will bring local government into the same voting system, the voting system that the LNP in the State Parliament just down the road voted in favour of in 2017. They voted in favour of those changes down there. This will bring local government elections here in Queensland into line with now how State elections are run and how Federal elections are run.

I don’t remember this LORD MAYOR—and he’s been in this place for a very long time—they talk about how long Councillor CUMMING has been here. When this LORD MAYOR was elected to Council, Michael Jordan was just named as the NBA’s Rookie of the Year; Gorbachev had just come to power in the Soviet Union, and Joh hadn’t even decided to run for Prime Minister. So you’ve been here a very long time, LORD MAYOR, so you know a thing or two. Back then you were a Liberal. You’re a National now and you would remember those three-cornered contests back in those days, LORD MAYOR, I’m sure.

So compulsory preferential voting will assist your party and it does at a federal level. Labor only holds, I think, eight out of all the seats in Queensland. That’s a compulsory preferential system. There is nothing political about this. This is about consistency. But, Madam Chair, what we know from the LORD MAYOR’s statement just earlier, there are a whole other suite of reforms that will be announced, not just for Brisbane, but for all local governments in Queensland. The most important thing that we can do as a Council is support reforms that restore trust and accountability in Council.

Now, we know we’ve heard Councillor RICHARDS talk about the debacle that was the Ipswich City Council and what’s going on down in Logan. Well, let me tell you: people out there know that Brisbane City Council is not immune from some of those issues. We know that trust is eroding in this Administration out in the community. We know that they are not accountable. They’ve been here in power for a very, very long time. There are more and more Council officers out there talking about this. There are more and more people out there in the community saying: this LORD MAYOR’s been there too long. They are power drunk. They are not accountable.


- 11 -

We know all about that dark past that the DEPUTY MAYOR talks about in Queensland. That was your party and they had been there too long. They were not accountable; they lost the trust through their actions. You are the Liberal National Party. That is your heritage. So this is about restoring trust and accountability in local government here in Queensland. Now, let’s not accept the DEPUTY MAYOR’s smokescreen that this is about politics. We know the LORD MAYOR is running scared. They said: we can’t get elected on a positive vision.

Well, we know in the Morningside by-election, which was operating on optional preferential voting, when we put forward a positive plan—and it was a Labor candidate and a Labor team running against this LORD MAYOR, and he put himself out there as the candidate that was running against Councillor COOK, the now Councillor COOK, we know he got trounced. You are running out of time, LORD MAYOR, in this place. This Council now lacks the trust and accountability that it should have. You talk about Clem Jones winning all those wards. Well, he was a visionary leader. You are not, LORD MAYOR. You are not.

So let’s not pretend this is about anything other than restoring trust and accountability in local government, and not believe the claptrap from the DEPUTY MAYOR that this is about politics, Madam Chair.


Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on the urgency motion that says: ‘that this Council objects to the State Government’s plan to manipulate the local government electoral system in Queensland to the benefit of the Labor Party’. Now, Madam Chairman, I would have thought that, one, that’s defamatory; two, if that’s what this LORD MAYOR believes, then this matter should be referred to the CCC because if he truly is alleging that the State ALP Palaszczuk Government is trying to manipulate our electoral system, then that is a serious matter of corruption that should be referred to the appropriate place.

But instead, what does he do? He walks into this Chamber, being apparently the only one who has got a briefing from the Local Government Minister—I mean, I read it in the paper, so that’s how much I know about what’s been proposed. But the LORD MAYOR apparently knows. But he’s claiming—he’s claiming that the State Labor Government is trying to rig the electoral system in Queensland. Now, that’s a very silly, ridiculous and outlandish statement that I think reflects poorly on the LORD MAYOR.

Instead of actually saying: we call on the Queensland Labor State Government to immediately release their plans for local government reform in Queensland, and ensure that there is six months of consultation with all councils around the State, something constructive that would mean we’d have a say, what does this LORD MAYOR resort to? The most ridiculous, defamatory and—I don’t even know what else to say about it. No, he wants to manipulate the local government electoral system to the benefit of the Labor Party. That’s what he’s alleging today. Nothing constructive from this LORD MAYOR who’s been here for 32 years, who’s so out of touch with what should be happening with good governance, I mean, it’s unbelievable how bad this Administration is running.

Time after time the Queensland Ombudsman has delivered reports saying: Council, you must do this; and the LORD MAYOR goes: nup, don’t agree with the Ombudsman and ignores it. Now, he’s done that twice on issues that I have raised of governance in this place.

Honestly, I walked in while Councillor RICHARDS was speaking and I was a little bit shocked to hear her invoking the Fitzgerald Inquiry. I mean, you know, it kind of was all about Joh and what was going on in the National Party at the time. But you know, that’s fine, she hasn’t got her politics quite right there.

But the other interesting thing that I heard is that this is about fear, naked fear. What this motion says to me is that this Administration is now concerned. This


- 12 -

Administration is now running scared. Whatever it is that has been proposed—and, again, the LORD MAYOR has been briefed on this, not me; I don’t know what it is that is actually being proposed, other than a report in The Courier-Mail—no offence to any The Courier-Mail journalists that are here, but I’m not taking that as verbatim until I’ve seen some discussion paper or report about what’s actually proposed.

The people who are demonstrating their fear, their reluctance to engage in open debate about electoral reform are the LNP Councillors before us today. Instead of doing the right thing and calling for a productive motion—which I think I’ll move an amendment on and I hope there’ll be a seconder for it—I would think that we should be looking to gather information about the reforms that are proposed, comment on them as individual Councillors or parties and as a Council if we need to, and make sure that we send a message up to George Street about what we think good governance in this city is.

Instead, what does this tired, out of touch, old LORD MAYOR do? He simply says that we object to the State Government’s plan to manipulate the local government electoral system in Queensland to the benefit of the Labor Party. Complete politics. So, to that end, I move the following amendment: that this Council objects to the State Government’s—delete the words ‘to manipulate’ through to ‘party’—and add the following, ‘to ensure that all local councils in Queensland are immediately provided with the necessary information to ensure that there is open and transparent consultation on the reforms proposed.’

DEPUTY MAYOR: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Point of order.

DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: That amendment doesn’t even make sense. If you read it out, if you took down the notes, it doesn’t make sense. It’s an incompetent motion, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: What I had from what Councillor JOHNSTON said, was that Councillor JOHNSTON’s amendment would read: that this Council objects to the State Government’s plan to ensure that all local councils in Queensland are immediately provided with the necessary information to ensure open and transparent consultation on the reforms proposed.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

I’ll withdraw that amendment, thank you—


Chairman: Thank you.

Councillor JOHNSTON: —and—


Chairman: Order!

Councillor SIMMONDS! Enough.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Thank you, I will. I move the following amendment: that the motion deletes the word ‘objects’ and reads, ‘the State Government’s plan’—delete the words between ‘to’ and ‘party’—is immediately released—

Councillor SRI: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Councillor JOHNSTON: —to all Queensland local governments to ensure open and transparent—

Chairman: Sorry, Councillor JOHNSTON, I’m just trying to write this down.

Councillor ADAMS: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Just a moment, please.

Can I have all Councillors please observe a bit of silence. When you are talking when there is somebody reading a motion and they have not got it written down,


- 13 -

it is incredibly difficult for me to concentrate and hear exactly what they’re saying—


Chairman: Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor ADAMS: Could I ask a question?

Chairman: Yes, certainly, Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor ADAMS: Can I ask the validity of amending an amendment that was never moved but withdrawn and not moved, so I’m amending the amendment? Is that even valid, thank you, Madam Chair.

Chairman: No, Councillor ADAMS, in response to that, Councillor JOHNSTON withdrew her original amendment and then she is starting to propose a second one. However, I’m just waiting to hear the entirety of Councillor JOHNSTON’s amendment proposal to make a determination as to whether it is competent or not.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Can I go?

Chairman: Can you read it out, please?

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, and I’ve got it written down for you now, too, Madam Chairman. So, the motion is amended to read: we delete the words ‘object to’; we keep the words ‘the State Government’s plan’; we delete ‘to’ and ‘the Labor Party’, and then—I’ve just given the words—

Chairman: I’ve just got the words here. So what I’m reading is that the amendment is, ‘that the State Government’s plan be immediately released to all Queensland local governments to ensure open and transparent consultation on the proposed local government electoral reform’, is that correct?

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: I’m just going to seek some legal advice, because obviously this motion has been put forward, and there is substantial change to it, so I’m going to request an adjournment for 10 minutes to seek legal advice.

ADJOURNMENT:519/2018-19

At that time, 2.52pm, it was resolved on the motion of Councillor WINES, seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, that the meeting adjourn for a period of 10 minutes, to commence only when all Councillors had vacated the Chamber and the doors have been locked.

Council stood adjourned at 2.53pm.

UPON RESUMPTION:

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, I have sought advice from the Chief Legal Officer, and in accordance with section 40(1)(a) of the Meetings Local Law, the original intent of the motion is in relation to an objection to the State Government’s plan; your amendment is more a request for consultation and information. Therefore, it is held that the intent and the identity of the original motion is not upheld in accordance as required with section 40(1)(a). So, therefore the amendment is not accepted.

520/2018-19Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON moved, seconded by Councillor Jared CASSIDY, that the Chairman’s ruling be dissented from. Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion of dissent was declared lost on the voices.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Division.

The division lapsed for want of a seconder.


- 14 -

Chairman: We will now go back to the debate on the motion.

Councillor JOHNSTON, you have—


Councillor JOHNSTON: I believe I can continue, because the amendment has not been allowed.

Chairman: Just a moment. I don’t need everybody calling out, thank you. The amendment has not been accepted. In accordance with the Meetings Local Law—I’m just getting the right section here—it was never put, so because it’s never put, you can return to your speech, Councillor JOHNSTON. You have about four minutes.


Chairman: Point of order, Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: I’m sorry to interrupt.


Councillor SRI: I just wanted to note that the public gallery haven’t been advised that they can come back in. Just, not that that’s—

Chairman: Well, that’s something that when the bells ring, Councillor SRI, the security staff know that they can allow them back in.


Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, may I know how much time is left?

Chairman: I just said you’ve got about four minutes.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Thank you. Excellent, thank you. I’m really disappointed but not surprised that my amendment has not been allowed today. Obviously I walked in on this motion today. I didn’t have any knowledge of the LNP moving this motion. This Administration, which runs the city, has the numbers and controls the agenda in this place, hasn’t put a detailed motion onto the Council agenda for debate at the next meeting so we can have a proper debate in Council, so we can come to a conclusion as a Council. Instead, they only want to play politics.

Now, the amendment that I had been hoping to move was a constructive one. I don’t support anybody trying to manipulate the electoral system and let me tell you: both sides of politics do it to their own advantage, whether that’s appointments for their mates, whether that’s funding and pork-barrelling in the wards they want to protect, whether that is, you know, using gerrymanders historically to retain government. There is fault on all sides of party politics in this place.

But I genuinely do not know what is proposed other than The Courier-Mail’s report about this matter. I believe that the Local Government Minister should be immediately releasing whatever it is, the report, the recommendations, the discussion paper. I believe that all Councillors should be getting a copy because I certainly want to have a bit of a look at this. My personal view is it’s not necessary, but I certainly don’t agree with the LNP that this is somehow rigged. This is the same system that operates federally where the LNP—well, most of the time—seems to run the government, and it’s now the system that operates in Queensland.

Now, I don’t know that there is a compelling reason for change. I haven’t been advised of what has driven this. It wasn’t a recommendation out of Belcarra, so certainly I would like to know more. But certainly, this is the wrong way to go about it, to play politics—and that’s all this is. It is a poor reflection on the LORD MAYOR and the LNP that they are not operating in a constructive way like a mature council administration should do, to gather information, to ensure it is available to everybody, to have an informed and reasonable debate about what is important, and to make recommendations back to the State Government.

If they ignored you—let’s say like this LNP Administration does to me—then you could get frustrated, LORD MAYOR; then you could stand up in this place


- 15 -

and have a go at the ALP for not listening to you. But it’s not very nice is it when you read about something in the paper for the first time. That’s what you’ve been doing to every single Opposition Councillor in this place for years, and it’s a poor reflection on you and clearly you lot don’t like it when the State Labor Government does it to you.

So, I say you’ve done a poor job in dealing with this matter, when as a senior leader of this city you should be acting constructively to ensure that there is fair, open debate about what is proposed, and that we all have it here before us as a city so we can make informed decisions. The fact that you have gone the lowest common denominator with this pathetic party political motion reflects badly on the LNP Administration.


Councillor MURPHY.

Councillor MURPHY: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman; I rise to speak on this motion and contribute to what is a very important debate for us to have today. Before I get stuck into the substantive motion, I just want to address a couple of points that were made by the previous two speakers. Firstly, Councillor CASSIDY; Councillor CASSIDY was talking about the Soviet Premier Gorbachev, no doubt one of his favourite Soviet Premiers, and he mentioned that the LNP voted for the electoral changes at the State level, that they supported introducing compulsory preferential voting, but what he didn’t mention—and this is a problem that Councillor CASSIDY seems to have quite often—is he didn’t mention that the ALP introduced changes to that bill at the last minute, at a 2am sitting of Parliament, and slipped it through without any knowledge of the LNP whatsoever, with just minutes of notice. So that’s a great own goal, Councillor CASSIDY; well done. Thank you for mentioning that.


Councillor MURPHY: Thank you for mentioning that.

Madam Chairman, Councillor JOHNSTON also mentioned that what the LORD MAYOR said was defamatory. Well, if what the LORD MAYOR said was defamatory, then I’m sure the State Government will be rushing to bring a defamation action against him. But I don’t think so, because I think what he said was factual. The State Government are trying to manipulate the electoral system here. Manipulation can mean a lot of things. It could be positive; it could be negative, but that is certainly what their objective is with these changes.

Now, Madam Chairman, today is a very important day for Brisbane City Council. It’s our opportunity to stand united in opposition to what is a very, very thinly veiled attempt by the State ALP Government to undermine the sovereignty of this organisation. Can I say at the outset, our democracy does depend on elected officials exiting from Office—that includes all Councillors here at the moment. Every four years, at free and fair elections, Brisbane residents get to cast their vote and decide which Councillors and which Lord Mayor they think would represent them best.

It’s a task of the Administration who takes Office to put politics aside and set about governing in the best interests of the city. I believe for the most part that’s exactly what this Administration has done. Now, by contrast, it’s the Opposition’s job to hold the Administration to account during the term, and to present a vision of an alternative government. While I believe they’ve been effective in some ways at holding this Administration to account, I believe they’ve been utterly ineffective at presenting an alternative vision.

Week in, week out in this place, they’re given a forum to present not just the occasional urgency motion but a comprehensive plan for what they would do differently. They refuse to do so, and today, now we know why. Why bother presenting an alternative vision for Brisbane when you can get your masters in George Street to enact a political fix? His plan for the next—



- 16 -


Councillor SRI: Will Councillor MURPHY take a question?

Councillor MURPHY: No.

Chairman: Councillor MURPHY—no? Thank you.

Councillor MURPHY: His plan for the next election isn’t to win it; it’s to rig it. In his first speech to the Council Chamber after the election, the Leader of the Opposition flagged this very fact. He said Labor would have won two more wards at the last Council election if we’d had compulsory preferential voting. I read it yesterday in The Courier-Mail: ‘Labor’s Council Opposition Leader Peter Cumming previously told The Courier-Mail, Labor could have picked up two extra wards at the last election if compulsory preferential voting had been in place. Councillor Cumming today said the announcement was a step in the right direction but denied suggestions it would help Labor at the next election.’

So it would have helped them at the last election, but it won’t help them at the next election, and now that it’s a serious proposal, we’re expected to believe his denials. In any case, we don’t have to rely on Councillor CUMMING’s word for it, because we can see that he’s not telling the truth.

Councillor interjecting

Councillor MURPHY: I’m actually lucky, Councillor SIMMONDS—and I’m glad you asked—I’m lucky to be the proud owner of the Labor Party’s own review into the conduct of the Brisbane City Council election campaign in 2016, and it’s very instructive, and if Billy is around, I will table this report.

Now, on page 9 it says: ‘To address some of the systemic disadvantages of the Oppositions in holding BCC Administrations to account, it would be worth having a root and branch review of the legislation governing Brisbane City Council.’ That sounds pretty reasonable doesn’t it? But you dig a little bit deeper, you get to page 44, and you see where the rubber really hits the road, because there’s an entire chapter dedicated to the emerging Green vote.

It says: ‘The focus should never be just about getting Greens preferences, although this does matter in close contests.’ So, in other words, it’s not about the Greens’ preferences until it is about the Greens’ preferences you need to win. They go on to say: ‘We should be studying and adopting best practice from similar Greens and Labor contests in other jurisdictions, including Sydney, the ACT, Melbourne and Tasmania.’ Well, we know that’s code for the other states rig the electoral systems to favour Greens and Labor alliances and now they want a slice of the action.

It even gets more brazen, Madam Chairman. You go to page 41 and, quote: ‘OPV costs us three to five per cent in most wards and the campaign seemed to put the problem in the too-hard basket.’ Well, don’t worry, Madam Chairman, the Palaszczuk Government have taken it out of the too-hard basket and they’ve placed it front and centre as part of the greatest gerrymander since the Bjelke-Petersen era.

Madam Chairman, this report into Labor’s election defeat is a smoking gun. The Minister, in his press release about these reforms, he talks about Belcarra. The compulsory preferential voting was never, and is not a recommendation of the Belcarra Report. It was a recommendation, however, of Labor’s post-mortem into their election defeat at the last campaign. It was a recommendation. So that’s why this proposed legislation is being mooted and I wish those opposite would have the honesty to simply admit that that’s what this is all about.

Madam Chairman, how ironic is it that this Minister is trying to sneak these reforms in under Belcarra which was, of course, as we know a corruption probe which so far has only alleged corruption against members and associates of the Labor Party. The Government has dismissed a Labor Council and brought charges against many of its members as a result of Belcarra. From what I can see, the only party which has a problem with systemic corruption is the Labor Party. This is a party that is mired in sleaze and criminality, unable and


- 17 -

unwilling to break its links with thugs, bullies and the convicted rapists in the union movement.

Madam Chairman, it’s banned donations from developers, but it’s happy to keep the IV drip of cash from criminal unions. It’s manipulated the State electoral laws to benefit itself and now it seeks to benefit those opposite in their quest to win the 2020 election. Well, residents of Brisbane don’t take kindly to the State Government attempting to interfere with the council electoral system. We know, as Councillor SCHRINNER mentioned, they did so once. We did so once on the conservative side of politics and we were left with one seat in this place. So I think that they are on a path of destruction if they continue down this path. But it won’t be our destruction; it will be their own.

Madam Chairman, I ask all Councillors in the Chamber to support this motion, to reject this interference in the political process and to support the principle of free and fair elections based on consistent rules. The Labor Opposition should present an alternative vision and try to win an election under their own steam, rather than trying to get their mates in George Street to do it for them.

But most of all, Madam Chairman, I hope that Councillor CUMMING reflects on what he’s about to vote on. Madam Chairman, young Councillor CUMMING, he had principles. He would have rejected this proposal as electoral manipulation, as he said in his submission to EARC. Young Councillor CUMMING was someone to look up to. Madam Chairman, it just goes to show you either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain. Well, Councillor CUMMING, you have an opportunity today to prove to us all that you are not the villain, that you still have principles, that you still have values, and that you support free, fair elections in the State of Queensland and in the City of Brisbane.


Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. I rise somewhat reluctantly to speak on the motion before us. I would much rather we were spending this time debating issues relating to our role as Councillors in terms of waste reduction, public transport, urban development, homelessness. I do acknowledge that this is also an important issue, but the wording of the motion and the tone of the debate here today leads me towards the view that this is just another party political attack. For all the talk of putting politics aside, we’ve just been subjected to almost an hour of party political bickering.

While I am reluctant to directly attack other parties, I must say, through you, Madam Chair, to the LNP, I think you’re being a bit silly. To call this a gerrymander or to make insinuations about corruption borders on the farcical, in my view. I think we’ve seen a lot of unnecessary hyperbole when the LNP could have, instead, just debated the merits of the policy change. I think it’s disappointing that the tone of debate was so shallow and crass.

I think it’s disingenuous to say that optional preferential voting means people don’t have to vote for candidates they don’t like. Actually, even under an optional preferential voting system, you do have to vote for someone still. It might interest Councillors in this place to know that the Greens’ view is actually that all ballot papers should have a ‘none of the above’ or ‘seek other candidate’ option. It would be interesting to see how many people ticked that box come election time, given the state of politics today.

The main reason the LNP oppose this reform is that it’s going to reduce their dominance in Council. They really like having unfettered power to do favours for their big business mates, and they recognise that if we had a more balanced electoral system, they would stand to lose half a dozen seats in 2020. At the level of State and Federal Governments, the LNP have supported compulsory preferential voting, because it suits their electoral interests. Here at the Council level, they’ve opposed compulsory preferential voting because it suits their electoral interests. This is ultimately just about power games, as far as I’m concerned.


- 18 -

What we do know at the macro level is that an optional preferential voting system tends to reinforce the two party system, making it easier for Liberal and Labor candidates to win seats and making it harder for Independents and minor party candidates to win seats. That’s the nature of OPV. It tends to reinforce that pendulum swing between Labor and Liberal, Labor and Liberal, even as the two parties get closer and closer together in terms of policy platforms.

I personally take the view that we need a more diverse Council. I don’t want the Liberals to have unfettered power, and I don’t want Labor to have unfettered power either. It’s pretty obvious from the evidence that this reform will make it harder for either of the major parties to hold unlimited power in this place and, on balance, I think that’s a good thing. If any Councillors are genuinely interested in a constructive debate about the relative pros and cons of OPV versus CPV, I’m very happy to sit down and have a chat about them.

But I think this is a bit of a red herring, and we need to be debating much more substantial and fundamental reforms to our electoral system. We need to be talking about multi-member proportional electorates, MMP. We need to be talking about the disproportionate, unbalanced variation between Council wards at the moment where, for example, in my ward I now have around 50,000 adult residents. Some wards are closer to 30,000 and 35,000 adult residents.

Those are probably the deeper structural issues in terms of democratic representation in this place that we need to be addressing. I can see the LORD MAYOR frowning in confusion. Partly it’s because of the number of international students and migrant workers, but those migrant workers do also pay tax and, in some cases, pay rates. It is interesting to reflect on how unbalanced our wards have become.

Maybe we do need to be opening up space for a broader discussion about what other reforms we should have to local government rather than just getting into this what seems like a tit for tat political bickering approach to this one fairly minor reform. I don’t actually think this is going to make a huge change one way or the other to the way this Council runs. I think, in some senses, it’s a bit of a distraction.

I would like to see a greater focus on decentralising and localising our democratic system so that ordinary residents have more of a say, and that power isn’t heavily centralised in the LORD MAYOR’s office, regardless of whether that’s a Labor Lord Mayor or a Liberal Lord Mayor, or an Independent or a Green or whoever. So, I really think we should move on from this motion, because at the end of the day it’s not really what we’re here to be discussing and debating. The residents of Brisbane expect us to be talking about real issues that affect them on the ground in their community, and I think this kind of political bickering does us all a disservice.

Chairman: Further debate?


Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, Madam Chair. It’s interesting that they brought the motion in for urgency but they have no speakers on it. It’s just fascinating. Anyway, Madam Chair, the points here is that we rise and say that we are speaking against this motion is really that you’ve got to say that the State are putting it out for consultation. It’s going out for consultation. People will have the opportunity to give their feedback. I’m not sure why the LNP are running so scared and so hysterical about the fact that this is going out for community consultation.

The second point is the LORD MAYOR has already been consulted. He was consulted before any of us, before any of us have been, and he has been consulted before it was released to the papers. So, Madam Chair—


Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS!


- 19 -

Councillor GRIFFITHS: I find it interesting that Councillor SIMMONDS has a lot to say but never stands up and says it. It’s interesting—it’s a bit like when he’s in his ward, he won’t turn up to a public meeting—


Chairman: Councillor CUMMING!

Councillor GRIFFITHS: The third thing is—


Councillor GRIFFITHS: —compulsory preferential—

Chairman: Councillor—just a moment, please.

Warning – Councillor Julian SIMMONDSThe Chairman then formally warned Councillor Julian SIMMONDS that unless he desisted from interjecting he would be suspended from the service of the Council for a period of up to eight days. Furthermore, Councillor Julian SIMMONDS was warned that, if he were suspended from the service of the Council, he would be excluded from the Council Chamber, Antechamber, Public Gallery and other meeting places for the period of suspension.

Chairman: Councillor GRIFFITHS.

Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Compulsory preferential voting is used at the State and Federal level already, and I’m not hearing anyone on that side of the Chamber saying that’s wrong. In fact, they’d be crazy to say that that’s wrong. I just know for me on election days campaigning for the Labor Party and being at different booths, for the punters out there, it’s confusing to have different systems for different levels of government with voting. What this does for the punters out there is it standardises it.

Now, I know for some people in this Chamber that might be scary, that the punters have a standardised approach to how they vote, and they make less mistakes, but it might mean that there are more valid votes going through.

Madam Chair, what astounded me today, what astounded me today was the way that this Administration brought in the tragedy and deaths in North Queensland into this debate. That was appalling. To think that you could tie the deaths and what’s happening up in North Queensland in with what’s happening here in local government in Brisbane—


Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS!

Councillor GRIFFITHS: —is just shocking. It is just shocking. Is that the lowest point you can reach? You know, really, is that the best the argument you can give? That we’re talking about people who are affected by flooding and people who have been devastated, and we’re saying, well, really, this is part of the problem as well. You know, it’s just the LNP playing with politics, the politics of tragedy, and it’s just appalling.

Then, of course, Madam Chair, we had the very selective memory of the Fitzgerald and the recommendations of EARC—very selective. Of course, that came at a time the Liberal National Party were in government. It came at a time your party organisation was running the show. Really, one of the findings out of that that was never—well, that was implemented but that we’ve failed to implement was the fact that politicians can’t advertise themselves. So the obscene amount of money that’s being spent by the LORD MAYOR and the LNP to advertise their administrations wouldn’t be allowed at the State level. Fitzgerald and EARC found against that. But we continue that practice. We’ve raised that in this Chamber time and again, to standardise and bring our performance in line with the State, but the Administration just avoids that. That’s just sheer hypocrisy.


- 20 -

Can I also say in relation to Belcarra, we’ve had that mentioned a few times today, the State has moved very quickly to stop developer donations? They’re wrong. They don’t fit with our line of work. It’s wrong for us to be taking donations from developers, yet the LNP, this Administration over here, the LNP are the ones who are taking it to court, who are saying we should be able to take donations—we should be able to take donations from developers.

Councillor MURPHY: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Pont of order; Councillor MURPHY.

Councillor MURPHY: Will Councillor GRIFFITHS take a question?

Councillor GRIFFITHS: No, I won’t.

Chairman: Councillor GRIFFITHS—no?


Councillor GRIFFITHS: I find it appalling that the people who are lecturing us in the Fitzgerald Inquiry are now saying, well yes, but we don’t agree with this, but we still want to take donations from developers. In fact, I’d be interested if the LORD MAYOR stood up today and told us how much they spent in their last campaign that was funding they received from developers. Be upfront about it. Let the public know. Let all of us know how much money was given from developers to the LNP for them to spend on their campaign. Let’s get some transparency into this place.

Last week we had the DEPUTY MAYOR and the LORD MAYOR—one of them, I’m sorry, I can’t remember which one—claiming that they would virtually get all the seats in the Chamber at the next election. I don’t know if other people remember that, but we often hear, and I often tell public meetings how the LORD MAYOR or DEPUTY MAYOR or members of the LNP say that we’ve got the majority, we were voted in, we’re right. What we say is right. Wow, you should see how the public react to that. That’s because, of course, none of the LNP can be bothered to turn up to a meeting.

Madam Chair, this Council is so secret. We know, as an Opposition, we can’t get files. We know there are delays on files. We know files are hidden. We know that Questions on Notice aren’t answered. We have even been told by Council staff that they can’t give elected members information. Madam Chair, this Council is behind the times with what is due process and what is appropriate due process for good governance in this city.

We have a mayor who is still clinging to the old ways of doing things. A mayor that has no vision and a mayor who doesn’t want to see transformation for this city, who doesn’t want to see the recommendations of a committee put out to public feedback so that the State can improve democracy in this Chamber. Madam Chair, I’ve found the arguments put forward today hypocritical, they’re from a scared Administration, and it’s just an Administration that’s just doing a whole lot of politicking. Thank you.

Chairman: Councillor BOURKE.

Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I just rise to support the motion that we have before us today. 25 February 2019 will be the day that democracy died in the State of Queensland. It will be the day that the State Government drives the final nail—drives the final nail into the democratic processes that have set this State in good stead for so many years.

The 560-odd local councillors across this state, and the 77 councils that they represent, Madam Chairman, will all be affected by the proposed changes by the State Government. There has not been the engagement. Local government is the heart and soul of every community across this State, and every part of our city that we represent in this place. To think that another level of government, without consultation, without engagement with the elected representatives—duly elected, democratically elected, to represent the people of this city— without consultation, without engagement, and furthermore, without even letting the people who they represent have the opportunity to have their say on the changes is absolutely abominable, Madam Chairman.


- 21 -

To think that another level of government could do that, to directly elected members, should not happen in this day and age. What if the State Government had the Federal Government go and implement changes on how you’re elected as a State Member? It wouldn’t happen. The State Government, I’m sure, would arc up. It would be the end of the world, Madam Chairman, if another level of government tried to play games with the state governments. Luckily we have constitutional powers that stop that—


Councillor BOURKE: Well, thanks, Councillor JOHNSTON, I’ll get to you in a minute. Thank you for your interjection.

But we have a Constitution to stop that. But when it comes to local councils who deliver the bread and butter for their communities, who provide the core services for their communities, Madam Chairman, it is absolutely appalling that another level of government thinks that it’s appropriate in a short timeframe, without any consultation, to propose changes on how those democratically elected leaders can be elected in their local communities.

It will send shockwaves, not just across the State, Madam Chairman, but in every corner of the State, from the Cape to Coolangatta, past St George and out past Mount Isa, councillors will not, and their communities will not, stand for this change. They will not. They haven’t in the past when State Governments have tried to interfere in local government matters, they have risen up. The communities have risen up.

For all the hubris of the Labor Party in this place, we know it’s their election strategy, because Councillor CUMMING claimed it in his opening remarks as their Labor strategy, the hubris that they show in the way that they think they can push around democratically elected councillors in this State is appalling, because the councils won’t stand for it. The communities won’t stand for it, Madam Chairman. It will bring massive change.

For Councillor GRIFFITHS and Councillor CASSIDY to stand up and, in particular, Councillor CASSIDY to have an attack at Councillor RICHARDS for raising the matters she did, I couldn’t believe it. I was gobsmacked. Obviously, having gone through what myself and Councillor GRIFFITHS went through what many of us went through when it came to the 2011 floods, having gone through that devastation, knowing how long, how much effort, how much work is involved by elected members in helping to rebuild and restore the communities, to have a crack at Councillor RICHARDS like they did for talking about the circumstances in the north of Queensland shows them for what they are. It shows them for the political animals that they are, and the political nature that they approach this subject, because those communities up there are hurting, Madam Chairman. They are really hurting.

When you lose hundreds of thousands of head of cattle across three or four council regions, councils that provide basic services; they don’t have the budget we have. So it’s all right for the Leader of the Opposition to sit in here and say: ‘this is going to be good for the country areas. For him to say it’s a great thing for democracy’. Well, these councils are paying to keep doctors in their towns. They’re paying to keep local stores open, because that’s what the services that they provide. They’ve just gone through the biggest natural disaster in history up there—


Councillor BOURKE: And the State Government thinks it’s the right time to talk about electoral reforms. They’re still recovering. I mean, we went through this. It’s absolutely appalling that people in this place, who lived and breathed the recovery of their communities, would trivialise, would trivialise what is going on in North Queensland like they did, and the impact then that this may have on the mayors and on the councillors and on the communities up there on their ability to provide recovery, when they’re being distracted by having to provide comments and submissions on potential changes to the Local Government Act. Madam Chairman, it is just amazing. It’s just amazing, and it shows the lack of


- 22 -

understanding and knowledge by those opposite of the local governments across this State and the services that they provide.

Madam Chairman, this is, as the motion says, nothing but a manipulation of the system. Local governments are not and should never be the plaything of State governments. Gone are the days in this State when local government is just delivering roads, rates and rubbish. Every local government across this State provides so much more to their community. The depth and breadth of what this organisation provides, what all of the South East Queensland councils provide, and, indeed, every local government across this State now, Madam Chairman, is far more than when the Joh Bjelke-Petersen Government tried to change how the Lord Mayor was elected in this place, and going back further in the history of local government.

We are an integral part of the democracy of our State. We are an integral part of the communities that we all represent, from Brisbane right across the State. No State Government—no State Government has the right to interfere without proper consultation, not just with the elected members but with the whole community around changes to how our local governments are run when it comes to elections. It might work and it might be fine, and they might think it’s great for them to be able to do it at the eleventh hour behind closed doors in State Parliament, but I tell you what: it’s not fine, it’s not right to do it that way when it comes to local government, Madam Chairman.

Madam Chairman, the argument put forward about this is about consistency—well, it’s not, because in other states there’s other voting methods that are used. So while at the Federal level its compulsory preferential voting, and the State did their little trick and got it in at the State level here, it’s not consistent across the whole of the country, so that argument that has been put forward by those opposite doesn’t have any credibility either. But what does have credibility, Madam Chairman, is the fact that local government delivers the most services to the residents of Brisbane. It is held in the highest regard.

So while those opposite might say: ‘oh, you know, it’s not about the politics’, well, it is, because at the end of the day, us as local government members, not just here in Brisbane but across the whole State don’t have the politics—residents don’t want to see politics in local government. The changes that are being put forward will drive politics into local government, Madam Chairman. Do you know why? Because what it will do is it will mean that you’ll have to have backroom preference deals done.

You will have backroom preference deals being done across councils, in the south-east corner and further afield, Madam Chairman, to deliver those preferences. They won’t be made public, what agreements are in place. We don’t know what agreement was in place with the Palaszczuk Government and the Katter Party when they did a deal to guarantee supply, because that wasn’t made public. So I know that the Labor Party might like to keep those sort of agreements behind closed doors but, I tell you what, Madam Chairman, the people of Queensland and the people of Brisbane won’t support this change that is being put forward by the State Government.

The value of what local government delivers in our communities far outweighs any of the proposals the State Government will put forward, far outweighs the need to change this. So yesterday marked the death of democracy in the State of Queensland, and today, 26 February, is the day that the Australian Labor Party turned their back on the Fitzgerald Report that swept them to power back in the early 90s. It swept them to power back in the early 90s and they implemented the reforms.

They were the champions, then, of alleged good governance and today, with what they’re proposing, they sweep away and undo one of the last pieces of those reforms by reintroducing compulsory preferential voting to the City of Brisbane and to other councils right across this State of Queensland, Madam Chairman. It is an appalling act. They’ve lost their morals. They’ve lost their way. They have completely turned away from what the Fitzgerald Report stood


- 23 -

for and the changes in good governance and good government across this State that it brought about.

Today they turn their back on it, Madam Chairman, and that is a shame for the people of Brisbane that the Australian Labor Party have done that, and they won’t be joining us in standing for the rights of every resident in this city and for every resident across this State in a local government area, Madam Chairman, who deserves the right to have the council they want, voted on a system that currently is there. If they want to change that, then they should be given the opportunity to have their say on it, and have their voice heard, every single resident of this state.


DEPUTY MAYOR, right of reply.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you to the Councillors who have participated in this debate. It is an important issue. The first thing I wanted to say is that anyone who doubts the importance of this issue simply doesn’t understand what’s happening here. This is a really serious issue. It is an issue that affects our democratic system.

Now, we talk about a lot of issues in this place, we have a lot of debates, but this is one that is fundamental to the way our democracy works. When you’ve got a system that’s been in place for decades, and then you go tinkering about with it, you’ve got to start asking questions. But even more, when you go tinkering about with it, with no notice, with no consultation, and the LORD MAYOR is brought in and told what’s happening, not consulted—not consulted, told what’s happening, then you really should have alarm bells going off.

Now, Councillor SRI made some comments, and look, I always enjoy listening to Councillor SRI talk, because his speeches usually go the same way. It’s like, both parties are terrible. You’re always bickering with each other, and then he goes on to bag each party individually, mainly focusing on the LNP because we know that fundamentally they’re more closely aligned with Labor than with us, but he will say you guys should stop bickering. You know what, you shouldn’t call each other corrupt. Why? Because I think you’re both corrupt. That’s what Councillor SRI always says. He always bandies around these claims of corruption, but then he scoffs at the idea that we might suggest that the Labor Party is doing something for the wrong reasons.

The reality is this: the reality is Councillor SRI is pretty comfortable with this because he knows that it gives power to the preference whisperers. As Councillor BOURKE suggested, what he knows—



Councillor SRI: Will Councillor SCHRINNER take a question?

Chairman: Councillor SCHRINNER?

No, unfortunately, Councillor SRI.

DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: What he knows is that Labor headquarters will come sidling up to the Greens in the lead-up to the next election and they’ll be seeking to do a deal, and they’ll be saying: let’s trade preferences. We’ll give you preferences in this seat and you give us preferences in that seat, and they’ll work out a dodgy backroom deal that will change the course of the election. Because it happens every election. The Labor Party and the Greens get in bed. There’s never been election when they’re not in bed. Guess what: it changes the course of elections. It does—



Councillor SRI: Claim to be misrepresented.


- 24 -


DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: I wasn’t talking about Councillor SRI, I was talking about the Greens. Madam Chairman, Labor and the Greens are consistently in bed, so that’s what will happen. So what that means is that, when people walk into the polling booth to vote, they’ll be given a card which the party decides where the preferences go. So through those backroom dodgy deals, through the preference whisperer deals, the party will decide where the preference goes—



Councillor SRI: I’m really concerned that Councillor SCHRINNER is misleading the Chamber by incorrectly describing how a preferential voting system works. He’s actively misleading voters, and he’s doing a disservice to our democracy in the process.

Chairman: Councillor SRI, I don’t uphold your point of order. There are preference deals that are done during election times, so I will allow the DEPUTY MAYOR to continue.

DEPUTY MAYOR: This is not a secret. This is the worst kept secret ever. The Greens and the Labor Party do deals before every election, that’s what they do. They work out the seats they’re going to exchange preferences in. That is what happens. So, instead of saying to people: you know what, you choose—you choose how you want to vote. You can put 1 in the square next to the candidate you want, or you can fill out the squares if you wish. They’ll be like: here’s the preferences we’ve decided earlier, and you should follow those, and that’s what’s going to happen.

That fundamentally changes the way that the election outcome will go. It fundamentally changes the way many people will vote. It is a serious indictment on the government that they’re trying to force this through in the lead-up to a local government election. You know what, any legitimate honest government would say: okay, we’re going to leave things as they are for this term, but next term we’ll have a proper, well thought out, well consulted process whereby people and local governments can all have their say. That would be the right way to do things, not to try and ram it through at the eleventh hour in the lead-up to an election. So it is very clear what’s going on here—very clear.

Now, there’s a lot more questions that have been unanswered here. We know that Councillor CASSIDY shares a lot of space with Minister Hinchliffe. They’re colleagues in reference to the area they represent. We know that they’re always bumping into each other and having chats about various things in their local constituency. I’d like to know what chats they’ve had about this particular matter. What discussions have Labor Councillors and, in particular, Councillor CASSIDY, had about this matter. Has Councillor CASSIDY been pushing this with the Minister? Has Councillor CUMMING been pushing this with the Minister? What discussions have they had? What meetings have they had? This is really important for people to know, because there is clear manipulation of the system going on here.

Madam Chairman, as we heard before, this is not something that local government is asking for. This is not something that other councils anywhere are asking for. This is not something the community is asking for. As far as we can tell, the only people who are asking for it are right here in this room. They’re the five Labor Councillors sitting here right now. Sadly, one of those five Labor Councillors, when he was young, was against political manipulation, and he put it in writing. We see today how things have changed. It is disappointing.

So, Madam Chairman, we will fight this. We will let the people of Brisbane know about this. I am disappointed in the Minister for pushing this through and for putting this on the table in the way that it’s been done. I have to say, in his previous role, Minister Hinchliffe, when he was Minister for Transport, I developed some good personal respect for Minister Hinchliffe, not necessarily professional respect, but personal respect. I thought, you know, he wasn’t a bad guy. Sadly, I’m questioning that right now because the way this is being put on


- 25 -

the table is not fair; it’s not democratic, and I have one message to Minister Hinchliffe. You’ve all seen Grease, keep your filthy paws off local government’s silky drawers.

Chairman: Councillor SRI, you had misrepresentation.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. Councillor SCHRINNER made some extremely misleading comments about preferential voting and the Greens, and I just want to emphasise and clarify, because I think it’s important that this is reported accurately and that residents understand very clearly that, under a compulsory preferential voting system—

Chairman: No, Councillor SRI, when you claim misrepresentation, you need to identify what part of your speech has been misrepresented.

Councillor SRI: Sure. I’m almost there. I’m just saying, under a compulsory preferential voting system, voters choose where their preferences go. That’s all I said in my speech, and I’m really disappointed that the DEPUTY MAYOR is trying to mislead the Chamber about that.

Chairman: I will now put the motion.

The Chairman submitted the motion to the Chamber and it was declared carried on the voices.

Thereupon, the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillor Andrew WINES immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.

The voting was as follows:

AYES: 20 - The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.

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

ABSTENTIONS: 1 - Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON


Chairman: Councillor SRI.

521/2018-19At that juncture, Councillor Jonathan SRI moved, seconded by Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON, that the Standing Rules be suspended to allow the moving of the following motion

That Brisbane City Council supports a ban on corporations making political donations to political parties.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair—


Chairman: Quiet, everyone, please.

Councillor SRI: I think the vast majority of Brisbane residents would agree that the fact that corporations can make political donations to political parties is deeply corrosive to our democracy. Big businesses donate to political parties because they get something in return. They don’t do it out of the goodness of their hearts.


- 26 -

Now, we’ve just heard in this place a great deal of bluster and buffoonery about a supposedly urgent motion regarding a minor reform to our voting system. Yet right now we have a major and serious issue—

Councillor WINES: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor WINES.

Councillor WINES: Will Councillor SRI take a question?

Chairman: Councillor SRI?

Councillor SRI: Does this eat into my time?

Chairman: Yes, it does eat into your time.

Councillor SRI: No, sure, let’s do it. Go for it.

Chairman: Councillor WINES.

Councillor WINES: Councillor SRI makes the point that corporations only make donations because they receive things. What did Wotif get for their donation to the Green party, the largest—


Chairman: —Order!—

Councillor WINES: —single corporate donation of all time?


Councillor SRI: I think the Councillor is referring to a donation by Graham Wood. I think that was an individual donation, but I don’t think there’s a clear—


Councillor SRI: I don’t think there’s a clear distinction to be drawn between large individual donations and corporate donations. I think—


Councillor SRI: No, I stand by that. I don’t think the Greens should be accepting large individual donations. I think that is something that the party needs to—


Chairman: Order!

Councillor SRI, to your urgency, please.

Councillor SRI: Thanks. Yes, as I was saying, I think large donations, whether they are from individuals or corporations, can be really corrosive to our democracy, and I think if this Administration is serious about concerns about the way our democracy functions, they should be supporting a debate and supporting calls to ban corporate donations to political parties.

This is an issue of great concern to the residents of Brisbane. It goes directly to the legitimacy and transparency of our democratic process, and I think all Councillors in this place would agree that it is problematic, even just from a public perception perspective, it is deeply problematic that big business can buy influence with political parties by making campaign donations in the lead-up to an election.

So the motion is quite simple. It simply says that Brisbane City Council supports a ban on corporate donations. It’s not saying that we have to enact that ban immediately, but it’s saying that this is an urgent issue that we need to address as a matter of priority in order to maintain faith in our democratic system.

Chairman: I will now put the motion for urgency.

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


- 27 -

Thereupon, Councillors Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared lost.


AYES: 2 - Councillors Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON.

NOES: 25 - The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES, Norm WYNDHAM, and The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Peter CUMMING, Jared CASSIDY, Kara COOK, Steve GRIFFITHS and Charles STRUNK.

Chairman: So just so all Councillors know where we’re at, we are going back now to Question Time. So we are up to question 2 of Question Time.


Question 2

Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. This question is to the LORD MAYOR. Councillor RICHARDS, whose ward contains your LNP Administration’s proposed zipline project, has been oddly silent in this Chamber regarding a project that has been the most controversial in memory for the residents of Pullenvale. Further, The Courier-Mail today reported that residents who contacted their Pullenvale Councillor regarding the zipline are referred to City Hall.

Labor Councillors have attended several meetings about the zipline to listen to concerns of western suburbs residents. LORD MAYOR, have you gagged the local Councillor, Councillor RICHARDS, from talking to residents about this crucial development in her ward?

LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman, I thank Councillor GRIFFITHS for the question. I wouldn’t want him lying awake at night thinking about such matters, firstly, because, can I say Councillor RICHARDS is supportive of the proposal, as are all members of the Administration. This is a policy that we took to the last election, and this zipline had coverage, TV coverage, before the election where it was put out there.

It was a special announcement in the lead-up to the 2016 election. As I look around the room here today, I’m not necessarily good at counting, but to me there seems to be a few more on this side than on that side of the Chamber, Madam Chairman, including one Councillor Kate RICHARDS who was soundly elected.

So, Madam Chairman, the reality is that we are in a process at the moment with the zipline where it has been approved by this Council, where those people who have made submissions in relation to it have been advised of their rights in relation to appeal, and we are in that period of time right now. That period of time won’t close for everybody that submitted until about the third week of March, I think, that’s when it concludes. So it’s varying dates. Some people, through an email process, others through a correspondence process, as we know with Australia Post these days, it takes three to four days for a letter to arrive. So that is why the variation in dates in terms of the submitter appeal length of time.

So, Madam Chairman, that is where we are. As I said this morning in another forum, the process has to run its course. People are entitled to appeal if they so wish, and then that has to be heard through the proper process. But, Madam Chairman, it’s a matter of historical fact that, as a team, we took the zipline to the people of Brisbane at the election and, at that time, when we announced it


- 28 -

before the election, we indicated that we were putting $1 million on the table in relation to it.

Now, tenders have closed, Madam Chairman. A selected tenderer, a Brisbane tenderer based at West End, Zipline Australia, have been the successful tenderer. Within those proposals there will be a return to the people of this city. So, despite the fact that there is money in upfront, Madam Chairman, the reality is that there is also going to be a return to the people of Brisbane.

Now, we’ve had Howard Smith Wharves up and running for a while, and what an outstanding success that has been. Wasn’t it interesting how long we had to wait around for the State Government to give us the go ahead—

Councillor GRIFFITHS: Point of order.

LORD MAYOR: —to do Howard Smith Wharves—

Chairman: Point of order against you, LORD MAYOR.


Councillor GRIFFITHS: There was nothing about Howard Smith Wharves. I actually wanted to bring the LORD MAYOR back to the question. The question is: has the LORD MAYOR gagged the Councillor from speaking—

Chairman: Thank you, Councillor GRIFFITHS.

Councillor GRIFFITHS: —to residents of her ward?

Chairman: The LORD MAYOR is providing an answer.

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Well, absolutely not. That’s an easy one, Madam Chairman. The reality is that people are out there talking to Councillor RICHARDS every day about not only the zipline but other issues relative to her ward, and they rightly should be. That’s fair enough. But, Madam Chairman, I can tell you also that I have had a lot of people in that area, because I also talk to people out in that area that are very supportive of the zipline. So it is, Madam Chairman, across the city.

So, Madam Chairman, there will not be from me ever an asking of Councillors not to be able to speak their mind on these things. I have been in this place and able to speak my mind myself historically. Councillor GRIFFITHS, as a student of politics, you would observe and know that very well. So, Madam Chairman, not at all, and Councillor RICHARDS will continue to communicate with the people of her ward on this matter.

Chairman: Further questions?

Councillor HAMMOND.

Question 3

Councillor HAMMOND: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to the Chair of Public and Active Transport Committee, Councillor SCHRINNER. DEPUTY MAYOR, we have recently heard that the Local Government Minister is focused on changing the local government electoral system to benefit the Australian Labor Party. Can you please outline some other projects within your portfolio that the State Government could better direct their attention to to allow this Administration to deliver for the residents of Brisbane?

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Councillor HAMMOND, and thank you for that really pertinent question, because what we’re seeing now displayed very clearly is the priorities of the State Government. Those priorities, sadly, are too often to play politics to give themselves a political advantage rather than getting on with the job that they were elected to do.

There are so many examples I can think of where the State Government has been standing in the way, delaying projects, moving too slowly, not getting things done, yet when it comes to political games and political fixes and election rigging, they can move super fast. One example that comes to mind very clearly


- 29 -

is the issue of bus driver safety. Now, the State Government, way back in September 2016, announced a review into Queensland bus driver safety. So this is a State-wide review. They launched off that review. That review was something that we welcomed. As you know, and as all Councillors know, we did our own review as well. We did the review quite quickly and we got on with implementing our own recommendations. We have implemented those recommendations.

Yet, at the State Government level, an impressive contrast here, they just dragged on and on and on with their review. In fact, after announcing the review, it took 21 months before they actually released the outcome of that review—21 months. So, compare that to what’s happened today when it comes to changes to the electoral system. We heard up in George Street they can make a change in two hours. That’s what they did at the State Government level, yet when it comes to the critical issue of bus driver safety, it took them 21 months to do a review. That wasn’t to implement the recommendations, that was just to finish the review.

So, in June last year they released their response to that review and announced the actions going forward. I’ve got to say, I’m really disappointed by the lack of progress that the State has made in this area because week after week we still see bus driver safety is not an issue that has disappeared. It’s not an issue that has disappeared. So this is something that deserves focus, not only from Council, but also from the State Government. They’re the ones that launched this process, they’re the ones responsible for the public transport network, and they’re the ones ultimately responsible for a State-wide approach on this issue, yet they sit on their hands, they delay, they take as much time as possible to do simple things.

So, in releasing their review in June last year, they announced a series of recommendations and, once again, Council either had all of the recommendations that applied to us either completed or under way, and right now there is only one recommendation outstanding, from our point of view at the Council level, and that is a joint recommendation with the State Government to install driver barriers on certain high risk routes.

Now, we know that Council stood ready in the last budget to roll out these barriers. We allocated funding to roll out the barriers. We assumed that the State Government would get on with the job, provide the funding and we could get on with the job. Instead, we found out later that the grants for these driver barriers opened up last year, but the grant program didn’t close until March this year. So all this time has been wasted in a process that could have been fast tracked.

So we’re here waiting to apply for this program to get these barriers rolled out to our fleet, and it’s quite clear that electoral reform or electoral vote rigging is more important to the State Government than bus driver safety. That’s very clear to me, and I think it’s an absolute disgrace that we see ourselves in this position where we’re ready to roll out the barriers, and the State Government is still stuffing around and focusing on other things that the people of Brisbane aren’t calling for, that the people of Queensland aren’t calling for, but I can tell you that the people of Brisbane and Queensland want something more to do be done by the State Government about bus driver safety.

It’s not even just the issue of barriers. Back in 2017, we were approached by the RTBU (Rail, Tram and Bus Union), the drivers’ union, or at least the union that represents less than half of the drivers, but the drivers’ union approached us and said: we need more TransLink Senior Network Officers out on the network. These are State Government employees, TransLink officers, that are there to do a couple of things: number one, they’re there for security, and number two, they’re there for monitoring fare evasion. The State Government has still done nothing—still done nothing at this point about the request from the RTBU for 50 extra Senior Network Officers.

Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR, your time has expired.

Councillor WINES.


- 30 -

ADJOURNMENT:522/2018-19

At that time, 4pm, it was resolved on the motion of Councillor WINES, seconded by Councillor Steven TOOMEY, that the meeting adjourn for a period of 15 minutes, to commence only when all Councillors had vacated the Chamber and the doors have been locked.

Council stood adjourned at 4.05pm.

UPON RESUMPTION:

Chairman: Councillor CUMMING.

Question 4

Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. As you and other Councillors would be aware, Council contracts for the provision of infrastructure contain contingency payments that can be returned as a saving to ratepayers if the contract is concluded on time and on budget. As part of the news that Lendlease will sell off its engineering and service division and walk away from the Kingsford Smith Drive (KSD) project, the company puts the value of the KSD contract at $500.6 million in their documents released yesterday.

In the report on the Brisbane Times news site dated 17 November 2015, you costed the Lendlease KSD contract at $453 million. Are Brisbane ratepayers picking up the bill for what, according to these publicly available documents, appears to be a $47 million blowout in this troubled project?

LORD MAYOR: Well, I thank Councillor CUMMING for the question, Madam Chairman, and as I’ve said from the very outset, this is a $650 million project at Kingsford Smith Drive, and nothing has changed in relation to that. So there are, Madam Chairman, some projects where there are contingencies that are spent; in other projects there are contingencies saved. When it comes to Kingsford Smith Drive, Madam Chairman, I suspect that there will be very little, if any, by way of contingencies saved. But that said, there has been a very significant saving made around the Telegraph Road project, which was a very significant project in this city, and there has been some very substantial savings made. So each and every project in this city is different.

Similarly, on the Inner City Bypass (ICB), we got that project undertaken at a substantially reduced price on what we had originally announced and anticipated. Now, with the Kingsford Smith Drive project, Madam Chairman, there have been some issues, and I have announced what those issues are, and they are in relation to—to remove the technical terms—they are around the retaining wall—that’s the word I was looking for—the retaining wall on the river itself.

They need to be stabilised to a better degree than they are currently, and that is the work that is being undertaken by Lendlease, and is the subject of delay in that project. So, Madam Chairman, it’s important that we get that right. It’s important that we do that, but we have been opening as many sections of that project as we can, and we will progressively do so as it becomes available.

So, Councillor CUMMING, the latest advice from the Lendlease organisation around the engineering services and the amount that you specified there, Madam Chairman, that was subject to Australian Stock Exchange announcement by Lendlease yesterday. But the project will certainly continue. It will be delivered for the $650 million as was stated originally and, Madam Chairman, the very reason that you have contingencies in projects is that often there can be unexpected costs within a project. That’s why a contingency is held against each and every project. In some cases, that contingency is needed. In other cases, the contingency is not needed.

So, Madam Chairman, as we know, in this particular project, it will be needed, and that is the reality. But it is still a great project, and we have opened, at this


- 31 -

point in time, the pedestrian and cycling walkways along the river; we will be seeing in the middle of this year that section from Harbour Road around that area out to the Gateway Arterial in that direction, all of that section will be open and back to a normal speed limit. That leaves then that area from around the Hamilton Hotel to the Breakfast Creek, Madam Chairman, to remain to be completed.

People over the coming weeks will be seeing some changes to the road patterns along there as they continue to progress this project. But it is an important project; it’s an upgrade to the S1 sewer that is also happening at the same time, and the work that they are undertaking is in close cooperation with QUU (Queensland Urban Utilities) around both of those projects being undertaken—the upgrade of the sewerage system and the important upgrade to the road network.


Councillor HUANG.

Question 5

Councillor HUANG: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, Councillor COOPER. We have recently heard that the Local Government Minister is focused on changing the local government electoral system to benefit the Labor Party. Can you outline some of the other projects within your portfolio that the State Government could better direct their attention to, to allow the Administration to deliver for the residents of Brisbane?

Councillor COOPER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I thank Councillor HUANG for the question. It certainly is something that we are absolutely on this side of the Chamber, of course, and including Councillor RICHARDS, very mindful of, because we have a track record of delivery. When you look at our TransApex plan, we delivered more than $7 billion worth of major infrastructure. That represented the largest combination of major infrastructure projects ever initiated by a local council in Australia. Infrastructure that has traditionally been the role of the State Government.

So we’ve had to, as usual, do the job that they are either unwilling or incapable of doing, Madam Chair. So we saw with the completion of Legacy Way approximately 120,000 vehicle movements off our city’s surface road network due to the actions of the TransApex plan, absolutely led very strongly, of course, by the LORD MAYOR who was initially the Deputy Mayor and he was the champion of this particular piece of work.

So, in 2015, the same year that we opened Legacy Way, the State Government said that they were reviewing their Park ‘n’ Ride Strategy. They were reviewing it in 2015. In March 2015, Council wrote to the Minister for Transport to seek an update on the review. So the DEPUTY MAYOR wrote to the Deputy Premier—I have a copy of that letter. In May 2015, the Minister confirmed in writing that: ‘The Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) is finalising the strategy,’ and, again, quoting: ‘Following the completion and approval of the strategy, TMR will contact Council to present the strategy’s recommendation.’ So that was the Deputy Premier to the DEPUTY MAYOR.

In September of 2015, the Minister confirms again to Council that: ‘TMR is finalising an SEQ’—so South East Queensland—‘Park ‘n’ Ride Strategy’ and that ‘Council will then be contacted with the strategy’s recommendation.’ So a letter from the Deputy Premier to me. Then in March 2016, the State Labor Government released the State Infrastructure Plan, and the delivery of Park ‘n’ Rides is listed as a short term opportunity—it’s an opportunity.

Then in June 2016, Council writes to the Government seeking an update on their review. In July 2016, the Minister advises the Park ‘n’ Ride Strategy will be released in 12 months’ time. Then in September, Council writes again to the Minister and requests the State Government develop a clear Park ‘n’ Ride strategy. That was a letter from the DEPUTY MAYOR to the Minister. That was in September 2016.


- 32 -

In 2017, the State Labor Government update their State Infrastructure Plan with the delivery of Park ‘n’ Rides listed in the 2017 pipeline as undergoing strategic assessment. So, a bit cryptic, what does that all mean? As well as a short-term opportunity. So here they are, weasel words as always to the ready. Then we saw in June 2018 the Transport Minister tells the media that: ‘The Government prides itself on the number of Park ‘n’ Ride facilities it has created or upgraded.’

So, incredibly proud, because you know what? They have tinkered, they’ve added a couple of Park ‘n’ Ride sort of spots here, there and everywhere, but where is this strategy? Not just for Brisbane, but for the whole of SEQ, because the vehicles that thunder down Gympie Road each and every morning and hit the border at the Pine River, are they coming from Brisbane residents? No, they’re not. They’re coming from Sunshine Coast; they’re coming from Moreton Bay; they’re coming from everywhere. They’re coming across; they’re greeting Councillor RICHARDS. Every morning she looks at them as they move into her ward.

They come at all of our borders, and I’m not saying we don’t welcome people to our great city—absolutely we do. But we would like to see better utilisation of public transport for the LGAs around this city, because at the moment their take up of public transport is extremely low, extremely low. Why is it extremely low? Because they don’t have facilities; they charge them an arm and a leg to catch a bus, and they don’t deliver anything to address this issue of better public transport for local government in SEQ. What a disgrace, Madam Chair.


Councillor CASSIDY.

Question 6

Councillor CASSIDY: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR, hundreds of northside residents have contacted me since the revelation that your LNP Administration had chosen not to replace the 12 sacked mosquito team members with permanent employees. This decision has resulted in a plague of mosquitoes that many residents describe as the worst in their lifetimes.

On 22 August 2017, you told this Chamber: ‘Where there is an ongoing role within this Council, that role is made permanent.’ The latest quarterly financial report coming to Council today shows that, in the December quarter alone, almost $700,000 was underspent from the mosquito spraying budget. This coincides with the rapid explosion in mosquito numbers. Will you apologise to the people of Brisbane for dragging your feet on getting this program fully operational again, and will you now finally now commit to filling these 12 positions with 12 permanent staff?

LORD MAYOR: Well, thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I thank Councillor CASSIDY for the question but I, again, want to make something very, very clear to the people of this city, and that is that we have two medical entomologists in this Council. We are the only local authority to the best of my knowledge that has a medical entomologist dedicated to mosquito control in this country in terms of local authorities—


LORD MAYOR: Well, you can mock the medical entomologist if you want to, Councillor CASSIDY, you can mock the medical entomologist as much as you like—

Councillor CASSIDY: Point of order.

Chairman: Point of order against you—

LORD MAYOR: —but the reality is—


Chairman: Order!

Point of order against you, LORD MAYOR.


- 33 -

Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: Claim to be misrepresented.


LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: But the reality is, Madam Chairman, that I know nought about mosquito breeding. I rely on those people who know about mosquito breeding. Madam Chairman, I want to assure the people of Brisbane of one thing: I take my advice, in terms of when sprays need to happen, from the medical entomologist. I have said over and over and over again in this Chamber that, when the medical entomologist says that we need to spray, that happens—


LORD MAYOR: —that happens—

Chairman: Point of order against you, LORD MAYOR.

Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: On relevance. This has nothing to do with the advice of medical entomologists. This is about—

Chairman: Thank you—

Councillor CASSIDY: —the 12 full time positions—

Chairman: Thank you, Councillor CASSIDY. Thank you.


Chairman: Order! Councillor McLACHLAN!

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: —this has everything to do with the medical entomologists, Madam Chairman—


LORD MAYOR: —Madam Chairman, the reality is that when the medical entomologist calls for action to occur, it occurs. We can talk about budget numbers till the cows come home. I have said repeatedly: you look back on the public record, and I have said over and over and over again that, regardless of whatever number appears in a budget book, we spend what we need to spend based on the advice of the medical entomologists in this place. When they say: ‘LORD MAYOR, spray’, they spray. In fact, they don’t even come to me, because they have a standing understanding that they spray when they need to spray. That they do it with helicopters, that they do it with quad bikes, and they do it by hand—

Councillor CASSIDY: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: On relevance. The question is specifically about the 12 positions that have not been filled.

Chairman: Thank you, Councillor CASSIDY. The LORD MAYOR was explaining that there is not just individual people who spray, that there are multiple methods that are utilised. So he is on relevance.

LORD MAYOR.


LORD MAYOR: Well, that comment about robots, I think again, Madam Chairman, is disgraceful, because we have a system in this place—


LORD MAYOR: —you sound to me like you’re defending the people we had to dismiss in this place, Councillor CASSIDY. Is that what you’re doing? Are you defending those people that were dismissed? I think you ought to make a statement later as


- 34 -

to whether you are, because if you are, that is disgraceful on behalf of the people of this city—


Chairman: Order! Order!

Councillor JOHNSTON!

Councillor SIMMONDS! Stop yelling out across the Chamber.

LORD MAYOR, you still had a little bit more time; have you completed your answer?

LORD MAYOR: I thought Councillor CASSIDY was rising to a point of order, Madam Chairman.

I do. I just want to assure people of this city on an ongoing basis that it is not me that decides when the spraying occurs, it is the medical entomologists. They are the people that we have appointed with the scientific knowledge, the only Council—


LORD MAYOR: —oh, will you stop interjecting. If you’ve got something to say, say it in General Business, because, Madam Chairman, the reality is that we will continue—and I was out there with a team the other day, Madam Chairman. We were undertaking widespread spraying as a result of the high tides. But as Councillor CASSIDY probably wouldn’t know, there is a timing around when that spraying has to occur. There is a timing as to when we do those 3,000 areas—


LORD MAYOR: —that are mosquito-based areas—

Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY!

LORD MAYOR: —in this city; 500 of them are salt-marsh mosquito based areas. The other 2,500 are freshwater mosquito areas. Madam Chairman, the reality is that—


LORD MAYOR: —still interjecting—

Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY, I hereby caution you that if you continue to interject, you may be warned. If you are formally warned, you may be suspended from the Chamber for a period of up to eight days.

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: —Madam Chairman, the reality is that it has been a heavy mosquito period, no question about that. But our entomologists and our workers and our helicopter flyers have been out doing the job, and they have been out again, as I say, we had the high tides recently. They have to pick the timing around when this spraying occurs, between the three-day mark when the larvae are starting to grow through to a point when they’re about a week to 10 days old as adult mosquitoes.

So, Madam Chairman, it’s all about timing, it’s about location. It depends on whether it’s a rain event, whether it is a high tide event, and the applications are different on each occasion. Now, I’ve spoken about mosquito breeding in this place since time immemorial in relation to the processes and I, again, say there is an unlimited budget for mosquito spraying. I’ll say that again. There is an unlimited budget for mosquito spraying in this city, and there always will be under my command.


Councillor MURPHY.

Question 7


- 35 -

Councillor MURPHY: Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. My question is to the Chair of the City Planning Committee, Councillor BOURKE. We’ve recently heard that the Local Government Minister is focused on changing the local government electoral system to benefit the Labor Party. Can you outline some of the other projects within your portfolio that the State Government could better direct their attention to, to allow this Administration to deliver for the residents of Brisbane?


Chairman: Sorry, Councillor CASSIDY, you had misrepresentation.

Councillor CASSIDY: Thank you, Madam Chair. The LORD MAYOR said that I was somehow running down the medical entomologist. I clearly wasn’t. My question was around replacing the 12 staff that were sacked with full time permanent employees.

Chairman: Thank you, Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor BOURKE, your response to the question without notice?

Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor MURPHY for the question. It is a very important question that he asks, because as we’ve just heard in the debate earlier, the State Government is proposing these changes to the Local Government Act and the way that we as elected leaders of this city are going to be elected going into the future. They’ve done so in a very quick fashion, Madam Chairman, a very rushed fashion, where they haven’t gone about the appropriate consultation, they haven’t gone through the right process, Madam Chairman, but they’re very quick to find time to do these changes to local government.

My only wish, Madam Chairman, was that the State Government might be as quick in the planning department as they seem to be in the local government department, because while the efforts and focus of the State Government seems to be not on cleaning up the north of Queensland and not supporting those residents who are either drought affected out west or have just lost everything in the floods, they seem to be focused on trying to change electoral laws for their own benefit, Madam Chairman, when they could be focused on delivering on things that the residents of Brisbane and the State actually want.

In particular, when it comes to planning, Madam Chairman, things that residents are asking for, unlike, as we heard earlier, where there’s no evidence of anyone other than the five Labor Party Councillors in this place asking for changes to the compulsory preferential voting change that’s being put forward by the State.

So, Madam Chairman, I did a little bit of—I’ve done a little bit of digging. I’ve had a look at what the planning department has been doing when it comes to tackling some of the issues that they get put by Brisbane City Council in the form of amendments and neighbourhood plans, and obviously we’ve spoken at length in this place about the desire of the State Department of Planning to stall and slow down Major Amendment H, that important amendment that we’re proposing to the City Plan to stop townhouses from happening in low density residential areas across the city. Then the pause and the slowdown that they put on the TLPI; they can find time to meddle in local government, but they can’t find time to address the real issues that the residents of Brisbane have put forward.

But I did also find some other examples of where the State Government seems to drag their feet. So great momentum when it comes to trying to change local government, great inertia when it comes to responding to planning amendments. For example, Madam Chairman, the City West neighbourhood plan, the State legislation has KPIs for dealing with neighbourhood plans. So, on the first State interest review, there’s a 60 day KPI for the State to come back to Council, and on the second State interest review, there’s a 40 day KPI. So, on the City West neighbourhood plan, the State’s first interest review was 28 days overdue. On the second State interest review, it was 79 days overdue.

On the Banyo—Northgate neighbourhood plan, their first State interest review was 56 days overdue; the Coorparoo and districts neighbourhood plan, their first


- 36 -

State interest review was 167 days overdue. On the second review of the Coorparoo and districts neighbourhood plan, they were 19 days overdue. On the Dutton Park—Fairfield neighbourhood plan, they were 49 days overdue on their first State interest review, and on their second State interest review, they were 178 days overdue.

On the Ferny Grove—Upper Kedron neighbourhood plan, they were 71 days overdue on their first State interest check, and 167 days overdue on their second State interest check. On the Kangaroo Point peninsula neighbourhood plan, they were 37 days overdue on their first State interest review, and in Newstead north neighbourhood plan they were seven days—so seven days is an outstanding effort, but still seven days overdue on Newstead north neighbourhood plan on the first State interest check. But they made up for it on the second State interest check where they were 124 days overdue, Madam Chairman.

But when it comes to planning amendments—we went through the Plan your Brisbane exercise where the people of Brisbane told us they wanted to see changes in how our city was growing and developing and protecting lifestyle and liveability, Madam Chairman. Well, you’d think that the State would take that, because there’s a lot more people who were involved in Plan your Brisbane and gave their feedback about how the city should grow and change than the five Labor Councillors over here who seem to be the only people supporting compulsory preferential voting.

The biodiversity amendment, Madam Chairman, they were 57 days overdue on their first State interest check there. On the aged care amendment, they were 269 days overdue on their first State interest check, Madam Chairman, and 10 days overdue on the second State interest check. The bushfire and hazards amendment was 68 days overdue, Madam Chairman, of course with 30 days overdue on the Major H, the amendment for townhouses, and then Major F, which was the civic spaces, so protecting those key sites in the city and those sightlines—Reddacliff Place, Anzac Square, Post Office Square—they were 12 days overdue. So it’s easy—

Chairman: Councillor BOURKE, your time has expired.

Councillor BOURKE: —to strike motivation and to play games on local government, but inertia when it comes to dealing with planning issues in the city.

Chairman: That ends Question Time.

LORD MAYOR, Establishment and Coordination Committee, please.

CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS:

ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE

The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Graham QUIRK), Chairman of the Establishment and Coordination Committee, moved, seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR (Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER), that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 18 February 2019, be adopted.

Chairman: LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Yes, thanks very much indeed, Madam Chairman. I just want to report on a couple of quick things, if I may. Firstly, on the weekend we had a number of events, a couple I will report on, one being the opening of the Parkinson Health Club which is established at the Aquatic Centre out there at Parkinson, Madam Chairman. It adds another great dimension to that facility, and I’m sure for your residents it will mean a terrific facility for use for a long, long time to come. It certainly fits with our active and healthy promotion for our residents in our city, and some great innovation in the facility as well.


- 37 -

This is the Aquatic Centre; it’s not that old now, but it’s had some 185,000, I think it is, visitations in the last year of operation, so it’s going extremely well, and this will be an added facility for residents in the area.

Also on Sunday, with the Premier and Senator Amanda Stoker representing the Federal Government, I opened the State Netball Centre at Nathan. Council had put in the land in association with that. We did that following a discussion a long time back now with the former Treasurer of Queensland, so it came to fruition. It’s a great centre which will serve the netball community for a long, long time to come.

Also on Sunday we launched the Brisbane Portrait Prize, Madam Chairman. This is a new addition to the city. We have a growing creative industries sector in Brisbane, and this is a prize which is along a similar vein to the Archibald Prize which, of course, is centred around New South Wales. We don’t have a significant art prize in this city. A number of entities over a period of time have approached City Government here about the prospect of a significant Brisbane Portrait Prize, so that was launched on Sunday. I wish all artist contestants in relation to that the best of luck. It has to have a relevance to Brisbane, obviously. The artists have to have some association with the city as well.

Madam Chairman, the items before us today: item A is the quarterly financial reports. The Council has a net worth that has increased some 20 point—well, it’s increased by about point 1 of a billion, some $20.6 billion net worth to $20.7 billion. Some of the significant projects for the period, obviously you’ve got Kingsford Smith Drive, the road resurfacing program. We committed $360 million over four years to that program. That’s continuing.

The Telegraph Road corridor stage 2, that’s completed now, and it’s been a successful project. Brisbane Metro project moneys are also included. We are still obviously seeking the purchase of land from the State in association with that project. Each time we ask the question: can we purchase it now, Madam Chairman, we are still awaiting that. We’ve certainly got the resources there to do so. We’re continuing, however, to progress that project.

There’s a number of other things there. I might just remind the Chamber that the annual operating plan and quarterly financial reports is a point in time. That’s a financial statement for a given point in time within the financial year cycle. So where expenses is not evenly spread across the year, that’s obviously sometimes due to the nature of the project. It could be a timing issue, Madam Chairman, within that project. But in spite of all of that, Madam Chairman, it does list a significant number of projects.

I might just say in relation to it that the ratios are always an important component. The ratios of this organisation remain very, very strong. So if you look at interest coverage, we target less than 10%; it’s at 3.52%. We have a debt servicing to total income ratio; we seek that to be less than 33%, and it’s currently at 7.59%. We look at the area around the total net debt to total income, and we hope that to be under 150%; it’s currently at 59.1%.

The working capital, which we endeavour to have more than 1 as a target, that’s at 2.84. For total assets against total liabilities, we seek that to be more than 3; it’s currently at 9.48. Our average debt maturity, we seek to be under 15 years, and it is currently sitting at 14 years. So, Madam Chairman, the ratios are sound, and I’m happy to present the Annual Operational Plan and Quarterly Financial Report for December 2018.


Councillor—

LORD MAYOR: No, sorry, sorry—very quickly, item B, this is the Sandgate district neighbourhood plan. Madam Chairman, this is a new neighbourhood plan. We had a number of approaches from local business groups down there—the Sandgate District Chamber of Commerce, a very active Chamber, Madam Chairman, were certainly seeking to have a plan for the area. I think it’s a good plan. I hope it’s one that the local Councillor will also support and get


- 38 -

engaged in. These are always an opportunity for local residents and local Councillors to become an important part of the process.

At the moment, the existing plan is around 19 years old, having been adopted in the year 2000. So this will be a renewal opportunity, and Council has decided to amend the existing plan boundary which will take out Brighton from the renewal. Brighton is predominately a low density residential area, of which 83% of the suburb is low density. Significant growth is not expected in this suburb; therefore, planning provisions don’t require updating. This means that the focus will be around the Sandgate, Shorncliffe and Deagon areas.

There’re about 10,000 people who live in these areas, and Council will be writing to them shortly advising that the new neighbourhood plan has been launched. This will include an invitation to nominate for the community planning team as well as submit feedback through the online survey telling Council what they would like to see as part of that new plan. Thank you very much.


Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Madam Chair. In relation to item A, the Annual Operational Plan and Quarterly Financial Report, as the LORD MAYOR stated, it’s for the first six months of the financial year. The document said the report has been prepared using figures from the Council’s accounting system which closed on 28 December 2018. Net debt as a percentage of total income has increased. It’s increased from 51.46% to 59.16%, which is a significant increase—in percentage terms, 14.96%. I’d like an explanation as to why that has increased as much as it has.

On page 5 of the report, there’s some interesting figures there on where Council is getting its revenue from. The ratepayers are still continuing to pay an increased amount of money. The rates and utility charges have increased 5.19%, which is 2.88 times the current inflation rate for Brisbane for the year to September 2018, which increased by only 1.8%. In dollar terms, the increase in rates and utility charges is some $30 million. In contrast, developer contributions, which is infrastructure charges, have dropped from $61 million to $44 million, a decline of $17 million or a reduction of 28%. So the Administration continues to slug the ratepayers and continues to see less money obtained from developers.

Page 10 of the report reveals a situation where there’s a variance of $5 million due to re-phased expenditure in the Anzac Square Restoration and key City Park Upgrades project. Well, the handling of the Anzac Square Restoration project has been nothing short of a disgrace. The Administration was well aware that it was the Remembrance Day to end all Remembrance Days, the 100th Anniversary. It didn’t end them; it will continue after this year, but it was a crucial Remembrance Day.

It was a great opportunity to show off Anzac Square, and instead of which the Administration has blown the administration of that contract, and Anzac Square is still not completed. In fact, I’d be interested to know whether they’ll be ready for Anzac Day. So they’re nearly four months behind in the work, and that’s most unsatisfactory. There’s a $5 million blowout as well from that project and other City Park Upgrades project. It’s most unsatisfactory.

On page 11, we’ve got an interesting figure there on employee costs. Employee costs have barely increased, they’ve gone up from $332.582 million to $338.782 million. It’s an increase of only 1.8%, whereas the pay increase given to Council staff was some 2.5%. Is it the case that the Administration is keeping the increase in employee costs down by making Council staff redundant and making greater use of contractors? We’ve seen what happened to the workers who previously sprayed for mosquitoes and it appears that that’s happening across the organisation.

Of course—and Councillor ADAMS would be aware of this—I’m most critical of the failure of just about all the departments to plan their expenditure of capital in an appropriate manner over the 12-month period. What they do is they leave


- 39 -

it until the last quarter and then have a big splurge in capital expenditure then. You can only wonder at the inefficiency that occurs because of this. So I’ll go through some examples of this.

The capital of Active Transport, there’s only been 24.3% spent to date; that’s halfway through the year. On page 27, we’ve got Clean, Green and Sustainable City, the Low Carbon and Clean Environment, it’s a substantial item in the budget at some $16.271 million; only 1.1% has been expended so far. The Sustainable and Resilient Community, 12.4% spent. Biodiversity, Urban Forest and Parks, only 21.1%, only $23.556 million out of a budget approved of $111.518 million. So, overall on that item, halfway through the financial year, 21.5% of the capital expenses have been incurred, a most unsatisfactory way of handling that expenditure.

I’ll pass on to page 35—again, this is Future Brisbane. This one takes some explaining, in that not only have they not spent the funds in Future Brisbane for their capital item, Planning for a Growing City, they’ve actually had a negative expenditure. So, I’m not sure how they achieve that, a negative expenditure on a capital item. Perhaps they’ve been going around selling off everyone’s laptops or something to get the money together or something. The budget for Planning for a Growing City is $2.286 million, and the budget expend as at halfway through the financial year is negative 8.4%. So one wonders how they’re going to come anywhere close to spending the capital that’s been allocated to them.

Enhancing Brisbane’s Liveability, only 3.4% has been spent in that area. So the total expenditure, halfway through the financial year for Future Brisbane is 1.1%—1.1% halfway through the year. If they were in business and they were in the private sector, the bosses wouldn’t give them the money next year. They’d say—


Councillor CUMMING: —if you’re going to spend like that, you don’t need the money.

Chairman: Point of order against you, Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor ADAMS: Will Councillor CUMMING take a question?

Chairman: Councillor CUMMING?

Councillor CUMMING: No, not from you, sorry—


Chairman: —Order!—


Chairman: Councillor BOURKE, I can’t hear what Councillor CUMMING wants to say.

Councillor CUMMING: No, you need to focus on getting the answers together, Councillor ADAMS. No, sorry.

Page 37, Lifestyle and Community Services, again generally low expenditure. City Venues, a substantial amount of capital is allocated, $33.974 million; only $4.08 million spent to date, 12%—12%. Some 13.6% for Social Inclusion, Libraries for an Informed Community, 13.9%, and Community Sport, Recreation and Cultural Facilities, 17.4%—again, all very low items. The total capital budget for that area of Lifestyle and Community Services, only 18% has been expended to date.

A couple more—I know you enjoy these. On page 44, Economic Development, an allocation for capital, the approved budget is $5.462 million, expenditure to date $924,000, 16.9%. City Governance, now City Governance has really gone—City Governance, I think not only have they sold off the laptops, they’ve sold the buildings they’re in and everything like that to get such a negative spend halfway through the financial year. Value for Money Support Services, the budget expenditure is -83.8%— -83.8%. So I’d like an explanation as to how


- 40 -

that could be calculated. Perhaps they put the brackets in the wrong place. Who’s to say?

I’ve gone through some of the other items in this report, and at page 23 there’s a glaring example which relates to my ward. I think perhaps they should run this past the local Councillor for a check before they publish some of these things. There’s a reference to LAN (Local Access Network) improvements, and they said Wynnum Road at Stradbroke Avenue, Wynnum, was completed under another schedule. I can tell you, it hasn’t been completed, and Council staff are about to put out a new—

Chairman: Councillor CUMMING, your time has expired.523/2018-19

At that point, Councillor Peter CUMMING was granted an extension of time on the motion of Councillor Jared CASSIDY, seconded by Councillor Chares STRUNK.


Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, I won’t be much longer. It was completed under another schedule. It hasn’t been completed, and Council staff have abandoned the original project and a substitute project has been proposed, and public consultation is about to get under way on that project. But the trouble is, once I see something like that which is, sort of, blatantly wrong, I start to thinking, well, how many other things in this report are wrong as well. If they can make the mistake there, why can’t they be making mistakes elsewhere as well?

There’s a lack of detail also in this report which typifies this Administration’s reporting. In 2.1.2.3 at page 23, Congestion Busting Projects states: ‘a number of projects are on hold and will not be delivered in 2018-19 due to feasibility issues. A number of replacement projects have been added.’ I’d be interested to see the details of the projects not being delivered and the replacement projects being added. I think that should be provided.

On page 24, Building the Transport Network, there’s reference to a lot of the major projects, re-phased expenditure, and it’s a favourable—it’s a large amount of money, $29.562 million that hasn’t been spent, no doubt because the projects are delayed. So I’m interested to know—we know that the Kingsford Smith Drive upgrade is 12 months behind time; how much are the other upgrades behind time? The Inner City Bypass, Wynnum Road corridor stage 1, Progress Road stage 4, and the Stapylton Road and Johnston Road intersection project, so a brief summary from the Chair of how far each of those items are behind would be welcome as well.


Councillor BOURKE.

Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I rise to enter the debate on item B, which is the amendment to the Brisbane City Plan 2014 relating to the Sandgate and districts neighbourhood plan. Madam Chairman, this is a site that was announced back in August as going to be the subject of one of the two neighbourhood plans that we are commencing this year, that are funded in the 2018-19 Council budget.

I have to say at the outset that I think this section of the city is probably the furthest away from the part of the city that I represent in the south-western suburbs, but I have been up to Sandgate on a number of times, not just for the Civic Cabinet Listens, or when I was Parks Chair, Madam Chairman. It is a very special part of the city, as I know Councillor CASSIDY would agree. It is one of our bayside communities. So Wynnum and the Wynnum Manly area, and then this part of the city, consider themselves as the bayside communities of the city. They are a community of interest in both of those locations.

Council has invested in a number of key projects up there over a number of years, Madam Chairman. Obviously the largest of those would be the replacement and restoration of the Shorncliffe Pier which was delivered by


- 41 -

Councillor McLACHLAN, and obviously there’s also challenges that are facing those communities up there that space, I think, a number of locations across this city. In particular, the business district in Sandgate, and the LORD MAYOR talked about the Chamber of Commerce who’s been quite vocal and is quite active, Madam Chairman.

They have been helping, I think, with Councillor CASSIDY to drive some changes in that particular part of the suburbs. But, Madam Chairman, there’s more that needs to be done, and Council has seen the opportunity here to work with the community to implement a neighbourhood plan. As the LORD MAYOR said, it is 19 years since a neighbourhood plan was done for this part of the city, and we have looked at not just Deagon, Sandgate and Shorncliffe, but we also did look at Brighton.

The planning framework in Brighton, there isn’t any real changes that would be proposed as part of a neighbourhood plan for there because of the type of dwellings that are there and the zonings that are already set there, so it was decided that Brighton would be left out of the neighbourhood plan. So it does focus around the Sandgate, Deagon and the Shorncliffe areas, Madam Chairman. We will be working, as the LORD MAYOR said, with the local community. The Community Planning Team will be set up in the coming weeks. So all the residents will be getting communication.

I believe Councillor CASSIDY has had a briefing from the Council officers. He’s had one before this, but also one just recently as well, Madam Chairman, and I’ve also spoken to the local State member who, just on a side note, I hope he can help speed up the process when we put in for State interest reviews for this neighbourhood plan with the same speed that he likes to bring legislation through the State Parliament.

So, we’ll be going through the planning process as I said. We’ll be engaging with not just the residents but also with the community groups. There are a number of very strong community groups. I’ve mentioned the Chamber of Commerce. There’s also SANDBAG, Madam Chairman, and other groups up there, the Keep Sandgate Beautiful Group as well, to look at what the opportunities are to help revitalise some of the commercial precincts, to look at some of the transport options that are there. Because there is only really the rail stations as the main form of transportation and, of course, I fully acknowledge that they are part of QR’s (Queensland Rail) network. But there may be some opportunities to support the businesses around particularly the Sandgate train station.

I know the local State member has talked to me about some of his ideas up there on that, but we will be going through the process and engaging with the community and seeking the feedback of the residents of the Sandgate suburb and surrounds, Madam Chairman, and then bringing that neighbourhood plan back through the Chamber as part of our award-winning neighbourhood planning process.

Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks, Madam Chair. I rise to speak on both items. I will start with item B, the new Sandgate and district neighbourhood plan and then talk briefly on the quarterly report as well. I’m not sure whether the Leader of the Opposition has already done this.

Seriatim - Clauses A and BCouncillor Jared CASSIDY requested that Clause A, ANNUAL OPERATIONAL PLAN PROGRESS AND QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 2018, and Clause B, MAJOR AMENDMENT TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 – SANDGATE DISTRICT NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN, be taken seriatim for voting purposes.

Councillor CASSIDY: The Sandgate and district neighbourhood plan was, as the LORD MAYOR said, adopted into City Plan 2000. However, its development and its genesis goes


- 42 -

back to 1996, with the development of the Sandgate and Local Area Plan, which I have volumes of them.

There are six volumes of that in my ward office. I’ve been through them in preparation for this process and it was a very, very extensive plan. But as I have said just recently, when that body of work was done by the local community and in a very consultative way, the local Councillor was Denise Herbert and the Lord Mayor in this place was Jim Soorley, so we’ve all moved on in this place a bit from the mid-1990s. Those opposite us still like to talk about the mid-1990s quite a lot, Madam Chair. But the body of work that was done certainly needs to be updated as well.

So that’s why I’ve been calling for an updating of the neighbourhood plan since my very first budget submission back in 2016 and last year I wrote a joint letter with the President of the Sandgate Chamber of Commerce and we were supported in that by other groups, like Keep Sandgate Beautiful Association as well, calling for funding for a new neighbourhood plan for that process to be undertaken in this financial year. So it’s great to be able to deliver that with the community, working with the community there. I’ve got a lot of history, personal history, as short as that is, so far in my life growing up locally.

My family has been in the area for the last five generations, on my father’s side, and always lived in and around Shorncliffe, Sandgate or Deagon. I did spend six months of my life living in Brighton, so I’m sad to see that’s out of the neighbourhood plan area, but as the LORD MAYOR has said, and I accept that, the vast majority of development that is happening in Brighton is of a fairly standard, low density residential nature. So, while there are pressures and—particularly around public and active transport in Brighton, we can certainly deal with them in other ways.

But taking advantage of particularly Sandgate and the area of the central business district of Sandgate, if you will, and how it services those suburbs and provides so many community groups and members of the community a place to congregate and meet, taking advantage of its unique beauty, both in its built form in protecting and celebrating the character and heritage we have in the historic homes from the 1800s through to the early 1900s; through Shorncliffe and Sandgate and some in Deagon, it was much less developed; the great heritage and history on horseracing in and around Deagon, something my family has been part of as well.

Also, working with the, sort of, social fabric of the community and SANDBAG is a great example of one of those organisations that will have a very keen interest in making sure that we produce public spaces and developments that are forward facing in our community. Of course, that environment and focus on making sure that we protect those significant areas. Within this neighbourhood plan boundary is Shorncliffe, which fronts the Cabbage Street Creek and adjoins the Boondall Wetlands.

We have our lagoon network through Sandgate and Deagon as well and wetlands there flowing out to the Moreton Bay Marine Park as well. So making sure that development in the future is not just sensitive to those areas, but we also are able to celebrate them. I have been on the public record in saying that I think we can cope with more density in Sandgate and it would be a good thing in strategic locations.

There are already a few locations that were identified in the previous local area plan and neighbourhood plan that when you read it and say—and the words there say that ‘this site would be ideal for higher density’, however, higher density back in those days was three storeys. So that really doesn’t fit into what people would probably associate with higher density these days. So I think the community, and the community has already been in contact with me, some are highlighting the need to preserve the character and the uniqueness of the Sandgate Village area. I agree with them.

But I think we can accommodate that and a lot of people have also made that point as well that through good development and well-designed development


- 43 -

and well-placed development, we can help those businesses, particularly in the main street of Sandgate, continue to provide us with a very unique place in Brisbane. Going on to item A, the Annual Operational Plan as well, I just want to particularly focus on page 43 and pick up on something that the LORD MAYOR said in Question Time today that there is an unlimited budget for mosquito spraying. Well, there’s not. The last budget was $4.23 million.

That’s what was allocated in the budget and what we see here in this quarter alone was a $700,000 underspend in that budget. So this is obviously based on advice that comes from medical entomologists. They say here is the king tide. This is going to result in a hatching. There will be larvae there and we need to get spraying crews, whether they’re aerial or on the ground, into those places. Now, what we know is that the medical entomologists give that advice. How that advice is carried out on the ground is of paramount importance.

If there is $700,000 in funds left unspent in that program, that means either this Administration doesn’t know how to plan for mosquito and pest services or isn’t delivering those services there. Now, I have been inundated with people contacting me about what they have been experiencing with mosquitoes. I think it’s important, given there is a $700,000 underspend here, that those Councillors and the LORD MAYOR—he’s not in the Chamber right now, but I’m sure he’ll read this back—their experiences on the ground. Julieann says she is worried about her children being bitten at school all of the time.

Another constituent says: ‘both my son and I attract and react to mosquitoes. They seem particularly fierce this summer, almost aggressive. Our legs are covered in bites, welts and scars. We live in Burralong Street in Deagon.’ Another one says they were having people over for a barbecue, but they don’t think they’ll be able to sit outside they were that bad. In fact, as this person wrote this, a mozzie was circling their head and they were inside the house with mosquito screens.

Another person said: ‘we’ve lived in Boondall and Deagon for the past 12 years and have not seen anything like the number of mosquitoes that we have at the moment. It’s horrific. I can’t even hang the washing out or let my children play outside for five minutes.’ Another one: ‘I have lived in Brighton for 17 years. I contracted Barmah Forest Virus from a bite in my yard. The mozzies are worse now and I’ve been fighting the illness for five years.’ Another one: ‘People need to be employed and services need to be maintained. Why is that so hard for Council to work with?’ Why indeed, Katie?

Another person: ‘Thank you for the update. I live in Nudgee and recently it’s so bad I can’t even use my garden in the evening without being eaten alive.’ Another one: ‘This is awful everywhere. We have not been able to sit outside or walk the dog without being attacked by mozzies. Even putting out the washing or the bin in Bracken Ridge you will be bitten. Please reinstate the mosquito killing staff. I have not seen anything like this mosquito plague that is happening right now. I live Taigum and can no longer go outside with my kids without being terrorised by mosquitoes. Mosquito bites endanger our lives in the Boondall area. I’ve been living in this area for 20 years and never seen it this bad.’

Another person: ‘After 12 months, I’ve just recovered from Barmah Forest Virus caused from a mosquito bite and do not wish the pain and suffering on anyone living in Deagon or the surrounds.’ Another Deagon resident: ‘I’m astonished at the state of the mosquitoes every afternoon, so much so that my children run inside screaming covered in bites from playing out in the backyard.’ Another one: ‘I live in Boondall. I fully agree mosquitoes are rampant over the last couple of months.’

Another one: ‘I’ve lived in Sandgate all my life and have never experienced mosquitoes like with have at the moment. Trying to do some yard work is literally unbearable.’ Another person: ‘Boondall right next to the train station, holy Yoda balls, it’s ridiculous how many mozzies there were. My partner took the house keys to work with him and this afternoon I found myself and my two younglings were getting eaten alive. I’d rather live on Dagobah.’—That’s one


- 44 -

for Councillor BOURKE when he comes back into the Chamber, Madam Chair—‘Being outside in Boondall is a total no-go right now, unless we and our dog are sprayed with tropical strength repellent.’

Another one: ‘I live in Bracken Ridge, the creek near John Fisher Drive. I have two little ones, 2.5 years old and a one year old, and we can’t play in the backyard, because we get mauled, despite being covered head to toe in repellent. We live in Brighton and the mosquitoes are awful. They are ridiculous at Brighton State School as well.’ Another person: ‘we live in a screened house in Boondall’—

Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY, your time has expired, unfortunately.

Councillor CASSIDY: Thank you, Madam Chair.


Councillor MATIC.

Councillor MATIC: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak in regards to item A and to cover a number of issues within the portfolio, but also from questions I noticed this morning from Councillor COOK in Committee; I’ll be covering those as well. Madam Chairman, in regards to 5.1.1.1 Festivals and Events, there was an expense underspend of $772,000. Festivals and Events, Madam Chairman, that variance was in regards simply to the execution of contracts around some significant events around the city, such as the Queensland Music Festival and some of our other festivals as well.

So the payments for those are being finalised at the moment and are expected to be finalised within the next quarter. The variance of $172,000 in regards to the Christmas tree and the City Hall Light Show project was in regards to, again, a shift between capital and expenditure just in regards to the general running of the program. In regards to the maintenance and enhancement of libraries, Madam Chairman, we’ve got the new Bracken Ridge Library which is, of course, being constructed at the moment. So there was a capital variance there of $1.192 million.

That was simply in regards to the procurement of the necessary construction company and so it was a timing issue in regards to that. The project will actually provide a favourable variance, Madam Chairman, going forwards and that the timing of the further favourable variances in regards to the planning for Sandgate and Stones Corner libraries, as well as the enhancements to Toowong Library. All of that is around design solutions and approvals associated with those improvements as well.

But all of those works are currently being undertaken in accordance with the LORD MAYOR’s commitment to enhancing our libraries across our city. In regards to Sport and Recreation and Organisational Development, there was an expense underspend of $780,000. That was really just a process of the grant applications made by those eligible for the program in their—some of their rebates for water and sewage. Again, just in regards to that variance and the timing of those grant applications, that budget will, of course, be expected to be expended in the appropriate quarter.

In our Aging and Disability Support, there was an underspend there of $172,000. So what we’re doing at the moment is the access and inclusion strategy. As I explained in the Committee this morning, we’ve actually extended the consultation to provide more opportunities for groups to be able to engage with Council, which I think is an important part of this process.

As such, while we finish that consultation, those moneys that are there to be spent on actual works will then be expended in the appropriate quarter once we’ve had the opportunity to go through all of that and then put those projects into place based on that important feedback. But for the Chamber’s information, it has been a very successful program of consultation. The last of the groups are currently organising meetings with officers and expect to have those finalised by the end of February.


- 45 -

In our Community Facilities, Planning and Development, there’s a capital of $360,000 under. So that’s just really just a timing variance, Madam Chairman, in regards to those structural works. The construction work for those projects is currently underway. With our Community Facilities, Planning and Development, LCS (Lifestyle and Community Services), that’s really just again—that was a timing variance in the Meals on Wheels Wakeley District Sports Park project. The work was just being undertaken in the ordinary course by them and the necessary work is being undertaken at the moment.

Our Sports and Recreation Facilities, Brisbane Infrastructure, expenses are $257,000. Again, just a timing issue in that program to—a swing from capital and these costs were transferred back to capital in the next quarter. So that’s just really an accounting measure between capital and expense. In our Synthetic and Recreational Facilities, I mentioned in Committee this morning that three of those locations are currently underway.

So we’ve got Burringbar Park at Chermside, which is hockey; Teralba Park at Mitchelton, which is soccer; and Perry Park at Bowen Hills, which is soccer and a combination of other lessees. We’re just finalising the details in regards to the fourth, at the moment. But the commitment was to deliver those by the end of this term. In regards to the People’s Place Precinct, so we’re talking about City Hall, there was an expense of $718,000 under budget. That’s really just timing of the core expenditure and that’s just for the operational materials and services for City Hall to operate, Madam Chairman. That was really just a timing variance.

The same also in regards to 5.6.1.1, which is a capital underspend of $269,000. Again, a timing variance in regards to City Hall around just its normal operations. There is, of course, moneys allocated there to the School of Arts Refurbishment Strategic project. As the LORD MAYOR’s previous budget has outlined, it’s this Administration’s strong commitment to the School of Arts. It is a classic building within our city and so we’re undertaking the work currently of a study to look at its structural soundness and the works that are required for that.

That report’s just in the process of still being done. In regards to Community Halls at 5.7.1.5, there was an expense under budget of $219,000. That was really just around the materials and services accounts and it’s just really a timing variance and nothing more than that. We get to the issue of Mosquitoes and Pest Services, Madam Chairman. Councillors on the other side have spoken about this issue and I understand it is an important issue for their wards.

I know even in my time as Field Services Chairman that this was something that was always at the heart of Councillors, all Councillors, on the northside and it is something as an Administration and the LORD MAYOR clearly sets it out, that we have always made the strongest commitment to addressing the issues of mosquito management in our city, not only on the northside, but across the city as a whole. That the budget is allocated for it. There are variances in that budget, Madam Chairman, but those variances are not based on non-performance and non-service.

But, Madam Chairman, the variance is a combination of the aerial spraying required due to dry conditions resulting in less rainfall triggers than usual and adjustments for the services as required. That’s the key point, Madam Chairman. All Councillors know how dry the weather has been for a significant period of time. Then, we had those—we had the high tide, with that exceptional full moon about a week ago. We also had some short bursts of rain and then we had some incredibly humid conditions. As a result, as Councillors have expressed here, we have seen an increase.

But can we say also, Madam Chairman, that we’ve also seen a decrease naturally in regards to mosquitoes following those short bursts of weather and heat, again back to dry conditions. But again, Madam Chairman, we’ve said this in the Chamber before, and we will continue to state very clearly for the record that our commitment to managing mosquitoes is always there. The funding as


- 46 -

required is always there. The advice of our entomologists is always highly valued and regarded. They are some of the leading entomologists in the nation.

They liaise very closely with not only with other levels of government, but with universities as well. Their constant passion and commitment to addressing Dengue Fever and all other related issues in relation to mosquito-borne disease. That work is done very closely with University of Queensland and both Federal and State Governments. That’s how seriously we take this. So when they advise us of when the work needs to be done, then the relevant teams go out.

We’ve all seen examples—Councillors on the northside would have seen teams of officers out there spraying the necessary areas, the helicopter work that’s also done. All of these are continually being rolled out as required. It is our ongoing commitment to ensure that service. This underspend is not about, as I say, a failure to deliver, but more around the weather conditions and the fact that we put more money in. But that money is always there to be utilised and rolled back into the program.

In regards to 6.3.1.1 Public Safety, LCS revenue, that’s just in regards to the Rapid Response Group, Madam Chairman and, again, lower seasonal change is affecting things like erosion and sediment control. So Council takes that issue very seriously. Officers are always quite diligent in their work but, of course, we’re going to see less of that issue around various weather events. Again, around suburban amenity and the Health and Safety Amenity Local Law—again, that’s just an operational issue, Madam Chairman, where we’re proactively working with people around the issues, for example, of shopping trolleys, providing more of that information than anything else—

Chairman: Councillor MATIC, your time has expired.

Councillor MATIC: Thank you, Madam Chair.



Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes. I rise to speak on item A and I may make some brief comments on item B as well. But firstly I would just like to say how inept and appalling the financial management of this Council really is. I think that there is—and Councillor ADAMS will get up and say we don’t understand. It’s just a timing issue and she’ll go on and on and on. But I’m going to raise this matter here, which is in City Cleansing. Council has underspent almost $750,000 on picking up litter and street sweeping. Now, that’s not a project that’s time sensitive. It’s something that’s done equally at all times of the year.

So I would like an explanation about why we are so significantly underspending on picking up litter and street sweeping. Now, if there’s any more damning indictment of what’s going on, I can find plenty of others. I will speak about others as well. But how is it that a basic, year-round service is so far behind schedule? Look, I don’t know, maybe Councillor ADAMS can hop up and maybe she’ll just say, it’s all timing. All the street sweeping’s done in the fourth quarter of the year. Well, we know that’s not the case.

So what is it that’s going wrong in Asset Services or Urban Amenities where we’re not doing street sweeping in accordance with the budget? I mean, it’s a pretty straightforward kind of thing. Now, there’s a few other things I certainly would like to comment on. Firstly, that this is the rollover budget amendments, again, where the LNP administration has fundamentally been unable to deliver on their own election commitments. A lot of the bigger projects that are currently not happening or behind schedule or have gone wrong or you name it, it’s across all the portfolios, most of them are these guys’ election commitments.

You would think that the Administration would be focused on making sure their election commitments are actually delivered; that they had an eye on what was going on. But, as we know, Kingsford Smith Drive, the Inner City Bypass, Wynnum Road projects, Stapylton Road projects, they’re all behind schedule. They’ve all gone disastrously wrong. Millions of dollars are just being rolled over and rolled over. It gets worse. It gets worse, because some projects—and


- 47 -

we’re in—remember, this is up until December, so this is the second quarter of the current financial year.

This Administration is already rolling projects over into a whole other financial year. So not only do they think they can’t deliver it in this quarter, they can’t deliver it in this financial year. So they’re rolling it all over into 2019-20, where, of course, they’ll re-announce it in the budget and make it sound new, when it was simply their inability to deliver on it in the year they promised they would do it. There were numerous, numerous examples of that in here. It’s really just appalling. Some of the worst rollovers, I have to say—I’m just going to put on the record.

There’s, like, $7 million of delays, or problems, or rephasing, or whatever you name it, for bikeways. Now, we’ve got problems with the delivery of footpaths and bikeways all over this city. Meanwhile, these guys can’t spend basic money on constructing bikeway links. We’re in the second quarter of the year. Sure, the first quarter there’s a bit of a time to start up, but we’re in the engine room quarter of the delivery of government services and this Council can’t get its basic program delivered. They’re $6.5 million behind on the Metro. There’s $5 million behind on disability bus stops. I mean, that should just be rolling out.

I mean, we’ve got to meet a statutory timeframe there. There’s—here we go, Congestion Busting Projects. This is what the Administration are saying: ‘A number of projects are on hold and will not be delivered in 2018-19, due to feasibility issues’. So, again, these are the promised projects that the LNP announced in the budget that less than six months later the LORD MAYOR scuttles in here and says: ‘yes, no, can’t deliver those’. Didn’t hear him mention that in his speech.

But there are a whole range of projects that aren’t going to be delivered, one of which—and Councillor SIMMONDS isn’t here—but one of which is the Moggill Road roundabout in Coonan Street, which LNP administration has been promising for years. So there are really, really significant problems with this Administration’s ability to deliver on projects. Again, that would be Councillor COOPER in her area, because these Congestion Busting Projects sit under her responsibility. We have other ones as well. We’ve got Waterworks Road, Raymont Road, Grange Road, Murphy Road.

There’s a whole heap of them. But the LORD MAYOR points to how good Telegraph Road is going. Well, yes, there’s about half a dozen that aren’t going well. So I don’t know why. We’ve got massive problems with the decommissioning of road assets. There’s a $6 million issue there. $7 million on depreciation. There’s another problem there. There’s massive, massive underspend, $9 million, on river-based leisure and tourism facilities, including Howard Smith Wharves safety fences, guardrails, boardwalk rehabilitation.

When we’ve got so many significant problems with public access around this city, this Administration simply can’t deliver on what it promised six months ago. I mean, to come into this place and say, I can’t do the street sweeping that we promised or we can’t deliver some bikeway projects, I mean, this is bread and butter stuff. I mean, they’d rather come in here and waste hours talking about politics and yet here we have a damning indictment on their failure to deliver on what we’re actually here for. That is basic services to the residents of Brisbane. Yes, the Congestion Busting Projects is absolutely shocking.

That was one of their hallmark, the LORD MAYOR stood up in his budget and announced how important that was going to be and it’s a hallmark of his getting people home faster and all these things and yet they can’t deliver on them. Norman Creek project’s delayed. Upper Kedron’s delayed. There’s $6.5 million less being spent on Bushland Buyback. Now, if you listen to Councillor McLACHLAN in our Committee, you’d think that was going well, but the devil’s in the detail here. $6.5 million has been rephased. So, I mean, are they not agreeing to sell the land to Council? Are we not proceeding with some land sales?


- 48 -

I mean, I ask him every week, but he rarely answers questions. So there’s a huge problem, a huge problem, with the delivery of these programs. Contaminated Land Management, $500,000 underspent. I mean, all the sporting fields out there that are in desperate need of being upgraded and we can’t spend basic money on that. There’s even $320,000 that has been underspent on weeding. So it’s not like they’re just the big projects like Kingsford Smith Drive going wrong. They can’t pick up the waste. They can’t do the street sweeping. They can’t do the weeding.

They haven’t been able to deliver on their own election promises and its just page after page after page. Councillor ADAMS will hop up and say: ‘oh, it’s just a timing issue’, but it’s not. Many of these are also permanent changes, so they’re not just about a timing issue. They are significant, long-term changes to the budget, which when this report was prepared was only six months old. I mean, there’s a $1.1 million or almost $1.2 million underspend on Managing Trees on Public Land, that means tree trimming. They’re not doing the tree trimming. My feeling is we just don’t have enough Council officers to do the work.

There is so much that needs doing and we do not have the necessary people to get on and do the work. If we did, these underspends on the everyday stuff that we should be doing in Council would not be happening. They would just be rolling out as a matter of course. But to see it is this—

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, your time has expired.

Further speakers?

Councillor COOPER.

Councillor COOPER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I rise to speak to item A. So I just want to respond to a couple of the comments that were made. So Councillor CUMMING talked about the LANI (Local Access Network Improvements) programs, so he said it was blatantly wrong. I will confirm that with officers, but it is officers that actually prepare this report. I don’t sit there and draft it myself, neither does Councillor ADAMS, so this is work that officers undertake. So I will review that. But just to be extremely clear as to what we are delivering as part of our Congestion Busting program. So we have $21 million of new projects over the four-year term.

Each of these sitting within this particular program are delivering low cost, high impact solutions. It is with the aim of getting more out of the existing road network. So it is not building new roads. It is making alterations to the existing arrangements. So in this financial year, the budget listed 30 projects across Brisbane totalling $4.499 million expenditure. So these are projects that have been identified by Councillors. They’re projects that come from travel data, from traffic signals and from feedback from the community.

So the types of projects being delivered this year particularly include such things as the extension of right-turn pockets, left-turn lanes, lane extensions and reconfiguring existing intersections. As every single Councillor is well aware, not all of the projects progress for a variety of reasons, including where the local Councillor does not support the design, for example. There could be other impacts on the local community which can’t be supported or the design involves land resumptions. These projects are not designed for such costly endeavours such as land resumptions.

They are to be undertaken in the existing road corridor. That’s why I said earlier they are low cost, high impact. So they are to be generally—the rule of the thumb is to say these are these projects that should be $250,000 or less. So small projects. As every Councillor is aware, when the listed projects do not progress, Council officers review other potential projects and then, subject to budget, start the process of engaging with the local Councillor about a potential project or projects.

Every Councillor would be familiar when that happens, there are other projects that are then substituted and the local Councillor is then consulted. So that is the


- 49 -

process. So that is the process undertaken by Council officers. So the comments that have been made are blatantly wrong and are totally spurious. With respect to the comments about—Councillor CUMMING made about on page 29, he said there was rephased expenditure of $29.56 million, he asked how late the ICB was.

Well, it’s complete, so if you’d actually driven around the City of Brisbane—he does use the tunnels, so, yes, you would think that he had driven on the ICB. Maybe he didn’t notice that that work was complete. So it’s pretty clear that he’s not really 100% paying attention to the detail of the project. The LORD MAYOR has been extremely clear about Kingsford Smith Drive. It is totally regrettable, but we note that there are certainly circumstances that are beyond our control and the contractor are taking steps to address that specific issue. With respect to Wynnum Road, that project is completely on time.

So there are works underway right now and that project is not anticipated to be delayed in any way, shape or form. It is purely—and I think it’s quite disappointing to hear the jocularity: ‘Oh, Councillor ADAMS will get up and say it’s rephasing’. Well, Councillor ADAMS will get up and tell the truth that it is rephasing. So what are you trying to suggest? That she is making up things? Because it is obvious that there are things that happen with project delivery, but the projects are on time with respect to these.

I’ll also note—and, Madam Chairman, you’ll quite enjoy this one—Councillor JOHNSTON also said the ICB was running late, so she obviously has not driven along the ICB of recent times. She also suggested that Johnson and Stapylton Roads intersection would be rolled over and running late. As you know, Madam Chairman, it is open for business right now and that is, again, complete and utter nonsense. I also note there was a comment about Grange Road and Days Road, that that was not done. So let’s see, hmm, Councillor HAMMOND, Councillor WINES would be well aware that is also complete and currently functioning beautifully for local residents.

So I would suggest to you, Madam Chair, that some of the comments that have been made are incorrect and that’s probably a kind way of expressing it. There are projects that are complete. There are some projects which are a little bit late and there’s, for example, two projects where we have got a land resumption. As this Chamber is well aware, when there is land resumption involved in that project delivery, that can be challenging. The actual person with the land resumption can object to that process and there can be a delay with respect to that.

So if you look at particularly the project with Raymont and Grange Roads, that was a land resumption issue, which has now been resolved and the Eumong Street, River Hills Road, River Hills, has also got a land resumption issue which is being resolved. So these will make some changes, but we are the team that actually delivers projects. Clearly, there’s already projects that have been delivered which those on the other side of the Chamber excluding, of course, Councillor RICHARDS, are suggesting won’t be done, which are already complete. Thank you, Madam Chair.


Councillor McLACHLAN.

Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak on item A, the quarterly budget report, and I’m happy to respond to a few of the questions that were raised during the earlier debate. The key one I wanted to respond to is the assertion from the Leader of the Opposition or the question he raised about Anzac Square and its potential to be available for Anzac Day this year. I can reassure him and the Chamber and anybody listening that it certainly will be available for Anzac Day this year.

As all Councillors in this place will be aware, this is a joint project between the Federal Government, the State Government and the Council. There are various elements that are being delivered. The issues do relate to some elements that are being introduced for the first time into Anzac Square, so that includes a


- 50 -

glass lift. That wasn’t part of the original plan, but it was required by the Heritage Council to be a glass lift, rather than a standard lift, so that has caused some delays.

There’s some balustrading going in around the square that is a brand new element that needs to be etched in bronze. That is taking some additional time as well to get that right through the contractual process. But I can reassure everybody listening that the key elements of Anzac Square, that is, the open space, will certainly be open for business and, indeed, as well on track those elements of this, what they call, the separable portion. So this was the fourth element of all the works that are being done. I’m certainly looking forward to the chambers being opened.

I think when they have an opportunity to go and see inside the building that’s now adjacent to Anzac Square that’s now open—will be open to the public, they’ll be pleasantly surprised by the quality of the work that’s inside there, inside the chambers. We’re looking forward to opening that in conjunction with the State Government. But this project has had some delays, which relate to the item you see in the quarterly report to the end of December in relating to those works, Councillor CUMMING. So that’s why you’re seeing that reported there for this snapshot report to the end of December.

There were some other works covered under that program that did relate to some capital variances in the City Park Upgrades project, some in the Botanic Gardens masterplan. There was a water reticulation project that was delayed and that was also—and I’m not blaming heritage issues, but that was a heritage approval issue and that has impacted on the subcontractor’s availability to undertake the work. So that will be undertaken. But that’s, again, a phasing issue that will see that project delivered during the course of this financial year. But it may not have been delivered to the end of December according to the quarterly allocation of funding through the whole of the financial year.

There were also variances due to delays in New Farm Park Promenade project and that was due to start in December, but that work will be completed by April. So these are phasing issues on some of the key major City Park Upgrades project to which Councillor CUMMING referred.

Councillor JOHNSTON referred to the acquisition of bushland. I’m always pleased to answer this question from Councillor JOHNSTON, who does seem to overlook the issues that do relate to property purchase and settlement. I’m always happy to take the prompt from Councillor JOHNSTON to remind her that we’re well on track for the acquisition of our program commitment for 750 hectares. To date, we’re just shy of that, in terms of property that has been purchased and settled, but there are properties that are still due for settlement.

As Councillor JOHNSTON and anybody else who’s aware of real estate procedures knows, there can be a delay between agreeing to a price and the cheque being paid. That’s what this relates to. Nothing more than a variance that’s a consequence of the properties being under contract and awaiting settlement. Pretty easy if you follow the story. But, Councillor JOHNSTON, thank you for the opportunity to, again, reinforce the fact that we’re well and truly on track for our commitment, which was the point of your question, to acquire 750 hectares during this term. Thank you.


Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise for item A and most of the answers have been comprehensively covered by my fellow Chairs, but I will just go through some of the financial ones, in particular, that came within the general report, as well as those in my portfolio. Just to answer some of Councillor CUMMING’s questions, there was a question about the net debt and why it was actually higher. This is purely related to the lower cash balance we have year-on-year. We have a lower cash balance at December 2018 than we did December 2017. Not borrowings or working capital. Just cash balance.


- 51 -

So when you look at net debt, which is borrowings minus cash, over the total revenue it means our net debt has gone up due to the lower cash balance and that only. There were some comments there about infrastructure. Obviously, infrastructure activities have slowed. We had that discussion and question today in Committee. That’s reflected in the slowdown of infrastructure charges by $17 million in—at this quarter as well.

There was a question on page 11 around employee costs and does that mean that we’ve actually got less FTE (full time equivalent) here than we had, because surely everything was going up with the EBA. The EBA did flow through, but there was an adjustment flow through from Transport for Brisbane, because their EBA arrangements are phased out over a full year, rather than the one lump sum at the start when everybody increased as well.

They also have quite a mix of staff that go back and forwards through their contracts and their needs and their timetabling, which is how Transport for Brisbane operates and reflects exactly what they do through TransLink and the State Government with their staff within Transport as well. I didn’t get to ask Councillor CUMMING a question and my question would have been, if I had asked him: Councillor CUMMING, have you read the sections after each program that says the variance is due mainly to? Because that would really answer most of the questions that Councillor CUMMING had in front of us today.

So Value for Money Support Services, Councillor. You have got $2 million more not spent, underspent on capital. Like to know what that is for. So if we go to page 49, it’s very clear on page 49 that the favourable variances under capital for value for money is a rephasing in the fleet acquisition project, because two lines above it, we’ve had earlier than anticipated revenue in the process and delivery services in fleet services and, again, on disposal of fleet vehicles as well. So they’ve changed the actual acquisition project to reflect that. The main amount of Value for Money Support Services is in the contract negotiations and procurement that we are doing around our system optimisation and I make absolutely no apology for not spending money in procurement and making sure we optimise our procurement. That is exactly what that line says. Procurement System Optimisation.

You know what happens when we optimise projects? We are favourable in our capital and we get $2,175,000 favourable in our capital, in our Value for Money Support Services, in our value for the ratepayers’ money is favourable. So that is a good news story and I thank you, Councillor CUMMING, for making that very clear to everybody.

The last note I just wanted to make was Councillor CASSIDY’S question that we do not know how to run a budget and I would say to Councillor CASSIDY you do not know how budget works. He claimed that the LORD MAYOR has only allocated $700,000 to the spraying of mosquitoes. Obviously there is a limit there and the LORD MAYOR is telling furphies when he says there is an unlimited budget. Obviously we have to make a budget on budget year. The LORD MAYOR has stood in this place year in and year out and said if we need more money for mosquito spraying, we will get more money for mosquito spraying. That is what you call budget reviews and that is where that will be reflected if that money is needed, Madam Chair.

So through you to Councillor CASSIDY, if money is needed for mosquito spraying, it will be there regardless of the amount and the LORD MAYOR has promised that year in and year out. I think that actually covers all the questions that were not covered by my fellow Chairs and I recommend the item to the Chamber. Thank you, Madam Chair.


DEPUTY MAYOR, right of reply on behalf of the LORD MAYOR?

I will now put the report.

Sorry, item A was seriatim so I will now put item A


- 52 -

Clause A put

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

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


AYES: 19 - DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.

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

Chairman: I will now put item B.

Clause B put

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

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, Vicki Howard, Peter Matic, and David McLachlan.

A ANNUAL OPERATIONAL PLAN PROGRESS AND QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 2018134/695/317/927

524/2018-191. The Divisional Manager Organisational Services, provided the information below.

2. Sections 196(2) and (3) of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 state that the Chief Executive Officer must present financial reports to Council at least quarterly. The reports are to state the progress that has been made in relation to Council’s budget.

3. The Annual Operational Plan Progress and Quarterly Financial Report December 2018 (Attachment B, submitted on file) separately identifies and reports the financial results of Council’s Program Services (i.e. Council excluding Business Activities) and Business Activities. The written commentaries provide explanation of the figures.

4. Section 166(3) of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 states that the Chief Executive Officer must present a written assessment of Council’s progress towards implementing the Annual Operational Plan to Council at regular intervals of not more than three months.

5. The previous financial report for the period ended 28 September 2018 was presented to Council on 27 November 2018. The current report relates to the period ended 28 December 2018.

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


- 53 -

7. RECOMMENDATION:

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

Attachment ADraft Resolution

DRAFT RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE ANNUAL OPERATIONAL PLAN PROGRESS AND QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 2018

As:

(i) sections 196(2) and (3) of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 require that the Chief Executive Officer present financial reports to Council at least quarterly

(ii) section 166(3) of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 states that the Chief Executive Officer must present a written assessment of Council’s progress towards implementing the Annual Operational Plan to Council at regular intervals of not more than three months,

then:

(i) Council directs that the Annual Operational Plan Progress and Quarterly Financial Report for the period ended December 2018, as set out in Attachment B (submitted on file), be noted.

ADOPTED

B MAJOR AMENDMENT TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 – SANDGATE DISTRICT NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN152/160/1218/396

525/2018-198. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the information below.

9. In 2000, Council adopted the local plan for the Sandgate district, including the suburbs of Deagon, Sandgate, Shorncliffe and Brighton, into Brisbane City Plan 2000. The local plan was adopted as the Sandgate district neighbourhood plan into Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the planning scheme).

10. It is proposed to amend the planning scheme to update the Sandgate district neighbourhood plan and to make associated amendments (the proposed amendment).

11. The proposed amendment will guide future development in the Sandgate district neighbourhood plan area and will aim to advance the following objectives.- Support and promote the suburban living area function as outlined in the Strategic framework

of the planning scheme, including provision of housing choice for older and younger residents.

- Confirm the role of the existing District centre zone and enhance it as a community hub.- Manage the interface between urban and environmental uses, including Moreton Bay as one

of Queensland’s Ramsar sites.- Protect the residential character and heritage values of the area.- Provide services and facilities to meet the needs of the community.- Provide an opportunity for the local community to guide the future of the area.

12. A statement about the nature and details of the proposed amendment is provided at Attachment B (submitted on file).

13. The process for amending the planning scheme is set out in the Minister’s Guidelines and Rules (the Guideline) under section 20 of the Planning Act 2016 (the Act). In accordance with the Guideline, the proposed amendment will be a major amendment.


- 54 -

14. Should Council decide to proceed with the proposed amendment, Council will prepare the proposed amendment in accordance with the Guideline.

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

16. RECOMMENDATION:

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

Attachment ADraft Resolution

DRAFT RESOLUTION TO DECIDE TO MAKE A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 TO AMEND THE SANDGATE DISTRICT NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

As Council:

(i) decides, pursuant to section 16.1 of Part 4 of Chapter 2 of the Minister’s Guidelines and Rules (the Guideline) made under the Planning Act 2016, to amend Brisbane City Plan 2014 to amend the Sandgate district neighbourhood plan and to make associated amendments as required,

then Council:

(i) directs, pursuant to section 16.2 of Part 4 of Chapter 2 of the Guideline, that the Chief Executive be provided with:

(a) a written statement advising of this decision

(b) a copy of Attachment B (submitted on file) which sets out the nature and details of the proposed amendment

(ii) directs that the proposed amendment be prepared pursuant to section 16.4 of Part 4 of Chapter 2 of the Guideline.

ADOPTED

PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE

The DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, Chairman of the Public and Active Transport Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Fiona HAMMOND that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 19 February 2019, be adopted.

Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR?

Any debate?

Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair.

I rise to speak on the report regarding the—I use quotation marks—‘the Brisbane Metro Local Traffic Network improvements’, because some of these improvements have very little to do with the Metro and are actually just a road widening disguised as a public transport project. I am referring specifically here to the proposed widening of Vulture Street from two lanes to three lanes in South Brisbane.

The DEPUTY MAYOR knows my position on this, but I want to sketch out the concerns very clearly just for the interest of any other Councillors or anyone else who might be reading this transcript later. So the proposal is to spend somewhere between $2 million and $3 million relocating kerb and channel,


- 55 -

digging up services, removing two jacaranda trees and widening the short stretch of Vulture Street from two lanes to three lanes.

There are quite a few problems with this. I will start with the impacts on amenity and the streetscape. There is an important value that I think this city’s planners are starting to understand that we need to make it easier for pedestrians to move around our neighbourhood and we need to make the streetscape more comfortable. Now, what that means in inner city areas is that we should be slowing down traffic, we should be planting more street trees, we should be widening footpaths and fixing up those little problem spots.

It means that we should be promoting an active, vibrant streetscape but when we convert a two lane road into a three lane road, and the speed limit is getting up—it’s at 60 kilometres an hour through there—essentially what we are doing is we are changing that neighbourhood to feel more like a through corridor or more like a highway. Now, along this street, it is actually a high density residential area, there is quite a few new apartment towers have gone up recently.

The City Plan identifies this area as—it is intended to be an activated streetscape area and on the northern side of Vulture Street we are seeing that cafes are popping up, that there is a gradual transition between the private sphere and the public sphere. In some respects, the design of those apartments has actually been okay in terms of how they engage with the streetscape because they are trying to encourage and promote that activated pedestrian thoroughfare.

But when you ram a three lane highway through that, you change the feel of that neighbourhood. You are bringing more air pollution and noise pollution into that corridor and you are signalling to pedestrians that they are no longer welcome in that environment. So I think this is a step backwards in terms of pedestrian amenity and comfort. It will discourage pedestrians from using that corridor and make it harder for that area to transition into an active and vibrant precinct.

The road widening is also very concerning in terms of cyclists’ safety. Although the majority of cyclists are going to be travelling along the Stanley Street component of the Woolloongabba Bikeway, there are still quite a few cyclists who are travelling eastbound on Vulture Street to get into Kangaroo Point or the northern part of East Brisbane or further to the northeast.

So that Vulture Street corridor is going to remain important going into the future. I have had a briefing from the Council officers and they suggested that because of the hill of Vulture Street, they do not expect as many cyclists to use it. I think that, given the rise of electric and motorised scooters and bicycles, we will see more and more cyclists using that corridor and climbing that hill which, personally, I climb every day as well. I ride home that way. It is a lot quicker and safer than going back through Stanley Street.

But, unfortunately, if this road widening goes ahead, that is going to take away that space on the roadway for cyclists to ride safely without getting in the way of cars. That is going to force those cyclists on to the narrow footpath and the footpath simply is not wide enough at that point to accommodate the high volumes of pedestrians and more cyclists. So this road widening is going to cause more conflict between pedestrians and bikes. It is going to push bikes on to the footpath in an area where there are high volumes of pedestrians and then I, as the local Councillor, am going to have to deal with those complaints of residents who say they no longer feel safe on the footpath because they have got Lime scooters and bicycles racing past them.

So I would much rather see Council use that road width that we have there to create a dedicated separated bike lane along Vulture Street eastbound at least as far as the Allan Street intersection where they can safely mount the footpath which is wider and less busy in terms of pedestrian volumes. That would be a better outcome from a cycling safety perspective and it would also be a better outcome from a streetscape and amenity perspective.

But the broader concern I have here is that by widening that road corridor, by spending those millions of dollars, cutting down trees, relocating services, narrowing the footpath and making the area more hostile for pedestrians, you are


- 56 -

also encouraging more traffic through that corridor when really what we should be doing is encouraging traffic to stick to the Riverside Expressway and to the Pacific Motorway.

It is not in the city’s interests from an urban planning perspective to be encouraging more traffic through the Grey Street corridor and along that section of Vulture Street. We do not want Grey Street to become a major thoroughfare for cars. We want Grey Street as, kind of, the gateway to South Bank, we want that area to evolve into an even more pedestrian and cyclist friendly neighbourhood. We want to be dropping speeds and making it a better place for pedestrians to move through.

But if Vulture Street is widened and another lane is added there, that is going to encourage more cars to travel down that Grey Street corridor. It is also going suck more cars in along Vulture Street further to the west which is only at two lanes now and cannot be widened further. So the stretch of Vulture Street that crosses the rail line just before the South Bank train station, that stretch of Vulture Street, is always only going to be at two lanes at the most because you literally have no room to get any wider between the new apartments that have been built, Somerville House and the train line and the rail bridge limitations.

So there is no scope on that stretch of Vulture Street to widen it further, yet you are encouraging more cars to use that corridor by widening Vulture Street further to the east. So even from a traffic planning perspective, I am not convinced it makes sense but I think we need to recognise the broader principle here is that we should not be spending money which was allocated to a public transport project on widening roads. If there is a genuine case for widening this road, I would like to see it. I do not think there has been a feasibility study or a business case specifically for this road widening.

I do not think it stacks up, but I am particularly concerned that the public is being duped into thinking that this project is somehow related to Brisbane Metro or is somehow related to the Woolloongabba Bikeway project. It is being delivered at the same time—or is proposed to be delivered at the same time as the Woolloongabba Bikeway project because, apparently, that is more convenient. But it has nothing to do with the bikeway project. It reduces cyclists and pedestrian safety and comfort, it does not increase cyclists and pedestrian safety and comfort.

So I am very clear in my opposition to this project. I do not think those trees need to be removed. I do not think the footpath needs to be narrowed. I do not believe that the road needs to be widened. The whole purpose of the Brisbane Metro project is to encourage people to use public transport to get in and out of the inner southside. But what this road widening does is say: ‘don’t worry about catching the Metro, we don’t want you to use the public transport corridor, we would prefer you to keep driving’.

You are incentivising and encouraging drivers to continue driving in an area where the clear and obvious need is to encourage and support people to shift towards active transport and public transport. When I think about the other things that are needed in my area, it really frustrates me to see that this huge amount of money is being wasted on a project that residents do not want.

I have not found a single resident—and I have talked to a lot of people about this, I have been canvassing it broadly because I am considering further direct action and I wanted to make sure I had the community’s support—but I have talked to a lot of residents about this and no one thinks that that added lane and widening that corridor is a good idea. So let us talk about what else that $2.5 million could be spent on in the area.

There are any number of points along Vulture Street that needs safe pedestrian crossings. There are any number of locations throughout this city that could benefit from intersection upgrades and pedestrian safety improvements that would be a lot cheaper than that $2.5 million and which would support people to leave their cars at home and take other modes of transport. So if we think purely


- 57 -

in terms of how that money could be spent, I think we need to recognise that widening a road in an inner city area is not a particularly good use of it.

Let us talk about park acquisitions, let us talk about public transport facilities. There are so many other uses that that money could be put to instead of wasting it on a road project that the community does not want, that the local Councillor definitely does not want, which has not had a feasibility study or any kind of clear business case attached to it and which seems to have been a knee jerk response to some internal request of about how can we improve traffic flow through this area.

It is really frustrating to me that these proposals to widen road corridors can pop up so quickly with no meaningful public consultation, with no notification to residents and suddenly we are getting a presentation on it as though it has already been a done deal. I am hoping, and I have this much respect for the DEPUTY MAYOR, that this is just a proposal at this stage and that he will consult further and he will listen to the community before making a final decision.

I acknowledge that just putting forward a proposal in a Committee meeting does not necessarily mean it definitely has to go ahead. It can just be put out there to seek further feedback and what I am hoping is that that is what is happening here, that this is a question of we are putting this out there to seek feedback and we will listen to that feedback. I am very clear that the feedback is that we do not want this road widening project through Vulture Street.

Chairman: Councillor SRI, your time has expired.

Further debate?

DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Just in response to those comments, Councillor SRI’s comments are not unexpected but he is directing them in the wrong direction because I can tell you the reason we are doing this work is because of the Deputy Premier Jackie Trad and her concerns and her demands because we know that State Government is not particularly being forthcoming with their active support of Brisbane Metro in the way that they should be.

We know that they are not particularly going fast in the project. We know that things that should take a short time are taking a long time. But we also know the comments that the Deputy Premier has made on the public record about changes to the Victoria Bridge associated with the Metro. She said, and I quote: ‘Brisbane City Council is planning on closing the Victoria Bridge to private vehicles as part of their Brisbane Metro project. It is vital that we look at what impact this decision would have on traffic and public transport in the area. Residents are rightly concerned about whether local roads will be able to cope with the change in traffic flows as a result of the closure and whether it would funnel people on to the tolled Go Between Bridge.’

So, Councillor SRI, Jackie Trad has made this point several times and repeatedly. Now, we have done the traffic modelling and we know that most of the traffic that will be diverted from Victoria Bridge will be going across William Jolly Bridge and so we have initiated a series of changes to intersections and these are generally not major upgrades. They are, as he has pointed out, kerb widenings, lane changes. We are not taking about Wynnum Road-style upgrades here. These are localised improvements to get the intersections working better.

Why are we doing that? Because of the concerns raised by Jackie Trad and her local community. We are listening to those concerns. There was also a concern that something needed to be done at the other end of the access point which is this intersection we are talking about here, the Dock Street, Vulture Street intersection. So we are doing our best to listen to the concerns raised by the Deputy Premier, doing our best to work with her concerns and address those concerns.


- 58 -

Now, I understand that Councillor SRI has a different view. That is fine. It is one of those things that happens in politics but ultimately the Deputy Premier trumps Councillor SRI and Councillor SRI—



Councillor SRI: Will Councillor SCHRINNER take a question?

Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR?

DEPUTY MAJOR: Okay.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, through you, Madam Chair.

So, Councillor SCHRINNER, can I just clarify: has the Deputy Premier specifically requested this intersection be upgraded by a road widening or has the Deputy Premier just requested general improvements to improve traffic flow? As part of that question, if the Deputy Premier clearly states that she does not necessarily see this road widening as necessary, would you consider or would you reconsider this project?

Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Okay. So there are several questions there. First of all, the Deputy Premier has not specified specific things that need to be done though what she has said essentially is that we need to have a look at the traffic modelling, the data and then any improvements need to be based on that data. So that is exactly what we have done. We have used the data. We have actually supplied that same data to her and to the State Government so they can have a look at it.

They have not really expressed any opinions one way or the other on it. So we cannot hold up the whole project based on us waiting to see whether they say yes or no to this. We are doing this based on our modelling and our assessment of what the traffic flows or how the traffic flows will change. We are trying to do the right thing here by the community and by the Deputy Premier.

Now, when Councillor SRI says no one is telling him that they want this upgrade, this is a very interesting example of the echo chamber that he lives in and that is the people who, of course, talk to Councillor SRI, a lot of them do hate cars and think everyone should get their little wicker baskets and ride on their bikes and walk around and that cars are evil. We understand there are people who believe that, but we understand that more people voted LNP in his ward than voted Green. We also understand that.

So we understand that the electorate is very split and it is split three ways between Green, LNP and Labor. So claiming that he has a consensus on a particular issue or a majority is a big claim to make—





DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: So, like I said, we are trying to do the right thing here. Now, Councillor SRI had a briefing with the officers the other day and he put forward some concerns and he put forward some suggestions. One of those suggestions was to create a scramble crossing at this intersection. Now, I am actually for scramble crossings in appropriate locations and we have rolled them out in certain CBD locations just recently and that was the great work that Councillor COOPER did as part of Move Safe.

So I asked the officers to investigate whether we could put a scramble crossing here. They did some traffic modelling. This intersection is a really busy one. I think everyone knows that. There are around 50,000 vehicles a day going


- 59 -

through this intersection. That is a lot. So introducing a scramble crossing when the officers did the preliminary modelling, they estimated the following outcome from a scramble crossing: ‘Initial investigations show a scramble crossing would create a major bottleneck at this intersection with the capacity being exceeded approximately four times.’ So 100% is full capacity. This is 400%. So this is four times over capacity.

‘It would cause vehicle queue lengths which would affect access to the Mater Hospital and the access to the M3 Motorway, causing queues back on to the M3 that would compound as the inbound lanes of the M3 are blocked by stationary vehicles queuing on the Stanley Street onramp to the M3. It would also cause major delays of up to 60 minutes’—60 minutes—‘for people getting to and from South Brisbane, West End and South Bank. The queue length of 2.5 kilometres inbound in the morning peak would extend along Stanley Street beyond Norman Creek.’ Okay. So we did the modelling, that is a pretty extreme response from the modelling.

Now, I am not a traffic modeller but people in Council do this as their bread and butter and we have to trust what they say. Traffic modelling is one of those very technical fields but the clear response is this would gridlock the entry point to West End and South Brisbane. So we have to listen to that advice. So it just goes to show a simple thing like well, you know, let us make it a bit better for pedestrians, put in a scramble crossing, this can have serious implications that go far wider.

It will affect people wanting to come to and from the hospital, often in emergency situations, ambulances getting jammed up, and we know that happened when Councillor SRI ran his protest at this intersection and blocked the intersection. That would happen every day if Councillor SRI had his way. So, you know, we have just got to be careful what we do here. We cannot base this on real traffic modelling–





DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Madam Chairman, as I was saying, we are basing this on real traffic modelling, we are trying to do the right thing by the Deputy Premier and her community and by extension Councillor SRI’s community, and I just do not accept that everyone in the area does not want this to go ahead. I think that once they see a big massive bottleneck develop, they will be knocking on our door asking us to do something about it. So we have got to balance the needs between all users here and a seemingly simple response or a simple resolution that is put forward by Councillor SRI rolls on to a snowball effect and creates wider issues in the network.

So we are committed to Brisbane Metro. We will do the upgrades that we believe need to be done to facilitate changes in the traffic network as a result of Victoria Bridge closure and we need to, as I said, balance the different needs of the community.

Chairman: Councillor SRI, two points of misrepresentation.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair.

On the first point, Councillor SCHRINNER suggested that I was asserting there was a clear and unanimous consensus against the road widening project. I acknowledge that that’s not the case but I am simply providing the feedback that there has been very strong public opposition to this project and, as I said, normally I would hear a mixture of views and some people would be in favour and some would be against. But in this case everyone is firmly against.


- 60 -

On the second count of misrepresentation, Councillor SCHRINNER suggested that I was calling for—albeit suggested I was calling for a long gridlock back along Stanley Street and that is not the case. I simply asked that the scramble crossing be investigated and I am happy to take the officer’s advice, but I do note that Stanley Street is already heavily congested every morning and that is because too many people are driving and not enough people have good public transport alternatives.

Chairman: I will now put report.

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.


ATTENDANCE:

The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Adrian Schrinner (Chairman), Councillor Fiona Hammond (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Jared Cassidy, Kara Cook, Ian McKenzie and Kate Richards.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE METRO LOCAL TRAFFIC NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS – SOUTH BRISBANE AND CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT

526/2018-191. Stephen Hammer, Project Director, Major Projects, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure,

attended the meeting to provide an update on the Brisbane Metro local traffic network improvements in South Brisbane and the Central Business District. He provided the information below.

2. The benefits of Brisbane Metro include:- delivery of high-frequency turn-up-and-go services- increased capacity of the busway network- reduced bus congestion on the busway, in the CBD and inner-city- improved travel times and reliability- freeing up more buses to allow for more services in the suburbs.

3. Images showing an overview of the planned local road network improvements in the CBD and South Brisbane; the scope of works along Peel Street at the intersections of Cordelia, Merivale and Grey Streets, South Brisbane; the scope of works at the intersection of Upper Roma and Skew Streets, Brisbane City; and the scope of works at the intersection of Vulture, Stanley and Dock Streets, South Brisbane, were shared with the Committee.

4. As part of Brisbane Metro, general vehicle traffic access will be removed from Victoria Bridge and parts of Melbourne Street and North Quay. This will provide increased capacity for public and active transport, however vehicle traffic will need to seek alternative routes.

5 Assessments have indicated that William Jolly Bridge will accommodate an average of 70% of the peak hour traffic diverted away from Victoria Bridge during Brisbane Metro’s opening year. This increase is almost balanced in both directions in each peak hour at approximately 230 vehicles per hour during morning peak times and 340 vehicles per hour during the afternoon peak times.

6. Council has allocated $5 million to undertake upgrades to the following five intersections to mitigate the closure of Victoria Bridge as part of the Brisbane Metro.- Intersection of Peel and Merivale Streets, South Brisbane.- Intersection of Peel and Cordelia Streets, South Brisbane.- Intersection of Peel Street, Grey Street and Stanley Place, South Brisbane.- Intersection of Upper Roma and Skew Streets, Brisbane City.- Intersection of Vulture, Stanley and Dock Streets, South Brisbane.

7. These intersection upgrades will be completed prior to the removal of general vehicle traffic from Victoria Bridge. With the local traffic improvements in place, it is forecast that the traffic changes will not increase the average delays across the CBD and South Brisbane area.


- 61 -

8. The intersection upgrade of Peel and Merivale Streets was completed in December 2018 and included:- changing line marking to provide additional left turn capacity from Peel Street into

Merivale Street- changing signal phasing to remove pedestrian conflicts and improve safety.

9. The scope of works for the intersection of Peel and Cordelia Streets is planned to commence in February/March 2019 and scheduled to be completed by the end of May 2019. Works will include:- changing line marking in outbound lanes to create separate through and right turn lanes on the

eastern approach of Peel Street- changing signal phasing to optimise traffic movements- improving the condition of the pavement- reinstating and extending the garden bed on the inbound side of Peel Street- relocating an on-street car park on Peel Street.

10. The design of the improvements for the Peel Street, Grey Street and Stanley Place intersection is currently being finalised in consultation with stakeholders and construction is planned to commence in May 2019 (subject to Queensland Government approval). The duration of construction may be up to six months, pending the issue of closure permits. Brisbane Metro is seeking to coordinate traffic management with other early works activities, including the relocation of a Queensland Urban Utilities pump station and associated infrastructure, to minimise impacts to road users and stakeholders. The scope of works includes:- constructing a new left turn slip lane from William Jolly Bridge into Stanley Place- reconfiguring the road alignment on Stanley Place to create an additional right turn lane onto

Grey Street and increased vehicle storage capacity- extending the length of the right turn pocket on Grey Street northbound- repositioning the Stanley Place median island to align with the car park exit- changing traffic signal phasing to increase green time and improving intersection efficiency,

particularly for event traffic- realigning pedestrian crossings and changing crossing signal arrangements to improve

pedestrian safety- constructing bike ramps on Grey Street to improve the cycling transition to and from the

William Jolly Bridge.

11. The intersection upgrade of Upper Roma and Skew Streets is expected to commence in February/March 2019 for completion by the end of May 2019. The scope of works will include:- extending the length of the turning lanes into Upper Roma Street- changes to the landscaping in the traffic island to improve sight lines- improvements to the operational efficiency of the intersection.

12. Improvements to the intersection of Vulture, Stanley and Dock Streets will be delivered as part of the Woolloongabba Bikeway works. It is expected that construction will be completed by late 2019 and will involve:- reallocation of eastbound lanes on Vulture Street to provide an additional through lane- repositioning the traffic island on the corner of Stanley and Vulture Streets- implementing off-road cycling facilities on the western approach to the intersection- relocating some public utility services- improving drainage at the intersection- relocating the CityCycle station on Vulture Street to a nearby location (approximately

20 metres away) on Stanley Street.

13. The intersection upgrade of Vulture, Stanley and Dock Streets will provide the following benefits.- Support and maintain the benefits of the Woolloongabba and Kangaroo Point bikeway

projects.- A value-for-money and best-for-community outcome with project integration.- An upgrade to the traffic network and reduce traffic congestion.- Traffic modelling indicates the improvement works will:

- help traffic move more efficiently to and from the peninsula, particularly in peak periods

- reduce queue lengths on Vulture Street and Stanley Street during the afternoon peak period

- reduce delays on Vulture Street in both the morning and afternoon peak periods


- 62 -

- reduce delays on Stanley Street in the afternoon peak period.

14. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Hammer for his informative presentation.

15. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.ADOPTED

B PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL INSTALL A FOOTPATH ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF ARMADALE STREET, ST LUCIA, FROM RYANS ROAD JOINING THE EXISTING FOOTPATH FURTHER DOWN ARMADALE STREETCA18/941669

527/2018-1916. A petition requesting that Council install a footpath along the north side of Armadale Street, St Lucia,

from Ryans Road joining the existing footpath further down Armadale Street, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 16 October 2018, by Councillor Julian Simmonds, and received.

17. The A/Executive Manager, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.

18. The petition contains 233 signatures.

19. A new footpath along the north side of Armadale Street from Ryans Road was approved to be constructed as part of the Walter Taylor Ward 2018-19 Ward Footpath and Parks Trust Fund program. These works are now completed. Attachment B (submitted on file) provides the location and a photo of the completed footpath.

20. The footpath recently constructed, addresses the petitioners’ request to connect the north side of Armadale Street, St Lucia, from Ryans Road.

Consultation

21. Councillor Julian Simmonds, Councillor for Walter Taylor Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

22. Accordingly, the A/Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.

23. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER ADVISING THAT A NEW CONCRETE FOOTPATH ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF ARMADALE STREET, ST LUCIA, FROM RYANS ROAD JOINING THE EXISTING FOOTPATH FURTHER DOWN ARMADALE STREET HAS RECENTLY BEEN CONSTRUCTED UNDER THE WALTER TAYLOR WARD 2018-19 WARD FOOTPATH AND PARKS TRUST FUND PROGRAM.

Attachment ADraft Response

Petition Reference: CA18/941669

Thank you for your petition requesting Council install a footpath on the north side of Armadale Street, St Lucia, from Ryans Road joining the existing footpath further down Armadale Street.

Council has completed an onsite investigation and considered your request.

Council received approval to construct a new concrete footpath along the north side of Armadale Street from Ryans Road joining the existing footpath further down Armadale Street. These works were


- 63 -

approved as part of the Walter Taylor Ward 2018-19 Ward Footpath and Parks Trust Fund program and are now completed.

Please advise the other petitioners of this information.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Petar Lazarevic, Regional Coordinator Civil Engineering, West Region, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3407 0037.

Thank you for raising this matter.ADOPTED

INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE

Councillor Amanda COOPER, Chairman of the Infrastructure Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Steven HUANG, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 19 February 2019, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor COOPER?

Councillor CASSIDY.

Councillor CASSIDY: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Just briefly on item B, the petition requiring assessment of Townsend Street, Queens Parade, Seaview Street, Brighton, for various actions to limit rat running. I support the recommendation as set out by the Council officers here to a reasonable response. I thought, and given there is some extra study to be done on Queens Parade to get a better idea of the movements of traffic in this local area, I am sure we will be able to revisit that and support the residents in their needs.



Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes. I rise to speak on item C and ask that it be taken seriatim for voting purposes.

Seriatim - Clause CCouncillor Nicole JOHNSTON requested that Clause C, PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL MAKE CHANGES TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND SAFETY ON VENNER ROAD, ANNERLEY, be taken seriatim for voting purposes.

Councillor JOHNSTON: This is a very sad matter, unfortunately, that we have to debate in this Chamber and it is a very serious one in the community that I represent. Last year a very prominent local resident was killed while standing on the footpath on his daily afternoon walk. It is a family that I know well. They are active participants in Council’s Active Travel program through one of the local schools in Yeronga. Geoff and his wife have been long term campaigners for road safety in Venner Road right back from the days when the LORD MAYOR and I stood together indicating that we were going to do upgrades back in 2009 which he has never followed up on.

The family do not want Geoff’s death to be in vain. They are devastated by what has happened. Geoff has a grown up family and also a younger family and these young children have lost their dad and grandparent and it has really been really, really devastating to understand the impact on the family. So Geoff’s family started the petition. They are the ones who called for change. They want traffic lights and they want the speed on Venner Road to be reduced and they want the intersection to be upgraded.

These are all very reasonable requests on a road that Council knows to be problematic, given that it has done a major review of it 10 years ago and failed


- 64 -

to act on that review. It knows that there is a problem with Ipswich Road. Now, Council’s response to the petition is completely inadequate. There is not a single thing that Council is doing in the petition response to address the concerns raised by Geoff’s family and the local community.

All Council is doing in response is to put off any upgrades for years and years. So Council is saying it will fold the review of Ipswich and Venner Road into the corridor study, which I notice in the quarterly review has actually had cut funding or delayed funding for the roll out of that. So you know, it is impossible to know what Council is doing and I have been asking. I have been asking that they speed up the corridor report. Obviously someone has died, it should be treated as a priority. No, I am told Council will not do that.

Council is also saying, and this is the big problem here, Council is only saying that they will act after the police investigation and any recommendations made by the Coroner. Now, that can be years away. I would say two to three years away before we get that. I just do not think this Council should be waiting. We clearly have a responsibility here. There is a problem and it has been exacerbated by some extremely poor development on this intersection corner as well which, of course, the community opposed and Council allowed.

So I feel so devastated for these people and the fact that this Council just refuses to do anything. You know, I do not even know, the corridor report for Ipswich Road generally is going to focus on moving cars through that area. It will not result in any immediate changes. I hope there is some practical recommendations that come out of it about changes, but given all Councillor COOPER wants to do is play politics with Mark Bailey and play the blame game.

I have no confidence, none, that this Council will take practical measures that I have been calling on for years, that residents have been calling on for years, and now, unfortunately, we have got a deceased resident who really should not have died. It is a combination of a bad driver and a bad intersection and that is really—you know; you do not need to be a rocket scientist to work out that one.

So I put the recommendation to the family once I got it last week and I got some feedback from them and I just want to put in their words some of their feedback on the record because I just think no one can say it better than they can.

It is very frustrating, and I quote: ‘it’s a very frustrating response, considering it sounded like no one even came to look at the intersection. If they did they would see the safety impact the construction site has had on pedestrian impact. The two traffic islands referred to have been rendered useless during construction with no room for a footpath on the other side of the road. This was the cause when Geoff was hit. I still believe the current crossing isn’t safe for a variety of reasons and I will be interested to see the recommendations from the Coronial Inquest.’

So that is one of the family members and the other feedback I think is even more devastating and I do not know what to say to these people. This is one of those things where you go to—you do your best in this place and you say yes, I will speak up for you, yes, we will do this. Then residents initiate a course of action because they believe, or they have confidence, that Council will act, they believe that their Council will listen to them and do something to help them and, you know, I have to go back to them with this kind of response which essentially is a do nothing response. So, you know, I just think that is the really, really sad part of this.

Now, the feedback, the other feedback I want to put on the record is and I quote: ‘it’s disappointing that Council takes this approach. It demonstrates poor leadership on their part. The intersection remains dangerous, many near misses. The court process is very slow. It will be some time before the Coroner reviews the case and every day we live without Geoff because of a bad driver and a dangerous intersection. General road safety around Annerley remains poor.’

Now, they are the people who are most impacted by the loss of Geoff Copland. Our community remains at risk and Council’s decision to do nothing, which this is, a do nothing response, until the police who have not finalised their


- 65 -

investigation, the Coroner has not finalised—well, has not even committed to do a Coronial Report yet. It will be years before anything happens.

Meanwhile, if another person dies, you can be sure that I will be attributing blame to the people who have failed the residents of Annerley, who have failed to take practical responses to improve safety in this area when they could have done so in response to this petition and at other times. I condemn the LNP for their failure to address what is a very significant and important issue in our community. I do not support the do nothing response that has been put forward here today and I urge all Councillors to reject this response because it is completely and woefully inadequate to address the loss of a human being, a beloved father, husband and grandfather.


Councillor COOPER.

Councillor COOPER: I will respond briefly. I thank Councillor CASSIDY for his response. Certainly officers will be looking at that and we will be talking to them directly.

The comments made by Councillor JOHNSTON are incorrect. It is a terrible thing when there is ever any loss of life and I do not think anyone in this Chamber takes it lightly when something occurs. But there is a process currently underway. There is a road safety review and there is a corridor study. So two things that are going on with respect to this.

Council is clearly committed. It actually states it very, very clearly in the report: ‘We have allocated funding, commenced a corridor review of the transport planning required to upgrade the intersection of Ipswich and Venner Roads. This investigation will identify the most appropriate and feasible options to upgrade the intersection and the broader Ipswich Road corridor.’ So it is very clear that we are undertaking work currently and we hope to see some outcomes that we will be able to deliver.

We, of course, will cooperate with the Queensland Police Service, as we always do, and if there is a Coronial Inquiry then we will, of course, comply with any recommendations. That does not mean that we cannot undertake work and that we cannot review the work that is currently in train and if there are recommendations that we can then see that those recommendations are implemented.

So I disagree with the comments made by Councillor JOHNSTON. We treat this matter incredibly seriously and in no way, shape or form would we ever be cavalier in our treatment of any of our residents who tragically in these kinds of circumstances are killed or injured. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chairman: I will now put items A, B and D.

Clauses A, B and D put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clauses A, B and D of the report of the Infrastructure Committee was declared carried on the voices.

Chairman: I will now put item C.

Clause C put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clause C of the report of the Infrastructure Committee was declared carried on the voices.

Thereupon, Councillors Nicole JOHNSTON and Steve GRIFFITHS immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.


AYES: 19 - DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors


- 66 -

Krista ADAMS, Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.

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


ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Amanda Cooper (Chairman), Councillor Steven Huang (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Peter Cumming, Kim Marx and Andrew Wines.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE:

Councillor Steve Griffiths.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – INLAND RAIL UPDATE

528/2018-191. Brendan O’Keeffe, Principal Engineer Policy and Strategy, Policy Strategy and Planning, Transport

Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on the Inland Rail project. He provided the information below.

2. At present, the only rail connection between Brisbane and Melbourne is through Sydney. The Inland Rail project proposes to establish a dedicated freight link between Brisbane and Melbourne, and provide a more direct route from Brisbane to Adelaide and Perth.

3. The existing rail corridor between Brisbane and Sydney will be used for the development of the Inland Rail network. This alignment of the interstate rail corridor will also be integrated into the State Government’s proposed passenger rail link between Salisbury and Beaudesert (passenger rail). The rail corridor is a standard gauge (1.435 metres) single track with dual gauge features between Salisbury and Roma Street Stations. The section of the rail corridor between the Queensland/New South Wales border and Acacia Ridge is leased by the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) from the Queensland Government.

4. Various stages of consultation and investigation have been undertaken for the following Queensland sections of the Inland Rail project.- Kagaru to Acacia Ridge and Bromelton (K2ARB)

- An initial advice statement has been lodged with the Coordinator-General, who will determine if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required.

- Initial public consultation was held at Calamvale, Browns Plains and Acacia Ridge in December 2018.

- Gowrie to Helidon, Helidon to Calvert, and Calvert to Kagaru- EIS packages, including public consultation, are in progress.- The Registration of Interest and market sounding processes for Public Private

Partnerships are also underway.- Queensland/New South Wales border to Gowrie

- The EIS package is in progress.

5. Community consultation has commenced and is ongoing for the respective Queensland sections of the Inland Rail project. Information stands were available at shopping centres in Calamvale, Browns Plains and Jimboomba on 10, 12 and 15 December 2018, and 350 interactions were recorded. A Community Consultative Committee has also been established for the K2ARB project area. To date, the K2ARB Community Consultative Committee has held two meetings on 12 November 2018 and 11 February 2019 respectively.


- 67 -

6. With respect to the Bromelton to Acacia Ridge alignment, there are no land requirements for this section as the existing rail corridor will be maintained with some enhancements to the track. The track will be lowered, where it passes under the road bridges at Beaudesert and Learoyd Roads, Acacia Ridge, and Johnson Road, Parkinson, to accommodate double stacked freight containers. Passing loop extensions will also be constructed outside of Brisbane to accommodate larger trains.

7. The Bromelton Freight Terminal site was declared as a State Development Area in 2008. The intermodal rail freight facility (including warehouses) is being operated by SCT Logistics. Other freight terminals will also be established by ARTC and Mirvac.

8. Following the release of its initial concept design in 2011, the proposed alignment for the passenger rail has undergone a series of refinements and is currently awaiting community consultation subject to ministerial approval. The passenger rail will have an electrified dual track (1.067 metre narrow gauge) to support passenger trains, and a separated standard gauge freight track. The freight track is to be relocated to allow for the construction of the passenger line and curve easings will be implemented to increase passenger train performance. New stations will be built along the line at Acacia Ridge, Algester and Hillcrest, together with provisions for the future addition of more freight track.

9. It is anticipated that construction of the Queensland sections of the Inland Rail project will be undertaken between 2021 and 2024. Cross River Rail is also targeted for completion in 2024. Construction of the Salisbury to Flagstone section of the passenger rail and realignment of the freight line between Salisbury and Flagstone will commence before 2041. Additionally, construction of the Flagstone to Beaudesert section of the passenger rail and realignment of the freight line between Flagstone and Kagaru are both planned to occur after 2050.

10. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr O’Keeffe for his informative presentation.

11. RECOMMENDATION:


B PETITION – REQUESTING AN ASSESSMENT OF TOWNSEND STREET, QUEENS PARADE AND SEAVIEW STREET, BRIGHTON, FOR IMPROVED SPEED LIMIT SIGNAGE AND POSSIBLE SPEED BUMPSCA18/1020635

529/2018-1912. A petition from residents, requesting an assessment of Townsend Street, Queens Parade and Seaview

Street, Brighton, for improved speed limit signage and possible speed bumps, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 13 November 2018, by Councillor Jared Cassidy, and received.

13. The Manager, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.

14. The petition contains 11 signatures. Of the petitioners, two live on Townsend Street, two live on Queens Parade and one lives on Seaview Street, with the remainder living in other northern suburbs of the City of Brisbane.

15. The petitioners are concerned that there is a large number of speeding motorists passing through Townsend Street, Queens Parade and Seaview Street, which has led to a number of near misses. They are requesting improved speed limit signage and the consideration of speed bumps, also known as traffic calming, to improve safety.

16. Townsend Street, Queens Parade and Seaview Street have 50 km/h speed limits and are considered to be neighbourhood access roads under Council’s road hierarchy providing access to local residential properties. Attachment B (submitted on file) shows a locality map.

17. The petitioners’ feedback about speeding motorists has been noted. To promote safety through driver awareness and minimise speeding on suburban roads, Council has implemented the Speed Awareness


- 68 -

Monitors (SAM) program. SAMs are installed for a minimum of one month and increase motorist awareness of their travelling speed by acting as a reminder to adhere to the speed limit. The citywide program has seen a marked decrease in the number of motorists travelling over the speed limit when passing the signs, with an average speed reduction of more than 8 km/h across all sites since the program began in late 2013.

18. A SAM was installed in late October 2018 in Townsend Street, in the vicinity of number 43. The SAM has been very effective in this 50 km/h location, with the average speed of motorists who were recorded exceeding the limit dropping by 9 km/h after passing the sign. It is also noted that Queens Parade is listed as a future SAM location, with its priority to be determined by the local councillor in the coming months for inclusion in the next rotation of devices.

19. The petitioners’ request for speed bumps to calm traffic has been noted. Traffic calming involves the installation of devices such as speed platforms and chicanes to discourage use from non-local traffic and to moderate vehicle speeds, providing a safer environment for all road users. There is a high demand for traffic calming across the city and Council must prioritise funding to those projects that deliver the greatest benefit in terms of safety and amenity for the wider community.

20. In order to determine the priority of any works required in the area, consideration is given to a recent traffic survey undertaken on Townsend Street in October 2017. The recorded volume was 1,282 vehicles per day which is under the amount expected for this type of road, given its function as a neighbourhood road within the road network. The results identify that the 85th percentile speed, that is the speed at which 85% of vehicles travel at or below, was 55 km/h which shows a level of non-compliance. It is anticipated that the SAM sign will improve motorist compliance on Townsend Street as has been recorded at other sites across Brisbane.

21. In relation to the request for consideration of traffic calming in this location, to be effective, traffic calming would need to cover the entire area bounded by Queens Parade, Beaconsfield Terrace and Townsend Street, including other parallel streets such as Seaview, Morcombe, Nundah and Stubbs Streets.

22. Recent traffic volume and speed data from Queens Parade or Seaview Street is not available. Accordingly, Council will undertake a traffic survey on these streets early in this year to determine if any additional traffic treatments are warranted. Surveys must be undertaken during the school year in order to assess the traffic volume which would be expected on a regular weekday. The results of these surveys will be provided early in 2019.

23. The petitioners’ request for additional speed limit signage has been noted. As has been outlined above, Townsend Street, Queens Parade and Seaview Street are all neighbourhood roads with 50 km/h speed limits. The default 50 km/h speed limit applies on all roads in built-up areas in Queensland unless signed otherwise. As this is a common road rule throughout Queensland, these streets are not required to be signed with speed limit signage and there are no plans to install any at this time.

24. As speeding is primarily a behavioural issue, it is best handled by enforcement of the Queensland Road Rules by the Queensland Police Service (QPS). Speeding vehicle complaints are able to be mitigated by regular enforcement by the QPS and they can be contacted on 13 HOON (13 46 66).

Consultation

25. Councillor Jared Cassidy, Councillor for Deagon Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

Customer impact

26. The response will address the petitioners’ concerns.

27. The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.

28. RECOMMENDATION:


- 69 -

THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS SUBMISSION BE NOTED AND THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER.

Attachment ADraft response


Thank you for your petition requesting an assessment of Townsend Street, Queens Parade and Seaview Street, Brighton, for improved speed limit signage and possible speed bumps.

Your feedback about speeding motorists has been noted. To promote safety through driver awareness and minimise speeding on suburban roads, Council has implemented the Speed Awareness Monitors (SAM) program. SAMs are installed for a minimum of one month and increase motorist awareness of their travelling speed by acting as a reminder to adhere to the speed limit. The citywide program has seen a marked decrease in the number of motorists travelling over the speed limit when passing the signs, with an average speed reduction of more than 8 km/h across all sites since the program began in late 2013.

A SAM was installed in late October 2018 in Townsend Street, in the vicinity of number 43. The SAM has been very effective in this 50 km/h location, with the average speed of motorists who were recorded exceeding the limit dropping by 9 km/h after passing the sign. It is also noted that Queens Parade is listed as a future SAM location, with its priority to be determined by the local councillor in the coming months for inclusion in the next rotation of devices.

Your request for speed bumps to calm traffic has been noted. Traffic calming involves the installation of devices such as speed platforms and chicanes to discourage use from non-local traffic and to moderate vehicle speeds, providing a safer environment for all road users. There is a high demand for traffic calming across the city and Council must prioritise funding to those projects that deliver the greatest benefit in terms of safety and amenity for the wider community.

In order to determine the priority of any works required in the area, consideration is given to a recent traffic survey undertaken on Townsend Street in October 2017. The recorded volume was 1,282 vehicles per day which is under the amount expected for this type of road, given its function as a neighbourhood road within the road network. The results identify that the 85th percentile speed, that is the speed at which 85% of vehicles travel at or below, was 55 km/h which shows a level of non-compliance. It is anticipated that the SAM sign will improve motorist compliance on Townsend Street as has been recorded at other sites across Brisbane.

In relation to your request for consideration of traffic calming in this location, to be effective, traffic calming would need to cover the entire area bounded by Queens Parade, Beaconsfield Terrace and Townsend Street, including other parallel streets such as Seaview, Morcombe, Nundah and Stubbs Streets.

Recent traffic volume and speed data from Queens Parade or Seaview Street is not available. Accordingly, Council will undertake a traffic survey on these streets early in the year to determine if any additional traffic treatments are warranted. Surveys must be undertaken during the school year in order to assess the traffic volume which would be expected on a regular weekday. The results of these surveys will be provided early in 2019.

Your request for additional speed limit signage has been noted. As has been outlined above, Townsend Street, Queens Parade and Seaview Street are all neighbourhood roads with 50 km/h speed limits. The default 50 km/h speed limit applies on all roads in built-up areas in Queensland unless signed otherwise. As this is a common road rule throughout Queensland, these streets are not required to be signed with speed limit signage and there are no plans to install any at this time.

As speeding is primarily a behavioural issue, it is best handled by enforcement of the Queensland Road Rules by the Queensland Police Service (QPS). Speeding vehicle complaints are able to be mitigated by regular enforcement by the QPS and they can be contacted on 13 HOON (13 46 66).


- 70 -

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Lucas Stewart, Senior Transport Network Officer, Investigations Unit, Transport Network Operations, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3178 0220.

Please let the other petitioners know of this information.ADOPTED

C PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL MAKE CHANGES TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND SAFETY ON VENNER ROAD, ANNERLEYCA18/1030446

530/2018-1929. A petition from residents, requesting Council make changes to improve pedestrian access and safety on

Venner Road, Annerley, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 20 November 2018, by Councillor Nicole Johnston, and received.


31. The petition contains 222 signatures. Of the petitioners, 96 live in Tennyson Ward with 12 of these living on Venner Road, 106 live in other suburbs of the City of Brisbane and 20 live outside the City of Brisbane.

32. The petitioners are raising concerns about pedestrian safety following a recent road crash at the intersection of Venner Road, Lagonda and Frederick Streets, Annerley. To improve safety, the petitioners are requesting that access into Lagonda Street from Venner Road be restricted, a signalised pedestrian crossing be provided at the intersection, a reduced speed limit of 40 km/h be installed on Venner Road and a right-turning lane be built at Venner Road where it enters into Ipswich Road.

33. Venner Road is considered to be a suburban road in Council’s road hierarchy. Suburban roads connect arterial routes in and around suburbs and form important links in the public transport and inter-suburban freight network. Suburban roads typically carry a speed limit of 60 km/h or more and are primarily designed to carry traffic movements rather than provide property access. There are no Council bus services operating on Venner Road. Attachment B (submitted on file) shows a locality map.

34. There are two existing pedestrian refuge islands at the intersection of Venner Road, Lagonda and Frederick Streets. One crosses Venner Road and is approximately 30 metres to the east of the intersection. The second crosses Frederick Street and is located at the intersection. Pedestrian refuge islands allow pedestrians to cross the road in two stages allowing them to negotiate only one direction of traffic at a time. This is Council’s preferred treatment for locations without traffic signals as it encourages pedestrians to ensure the road is clear before crossing.

35. Council has allocated funding and commenced a corridor review of the transport planning required to upgrade the intersection of Ipswich and Venner Roads. This investigation will identify the most appropriate and feasible options to upgrade the intersection and the broader Ipswich Road corridor. Due to its proximity to the intersection of Venner Road, Lagonda and Frederick Streets, the petitioners’ request for improvements along Venner Road and at the intersection of Venner Road, Lagonda and Frederick Streets will be considered when the investigation is completed.

36. Council is awaiting the outcome of the Queensland Police Service (QPS) investigation into the recent crash and will ensure any recommendations made by QPS or the Coroner are implemented in future works.

Consultation

37. Councillor Nicole Johnston, Councillor for Tennyson Ward, has been consulted and does not support the recommendation.

Customer impact


- 71 -


39. The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed, with Councillor Peter Cumming abstaining.

40. RECOMMENDATION:




Thank you for your petition requesting Council make changes to improve pedestrian access and safety on Venner Road, Annerley.

There are two existing pedestrian refuge islands at the intersection of Venner Road, Lagonda and Frederick Streets, Annerley. One crosses Venner Road and is approximately 30 metres to the east of the intersection. The second crosses Frederick Street and is located at the intersection. Pedestrian refuge islands allow pedestrians to cross the road in two stages allowing them to negotiate only one direction of traffic at a time. This is Council’s preferred treatment for locations without traffic signals as it encourages pedestrians to ensure the road is clear before crossing.

Council has allocated funding and commenced a corridor review of the transport planning required to upgrade the intersection of Ipswich and Venner Roads. This investigation will identify the most appropriate and feasible options to upgrade the intersection and the broader Ipswich Road corridor. Due to its proximity to the intersection of Venner Road, Lagonda and Frederick Streets, your request for improvements along Venner Road and at the intersection of Venner Road, Lagonda and Frederick Streets will be considered when the investigation is completed.

Council is awaiting the outcome of the Queensland Police Service (QPS) investigation into the recent crash and will ensure any recommendations made by QPS or the Coroner are implemented in future works.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Kiran Sreedharan, Senior Transport Network Officer, Investigations Unit, Transport Network Operations, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3178 1178.


D PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL INSTALL WILDLIFE CROSSING SIGNAGE ON ARCHER STREET, GUMDALECA19/2153

531/2018-1941. A petition from residents, requesting Council install wildlife crossing signage on Archer Street,

Gumdale, was received during the Summer Recess 2018-19.


43. The petition contains nine signatures. All of the petitioners live in the City of Brisbane.

44. The petitioners are concerned about the impact to local wildlife crossing Archer Street, which is located next to a small creek and home to a number of native birds. The petitioners are requesting the installation of wildlife crossing signage to raise the awareness of passing motorists.


- 72 -

45. Archer Street is a neighbourhood access road under Council’s road hierarchy, providing access to local residential properties. Attachment B (submitted on file) shows a locality map.

46. Based on feedback received and observations made by local residents about families of ducks found on Archer Street, Council arranged to install two ‘Care For Our Wildlife’ (duck) signs on each side of Archer Street, approximately 90 metres south of New Cleveland Road, near the water course which runs east-west at this location.

47. The signs were installed on 29 January 2019.

Consultation

48. Councillor Adrian Schrinner, Councillor for Chandler Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

Customer impact


50. The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.

51. RECOMMENDATION:




Thank you for your petition requesting Council install wildlife crossing signage on Archer Street, Gumdale.

Based on feedback received and observations made by local residents about families of ducks found on Archer Street, Council arranged to install two ‘Care For Our Wildlife’ (duck) signs on each side of Archer Street, approximately 90 metres south of New Cleveland Road, near the water course which runs east-west at this location.

The signs were installed on 29 January 2019.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr David Clarke, Senior Transport Network Officer, Investigations Unit, Transport Network Operations, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3178 5601.


CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE

Councillor Matthew BOURKE, Chairman of the City Planning Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Ryan MURPHY, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 19 February 2019, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor BOURKE.

Councillor BOURKE: I am happy to leave it to the Council Chamber, Madam Chair.


Councillor CASSIDY.


- 73 -

Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks, Madam Chair.

Just on items B and C, the two petitions which are for the same development application at the same site. I supported the recommendation, given its proximity to the Boondall train station. I believe this site probably could cope with and cater for higher density living in terms of some form of townhouses or small lots. However, I do agree with the petitioners that there are some concerns around the density that was proposed, that is proposed, and I understand Council has sent an information request.



Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the City Planning Committee was declared carried on the voices.


ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Matthew Bourke (Chairman), Councillor Ryan Murphy (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Adam Allan, Jared Cassidy, Steven Huang and Jonathan Sri.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – HOW COUNCIL IS MEETING ITS DWELLING TARGETS

532/2018-191. Sharon Nicol, Strategic Planning Manager, City Planning and Economic Development, City Planning

and Sustainability, attended the meeting to provide an update on how Council is meeting its dwelling targets. She provided the information below.

2. The planning framework for Brisbane is defined under the State Government’s South East Queensland Regional Plan 2017 (ShapingSEQ), which sets dwelling supply targets for Brisbane, the State Planning Policy 2017, and Council’s Brisbane City Plan 2014 and Neighbourhood planning.

3. The strategic framework for guiding the city’s growth includes transport corridors, growth nodes (planned and future) and future suburban living areas. Dwelling targets under Brisbane City Plan 2014 includes 545,262 dwellings by 2031, in compliance with the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031. A map showing Brisbane’s strategic framework was shown to the Committee members.

4. ShapingSEQ sets additional dwelling supply targets for Brisbane. The 2016-2041 target is an additional 188,200 dwellings in Brisbane which is comprised of the following: - consolidation (infill) – 176,800 dwellings- expansion (greenfield) – 11,400 dwellings.

5. ShapingSEQ requires a minimum 15 year rolling supply of dwellings. Brisbane is performing well above the benchmark with 19 years of supply. The Queensland Government’s Land Supply and Development Monitoring Report released on 21 December 2018, showed that in 2017-2018 Brisbane delivered: - 10,353 dwelling approvals in consolidation areas (ahead of the 7,047 average benchmark)- 893 dwelling approvals in expansion areas (ahead of the 327 average benchmark).Brisbane does not require multiple dwelling development in Low density residential zoned areas to reach dwelling targets.

6. Planning considerations for 2041 include: - Brisbane is ahead of the 15 year rolling supply- current figures do not include recently adopted Neighbourhood plans and State Government

Priority Development Areas- activation of future and planned growth nodes – neighbourhood planning- new Planning Scheme reviews will occur between now and 2041.


- 74 -

7. The Strategic Framework will continue to shape where the city will grow. New dwellings and employment will be focused around growth nodes on key transport corridors, while retaining Brisbane’s leafy suburban living areas. Detailed local planning will continue to occur through the Neighbourhood Planning program to deliver on housing diversity and supply.

8. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Ms Nicol for her informative presentation.

9. RECOMMENDATION:


B PETITION – OBJECTING TO A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 97, 99 AND 107 STANWORTH ROAD, BOONDALL (APPLICATION REFERENCE A004924122) CA18/923823

533/2018-1910. A petition from residents objecting to a proposed development at 97, 99 and 107 Stanworth Road,

Boondall, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 16 October 2018, by Councillor Jared Cassidy, Councillor for Deagon Ward, and received.

11. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the following information.


13. The petitioners object to a proposed development at 97, 99 and 107 Stanworth Road, Boondall (application reference A004924122), and have identified the following issues.- The proposal includes the removal of large trees onsite.- The addition of the proposed townhouses will change the feel of the area.- The proposal will result in more cars and vehicle movements, which will cause congestion on

Aberdeen and Normanhurst Roads. More street parking will occur, adding to congestion when considered with the existing residents, train station, and Boondall Entertainment Centre street parking.

- ‘Rat runner’ traffic that feeds in from Sandgate Road at the Carlyle Road and Holroyd Street intersections should be addressed.

- The petitioners understand the area is a prime site for development, however, request that approval is only granted for a considerably smaller development that retains many more large trees and incorporates more wildlife-friendly green space and wildlife boxes.

14. The subject site is in the Emerging community zone of Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan) and is not located within a neighbourhood plan area.

15. The current application is under assessment for multiple dwellings (86 units). The application is being assessed against the requirements of City Plan and in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act 2016 (the Act).

16. An Information Request was issued to the applicant by Council on 21 June 2018. The Information Request asked the applicant to respond to the matters raised, including biodiversity impacts, bushfire hazard, vehicle access, refuse collection, new road works, street trees, landscaping, deep planting, communal space, private open space, significant trees, retaining walls, pedestrian entries, boundary setbacks, building length and variation, building orientation and casual surveillance, and land contamination. The applicant submitted a response to the Information Request on 11 July 2018, which was assessed by Council and further outstanding issues were identified.

17. A Further Issues letter was issued by Council on 5 September 2018. The Further Issues letter asked the applicant to respond to the matters raised including biodiversity impacts, bushfire hazard, landscaping and tree retention, boundary setbacks, building length and variation, private open space, casual surveillance and articulation, and land contamination. The applicant submitted a response to the Further Issues letter on 25 October 2018, which is currently under assessment by Council.


- 75 -

18. A second Further Issues letter was issued by Council on 22 November 2018. The second Further Issues letter asked the applicant to respond to the matters raised, including biodiversity impacts, landscaping and tree retention, private open space, communal space, building length, building articulation and casual surveillance, and side boundary setbacks. The applicant submitted a response to the Further Issues letter on 21 December 2018, which is currently under assessment by Council.

19. The application is considered to be impact assessable and therefore formal public notification was required under the provisions of the Act. Public notification was undertaken by the applicant between 3 August 2018 and 24 August 2018. A total of four submissions (three properly made) were received by Council and are being considered as part of the assessment. The petitioners’ concerns will be taken into account as part of the assessment.

Consultation


21. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed, with Councillor Jonathan Sri dissenting.

22. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE HEAD PETITIONER BE ADVISED OF THE INFORMATION SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.

Attachment AInformation to be provided to the head petitioner

The subject site is in the Emerging community zone of Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan) and is not located within a neighbourhood plan area.

The current application is under assessment for multiple dwellings (86 units). The application is being assessed against the requirements of City Plan and in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act 2016 (the Act).

An Information Request was issued by Council on 21 June 2018. The Information Request asked the applicant to respond to the matters raised, including biodiversity impacts, bushfire hazard, vehicle access, refuse collection, new road works, street trees, landscaping, deep planting, communal space, private open space, significant trees, retaining walls, pedestrian entries, boundary setbacks, building length and variation, building orientation and casual surveillance, and land contamination. The applicant submitted a response to the Information Request on 11 July 2018, which was assessed by Council and further outstanding issues were identified.

A Further Issues letter was issued by Council on 5 September 2018. The Further Issues letter asked the applicant to respond to the matters raised including biodiversity impacts, bushfire hazard, landscaping and tree retention, boundary setbacks, building length and variation, private open space, casual surveillance and articulation, and land contamination. The applicant submitted a response to the Further Issues letter on 25 October 2018, which is currently under assessment by Council.

A second Further Issues letter was issued by Council on 22 November 2018. The second Further Issues letter asked the applicant to respond to the matters raised, including biodiversity impacts, landscaping and tree retention, private open space, communal space, building length, building articulation and casual surveillance, and side boundary setbacks. The applicant submitted a response to the Further Issues letter on 21 December 2018, which is currently under assessment by Council.

The application is considered to be impact assessable and therefore formal public notification was required under the provisions of the Act. Public notification was undertaken by the applicant between 3 August 2018 and 24 August 2018. A total of four submissions (three properly made) were received by Council and are being considered as part of the assessment. The petitioners’ concerns will be taken into account as part of the assessment.

ADOPTED


- 76 -

C PETITION – OBJECTING TO A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 97, 99 AND 107 STANWORTH ROAD, BOONDALL (APPLICATION REFERENCE A004924122) CA18/945057

534/2018-1923. A petition from residents objecting to a proposed development at 97, 99 and 107 Stanworth Road,

Boondall, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 16 October 2018, by Councillor Jared Cassidy, Councillor for Deagon Ward, and received.

24. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the following information.


26. The petitioners object to a proposed development at 97, 99 and 107 Stanworth Road, Boondall (application reference A004924122), and have identified the following issues.- The proposal includes the removal of large trees onsite.- The addition of the proposed townhouses will change the feel of the area.- The proposal will result in more cars and vehicle movements, which will cause congestion on

Aberdeen and Normanhurst Roads. More street parking will occur, adding to congestion when considered with the existing residents, train station, and Boondall Entertainment Centre street parking.

- ‘Rat runner’ traffic that feeds in from Sandgate Road at the Carlyle Road and Holroyd Street intersections should be addressed.

- The petitioners understand the area is a prime site for development, however, request that approval is only granted for a considerably smaller development that retains many more large trees and incorporates more wildlife-friendly green space and wildlife boxes.

27. The subject site is in the Emerging community zone of Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan) and is not located within a neighbourhood plan area.

28. The current application is under assessment for multiple dwellings (86 units). The application is being assessed against the requirements of City Plan and in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act 2016 (the Act).

29. An Information Request was issued to the applicant by Council on 21 June 2018. The Information Request asked the applicant to respond to the matters raised, including biodiversity impacts, bushfire hazard, vehicle access, refuse collection, new road works, street trees, landscaping, deep planting, communal space, private open space, significant trees, retaining walls, pedestrian entries, boundary setbacks, building length and variation, building orientation and casual surveillance, and land contamination. The applicant submitted a response to the Information Request on 11 July 2018, which was assessed by Council and further outstanding issues were identified.

30. A Further Issues letter was issued by Council on 5 September 2018. The Further Issues letter asked the applicant to respond to the matters raised including biodiversity impacts, bushfire hazard, landscaping and tree retention, boundary setbacks, building length and variation, private open space, casual surveillance and articulation, and land contamination. The applicant submitted a response to the Further Issues letter on 25 October 2018, which is currently under assessment by Council.

31. A second Further Issues letter was issued by Council on 22 November 2018. The second Further Issues letter asked the applicant to respond to the matters raised, including biodiversity impacts, landscaping and tree retention, private open space, communal space, building length, building articulation and casual surveillance, and side boundary setbacks. The applicant submitted a response to the Further Issues letter on 21 December 2018, which is currently under assessment by Council.

32. The application is considered to be impact assessable and therefore formal public notification was required under the provisions of the Act. Public notification was undertaken by the applicant between 3 August 2018 and 24 August 2018. A total of four submissions (three properly made) were received by Council and are being considered as part of the assessment. The petitioners’ concerns will be taken into account as part of the assessment.


- 77 -

Consultation


34. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed, with Councillor Jonathan Sri dissenting.

35. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE HEAD PETITIONER BE ADVISED OF THE INFORMATION SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.

Attachment AInformation to be provided to the head petitioner

The subject site is in the Emerging community zone of Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan) and is not located within a neighbourhood plan area.

The current application is under assessment for multiple dwellings (86 units). The application is being assessed against the requirements of City Plan and in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act 2016 (the Act).

An Information Request was issued by Council on 21 June 2018. The Information Request asked the applicant to respond to the matters raised, including biodiversity impacts, bushfire hazard, vehicle access, refuse collection, new road works, street trees, landscaping, deep planting, communal space, private open space, significant trees, retaining walls, pedestrian entries, boundary setbacks, building length and variation, building orientation and casual surveillance, and land contamination. The applicant submitted a response to the Information Request on 11 July 2018, which was assessed by Council and further outstanding issues were identified.

A Further Issues letter was issued by Council on 5 September 2018. The Further Issues letter asked the applicant to respond to the matters raised including biodiversity impacts, bushfire hazard, landscaping and tree retention, boundary setbacks, building length and variation, private open space, casual surveillance and articulation, and land contamination. The applicant submitted a response to the Further Issues letter on 25 October 2018, which is currently under assessment by Council.

A second Further Issues letter was issued by Council on 22 November 2018. The second Further Issues letter asked the applicant to respond to the matters raised, including biodiversity impacts, landscaping and tree retention, private open space, communal space, building length, building articulation and casual surveillance, and side boundary setbacks. The applicant submitted a response to the Further Issues letter on 21 December 2018, which is currently under assessment by Council.

The application is considered to be impact assessable and therefore formal public notification was required under the provisions of the Act. Public notification was undertaken by the applicant between 3 August 2018 and 24 August 2018. A total of four submissions (three properly made) were received by Council and are being considered as part of the assessment. The petitioners’ concerns will be taken into account as part of the assessment.

ADOPTED

ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE

Councillor David McLACHLAN, Chairman of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Norm WYNDHAM, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 19 February 2019, be adopted.

Chairman: Any debate?

Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will leave that to the Council Chamber and respond if need be.


- 78 -

Chairman: Any further debate?


Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes. Just very briefly on item C, Madam Chairman.

I rise to support and draw Council’s attention to the renaming of two parks in Yeronga. One is the former Rhyndarra Military Hospital site which is a very, very significant building down on the river in Yeronga. The proposal is to name it Rigby Place in honour of a military family who are pioneers in the district. The father and the son served in World War I and the father who returned was one of the founding members of the Yeronga Dutton Park RSL.

This was a recommendation or a suggestion by the Yeronga-Dutton Park RSL and I am very happy that the community has supported this important change to reflect our community’s very significant wartime service and cultural and military history in the district. Interestingly, one of the people who campaigned so hard as part of the Yeronga District Residents Association to save the Rhyndarra Military Hospital from being knocked down back when, I think, Tim Quinn was the member, there was a plan to turn that whole area into units, was Ron Goeldner.

Now, Ron Goeldner sadly passed away last year. He was a 25-year member of Neighbourhood Watch; he was a president/treasurer of the Yeronga District Residents Association. He was on the P&F at St Sebastian’s. I mean, he was on the RSL. He was on the executive of the Services Club. You name it, Ron Goeldner was a huge champion of the district that he absolutely loved and made his home in and that was Yeronga.

So I am also delighted that Council will honour Ron’s service to the Yeronga community by renaming the Esplanade Park in his honour and his family are very supportive of this and we all know that behind Ron, of course, is a very hardworking woman and that is Pat Goeldner. Quite a few people said to me that it really should be the Ron and Pat Goeldner Park which I think was very beautiful, although Pat would never want that kind of publicity.

So I just say that these are both very important local park namings for our community and I certainly hope that Council will endorse this and I will be making sure that it is done finally and formally in the promptest possible way as opposed to some other park namings which seem to have taken almost a year.


Councillor McLACHLAN?


Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee was declared carried on the voices.


ATTENDANCE:

Councillor David McLachlan (Chairman), Councillor Norm Wyndham (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Nicole Johnston and Julian Simmonds.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE:

Councillors Steve Griffiths and Angela Owen.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – THE CHANGING NATURE OF PARKS

535/2018-19


- 79 -

1. Lachlan Carkeet, Parks and Natural Resources Manager, Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability, City Planning and Sustainability, attended the meeting to provide an update on the changing nature of parks. He provided the information below.

2. From the first park, the City Botanic Gardens, to the most recently constructed Frew Park, Brisbane’s parks have evolved with the times.

3. In the 1820s, convicts cleared the land now known as the City Botanic Gardens and established the Government Gardens to grow subsistence crops to feed the penal colony. Over the years the City Botanic Gardens has had a unique history. It has had a pharmaceutical plant collection, hosted popular evening concerts and had an aviary and zoo that was home to flamingos, deer, monkeys, bears, kangaroos, emus and a Galapagos tortoise.

4. Today the City Botanic Gardens play host to one of Brisbane’s key public art projects, ‘Botanica’, a contemporary art outdoors festival held annually. It is also home to weekly Sunday markets, food truck visits, daily volunteer guide tours, and is an accessible and inclusive playground that is used for free wellness and active and healthy sessions.

5. Frew Park, formerly the Milton Tennis Centre, was completed in 2014. It is a 3.5 hectare inner city parkland. It is home to the Roy Emerson Tennis Centre and ‘The Arena’ playground. The playground was the first of its kind in Brisbane, designed to suit children and young people from 10 to 15 years of age. It combines architectural and play components based on the former tennis court grandstand.

6. The land on which New Farm Park is located was originally part of the ‘new farm’, a farm established by convicts from 1827 to provide food for the penal settlement. In 1846, the Moreton Bay Jockey Club moved its annual race to the south-eastern corner of the New Farm peninsula and the site became a racecourse. Over the years a kiosk and bandstand were constructed and sports grounds, croquet and lawn tennis courts were installed. Rose bushes, fig trees, bougainvilleas and jacarandas were planted as part of some 650 trees, plants and shrubs that were planted in the park.

7. The modern day New Farm Park still plays host to the bandstand, sporting fields and various plantings and more recently, the New Farm Library, an accessible and inclusive playground, a dog off-leash area and events. It is one of Brisbane’s favourite and most visited parks.

8. In the past a swing, monkey bars, a see-saw or a slippery slide would constitute a playground. There are many ways that playground design has changed over the years. One of the biggest changes in playground design is that playgrounds have gone from catering to younger children with physical strength type activities like monkey bars to catering for a whole range of development needs for children of all ages and abilities. Many years ago the same level of consideration was not given to aspects such as climbability and safety. Modern day playgrounds will have some sort of soft fall. A lot of the older play equipment was made from metal but Council has moved away from using as much metal, as, in the Queensland heat, the hot surface is not conducive to play.

9. Contemporary playgrounds are far more engaging and offer a wide diversity of sensory experiences. Council builds waterplay facilities, encourages nature play activities, and ensures playgrounds are accessible and inclusive in order to cater to all ages and abilities. Details of some of the contemporary playgrounds were shared with Committee members including the Frew Park at Milton and the Bill Brown Reserve sports park within Fitzgibbons Parklands.

10. Urban commons are a relatively new type of city park, usually smaller than traditional parks but offering green refuge in an urban environment. They can be used for all kinds of recreation, from fitness to relaxing with a picnic, sheltered table and chairs, and open space for recreation activities. Bunyapa Park at West End is an example of an urban commons that was established in 2017 after considerable community consultation. It is a popular meeting spot for the local community. The park name represents the coming together of people from different communities for events and celebrations and pays homage to the area’s rich Indigenous history. Milton Urban Common is due for completion by the end of 2019. Carl Street Park, Woolloongabba, and Chalk Street Park, South Brisbane, are some other similar projects that are being considered by Council.

11. Placemaking is the reanimation of spaces and communities through artistic and cultural activities. Place-making projects aim to cultivate cultural and community development. They are projects that have been identified and will generally include substantial changes to the public realm that focus on


- 80 -

pedestrian amenity and issues such as creating spaces for pedestrian traffic. They are easily accessible, providing clear sight lines, with attractive places to walk, shop, eat and relax, and have street furniture installed. Some examples of placemaking initiatives in Council’s parks are the Chairs2Share program in the City Botanic Gardens and Roma Street Parkland, outdoor table tennis tables installed as part of the Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games in selected parks, and Goori Gulwadin, an Indigenous games trail that was installed at the C.B. Mott Park in Holland Park.

12. There are 36 public skate facilities in Brisbane. Some of the new and upgraded skate facilities include the Bracken Ridge Skate Plaza and BMX facility and other facilities at Paddington, Inala, Balmoral, Murrarie, Grovely and Ashgrove. The Darra BMX facility is due for completion in 2019.

13. MUGAs (Multi-Use Game Arenas) are a new take on public recreational facilities for court-based sports. They include line markings, goals and optional fencing for multiple sports including basketball, five-a-side soccer, netball, ‘indoor’ cricket and innovative outdoor gym equipment that is acceptable and suitable for cross-training, boot camp, seniors and persons with limited physical abilities. Council has adopted an approach to deliver MUGAs alongside large fitness equipment stations to create free outdoor gyms providing a great opportunity for people to adopt an active and healthy lifestyle. Locations of existing and proposed MUGA sites were shared with Committee members.

14. Dog off-leash areas are very popular and in increasing demand. Small dog off-leash areas, specifically for small dogs are also now expected as very small breeds gain popularity as pets. Council provides more than 135 dog off-leash areas (commonly known as ‘dog parks’) in parks across Brisbane. Some dog parks include agility equipment for drills and most include a shelter for dog park visitors. Information about potential sites for foreshore dog off-leash areas; designated parks for launching drones; fitness equipment as part of Council’s Active Parks program; memorials, public art and sculpture with Council’s parks; and festivals and markets held within Council’s parks was shared with Committee members.

15. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Carkeet for his informative presentation.

16. RECOMMENDATION:


B COMMITTEE REPORT – BUSHLAND PRESERVATION LEVY REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 2018

536/2018-1917. The Divisional Manager, Organisational Services, provided the Committee with a report on

expenditure for bushland purposes for the period ended December 2018.

18. The Bushland Preservation Levy Report is prepared on a quarterly basis in order to show the balance of funds held for environmental bushland purposes along with details of environment bushland expenditure.

19. The Committee noted the information contained in the report (submitted on file) and that the balance of the funds held for environment bushland purposes for the period ended December 2018 is ($28,361,211).

20. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE REPORT, submitted on file, BE NOTED.

ADOPTED


- 81 -

C PETITIONS – REQUESTING COUNCIL RENAME THE RIVERSIDE PARKLAND AT HERITAGE CLOSE, YERONGA, ADJACENT TO THE FORMER RHYNDARRA MILITARY HOSPITAL SITE AS ‘RIGBY PLACE’, AND RENAME THE ESPLANADE PARK, YERONGA, AS ‘RON GOELDNER PARK’CA18/1070644 and CA18/1055802

537/2018-1921. Council received two petitions requesting Council rename the riverside parkland at Heritage Close,

Yeronga, adjacent to the former Rhyndarra Military Hospital site as ‘Rigby Place’, and rename The Esplanade Park, Yeronga, as ‘Ron Goeldner Park’. The first petition (CA18/1055802) was presented to Council at its meeting of 20 November 2018 by Councillor Nicole Johnston, and received. The second petition (CA18/1070644) was presented to Council at its meeting of 27 November 2018 by Councillor Nicole Johnston, and received.

22. The petitions contain a total of 101 signatures.

23. The A/Executive Manager, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.

24. Recognition of Ron Goeldner’s significant contribution to the Yeronga, and Brisbane community through his life-long volunteer service for the Yeronga Neighbourhood Watch, Yeronga District Residents Association, Yeronga Dutton Park RSL, local schools and local kindergartens has been documented.

25. A third petition (CA18/1070715) was received requesting Council consider alternate park names for

the riverside parkland at Heritage Close, Yeronga, adjacent to the former Rhyndarra Military Hospital site and The Esplanade Park, Yeronga, that reflects the Traditional Owners of this area, such as ‘Uncle Desmond Sandy Park’ and ‘Yugarapul Chepara Park’.

Funding

26. Funds are currently available in the South Region, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, recurrent budget allocation for 2018-19.

Consultation

27. Councillor Nicole Johnston, Councillor for Tennyson Ward, was consulted and supports the recommendation.

28. The A/Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.

29. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER ADVISING THAT COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER RENAMING THE RIVERSIDE PARKLAND AT HERITAGE CLOSE, YERONGA, ADJACENT TO THE FORMER RHYNDARRA MILITARY HOSPITAL SITE AS ‘RIGBY PLACE’ AND THE ESPLANADE PARK, YERONGA, AS ‘RON GOELDNER PARK’, IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL’S OS03 NAMING PARKS, FACILITIES OR TRACKS PROCEDURE.

Attachment ADraft Response

Petition References: CA18/1070644 and CA18/1055802

Thank you for your petition requesting that Council rename the riverside parkland at Heritage Close, Yeronga, adjacent to the former Rhyndarra Military site as ‘Rigby Place’, and rename The Esplanade Park, Yeronga, as ‘Ron Goeldner Park’.

Council has completed an onsite investigation and considered your request.

Council will consider renaming the riverside parkland at Heritage Close, Yeronga, adjacent to the former Rhyndarra Military Hospital site as ‘Rigby Place’, and The Esplanade Park, Yeronga as


- 82 -

‘Ron Goeldner Park’, in accordance with Council’s OS03 Naming Parks, Facilities or Tracks Procedure. Council has also received another petition to name these sites.

Please advise the other petitioners of this information.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Warwick Davies, Regional Coordinator Parks, South Region, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3407 0639.


FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE

Councillor Vicki HOWARD, Chairman of the Field Services Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Kim MARX, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 19 February 2019, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor HOWARD.

Councillor HOWARD: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Before I begin my report, I would just like to address some comments made by Councillor JOHNSTON. It is, in fact, quite disappointing to hear Councillor JOHNSTON trying to accuse Council officers of not delivering on city cleansing, especially given the praise that Councillor JOHNSTON recently gave to our City Malls Cleansing officers in our recent Committee meeting where we heard about the fantastic work that our City Cleansing officers do.

In that Committee session, we had the opportunity to hear about the incredible passion and enthusiasm of our officers and the great pride that they have in their work to keep our city clean. Therefore, it is disappointing to hear Councillor JOHNSTON try and question the delivery of our City Cleansing program which continues to be delivered by our dedicated and passionate officers for the residents of Brisbane.

As this Chamber is aware, Brisbane achieves one of the lowest on ground litter rates in Australia. We are very proud of the fact that Brisbane is internationally renowned for its clean streets. The variance in the City Cleansing and Street Sweeping reflects housekeeping changes due to $240,000 underspend on street sweeping which is partially offset by an increase in city cleansing. This is where the manual sweeping occurs as opposed to the mechanical sweepers.

For example, if a sweeper is unable to go through a street due to parked cars, a manual crew will attend to manually sweep the area. Secondly, a cost centre transfer occurs in the next quarter related to fleet maintenance and this is budgeted and we expect to see the overall budget program on target.

So, Madam Chairman, I would just like on behalf of those on this side of the Chamber and, of course, Councillor RICHARDS, to pass on our thanks to our Council officers for their passion, their enthusiasm and their pride in their work.

Moving to the committee presentation, we had a presentation on our Council’s 104 or More initiative. The Committee was given an informative presentation on how Council was inspired by the Clean India Movement and is encouraging residents to help keep Brisbane clean and green by picking up two pieces of litter each week of the year. So great to also hear Selena’s presentation to Council today as well.

So, Madam Chairman, since July 2018 Council has hosted 54 pop-up events asking residents to get involved. This year we will see the launch of the 104 or More Clean Up Club. Council has partnered with Tangalooma EcoMarine to develop a new schools’ engagement program. EcoMarine ambassadors in each school will deliver the program with the Waste Minimisation Team attending the schools and technical support.


- 83 -

I would like to thank our officers for the incredible work they do and their dedication in supporting and working with the community.

Madam Chairman, I commend the report to the Chamber.


Councillor HAMMOND.

Councillor HAMMOND: Thanks, Madam Chair.

I rise to speak on item A very, very briefly and mention the new trend that is covering the world—or taking the world by storm at the moment: plogging. Plogging was started in Sweden and it is running or jogging while collecting rubbish. So it is all about promoting exercise as well as picking up rubbish for our community. I am happy to thank Zita in my community for suggesting the idea in my local area, or our local area, and Grange Forest Park.

My husband and children went out and it was great to see that other kids in the area, like little kids, were out enjoying the time with their families picking up rubbish. I am happy to see on my morning walks up in the Chermside hills, the reserves, I have actually seen some ploggers run through there and through the area picking up rubbish. So it is a great initiative and fully support the 104 and More. Thank you.


Nothing further, Councillor HOWARD?

I will put the report.

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Field Services Committee was declared carried on the voices.


ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Vicki Howard (Chairman), Councillor Kim Marx (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Nicole Johnston, Julian Simmonds, Charles Strunk and Steven Toomey.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – 104 OR MORE

538/2018-191. Terry Bird, A/Manager, Waste and Resource Recovery Services, Field Services,

Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on Council’s 104 or More initiative. He provided the information below.

2. The litter program 104 or More was inspired by the Clean-India movement ‘Swachh Bharat’ that was launched in October 2014. Brisbane adopted the concept and the 104 or More initiative was created to encourage residents to help by picking up two pieces of litter each week of the year. This equates to 104 pieces of litter annually.

3. The action of picking up litter is the behaviour Council wants to encourage. Just one person can set an example for all. Reaching out to the community is best achieved by getting onto footpaths and into parks and encouraging residents to get involved and become part of the team.

4. Since July 2018, the Waste Minimisation team has hosted 54 pop-up events, which included school visits, pop-up shops, large or small clean-ups, skate park engagements or large events in the CBD. The one element that stays consistent at these events is the 104 or More initiative where residents are asked to stay involved, and help by picking up two pieces of litter every week.

5. Litter prevention has proven to be a great engagement tool internally as well as with the community. Hosting positive litter conversations at assorted community events is a good fit in keeping Brisbane clean and green. The Waste Minimisation team has been invited by other areas of Council to promote the 104 or More initiative.


- 84 -

6. Council pop-up events in local parks connect directly with residents. By having Council staff accessible it allows residents to discuss specific local issues and to identify simple improvements that can be achieved together to keep Brisbane clean, green and sustainable.

7. This year will see the launch of the 104 or More Clean-Up Club. Council has partnered with Tangalooma EcoMarines to develop a new schools engagement program. EcoMarine ambassadors in each school deliver the program, with the Waste Minimisation team attending the schools and providing equipment and technical support. The students drive the clean-ups and deliver the results and improvement opportunities back to the school student population. This program sets a good example and encourages positive behaviour change.

8. Litter is a multicultural engagement opportunity for Council. The current 104 or More litter collection bag text has been translated into five languages as part of Council’s commitment to working with the community right across Brisbane. Languages include traditional Chinese, modern Chinese, Korean, Arabic and Vietnamese along with the original English version. Examples of 104 or More litter collection bags were shown to the Committee members.

9. Clear, simple and effective messaging that connects directly with the community is essential for the litter program across Brisbane. The tone of Council’s message is inclusive, encouraging the community to get involved in helping keep Brisbane clean. Different channels are used to get this message across to residents such as: - social media- community newspapers- waste collection trucks- community event signage.

10. Council sees an opportunity to engage with the community in working together to keep Brisbane clean and green. Community clean-up events introduce neighbours to new friends and connects communities. The Waste Minimisation team has 10 litter clean-up kits available to loan out to any small community organisation. Each kit contains 20 litter pickers, 10 hoops and litter bags, sunscreen, hand sanitizer, small sharps container and information about having the collected litter removed by Council. Any small community organisation wanting to get involved in a clean-up can access this kit by contacting Council’s 24-hour Contact Centre.

11. Clean Up Australia Day (CUAD) is an upcoming event that will occur on 3 March 2019. A pop-up litter shop was located in the Queen Street mall on 19 February 2019, to promote CUAD from 8am to 12pm. Groups across Brisbane have registered their interest in clean-ups across the city. These groups include: War on Waste Bayside, Clean-up Crew, Tangalooma EcoMarines, Plastic Free Gap and Trash Free Teneriffe. Council has lent 425 pickers, 180 hoops and 675 bags to registered groups hosting clean-ups. In 2018, there were 14,500 volunteers at 321 registered sites, and an estimated 706 tonnes of rubbish was collected.

12. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Bird for his informative presentation.

13. RECOMMENDATION:


LIFESTYLE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE

Councillor Peter MATIC, Chairman of the Lifestyle and Community Services Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Andrew WINES, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 19 February 2019, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor MATIC?

Any debate?


- 85 -

Councillor WINES.

Councillor WINES: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I just rise very briefly to commend the project discussed here in the report about library gardens and there are three prominent library gardens in the city. One in Mitchelton, one in Grange, which is in Marchant Ward, and one in Holland Park, which is in Holland Park Ward. Each of them shares a number of similarities. They are all Roy Harvey-era libraries built within parks that have recently been renovated but also in a way to open these libraries up, no longer these brick buildings that face inwards but they open outside to community.

Mitchelton was something of a trial and there was a group formed called MOGI, or the Mitchelton Organic Growers Inc, and they were auspiced and supported by a group called SOGI, which is the Stanford Organic Growers Inc, who taught them how to go about their work and it was a great pleasure to be there last year at their five-year anniversary.

So they started at the opening of the Mitchelton Library five years ago—it was five and a half years ago now—and they celebrated their fifth birthday, a fantastic local space. I just want to take a moment just to commend the local community. It is a citrus grove and herb garden and rarely is there any ever vandalism. People take what is proportionate and I think that that is a real sign of generosity and care among the community.

I would like to take a moment to recognise a person who was fundamental to that group called Anne-Mary who does a huge amount of work to make sure that that group continues doing their good work. I also want to recognise Councillor BOURKE who was there for the gift of the birdbath which was a great addition to that space. I just want to say how fantastic these three gardens are and if other Councillors get an opportunity to build them in similar places, I would strongly recommend it.


Councillor MATIC?


Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Lifestyle and Community Services Committee was declared carried on the voices.


ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Peter Matic (Chairman), Councillor Andrew Wines (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Kara Cook, Fiona Hammond, Kate Richards and Jonathan Sri.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – LIBRARY GARDENS: LEARNING, SHARING AND COMMUNITY

539/2018-191. Sharan Harvey, Manager, Library Services, Lifestyle and Community Services, attended the meeting to

provide an update on Library Gardens: Learning, sharing and community. She provided the information below.

2. Library gardens have been established at three park libraries in Brisbane: Mitchelton Library in 2013, Holland Park Library in 2015 and Grange Library in 2018.

3. Library gardens create an enriched experience for library visitors and local residents. Learning and sharing in library gardens occur through individual learning via hands-on practical experiences, social group learning, intergenerational connection, promoting sustainable living practice and a culture of sharing.


- 86 -

4. Library gardens contribute to the unique identity of the park libraries and their location in local communities. The library refurbishment program has enabled reinvigoration of park libraries through reoriented design and the addition of library decks which provide improved connection to the outdoors and Brisbane’s subtropical lifestyle. Library gardens further extend the footprint of the library and take learning beyond the four walls. A variety of spaces allow visitors to engage as they wish, including active participation in gardening, utilising quiet contemplative spaces and also collaborating with others at community tables.

5. The model of operation provides a supported volunteering environment for community engagement and benefit, with an ongoing exchange of knowledge, experience and appreciation between the library, visitors and community volunteers. The harvest from library gardens belongs to the community and the library is a key part of encouraging a culture of sharing for the whole community.

6. Library gardens are designed in consultation with horticultural experts, incorporating accessibility improvements for paths, community tables and raised garden beds. The community is welcome to harvest from library gardens which are fenced but not locked. High yield varieties of plants for sharing include herbs, citrus and edible flowers. Organic fertilisers and sprays are used and safety is a priority, with volunteers encouraged to be mindful of all library visitors who use the garden, especially children. Enclosed shoes, hats, gloves and sunscreen are part of safe gardening practice. Replacement plants, consumables including mulch and fertiliser, and basic tools are provided by Council.

7. The supported community volunteering model is key to the success of library gardens, and the garden volunteers are a highly valued part of the library community. Volunteers work in consultation with the library team leader and in collaboration with staff who maintain Council assets at the library.

8. Library visitors of all ages are welcome to volunteer to help keep library gardens well maintained and attractive. Volunteers attend the garden at least weekly to undertake varied garden maintenance, including planting, watering, fertilising, weeding, mulching and harvesting. The volunteer groups meet at least monthly with the library team leader to plan, share updates and discuss any issues. Groups also meet at other times for specific activities such as seed harvesting and packaging for sharing with the community.

9. The first library garden was established at the Mitchelton Library in 2013 as part of the Lord Mayor deliverable library refurbishment project. With the help of local horticultural experts and library staff, a local community group, Mitchelton Organic Gardeners Inc (MOGI) was established to undertake the ongoing maintenance of the garden. MOGI has become a key part of the library community over the last five years, and the garden is now well established and thriving. Mitchelton Library and MOGI have played a leadership role for future library gardens.

10. The Holland Park Library garden was established in 2015 as part of the Holland Park Library refurbishment project. An evolved design resulted in further accessibility features including raised garden beds, accessible paths connecting to the garden as well as the wheelchair accessible community table. The garden also features a story mound which is used for children’s storytimes. Experience gained through establishing the Mitchelton Library garden and volunteer group helped with the establishment of the volunteer group at Holland Park, with support provided from the Mitchelton Library Team Leader and members of MOGI.

11. The Grange Library garden is the newest library garden that was opened on Saturday 22 September 2018. All the plants within the garden are edible, including the flowers. The plants around the perimeter are from Council’s free native plant list, and include species such as grevillea, callistemon and westringia. A Grange Library Growers volunteer group has been established. The group meets to garden twice a week on Thursdays and Saturdays.

12. Images of the gardens at Mitchelton, Holland Park and Grange libraries and positive feedback about them from the community were shared with the Committee members.

13. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Ms Harvey for her informative presentation.


- 87 -

14. RECOMMENDATION:


FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Councillor Krista ADAMS, Chairman of the Finance and Economic Development Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Adam ALLAN, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 19 February 2019, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. Last week in committee, we had a report on the 2019 major events from Brisbane Marketing and the calendar for this year has been and will continue to be absolutely spectacular. I need to list the highlights so everybody knows and doesn’t miss out what is coming up.

We have already had the Brisbane International tennis championship in January, Youth Water Polo Championships in January. We’ve got the Cup of Nations international women’s football tournament on 3 March. We’ve got Curiocity from 15 March to 3 April. We’ve got the World Science Festival from 20 to the 24 March. We’ve got QODE, a unique innovation, business and technology event for the first time this year, from the 2 to the 3 April. Brisbane Cycling Festival is being held from the 28 March. There’s a six day Brisbane final, a Tour de Brisbane and Track National Championship, the biggest domestic track event in Australia.

Brisbane Art Design is going to be held at the Museum of Brisbane from 10 to 26 May. We’ve got the NRL Magic Round coming from the 9 to 12 May, every single fixture for the NRL being held in Brisbane that weekend. The 9th Asia Pacific Triennial of Contemporary Art from November last year through to April this year and NASA, A Human Adventure, space exhibition being held at the Queensland Museum from the 15 March to the 9 October.

On top of that, we’ll add the Quandamooka Festival which we’ll be supporting this year through Brisbane Marketing, the MELT Festival of Queer Arts and Culture, Queensland Music Festival, Big Sound, Brisbane Festival and, of course, the INAS Games in October from the 12th to the 19th.

It’s going to be a huge year, that’s just some of it. I hope all of you share that with your communities so they know there is more to see and do in Brisbane.



Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the Finance and Economic Development Committee was declared carried on the voices.


ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Krista Adams (Chairman), Councillor Adam Allan (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Peter Cumming, Charles Strunk, Steven Toomey and Norm Wyndham.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – MAJOR EVENTS 2019

540/2018-191. Anne-Maree Moon, General Manager, Tourism and Major Events, Brisbane Marketing, attended the

meeting to provide an update on Major Events 2019. She provided the information below.


- 88 -

2. The major events strategy was adopted in August 2014 and consists of six core strategic elements: procurement, development, leveraging, marketing, activation and city/social legacy.

3. As part of the Brisbane 2022 New World City Action Plan, Council seeks to deliver one annual significant major event per month.

4. In late 2015, Council formed an alliance with Tourism and Events Queensland (TEQ) for major events in Brisbane and the partnership model with TEQ is exemplified through the organisation of the World Science Festival Brisbane.

5. As a direct benefit of the growth of Council’s major events calendar, Brisbane has an economic impact of $191 million in 2018, which has grown from $82.1 million in 2014.

6. A review of the major events strategy is being conducted in line with the 2031 Visitor Economy Strategy.

7. Seven new significant major events were secured for Brisbane for 2018-19: - Festival of Water Polo - CURIOCITY – a series of science, art and technology experiences spanning the Brisbane

River including QODE and World Science Festival - NRL Magic Round Brisbane - Brisbane Cycling Festival including Six day Brisbane final, tour de Brisbane and Track

Nationals.

8. Council’s major key event partnerships include the following:- BIGSOUND- Brisbane Festival- Netball Australia- Brisbane International Tennis- Cricket Australia- Football Federation of Australia- Rugby Australia- Queensland Art Gallery and Gallery of Modern Art- Queensland Performing Arts Complex- Queensland Museum- Brisbane Powerhouse- Museum of Brisbane.

9. The 2019 major events include:- Brisbane International Tennis Championship held in January- Australian Youth Water Polo Championship held from 12 to 24 January- The Cup of Nations International Women’s Football Tournament to be held on 3 March at the

Suncorp Stadium- Curiocities to be held from 15 March to 3 April- World Science Festival Brisbane to be held from 20 to 24 March- QODE – a unique innovation, business and technology event to be held from 2 to 3 April- Brisbane Cycling Festival to be held from 28 March to 14 April, including three events:

- Six Day Brisbane final – part of the internationally renowned Six Day Series- Tour de Brisbane – designed to bring the community together on two wheels to share

some of the city’s iconic landmarks- Track National Championships – biggest domestic track event in Australia

- Brisbane Art Design – a celebration of art and design to be held at the Museum of Brisbane from 10 to 26 May

- NRL Magic Round Brisbane to be held from 9 to 12 May- The 9th Asia Pacific Triennial of Contemporary Art being held at the Queensland Art Gallery,

Gallery of Modern Art from 24 November 2018 to 28 April 2019- NASA – A Human Adventure, a space exhibition to be held at the Queensland Museum from

15 March to 9 October.

10. Other significant major events for 2019 include the following. - The Brisbane Domain Day Night Cricket Test from 24 to 28 January. - The Brisbane Racing Carnival from 11 May to 8 June.


- 89 -

- The Quandamooka Festival from 1 June to 31 August. - The State of Origin Game 1 on 5 June. - The Queensland Performing Arts Complex International Series from 26 June to 7 July.- MELT: Festival of Queer Arts and Culture from 28 June to 7 July. - QUILTY exhibition from 29 June to 13 October. - Scenic Rim Eat Local Week from 29 June to 7 July. - Queensland Music Festival from 5 to 28 July. - School of Rock from 12 July. - BIGSOUND Festival from 3 to 6 September. - Brisbane Festival from 7 to 28 September. - INAS Global games from 12 to 19 October. - Christmas in Brisbane in December. - Woodford Folk Festival from 27 December 2019 to 1 January 2020.

11. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Ms Moon for her informative presentation.

12. RECOMMENDATION:


B COMMITTEE REPORT – BANK AND INVESTMENT REPORT – DECEMBER 2018134/695/317/3-04

541/2018-1913. Paul Oberle, Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Finance, Organisational Services, provided a monthly

summary of Council’s petty cash, bank account and cash investment position as at 28 December 2018.

14. During the December period, total Council funds held by banks and investment institutions (per general ledger) decreased by $141.9 million to $600.3 million excluding trusts (Ref: 1.4 in the Bank and Investment Report, submitted on file). The net decrease is predominantly due to the quarterly debt service payments of $41 million and 76 million repayment of the working capital facility with Queensland Treasury Corporation.

15. Council funds as at 28 December 2018 held by banks and investment institutions (per statements) totalled $605.5 million (Ref: 2.4 and 3.1 in the Bank and Investment Report, submitted on file). The variance relates to timing differences between transactions recorded in the general ledger and those reflected in the bank statements.

16. The reduction in Queensland Investment Corporation (QIC) investment in the December quarter (Ref: 2.3 in the Bank and Investment Report, submitted on file) is due to a reduction in the underlying value of international and Australian shares held by QIC.

17. Unreconciled bank receipts and payments relate to reconciliation variances at the end of the period. The majority of these transactions have since been reconciled.

18. Surplus funds are invested daily with approved counterparties.

19. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE REPORT, as submitted on file, BE NOTED.

ADOPTED

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:

Chairman: Councillors, are there any petitions?


- 90 -

Councillor COOK.

Councillor COOK: Yes, thank you. I’ve got two. The first is for the informal car park on D’Arcy Road, Seven Hills, be asphalted and sealed by 30 June 2019 and the second is for The Corso, Seven Hills, to be fully funded, constructed and completed in the 2019-20 financial year.


Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. I have a petition requesting Council introduce residential parking in the Sankey Street cul-de-sac in Highgate Hill.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you. I have a petition on behalf of Yeronga residents calling on Council to install kerb and channel in Stevens Lane, Yeronga.

Chairman: Councillor WINES.

542/2018-19It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Andrew WINES, seconded by Councillor Charles STRUNK, that the petitions as presented be received and referred to the Committee concerned for consideration and report.

The petitions were summarised as follows:

File No. Councillor TopicCA19/182420 Kara Cook Requesting the informal car park located at D’Arcy Road,

Seven Hills, be sealed by 30 June 2019, with rear access to the properties on Marshall Avenue, Seven Hills, to be retained; and that the recent installation of the garden beds be reviewed and that the works be remedied including the pedestrian access reinstated, and that there be full compliance with Council’s Verge Garden Guidelines, by 30 June 2019.

CA19/189109 Kara Cook Requesting the informal car park located at D’Arcy Road, Seven Hills, be sealed by 30 June 2019, with rear access to the properties on Marshall Avenue, Seven Hills, to be retained; and that the recent installation of the garden beds be reviewed and that the works be remedied including the pedestrian access reinstated, and that there be full compliance with Council’s Verge Garden Guidelines, by 30 June 2019.

CA19/182448 Kara Cook Requesting that The Corso, Seven Hills Village Precinct Project be fully funded, constructed and completed in the 2019-20 financial year.

CA19/189172 Kara Cook Requesting that The Corso, Seven Hills Village Precinct Project be fully funded, constructed and completed in the 2019-20 financial year.

CA19/181982 Jonathan Sri Requesting Council remove the proposed unlimited parking designation for the cul-de-sac in Sankey Street, Highgate Hill, and allocate a two hour or resident parking permit designation.

CA19/188873 Nicole Johnston Requesting Council install kerb and channel in Stevens Lane, Yeronga, to provide for more efficient drainage and verge management.

GENERAL BUSINESS:

Chairman: Councillors, are there any statements required as a result of a Councillor Conduct Review Panel order?

There being no Councillors rising to their feet, Councillors, are there any matters of General Business?

Councillor CASSIDY?


- 91 -

Councillor CASSIDY: Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to speak on two items tonight, one being mosquitoes and another, a few events in Zillmere. I’ll start with mosquitoes.

The LORD MAYOR earlier tonight made the insinuation in a desperate attempt to deflect from his poor decisions that I somehow supported the actions of those 12 staff sacked from the mosquito spraying team, but how could I? Neither the LORD MAYOR nor Councillor HOWARD have detailed any of the circumstances around the reasons why they were removed. I have been very clear, all I and residents in my ward want for these vital positions is that they be filled with permanent full time staff. I accept the advice of medical entomologists, but we need to make sure that we tool them with every resource available and that includes full time, permanent staff.

Now on to the other item I’d like to talk about tonight and that’s a couple of significant events for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community in my ward. A couple of weeks ago I supported and helped officially open Zillmere’s brand new boxing gym, The Boss Boxing. This is a concept that local resident Sammy Leone came to me with last year. Sammy is a great leader within his community. The Boss Boxing is an open and welcoming environment for all people but will have a special focus on supporting and mentoring Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth. I was proud to support this through an LMSIF (Lord Mayor’s Suburban Initiative Fund) grant for equipment.

I fundamentally believe this new initiative will change lives in Zillmere and in surrounding suburbs. Sammy has, of course, been supported by a great network of family, friends and members of the broader community to make this dream a reality.

On 26 January this year, a day we call Australia Day, the local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community gathered for a Survival Day event in Zillmere. This event was attended by up to 200 people with a march from Kurbingui in Zillmere and Zillmere Road down to the Koobara Kindy in Beams Road. The message of Survival Day for these Australians is a simple one. They are part of two of the oldest continuing civilisations on Earth, but their land was not willingly given. There was no treaty and their rightful place, recognised formally and fully in the Constitution still has not been achieved.

I was proud to attend this Survival Day event on 26 January alongside my State Government colleague, Stirling Hinchliffe and share some thoughts with those gathered. Thinking back to the great speeches of leaders like Paul Keating at Redfern in 1993 and acknowledging the hard truths of our past and in his words, he said at that time: ‘and as I say, the starting point might be to recognise that the problem starts with us non-Aboriginal Australians. It begins, I think, with that act of recognition, recognition that it was we who did the dispossessing. We took the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life. We brought the diseases, the alcohol. We committed the murders. We took the children from their mothers. We practised discrimination and exclusion. It was our ignorance and our prejudice and our failure to imagine these things being done to us. With some noble exceptions, we failed to make the most basic human response and enter into their hearts and minds.’

He went on to say: ‘the message should be that there is nothing to fear or to lose in the recognition of historical truth or the extension of social justice or the deepening of Australian social democracy to include Indigenous Australians. There is everything to gain.’ In speaking at this important event and also at Koobara Kindy’s 11th Anniversary of the apology to the Stolen Generations a couple of weeks ago, I lent my support to the adoption of the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

I understand that politicians and government haven’t always been the friends of Indigenous Australians, but I am proud to be a member of the Labor Party that continues to learn from our history and has committed itself to achieving substantial and meaningful reform in partnership with Indigenous Australians. Last year the Labor Party adopted the Uluru Statement from the Heart and its call for a progressive reform process of voice, treaty and truth at its national conference. If elected this year, Bill Shorten has pledged to implement these


- 92 -

goals and to work in partnership with Indigenous Australians to achieve meaningful reform.

While I’m proud to be a member of a political party that has committed itself to such a transformation, I also understand that this isn’t simply a Labor or Liberal issue. This was one of the strengths of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It wasn’t addressed to any one person or politician, but it was addressed to all of us, to our community and to the Australian people.

I look forward to seeing the hope of this promise fulfilled but most importantly look forward to continuing to work together, out in my community, fully aware of our history and committed to our shared future. I encourage all Councillors to lead on this issue, to advocate for the adopting for the Uluru Statement from the Heart and ensuring that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people can take their rightful place at the centre of our society.

Chairman: Councillor WYNDHAM.

Councillor WYNDHAM: Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I rise to speak briefly on the Cycle of Giving, which is riding for organ transplant research. Madam Chair, at any one time in Australia recently there’s been about 1,400 people on the transplant list for organ donations. The research is ongoing and Cycle for Giving was first started in 2006 by Mary and Mal Long. Now Mal Long suffered from heart conditions for around 11 years until in 2004 he needed a transplant which gave him a new lease of life.

So they started Cycle of Giving 2006. I’ve known Mary, I knew Mal too, over those years, helping with organisation et cetera for this ride. Sadly, in 2007, Mal succumbed to cancer, so the heart gave him another two years or three years and that ride still goes on. One of my local businessmen and some of you would recognise the name Gavin Allen has been on the transplant list now since June of last year when he was diagnosed over 12 months ago that he would soon need a new heart. So since June last year, he’s been walking around with a mechanical heart implanted in his chest, carrying two battery packs. One is operating the mechanical heart, the other one obviously is an emergency.

Madam Chair, research into organ donors and transplants is ongoing in Australia and those people that receive hearts, even in Chermside, about 20 of them are on the organ transplant list as donors and if their heart fails, that heart that’s being transplanted becomes a research item that they keep beating for as long as they can in an environment that they can analyse where the issues are with transplants, et cetera. This happens with many organs.

So Madam Chair, it’s not about the ride. It’s about funding for research. It’s about making sure that every one of us in here is on that donor list. Because as a nation, we’re short of donors and, God forbid, those people that are waiting rely on donors. Now I know Gavin has been prepped once for a donor heart and that heart was unsuitable. Imagine you’re ready to go and 10 minutes before you’re expecting to go to surgery, they tell you: sorry, the heart’s not suitable. That’s the reality for many Australians. Not just heart patients but also for other organs.

So I ask you all, if we all put in say $20 towards Cycle of Giving, that’s another $600 or so that can go towards that research. I will be riding under a team called Team Wednesday. Happy to recognise your donations and if you don’t feel like donating, bring your bike out and get your own donors. I’m sure a few extra donations would be great. So, either way, great to see your name there. Thank you.

Chairman: Further General Business?

Councillor McLACHLAN.

Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak briefly and inform the Chamber for those who don’t know about the sad passing of a great Queenslander yesterday, the former senator the Hon John Herron, former senator of Queensland. Representing the Liberal Party, he was a senator representing Queensland from 1990 to 2002. Was the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs until 2001 and then was our ambassador in Ireland.


- 93 -

John was a resident constituent of mine and married to Jan. They together had 10 children, innumerable grandchildren and his passing is very sad to see. I heard the news only this morning. He was prominent as a civic citizen, making sure that, in particular, Oriel Park was always up to scratch and I always looked forward to his emails. He maintained a strong interest in civic affairs throughout my exposure to him. That started with our time down in Canberra together when I worked for a Federal Minister and he was a Minister and I found him then to be a most affable gentleman. His politics were slightly to the right of mine, I think, but that said, I always welcomed his opinion when it came to discussions at branch meetings and his passing is sad and I’m sure he’ll be honoured at a civic ceremony later this week.

Chairman: Further General Business?

There being no further General Business, I declare the meeting closed.

QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:(Questions of which due notice has been given are printed as supplied and are not edited)

Submitted by Councillor Nicole Johnston on 19 February 2019Q1. Please provide a list of Multiuser Games Areas MUGA’s by park name, suburb and ward either built or

planned in Brisbane?

Q2. please provide a list of outdoor gyms by park name, suburb and ward either built or planned in Brisbane?

Q3. How many outdoor gyms have been built using Footpath and Parks Trust Funds? Please provide a list by park name, suburb and ward?

Q4. How many outdoor gyms have been built using using capital funding from the Council Budget? Please provide a list by park name, suburb and ward?

Q5. On what date was a request for a stairway/footpath access through Victoria Park to the St Joseph’s (Terrace) tennis courts first made to Council?

Q6. How many requests for a stairway/footpath access through Victoria Park to the Terrace tennis courts have been made to made to Council? Were the requests made by a resident or group (no names required)?

Q7. How much will the stairway/footpath access through Victoria Park to the Terrace tennis courts cost?

Q8. Was funding included in the 2018-19 Budget for a stairway/footpath through Victoria Park to the Terrace tennis courts?

Q9. Has a heritage exemption certificate been approved for a stairway/footpath access through Victoria Park to the Terrace tennis courts? If not, when will it be sought?

Q10. Given some 750 public footpaths are waiting to be fixed as per the notice paper answers to Questions on Notice, why is this project being prioritised given their is easy access nearby?

Q11. Had the Lord Mayor through Council sought permission from the State Government to make Oxley Rd Corinda, Old Cleveland Rd Stones Corner and mains Rd Sunnybank 40km prior to his public announcement in September 2018?

Q12. On what date did Council receive permission from the State Government to make Oxley Rd Corinda, Old Cleveland Rd Stones Corner and Mains Rd Sunnybank 40km?

Q13. If no State Government approval has been sought, under what power is Council reducing the speed limit on Oxley Rd Corinda, Old Cleveland Rd Stones Corner and mains Rd Sunnybank 40km?

Q14. Did Council seek State Government permission before reducing the speed limit on Ann St, Brisbane?

Submitted by Councillor Steve Griffiths (received on 21 February 2019)Q1. How many reconstructed footpaths across Brisbane has council used bitumen instead of concrete?


- 94 -

Q2. Which road and cycling bridges, and there locations across Brisbane, have been identified and scheduled for a maintenance upgrade?

Q3. How many, and at what locations, are fishing platforms scheduled to be constructed that funds were listed in the forward estimates of this year’s budget?

Q4. List where any 40km signed school zones are located on primary freight route classed roads in Brisbane.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:(Answers to questions of which due notice has been given are printed as supplied and are not edited)

Submitted by Councillor Steve Griffiths (from meeting on 19 February 2019)Q1. How many complaints has Brisbane City Council received in regards to illegal dumping in the

Armisfield Street Reserve in the last 12 months?

A1. 2.

Q2. How many times has Brisbane City Council officers had to clean up illegally dumped items in the Armisfield Street Reserve in the last 12 months?

A2. 2.

Q3. How many times has Brisbane City Council received complaints about trail bike riders in the Armisfield Street Reserve in the last 12 months?

A3. 0.

RISING OF COUNCIL: 6.59pm.

PRESENTED: and CONFIRMED

CHAIRMAN

Council officers in attendance:

Jade Stopar (Acting Senior Council and Committee Officer)Victor Tan (Acting Council and Committee Officer)Billy Peers (Personal Support Officer to the Lord Mayor and Council Orderly)


- 95 -

Documents

· Web viewAs the LORD MAYOR’s previous budget has outlined, it’s this Administration’s strong commitment to the School of Arts. It is a classic building within our city and