TABLE OF CONTENTS
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
The 4641 meeting of the Brisbane City Council,
held at City Hall, Brisbane
on Tuesday 2 March 2021
at 2pm
Prepared by:
Council and Committee Liaison Office
City Administration and Governance
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
PRESENT: 1
OPENING OF MEETING: 1
APOLOGY: 1
MINUTES: 2
QUESTION TIME: 2
CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS: 18
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE 18
A STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING PLAN FOR PHYSICAL SECURITY SERVICES 36
B MAJOR AMENDMENT TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 – PACKAGE I 41
CITY PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 43
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE BUSINESS HUB UPDATE 44
PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE 45
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – GREEN BRIDGES PROGRAM UPDATE 53
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 55
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – MOVE SAFE BRISBANE UPDATE 63
ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE 64
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – CREEK NEIGHBOURS 67
B PARK NAMING – FORMAL NAMING OF A PLACE IN STRINGYBARK DRIVE PARK, 25 STRINGYBARK DRIVE, ASPLEY, TO ‘KERRIE BLENCOWE PLACE’ 68
C PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL INSTALL FENCING AROUND THE BASKETBALL COURT IN DUCIE STREET PARK, DARRA 69
CITY STANDARDS, COMMUNITY HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE 70
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – CITY BOTANIC GARDENS – LIVING COLLECTIONS HIGHLIGHTS 2015-2021 71
COMMUNITY, ARTS AND NIGHTTIME ECONOMY COMMITTEE 72
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – EARLY LITERACY PROGRAMS 73
FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE 74
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE CITY SES UNIT 75
CONSIDERATION OF NOTIFIED MOTION: 76
PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS: 85
GENERAL BUSINESS: 86
QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: 87
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: 88
PRESENT:
The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER) – LNP
The Chair of Council, Councillor Andrew WINES (Enoggera Ward) – LNP
|LNP Councillors (and Wards) |ALP Councillors (and Wards) |
|Krista ADAMS (Holland Park) (Deputy Mayor) |Jared CASSIDY (Deagon) (The Leader of the Opposition) |
|Greg ADERMANN (Pullenvale) |Peter CUMMING (Wynnum Manly) |
|Adam ALLAN (Northgate) |Steve GRIFFITHS (Moorooka) |
|Lisa ATWOOD (Doboy) |Charles STRUNK (Forest Lake) |
|Fiona CUNNINGHAM (Coorparoo) | |
|Tracy DAVIS (McDowall) | |
|Fiona HAMMOND (Marchant) | |
|Vicki HOWARD (Central) | |
|Steven HUANG (MacGregor) | |
|Sarah HUTTON (Jamboree) | |
|Sandy LANDERS (Bracken Ridge) | |
|James MACKAY (Walter Taylor) | |
|Kim MARX (Runcorn) | |
|Peter MATIC (Paddington) | |
|David McLACHLAN (Hamilton) | |
|Ryan MURPHY (Chandler) | |
|Angela OWEN (Calamvale) | |
|Steven TOOMEY (The Gap) (Deputy Chair of Council) | |
| |Queensland Greens Councillor (and Ward) |
| |Jonathan SRI (The Gabba) |
| |Independent Councillor (and Ward) |
| |Nicole JOHNSTON (Tennyson) |
OPENING OF MEETING:
The Chair, Councillor Andrew WINES, opened the meeting with prayer and acknowledged the traditional custodians, and then proceeded with the business set out in the Agenda.
Chair: I declare the meeting open, and I’d just like to note very quickly that Mr Peers will not be attending to us today, so there are some things that he does do, we will attempt to cover for those, but the main one for Councillors will be at the time of presenting petitions, please leave them at your table and we will collect them at the end of the meeting.
All right, are there any apologies?
Councillor CASSIDY: Yes.
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY.
APOLOGY:
530/2020-21
An apology was submitted on behalf of Councillor Kara COOK, and she was granted leave of absence from the meeting on the motion of Councillor Jared CASSIDY, seconded by Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS.
Chair: Councillors, confirmation of Minutes, please.
MINUTES:
531/2020-21
The Minutes of the 4640th meeting of Council held on 23 February 2021, copies of which had been forwarded to each Councillor, were presented, taken as read and confirmed on the motion of Councillor Sandy LANDERS, seconded by Councillor Sarah HUTTON.
QUESTION TIME:
Chair: Councillors, I draw to your attention the item on the Agenda, Question Time.
Are there any questions of the LORD MAYOR or a Chair of any of the Standing Committees?
Councillor DAVIS.
Question 1
Councillor DAVIS: Thank you, Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR, with Brisbane now announced as the preferred host of the 2032 Olympic Games, can you outline the impact this event would have on our region?
Chair: The LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair, and through you, to Councillor DAVIS for the question. I know that all of us were excited last week to see the announcement that Brisbane was the only city that has been named as a preferred city for the 2032 Olympic Games by the IOC (International Olympic Committee). That was, for many people, something that happened quite quickly. We’d progressed from talking about the potential for the Olympics to now being at the pointy end of the process, but it’s important, I think, that we remember that this was a journey that started six years ago. Six years ago, it was actually in March, in early March six years ago that Graham Quirk, as the former Lord Mayor and Chair of the Council of Mayors, worked with his colleagues to start investigating the opportunity to do this.
Now, we know that the key driver here was that South East Queensland is a growing region, and we will see millions more people come here over the next 20 or so years. We know that providing infrastructure and facilities for this growing region is absolutely essential. So, it was with that lens and that challenge that we started looking, through the Council of Mayors, the Mayors of South East Queensland, at the opportunities to make sure that South East Queensland gets its fair share.
Now, we also know that successive State Governments have prided themselves, or have been proud of the money that they spend outside of South East Queensland. They’re always crowing about what they spend in the regions, and that leaves a big gap for the Councils of South East Queensland to fill. So, it is right that we advocate for our region. It is our job as the Mayors of South East Queensland and the Councillors of South East Queensland to advocate for our region.
One of those opportunities was the way that the Games model was changing. We know in the past, that Olympic Games have been incredibly costly things to put on. There was a highly competitive bid process, and the bid process itself would cost tens of millions of dollars, just to put in a bid. The IOC, in acknowledging these challenges, has acted to change that model so that, first of all, there is no formal bidding process. There’s a process of continuous dialogue, and then that moves at a relevant stage to targeted dialogue. Also, the fact that a Games can be held across an entire region and that existing facilities can be used, those things are game-changers for future Olympic cities.
Now, as we would expect with any exciting announcement like this, there have been some detractors. There are some people out there who think, this is going to be a very costly thing, would the money be better going into other things? Now, I can report that the IOC contribution to the 2032 Games will be USD1.8 billion in cash. USD1.8 billion in cash, which today equals about AUD2.3 billion, based on the current exchange rate. On top of that, ticket sales, merchandise, local sponsorship and a range of other revenue opportunities.
So, the IOC wants the Games to be cost neutral. That is something they have committed to, and not just the 2032 Games, but the Games before it, as well. So we know that we have Los Angeles and Paris before it, and also this year, in a few months’ time, Tokyo, but going forward, they want the cost of running the Games to be cost neutral and any other costs would be costs that involve providing infrastructure for our growing community.
So, that’s something that I think is something we can all rally behind, because the model now is that the Games has a cost neutral operating position, but that the infrastructure is infrastructure for a growing region. So, this is a really exciting opportunity for our city, but I will say there is something else over and above infrastructure that we should be very excited about, because from last week, Brisbane and Queensland is the name on everyone’s lips around the world.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Millions and millions of people around the world are hearing the name Brisbane, and they will hear that name for the next 11 years. You cannot buy that kind of acknowledgement and recognition. You could not pay for it. So, Brisbane as the potential Olympic city in 2032 will have a decade of recognition around the world. Now, I have to say, it’s been always one of those things I’ve viewed with sadness that, until now, the time when Brisbane was on the world map in terms of the world’s lips in the past, was actually the 2011 flood.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: That’s what most people around the world knew us for. Now, they’ll have the opportunity to know us for something else.
Chair: LORD MAYOR, your time has—excuse me, your time has expired.
Councillor CASSIDY.
Question 2
Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. We’ve seen in answers recently returned from Questions on Notice that Council employs 68 full-time staff in its communications team, and the numbers of communications staff keeps going up and up. Unfortunately, this LNP Administration only employs 17 Council officers in its mosquito control team to cover thousands of hectares. That’s despite cases of mosquito-borne diseases more than doubling from previous years. In 2020, there were more than 1,300 cases of mosquito-borne diseases in Greater Brisbane alone.
These staffing numbers are a clear indication of this LORD MAYOR’s priorities. He uses more ratepayer funds on promoting himself and his own political agenda than he does on making sure Brisbane residents are safe. So, LORD MAYOR, do you think Brisbane residents would be happy to learn that you spend millions of dollars on advertising and promoting yourself, but refuse to employ more mosquito control officers, where they are desperately needed to protect residents from disease?
Chair: LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Mr Chair, that question once again is based on inaccurate information.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: It’s interesting because—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —the support that we provide for our mosquito spraying program is unparalleled anywhere in the country.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: We have Australia’s leading mosquito spraying program, and in fact, it was actually—the other day, I was at my parents-in-law’s place. They had kindly agreed to look after the kids for a little while. There was this helicopter buzzing over, back and forward. Guess which helicopter it was? It was a blue and yellow helicopter, spraying for mosquitos, right there in the local community, showing exactly what our investment does.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Okay, no, Councillor CASSIDY, please allow—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No, no. I appreciate that. The LORD MAYOR is answering the question.
LORD MAYOR, please return to the question at hand.
LORD MAYOR: Councillor CASSIDY, through you, Mr Chair, has just shot himself in the foot because he’s indicated that there’s parts of the mosquito spraying program that don’t necessarily involve employing Council officers, because we make sure that we get the best support we can. Now, unless Councillor CASSIDY is saying we should buy a couple of helicopters—I’ll be up for that—unless he’s saying that we should buy a couple of helicopters, I wonder where he’s going with this, because we engage the services of a company that provides helicopter spraying services, when we need them. Now, if we owned the helicopters and they were sitting on the ground not doing anything for a large part of the year—
Councillor CASSIDY: Point of order, Chair.
LORD MAYOR: —would that be a good use of ratepayers’ money?
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: I think the LORD MAYOR might be a little confused. What I was referring to—the 17 Council officers are specifically employed—
Chair: Yes.
Councillor CASSIDY: —and allocated to on-ground spraying. We’re not talking about aerial spraying here at all, Chair. I was very clear about that.
Chair: I understand that. I know. The question was about FTEs (full-time employees) and the role, and the expense—
Councillor CASSIDY: Yes, and there’s no FTEs in the aerial program at all.
Chair: I understand that, and the—
Councillor CASSIDY: That’s separate to the on the ground spraying program.
Chair: No, no, there’s no need to argue with me. I understand the point you’re making. It’s about the expense, the Council expense on mosquito operations.
The LORD MAYOR.
Councillor CASSIDY: Sorry, just a point of order, Chair, that—I can reread the question. That’s not what it was about. It was about the number of staff employed in the mosquito management team—
Chair: Yes.
Councillor CASSIDY: —which are all on-ground staff. It was not about expenses of the—
Chair: It was also brought up—
Councillor CASSIDY: No, I didn’t talk about expenses, Chair.
Chair: No, no, Councillor CASSIDY. I’m not going to argue with you. There was a lot—there was quite a bit in your question.
Councillor CASSIDY: I’ll reread it, if you want.
Chair: No, there’s no need to reread it. I listened to you. There was more than just what you’ve said, and I am going to ask the LORD MAYOR to continue with his answer. There is at least three-and-a-half minutes to go.
The LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: I can see here that Councillor CASSIDY appears to have taken a leaf out of the former Councillor Shayne Sutton’s approach, when she was criticising use of technology to do the job better.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: When Councillor McLACHLAN, at the time, was buying these great vacuum cleaners to help clean up litter—they were called ‘Gluttons’, from memory—they would suck up a large amount of litter.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Councillor Sutton said, why don’t you just get a broom?
Councillor CASSIDY: Point of order, Chair.
LORD MAYOR: So, I think Councillor CASSIDY’s position is equivalent to that.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: We’re getting further and further away. This is complete obfuscation. He’s now talking about brooms and vacuums. What we’re talking about—
Chair: No, no, I understand.
Councillor CASSIDY: —is on-ground mosquito spraying staff.
Chair: Yes, I understand the point of order you’re making.
LORD MAYOR, you have two minutes 40-something seconds. Please address the question about Council’s operations in mosquito spraying.
LORD MAYOR: I have not seen, Mr Chair, a single request from the mosquito spraying section of Council for more on-ground staff. I have not seen a single request.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No, no, please, you’ve asked for the—Councillor CASSIDY has asked for the question to be answered—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: —and has asked for the question to be answered a number of times. An answer has come directly to his question. Please do not interject at that point. Please allow the answer you’ve asked for to be heard.
LORD MAYOR: In fact, every time I see the mosquito spraying team, I always ask them, is there anything else you need?
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: You know what? They’ve asked for extra equipment, extra technology—they like the helicopters that do the spraying across large areas of land, but they haven’t asked for extra staff. Why? Because they don’t need extra staff to do the job.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: So what we have here is an incredible position from the Labor Councillor. He’s basically saying, forget about the helicopters, forget about any of the equipment we use, we just need more manpower.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Rubbish. Rubbish. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that that is the case, and it just goes to show, what we’re seeing here is a politically motivated question making a political point, but not based on any actual factual information. If the mosquito spraying team wants extra staff, I will fund extra staff, I can tell you that, but that request hasn’t come in. Why? Because they don’t need extra staff.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: They’ve had great investment with new—
Chair: No more interjections, please.
The LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: —with new all-terrain vehicles, and it was good for Councillor MARX and I, just recently, to go and test them out and to see the capabilities of those vehicles. These vehicles can go across wetland areas and get into hard-to-reach areas, helping the staff do their job better, helping them reach more area, but they haven’t asked for extra staff. So, I don’t know what kind of responsible LORD MAYOR would throw extra staff to an area that doesn’t actually need extra staff or hasn’t actually asked for extra staff.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Yes, exactly. I think that’s exactly the point. Every problem, according to Labor, can be solved by extra staff. We don’t like technology, according to Labor. They don’t like helicopters.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: They don’t like all-terrain vehicles. They just want extra staff, and we suspect unionised staff, too. They would want union members to do that job. Thank you.
Chair: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.
Are there any further questions?
Councillor HAMMOND.
Question 3
Councillor HAMMOND: Thank you, Mr Chair. My question is to the Chair of City Planning and Economic Development Committee, Councillor ADAMS. DEPUTY MAYOR, with Brisbane announced as the preferred host of the 2032 Olympic Games, can you outline how this will help the economic development of our region in South East Queensland? Are you aware of any alternate views of hosting the Games?
Chair: Councillor ADAMS.
Councillor interjecting.
DEPUTY MAYOR: I was just checking I had entered the meeting. Sorry, Mr Chair.
Chair: There you go.
DEPUTY MAYOR: There you go. I hear the interjection from Councillor STRUNK, be very careful. I will be very careful and I will be very clear. Thank you, Councillor HAMMOND, for the question. This is an extremely exciting opportunity for Brisbane, and although it’s not announced that we are the host city, we have all but secured the hosting rights with our targeted discussions and I think John Coates, the IOC President, has simply put it, we are in the box seat and I think that is an opportunity that we cannot let slip through our fingers for the injection into the economy for Brisbane, Queensland, and even Australia in the next 12 to 15 years, but the real work starts now.
As we enter the targeted discussions with the IOC, we do need to fine-tune our plans. We need to sort through the nitty-gritty detail and make this dream a reality. It’s no easy task at the best of times, let alone in the midst of a global pandemic. As the LORD MAYOR mentioned, this has been six years of hard work by the South East Queensland Council of Mayors. Interesting to see the Tweet of the week in The Sunday Mail on Sunday, when Premier Palaszczuk, LORD MAYOR, stands up and says, ‘this has been a hard road to get here’.
Councillor interjecting.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Must have, since she got on it in August last year, but it’s nice to see that she’s finally realised that they’re going to need it, as well, for jobs for the State. We, of course, are well prepared and it’s something that, as I said, the South East Queensland of Mayors are bringing all levels of government to the table to make sure we see the injection of that $1.8 billion cash from the IOC, the tickets and merch money, and of course, the infrastructure that we can get delivered, turns our plans into actions. Make no mistake, this goes far beyond hosting rights for the 2032 Games.
The international exposure, as the LORD MAYOR said, something you could not possibly imagine paying for, having the eyes on our city for the next 12 years, everybody knowing that 2032, it would be in Brisbane. Unlike our previous Lord Mayoral candidate, who got dumped unceremoniously before the last election, this is not just a 17-day sugar hit. It is a once in a lifetime opportunity to fast-track investment and, importantly, it creates the strong impetus needed to ensure the delivery of our regional transport roadmap through South East Queensland city deals.
There is no argument that we absolutely need that infrastructure, regardless of the Olympic Games in 2032, but the opportunity we have to put a line in the sand of when it needs to be delivered to—to make sure from Sunshine Coast to Brisbane, down to the Gold Coast, all has fast and effective public transport is fantastic. It will be done right, accelerating decades worth of investment over the next 11 years. Within our city, we recognise that our planned projects will go a long way into delivering better public transport and services for the Olympics.
It is very exciting, and I’m sure Councillor MURPHY is very excited about the opportunities to work through those plans in the coming years, to make sure we deliver for South East Queensland, but it is critical that all three levels of government are in agreement in terms of funding for the Olympics and for the support for regional infrastructure. The Morrison Government has been instrumental in getting us this far so far, and securing our spot as the preferred candidate. After, as I mentioned, an initial tepid response from the Queensland Premier—she wasn’t quite sure how it would play out in the election would be my guess—she’s now fully onboard and is supporting the Games being here in 2032, which is great.
Councillor interjecting.
DEPUTY MAYOR: We need to remember, and I’m sure this is something that Premier Palaszczuk has seen, that factors in thousands of local jobs that will be created, not just from the Games in 2032 and the planning for that, but beyond that, in the infrastructure pipeline, as well. It’s an expectation that around 80% of infrastructure required to host the Games already exists, but it’s that last 20% that’s going to be the game-changer for South East Queensland. It’s hard to shed negativity on this, but you know, obviously, not that hard if you look back at what the previous comments were from the ALP and their representatives over time. A cash flush, a poison pill, a 17-day sugar hit, it’ll leave us with a multimillion-dollar hangover. I hope that side of the Chamber has clearly heard what the LORD MAYOR said today, what Premier Palaszczuk is saying, and what I’m saying now. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity—
Councillors interjecting.
DEPUTY MAYOR: —to support Brisbane and the economic development of our region into the decades to come. Whether or not the Leader of the Opposition or his colleagues choose to support this legacy, is entirely in their hands. It’s a long road ahead, but 11 years comes around very, very fast. We’re looking forward to working with all levels of government to make sure we deliver what is needed for our growing region for generations to come.
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: Further questions?
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Question 4
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, my question is to the LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR, in 2001, a Council drainage engineering report identified major shortfalls in the adequacy of stormwater drainage in Yeronga, particularly Yeronga West. That document is published on my website. For the past 20 years, Council has had a major drainage project for Yeronga West, initially on the City Plan PIP (Priority Infrastructure Plan), and later in a more limited scope on the LGIP (Local Government Infrastructure Plan) for delivery between 2016 and 2021. That’s on the Brisbane City Council (BCC) website.
Over the past decade, you have voted against my motions for stormwater drainage funding in Yeronga. You have failed to support repeated budget submissions, and now you have failed to meet your own City Plan LGIP commitment for a stormwater drainage upgrade. Why haven’t you met this deadline, and when will this project—promised for over two decades by Council—be delivered?
Chair: LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. Councillor JOHNSTON repeatedly asks questions which include snippets or comments that she claims to be factual and I have been burnt in the past, so I will certainly look into this matter to determine the actual facts of the matter, and I’m happy to provide a response once I have that information.
Chair: Further questions?
Councillor OWEN.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON, please. You’ve had your question.
Councillor OWEN.
Councillor OWEN: Thank you. My question is to the Chair of Public and Active Transport, Councillor MURPHY.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No, no. Please stop interjecting. You’ve asked a question—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: You’ve asked a question, you’ve been provided an answer. Further detail has been assured to you. It will come in time, I know.
Councillor OWEN.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Don’t call people names. Don’t be silly.
Councillor OWEN: Point of order, Mr Chairman.
Chair: Councillor OWEN.
Councillor OWEN: Point of order, Mr Chairman. I’m trying to ask a question in accordance with the meeting procedure, and Councillor JOHNSTON just called the LORD MAYOR ‘gutless’. I believe that comment to be an adverse reflection on the LORD MAYOR’s character and I ask that Councillor JOHNSTON be directed to withdraw it, please.
Chair: Thank you, Councillor OWEN.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: What I will do—no, no.
No interjecting, please.
I will just say, Councillor JOHNSTON, I consider that you are displaying unsuitable meeting conduct in accordance with section 21(5) of the Meetings Local Law 2001 and I hereby request that you cease calling people names and interjecting unnecessarily and refrain from exhibiting that conduct into the future.
Councillor OWEN, your question, please.
Councillor OWEN: Thank you, Mr Chair.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor OWEN: Mr Chair, I won’t be deterred by the repeated interjections and bullying and intimidation from Councillor JOHNSTON on the other side.
Councillor interjecting.
Question 5
Councillor OWEN: My question this afternoon is to the Chair of Public and Active Transport, Councillor MURPHY. Councillor MURPHY, with Brisbane announced as the preferred host of the 2032 Olympic Games, can you please outline our vision for public and active transport, should there be a major influx of visitors and attendees to Brisbane?
Chair: Councillor MURPHY.
Councillor MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and thank you to Councillor OWEN for that wonderful question. I’m truly excited for Brisbane as Transport Chair. We know that hosting the Olympic Games will be an absolutely transformative event for Brisbane, not only because of the profile and the status that will bring to our city and our region, but because of the vital roads and public transport infrastructure that will be brought forward if we have a successful bid. Schrinner Council team is focused on building the transport needed for our city as it grows, and this infrastructure, it will be required whether we do or whether we don’t hold the 2032 Games.
A successful bid will set a very hard deadline for delivering a suite of transport projects that the region will need in the coming decades. The Olympic Games will bring to Brisbane thousands of visitors that will need efficient and reliable modes of public transport to move people from hotels to venues, from venues to hotels, and of course, in and around the attractions that the south-east corner has to offer. We’ve already made a great start on delivering the LORD MAYOR’s signature public and active transport projects. Projects like Brisbane Metro and new green bridges will play a vital role in a successful Games and a role that is uniquely Brisbane.
Our award-winning Metro project will be well and truly up and running by the time the Olympics are here. This innovative electric mode of transport will be able to make sure that residents and visitors can get around our vast metropolis with 18 stations over 21 kilometres of alignment. The game-changing project will make a massive impact on the 78 million people who travel by the bus network in our city. My vision is for a successful and seamless integration between bus, Brisbane Metro and rail services as strategic transport hubs. Our initial investment of 60 Metro vehicles by 2024 will give us an understanding of what can be done, and will lay the foundation for future investment in green transport options throughout the following decade.
Going forward, we will need to see our network grow to more destinations, and to do this, we will need support from the State and Federal Government. A successful Olympic bid, coupled with population growth in the south-eastern corner, will present opportunities for future extensions to Metro, to be delivered—further supporting the transport needs of our city—for the 2032 Olympic Games. Economic development will need to keep pace with population growth to keep people moving around our city as it grows. We need an extension of the Metro system to Capalaba to provide more frequent, reliable services to the eastern corridor.
We know, Chair, that Carindale is a principal regional activity centre, and the shooting and cycling events were held at Belmont and Chandler, as per the Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games, and Metro extension would provide a high-capacity, high-frequency service to support the movement of athletes, Games staff and spectators. In 2032, the Kangaroo Point Green Bridge will be one of our city’s most used walking and cycling bridges, a world-class gateway to Brisbane City centre, an elegant river crossing that celebrates Brisbane’s identity, subtropical environment, and River City lifestyle. The bridge will offer open views and an accessible, user-friendly experience for residents and visitors alike.
As major transport and infrastructure projects come online, last mile travel will become increasingly important, Chair. In the future of active and sustainable travel, cycling, walking, e-wheeling is front and centre, which is why we will be the first city in the country with a comprehensive e-mobility strategy. This will allow us to continue to harness the latest innovations to provide the very best when it comes to convenient and modern last mile travel.
This includes our future investment in new technologies such as e-buses, and we know our e-bus trial will roll out in the next few months on the free City Loop service in the inner city, which will help us inform future bus procurement efforts as we consider the future of public transport in Brisbane. Rapid innovation in the industry will bring so many exciting opportunities, but one thing we know for certain is that, in 2032, our transport system will deliver on the Schrinner Administration’s core transport principles: clean, green, reliable, and safe.
There is no doubt, that the Olympics will be a transformational project for transport in our region, not just for the two weeks of the Games, but for the decades leading up to and following 2032. Not so long ago, Rod Harding said that the Olympics was a poison pill for our city. He said that Brisbane needs long-term investment. I’m not sure what Mr Harding’s version of long-term investment means, but if it’s not reliable transport and the upgrading of transport infrastructure and corridors, then I don’t know what it is.
Now, no one knows, Chair, Councillor CASSIDY and the Labor Councillors’ view on the long-term investment plan for public transport or, indeed, the Olympics, because it’s not very consistent. Some days, Councillor CASSIDY is all for the Metro project, voting for stores board submissions for design and construction of the depot, and other days, he’s against it, voting against property resumptions for the same depot. During the last election, his good friend, Patrick Condren, stood in front of a camera and said he would do everything—
Chair: Councillor MURPHY, your time has expired.
Councillor MURPHY: Oh.
Chair: Are there any further questions?
Councillor CASSIDY.
Question 6
Councillor CASSIDY: Oh, thanks very much, Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. It’s becoming clear that the LORD MAYOR’s plan for five green bridges, like London Bridge, is falling down, falling down. Since its announcement, LNP Councillors have been knocking them off left, right and centre. Just ask Councillor ADERMANN, and more lately, Councillor MACKAY about that. Last week, Councillor MURPHY confirmed in the Committee meeting that the five green bridges and their locations were purely a pre-election thought bubble, and no Council planning went into that project at all.
There’s a clear pattern with this LORD MAYOR. He comes out with these thought bubble ideas, wastes ratepayers’ money on flashy artists’ impressions and flythrough models, but doesn’t deliver. LORD MAYOR, these five bridges look like a fantasy. When will you come clean with the people of Brisbane and tell them that your plan for five bridges is falling apart, and we’re probably lucky to see just two?
Chair: The LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Councillor CASSIDY knows about a good fantasy. He’s an expert in a good fantasy, because his Labor Councillors also called certain tunnels a fantasy, as well, tunnels that thousands and thousands of people drive through every single day. I can tell you, Councillor CASSIDY—
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —that the things that you say are fantasies, we say, ‘can do’. We say, ‘can do’. If you say the Olympics is a fantasy, we say, ‘can do’.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: If you say tunnels are a fantasy, we say, ‘can do’. If you say bridges are a fantasy, we say ‘can do’.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: We build things, and we will continue to build things. Now, if it was ever easy, then they wouldn’t elect the LNP to do it.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: If it was easy, they’d elect the Labor Party to do it, because we know that there’s only one side that has a clear record of actually doing things. So, later on this year, we’ll actually see work starting on the first two green bridges, and that is incredibly exciting. Projects that have been talked about for 100 years, in one case, we’re getting on with it. I’m excited about that. We’re planning for the next two as well, and we’ve had consultation occurring in recent times about that. Now, I expect there to be strong views on those bridges and the proposal. Like I said, if this was easy, then the Labor Party would be able to do it, but they can’t and they haven’t and they won’t. They’re really good at opposing things, but they’re not actually good at getting things done. So, the excitement I have about—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —the green bridges and the Olympics and the Metro, it’s fascinating. On a week that we should all be excited for Brisbane, the only person who can’t be excited for Brisbane is Councillor CASSIDY and his Labor colleagues. They can’t be excited about the great opportunities and the great projects that are coming, but when we said we would get on with building new bridges, we meant it, and we will. The first two, we’re getting on with. We’d like to see some Federal and State commitment to those projects, but we’re getting on with it, anyway, and future bridges will require Federal and State commitments. They will. That’s the reality. We’ve always been clear about that.
So, if the other two levels of government are forthcoming with funding, then we can do more sooner. I’m looking forward to that opportunity, but what I can tell you, Councillor CASSIDY, is that there’s been incredible excitement out in the community about the opportunity for new connections, the opportunity to deliver a more sustainable and connected Brisbane, and this is something that we will continue working on to make sure that we deliver. So, whether it’s building new bridges, building Brisbane Metro, building tunnels, building Victoria Park, building suburban playground upgrades and investing in suburban greenspace projects like Hamilton Park, which is coming along nicely, we get on and do it.
As I said, these projects are never easy. There’s always—anything we do, there will be people who will criticise. There will be people who are against it, but we make these decisions based on what we strongly believe are the best interests of the City of Brisbane and the ratepayers of Brisbane. That doesn’t mean that every single ratepayer or resident will agree, but we do it in what we think is the best interest, and we’re quite happy to continue to put forward our ideas and our vision, our excitement for the City of Brisbane, our plans, and to move forward with the community on these projects.
When it comes to the fifth green bridge, I know there’s a lot of discussion and there have been various proposals put forward. I’m still waiting to see the State Government’s plan that they did for a green bridge—they didn’t call it a green bridge, but it was a pedestrian and cycle bridge—to the east of the Story Bridge. I’m very interested to see the outcome of that proposal, because they talked about it. They did a report, and then no one ever heard from it ever again. So, what that tells me is that either they didn’t have the money to do it or they decided there were too many hairs on it and it should be quickly buried, but ultimately, we are committed to building new river connections, river crossings, and we are committed to building new green bridges.
Chair: Further questions?
Councillor MACKAY.
Question 7
Councillor MACKAY: Thank you, Chair. My question is to the Chair of the City Planning and Economic Development Committee, Councillor ADAMS. DEPUTY MAYOR, the situation currently unfolding at 40 Archer Street in Toowong, is devastating to say the least. For the benefit of the Chamber, can you please provide some history about this site and explain what changes could be made to stop this from occurring in the future?
Chair: Councillor ADAMS.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for the question, Councillor MACKAY, because I do want to have the opportunity to be very clear in this Chamber about this situation and what is unfolding at 40 Archer Street, which is extremely upsetting, I know, for the Toowong Residents Group, and I thank them and yourself, Councillor MACKAY, for the advocacy work on this issue, and of course for the Council officers who have done their darndest, is the only way to explain it, to make sure that this beautiful house got saved.
Yesterday, I wrote to the Minister to issue a stop work order on the site. There has been a heritage listing application that was submitted two weeks ago and we need it to be properly considered. It would be a shame for the property to be recommended for heritage listing, a week after it was already knocked down. As Councillor MACKAY mentioned, there is a colourful history regarding this site, and for the benefit of the Chamber, I do want to explain exactly how the situation came to where we have an enormous bulldozer sitting outside a gorgeous 1937 Queensland Tudor character house.
On June 2017, an application was lodged with Council to demolish the house at Archer Street. On 15 August, several weeks later, we refused the application. Our reasons for refusing the applications were lengthy. We believed they were strong and there were no less than 32 key reasons why we refused the demolition. Despite this, on 12 September, four weeks after we refused the application, an appeal was lodged with Planning and Environment (P&E) Court. A hearing was held between 16 and 18 May in 2018, and the Court ordered that the appeal be upheld, and this decision was made on 15 June 2018.
We were gutted to lose this case, so much that we lodged a case with the Court of Appeal to have a second term at trying to make sure this house could be protected. We felt we were on very, very strong grounds. We believed our 32 reasons for refusal were more than adequate enough to protect the house. A hearing occurred in November 2018, but the Court again dismissed our appeal, and the demolition approval was upheld, and that was ordered on 12 March 2019.
We have exhausted every avenue we have to protect this house, Mr Chair, and we were overruled twice by the Courts in our bid to save it. It’s one of five Tudor-style homes on Archer Street, all built before the Second World War. Its value to the streetscape remains very important and was our major reason for the refusal. While we were unsuccessful with these two cases, I have to ask the question why. Why did we lose? What is the legal framework the Courts are relying on, giving them the backing to overturn our decisions?
We accept that we are not going to win every appeal. However, there have been a number of applications which have been overturned in recent times that we just do not accept. There are very good reasons why Council refuses development applications, especially where there are significant non-compliances with neighbourhood plans, as well as objections from local residents, and I have been reliably advised by our legal team that the Courts are relying on State planning, in particular the changes that were brought in and moved for the Sustainable Planning Act of 2009.
It is the legal concept of the two-part test that was removed from the Planning Act and replaced with a broad discretion for impact assessment and a presumption that favours the approval for code assessment. The two-part test in States’ previous Planning Act gave local governments an advantage when it comes to appeals. That should be fair enough. Local governments work hard with their local community to listen to what they want to see in their local areas.
Back then, for an applicant to be successful in the face of conflict with the planning scheme, the onus was on them to demonstrate sufficient grounds for approval. This is no longer the case. The change in legislation now means that Council has to demonstrate why it should be refused, as opposed to the applicant demonstrating why it should be approved. In light of this, I can advise the Chamber that last Friday, again, I wrote to the Deputy Premier—who is the Planning Minister—and asked him to review this specific part of the legislation.
It’s clear that their legislation is failing residents’ expectation when it comes to development in their area. They’re being let down by a broad discretion for impact assessable applications with both the Council—and they agreed should not be supported. I look forward to working with the Minister in closing and reversing this loophole in their legislation, and so far, we’ve had a very good working relationship over other instances where we’ve come together on planning parts within Brisbane, as well.
I have no appetite to lose any more cases in Court as a result of these rules when our Council officers have very clearly got reasons why they should not be accepted. I hope that the Chamber is on my side in this and that we’ll get a result soon from the Planning Minister or from the Department of Environment’s Minister, that they can save 40 Archer Street.
Chair: Further questions?
Councillor CASSIDY.
Question 8
Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR, in a recent media article about the redevelopment of New Farm Park, residents say they’re being ignored by the LNP and their local LNP Councillor, Councillor HOWARD. In fact, Councillor HOWARD didn’t just ignore her residents, she dismissed them for having an opinion, saying they were, and I quote, ‘scaremongering’. Residents in the area, however, just want to have a say in the redevelopment of their park. There have also been no community consultation meetings held, even though they were promised.
It’s clear that there is a cultural issue in Team Schrinner, where they develop or cut anything they want in Brisbane, and if residents don’t like it, they act like cowards and ignore them, or patronise them by calling them scaremongers. It’s not just local residents that are calling this Administration cowards. We read today that the LNP boss attacks cowards in ranks, and this LORD MAYOR is named in that report as well, Chair. So my question to the LORD MAYOR is, do you think it’s acceptable that one of your team members, a fellow LNP Councillor, patronises her own residents for trying to express their views?
Chair: The LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Mr Chair, once again, the basis of the question is not accurate, and Councillor CASSIDY, Mr Chair, should probably do some research into a matter before commenting. He has consistently talked about the redevelopment of New Farm Park. We’re not redeveloping New Farm Park. Newsflash, hold the front page, we are not redeveloping New Farm Park. So, Councillor CASSIDY can make up all the stuff he likes, but it’s simply not true, just like he’s continued to say that there’s going to be somehow development in Victoria Park. Fake news, and we’ve just heard some more fake news—
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: Okay, okay—
LORD MAYOR: We’ve heard some more fake news—
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: Councillors, all Councillors, please cease interjecting—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: All Councillors. No, no—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No. Please allow the LORD MAYOR to answer the question in silence.
The LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: So I can be absolutely clear here, there are no plans to redevelop New Farm Park. It’s as simple as that. What happened is Councillor CASSIDY is so far behind the game that he hasn’t worked out that all of this stuff happened in October last year—
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: October last year—
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: So, what happened then is that a DA (development application) was lodged to make some traffic-related changes in New Farm Park. Now, there were some local concerns about those traffic-related changes. We listened, and we withdrew the DA—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: So, are we in trouble for listening to residents, Councillor CASSIDY? Is that what you’re saying?
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: So, anyone that’s suggesting that there is—
Chair: No more interjecting, please.
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: —redevelopment of New Farm Park, that is simply not accurate. That is not accurate—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: And I understand why some people would think that is scaremongering. There is no plan to redevelop New Farm Park. I’ll tell you what’s happening there. We are making some pedestrian safety improvements, absolutely appropriate for such a busy park. We are planning to refurbish a toilet block—
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Absolutely appropriate for New Farm Park—
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: We are going to fix up some gardens there and put some new mulch in there—
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: These are the things that you should do to a park, ongoing investment in improving a park, and yet we’re—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No, no more—Councillor CASSIDY, please cease interjecting.
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: This is quite a ludicrous situation and a ludicrous question, Mr Chair, because like I said, the premise of the question is just not—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No, okay.
Sorry, LORD MAYOR—
LORD MAYOR: —correct.
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY, I consider that you are displaying unsuitable meeting conduct in accordance with section 21(5) of the Meetings Local Law 2001 and I hereby request that you cease interjecting and refrain from exhibiting that conduct.
The LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Look, there may be some people that are concerned that we’re putting too much mulch in the park, I don’t know—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: An overdevelopment of mulch in the park, but literally, there is no plan to redevelop New Farm Park—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: So, when people say, oh, they’re not talking to us about the plan to redevelop New Farm Park, the reason that’s not happening is because there is no plan to redevelop New Farm Park. I can’t make it clearer than that—
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: I can’t make it clearer than that, and so—
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: No, no, Councillor CASSIDY, I’ve already warned you.
Please cease interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: I think I’ve said as much as I can—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: All right, further questions?
Okay, Councillors, please calm.
Further questions?
Councillor TOOMEY.
Question 9
Councillor TOOMEY: Thank you, Chair. My question is to the Chair of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, Councillor CUNNINGHAM. Councillor CUNNINGHAM, there are a number of community tree planting events happening in our city. Can you outline where these events are being held and how residents can get involved?
Chair: Councillor CUNNINGHAM.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Thank you, Mr Chair, and through you, thanks to Councillor TOOMEY for the question. The Schrinner Council is committed to investing in increasing our shade cover and improving amenity for residents now and into the future. There are more than 454,000 street trees across urban parts of our suburbs, and we’re continuing to plant more each and every year. Council plants and maintains street trees in Brisbane to help to provide cooler, greener, more comfortable pathways for walking and cycling, improve air quality, reduce and clean stormwater runoff, and add to the identity of our suburbs and the subtropical character of our city.
When it comes to street trees, fostering community stewardship is vital, which is why Council has been hosting tree planting events for more than 20 years, with thousands of residents joining in on these events. Residents are invited to join arborists in planting the street trees at the events, and this approach also helps with community development, as residents meet their neighbours and develop local pride in their suburb, as people contribute to future shade, cooling and landscape amenity, which will be provided by the newly planted trees as they grow.
As a reward for their hard work, volunteers can enjoy a free sausage sizzle and are given two free native plants to plant in their own backyard. I’m pleased to update the Chamber on recent and upcoming community tree planting events. In the past fortnight, events have been held in Riverhills and in Manly West. This Saturday, there is an event at Chermside, with events in Rocklea and Archerfield, Kelvin Grove and Taigum to follow in the lead-up to Easter. In following months, we’ll also see events in Sunnybank Hills, Moggill, Carina, Stafford and Runcorn.
In addition to our Greener Suburbs events, Council is hosting bush restoration planting events in late March and early April at 7th Brigade Park in Chermside, as part of the restoration project at that site. If residents would like to attend, they are encouraged to pre-register on Council’s website. On the day of planting events, residents should wear sturdy, covered shoes, a hat and sunscreen, and bring your reusable water bottles. It’s easy and fun to participate, with all planting holes dug beforehand. That’s good for me.
Council’s broader tree planting is focusing on our effort into the suburbs most in need of tree planting for the shade and cooling benefits that these bring. This is based on a range of factors from existing tree cover, demographics, suburban hotspots, and areas with higher numbers of vulnerable people who are more susceptible to heat, like the very young and the very old. New street tree species are carefully chosen to suit the local area.
Council has undertaken a review of the 36 street tree species we plant in Brisbane. The review has looked at each species’ maintenance requirements, drought and heat tolerance, height at maturity and overall climate resilience. As a result of this, we’re increasing the diversity of trees in our suburbs. We now have 64 approved species, including more species suited to growing under powerlines. Trees have also been selected for their favoured growing environment, so we will get a greater sense of place as we move around Brisbane, with coastal species being planted in coastal precincts, and more feature trees planted along our major roads to enhance our city’s image.
Newly added tree species of note include the lemon scented myrtle, the Queensland tree waratah, red flowering tea tree, and Fraser Island Apple. Council has identified around 100,000 spaces where we can plant street trees, and we plant around 14,000 trees every year. This builds on the two million trees planted by this Administration between 2008 and 2012. In the 2021 budget, $8.8 million was allocated over the next four years for the Greener Suburbs program, which supports major landscaping and tree planting activities across our beautiful city.
This program installs subtropical boulevards along our arterial roads to enhance the liveability of our neighbourhoods and improve the image of our city, and allows for community planting days to green our streets and promote community stewardship of our urban tree canopy. Brisbane is a clean, green, and sustainable city, Mr Chair, and this Administration is continuing to green our city and suburbs by growing and protecting our urban tree canopy.
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: That concludes Question Time.
I will—Councillors, we will now move to the consideration of reports.
The Establishment and Coordination Committee (E&C), please.
The LORD MAYOR—
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor GRIFFITHS.
532/2020-21
At that juncture, Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS moved, seconded by Councillor Charles STRUNK, that the Standing Rules be suspended to allow the moving of the following motion(
That Councillor Ryan Murphy apologises to all Brisbane City Council employees for calling their jobs “cosy”.
Chair: Three minutes to urgency, please.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, that went through? You’ve got that, yes?
Chair: I believe so. Yes, it’s been distributed now.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Okay, that’s fine. Thank you. Last year, Councillor Ryan MURPHY described Council jobs as cosy, and it’s interesting that Councillor MURPHY is now regarding it as a joke—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: It was a disappointing reflection, I think, of Councillor MURPHY’s personal views of the role of our hardworking, committed staff, who often go beyond—
LORD MAYOR: Point of order, Mr Chair.
Chair: Point of order to you, LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: To urgency, talking about last year?
Chair: Yes, I understand.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: I haven’t even done the first sentence.
Chair: No, no, hang on. Hang on. No, I will make a ruling. Typically, I would allow—we do allow some framing comments, but Councillor GRIFFITHS, please—
Councillor GRIFFITHS: To urgency, all right.
Chair: —limit your comments to urgency.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: It hurts their feelings every day. People—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: It’s interesting, all these interjections from the DEPUTY MAYOR. These staff are saying that they are offended by these comments—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: These staff are saying that they are hurt by these comments. Now, I know this is a joke and Council—
Chair: Again, though, Councillor GRIFFITHS, I must insist that you make the argument for urgency, please.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: I am making the argument for urgency, and I am just watching the way the Administration is regarding this, and it is disappointing. This is urgent because it has been brought to my attention, by employees, but also by their unions, that they find this offensive—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: They find this offensive. They find being called—being told that their jobs are cosy and cushy offensive. They think that they actually do an incredible job. They work very hard. They put themselves on the line for us. The urgency here, Mr Chair, is that we right this wrong. We right what Councillor MURPHY has done and the way he views—and not just Councillor MURPHY, I would say other members on that side of the Chamber, the way they view our employees, our 8,500 employees—that we correct this wrong, we correct this mistake, and today is the opportunity for Councillor MURPHY to apologise to the staff in relation to that.
Chair: We have an urgency resolution. To the matter of urgency.
The Chair submitted the motion for the suspension of the Standing Rules to the Chamber and it was declared lost on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Jared CASSIDY and Steve GRIFFITHS immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared lost.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 6 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Jared CASSIDY, and Councillors Peter CUMMING, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON.
NOES: 20 - The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillors Greg ADERMANN, Adam ALLAN, Lisa ATWOOD, Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Tracy DAVIS, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Sarah HUTTON, Sandy LANDERS, James MACKAY, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Steven TOOMEY and Andrew WINES.
Chair: We will proceed to the E&C report, please.
The LORD MAYOR.
CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS:
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE
The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER), Chair of the Establishment and Coordination Committee, moved, seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR (Councillor Krista ADAMS), that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 22 February 2021, be adopted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
The LORD MAYOR?
LORD MAYOR: Yes, Mr Chair. I just wanted to comment on what just happened now. What I believe is happening week after week is the systematic abuse of the rules of this place for party political purposes—
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: What we saw today is an issue that was only urgent because the Labor Party is so lazy—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
LORD MAYOR: So lazy—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Mr Chairman.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes. Mr Chairman, the Meetings Local Laws do not allow motives to be questioned in this place, which is exactly what the LORD MAYOR is doing with respect to—
Chair: I don’t—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: No, no.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: I’m not sure that’s correct, Councillor JOHNSTON.
I will ask for advice if your proposal is correct, but that doesn’t—I don’t believe it to be, and I will make a ruling. Thank you.
Councillor JOHNSTON: You’re not allowed to make an adverse reflection on the motives of another Councillor.
Chair: You’ve made your point, thank you. I’ve received your point of order.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Well, then, Mr Chairman—
Chair: I’ve received your point of order. No, no, that’s okay. You’ve made your point of order. It’s been made, thank you.
I will say that the LORD MAYOR’s comments about the use of urgency motions is a fair point of discussion in his powers as LORD MAYOR to speak about a range of issues in his report.
The LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you. the point of an urgency motion—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: There is a very clear rule here.
|533/2020-21 |
|Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON moved, seconded by Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS, that the Chair’s ruling be dissented from. Upon being |
|submitted to the Chamber, the motion of dissent was declared lost on the voices. |
Chair: We will now proceed.
The LORD MAYOR, to your report, please.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. The whole point of an urgency motion is for something to be able to be raised at a meeting that wasn’t able to be lodged by Thursday afternoon, the week before when notified motions are due. So, anyone can put—any Councillor can put a notified motion on the agenda, they just need the signature of one other Councillor to support them. We’ve got one today that’s up for debate. So, what they have to do, Mr Chair, is effectively make a case that it was so urgent that they didn’t know the information before Thursday last week, and so they didn’t have time to put the urgency motion in. That’s really what we’re talking about here. Yet week after week, we see motions that aren’t urgent—
Councillor STRUNK: Point of order, Mr Chair.
LORD MAYOR: —being put forward.
Chair: Point of order.
Point of order, Councillor STRUNK.
Councillor STRUNK: Yes, I think the LORD MAYOR is reflecting badly on your Chairmanship of this Chamber. Clearly, if something is in order, you will allow it, and if it isn’t, you will not—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor STRUNK: So, I think he should apologise—
Chair: I always—no, thank you, Councillor STRUNK.
Councillor STRUNK: —directly to you.
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: I always—thank you. I always appreciate supportive statements from all Councillors, but as I say, the urgency resolutions, I follow—while I speak, nobody else speaks, all right?
So, when an urgency resolution is presented, I follow the rules. Whether an item is urgent or not is a matter for the entire Council, and that’s what we do.
The LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. As I was pointing out, the whole reason urgency motions exist is if something comes up after you have the opportunity to put in a notified motion. Now, the notified motion is, as I said, due by Thursday afternoon, before the Tuesday Council meeting. Now, this is a classic example right here. When Councillor GRIFFITHS tried to demonstrate that it’s urgent, he referred to comments that were made last year. Not last week, not in the last two days, last year. Of course it’s not urgent. Of course it’s not urgent.
If—if Labor was organised, they would put a notified motion on the paper and we would all debate it, but we see week after week, they’re not doing that, and they’re not actually using the urgency motions for what they’re determined—or the purpose of the urgency motions—
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: So, they don’t like it because they’re being called out on their cynical and transparent political strategy here, which is they don’t have anything positive to say, so they try and disrupt the meeting every week, multiple times often, with fake urgency motions—
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: They come up with fake news on their website and they come up with fake urgency motions, and I’ll tell you how fake they are because they put up information like this. This is a Labor for Brisbane fake news page, and it says Adrian SCHRINNER and the LNP voted against bringing back kerbside collection eight times. Eight times, right?
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: So, we actually went back to the record and we had a look. How many times did we vote against bringing back kerbside collection? Was it eight times? No. Was it seven times? No. Was it six times? No. In fact, we have never voted against bringing back kerbside collection. What we voted against was a fake urgency motion. That’s what we voted against, because there was nothing urgent about it—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Just like all of their urgency motions that get voted down. That’s what—
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: Councillors, Councillors, please.
No interjections, please—
LORD MAYOR: That’s what the records show.
Chair: No interjections, please.
The LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Once again, just in recent days, they put up a post. The LNP voted against more staff and more resources to fight Brisbane’s mosquito population. This is the fake news post they put up—
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Once again, how many times have we voted against more staff for mosquitos?
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Was it seven times? Was it six times? Was it 15 times? It was zero times—
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Zero times—because all they have ever done is move a fake urgency motion—
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —which was voted down because it wasn’t urgent, and as I explained in Question Time, it wasn’t urgent because the mosquito spraying team haven’t asked for more staff—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: So it’s quite clearly not urgent. We really, I’m sad to say, have an Opposition that lives in the post-truth era, and they’re off there in their little bubble where they think they can say whatever they like, they don’t have to justify the accuracy of what they say, they make all types of outrageous claims which are not true, and they think they can get away with it. They won’t get away with it. We will call them out every time. Now, it’s a sad indictment on the Labor Party that their job is to hold the Administration to account, but really, the Administration is holding them to account for all of the lies that they tell, and it is really quite sad—
Chair: LORD MAYOR, LORD MAYOR, I must insist that the use of the word lie is not used in this place.
LORD MAYOR: Mistruths, Mr Chair, is that acceptable?
Chair: Yes.
LORD MAYOR: But inaccurate information is repeatedly put forward by Labor Councillors, and we will call it out. We are happy to be judged on our actual record, on the actual facts, but we will call it out when inaccurate information is consistently put forward as Labor Councillors are doing. So I think maybe it’s time for us to consider a change to the rules, maybe to give Labor Councillors a little bit more time to put a notified motion on. I’d be happy even if it was the Monday.
We’ll give them until the day before to put a notified motion on the agenda. That gives them extra time to be organised, and then we don’t have all these fake urgency motions coming up. So, I’d be happy to consider that, happy to hear people’s views on that. That way, people can put a notified motion on the agenda even to the day before. That way, we’re acknowledging that they’re not very organised and they can’t get their act together by Thursday. Maybe they can get it together by Friday. We know that they—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: By Monday—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: We know that they all meet on a Friday. So, maybe after they have the meeting, they can lodge their motion. We’re happy to work with you here—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
LORD MAYOR: —but let’s just have no more of these fake urgency motions.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Mr Chairman. I seek leave to suspend standing orders to enable me to move an urgency motion, taking up the LORD MAYOR’s immediate past advice a few moments ago, to change the Meetings Local Law to allow extended time for notified motions to be added to the Council agenda.
Councillor SRI: Sure, I’ll second that.
Chair: Do you—have you distributed that to the clerks?
Councillor JOHNSTON: It’s an urgency motion because he said it less than 30 seconds ago, Mr Chairman.
Chair: No, no. It’s a long-established practice that we don’t accept urgency resolutions that are not in writing.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Oh, hang on a minute. So, if it’s urgent—
Chair: No, no, no arguing, Councillor.
The LORD MAYOR.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: I haven’t said anything such. The Chairman of Council has pointed out—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Please cease interjecting.
The LORD MAYOR.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —what the actual rules are, but I’m glad to hear that from the most important Councillor in the place here, we have her support, which is good—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: So, we will take appropriate action now, unless Labor Councillors have any objection to that, to amend the rules of the meeting so that notified motions can be notified the day before the Council meeting. I will be absolutely happy to bring that forward—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —so that they get extra time to be organised. After they have their Friday meeting, they can notify us of a motion. That would be a good outcome, I think, and so happy to put it out there. We have the vigorous support of the Councillor for Tennyson Ward. I assume that she will continue to do what she usually does, which is pull the strings of the Labor Team—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —and when she joins the caucus meeting, she will vote for that, but let’s bring that forward, Mr Chair. So, I look forward to working with all Councillors to make that change in the appropriate way to the meetings, rules and local law. Going forward, the lighting of Council assets—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: I seek leave to suspend standing orders to enable me to move an urgency motion, taking up the LORD MAYOR’s advice to amend the Meetings Local Law to shorten the length of answers to questions without notice, to enable more questions to be asked and answered during notified Question Time, as part of the review of the Meetings Local Laws.
Chair: Councillor has that—that’s been distributed—that’s been handed in writing, so that we can distribute to all Councillors?
Councillor JOHNSTON: Urgency.
Chair: That’s not an answer to my question.
Have you—do the clerks have a copy of it so that it can be distributed to all Councillors?
Councillor JOHNSTON: It’s an urgency motion. It has occurred as a result of the last 30 seconds of debate in this Chamber, therefore it’s not possible for it to be in writing.
Chair: So, does that mean no? Does that mean—so it’s a no?
So, I’ve answered your question a moment ago—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No, I’m not. No, I just accepted one from Councillor GRIFFITHS five minutes ago—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: The LORD MAYOR.
I think the point is, I accept a huge amount of urgency motions every week—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Every week, but there’s one rule, they have to be in writing so that all Councillors can view them.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. I assume we’re just having a general discussion amongst ourselves now. Let’s all contribute, pipe up. So, I assume that that fake urgency motion came as the result of my answer to Councillor JOHNSTON’s question earlier. I want to put some context around that—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —because Councillor JOHNSTON, week after week, has questioned the motive of other Councillors, has called them all types of things, has—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Apparently, she can do that to any other Councillor—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —but she can’t be called out on anything that she does—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: So, what is happening here is this. There have been a number of times where Councillor JOHNSTON has asked a question, purporting to be based on certain information. I’ve then looked into it and that information has been misrepresented.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Now, whether it’s deliberate—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Whether it’s deliberate—
Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No, Councillor JOHNSTON.
I have asked you to not call people names across the Chamber. It’s not acceptable—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: It is not acceptable in any place to call people names, in any work environment. I don’t know why you think it is here. I’ve directed you to cease calling people names in the past. If you do it again, I will move through the disorderly conduct provisions.
The LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair, and these comments that we just heard proves my point exactly. She thinks she can call any Councillor whatever she wants—
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: She can try and ruin reputations, she can make up all types of outrageous things about people—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Yet, when time and time again—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No, no. Councillor JOHNSTON, cease interjecting.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON, please cease interjecting.
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. Time and time again, there have been questions asked and then, when I’ve determined the actual facts, they are—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —different to what Councillor JOHNSTON says.
Councillor OWEN: Point of order, Mr Chairman.
Chair: Councillor, no, no. I have—
Councillor OWEN: Point of order.
Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON—
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON, you have failed to comply with the request to take remedial action for your unsuitable meeting conduct, and I warn you in accordance with section 21(7) of the Meetings Local Law 2001 that failing to comply with a request may result in an order being issued.
The LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. So, I am simply saying that it is prudent and wise to actually check the facts of a matter before answering. What’s wrong with that? What is wrong with that?
Chair: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.
534/2020-21
At that point, the LORD MAYOR was granted an extension of time on the motion of the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, seconded by Councillor Sandy LANDERS.
Chair: The LORD MAYOR, 10 minutes.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. So, as I said today, I will check the facts of that particular question that Councillor JOHNSTON asked, and then I will respond accordingly. I haven’t refused to answer anyone’s question. I have simply said I’m going to check first. I’m not going to make assumptions on matters that I haven’t verified first, and that is a reasonable approach. Councillor JOHNSTON can call me any name under the sun, but as I said, it just simply proves my point that the rules apply to everyone else, but not to her—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor OWEN: Point of order, Mr Chair.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor OWEN.
Councillor OWEN: Mr Chairman, in accordance with the rules of procedure of this place, Councillor JOHNSTON has just made an allegation that the LORD MAYOR calls her a liar every week. That is not the case and it is an adverse reflection on the character of the LORD MAYOR, and I ask that you make a ruling on this, please.
Chair: I will—Councillor JOHNSTON, a request has been made for you to withdraw that comment.
Will you withdraw that comment?
Councillor JOHNSTON: No.
Chair: I will now proceed with—LORD MAYOR, have you got further comments to make on the report?
LORD MAYOR: Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr Chair. Moving on to other matters, the lighting of Council assets. Obviously, in recent days, we’ve seen some of the key assets of the city lit up in the Olympic colours, and we heard that John Coates was staying in one of the hotels where he can quite clearly see the Story Bridge. He sent a photograph to the President of the IOC, who was very excited to see the enthusiasm which Brisbane displayed. I think he made a request that we could do that on a permanent basis, but we’ll see about that—
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: There are so many good causes that we light up our assets in support of.
Chair: Councillors—sorry, Councillor—can I please acknowledge Councillor Goss in the gallery has come to visit us and he was just—welcome.
LORD MAYOR: I was actually wondering where that noise was coming from. That’s all right.
Chair: Yes, Councillor Goss has come to visit.
Welcome, Councillor.
LORD MAYOR: This week marks Hearing Awareness Week, which highlights the importance of maintaining hearing health. Established in 1992, and headquartered in Brisbane, Hear and Say works to teach children born deaf or hard of hearing to listen and speak. In support, the Victoria Bridge, Story Bridge and Reddacliff Place sculptures will be lit in blue today, and also Wednesday—tomorrow night. This Thursday and Friday, Council will light up the Story Bridge and Victoria Bridges and Reddacliff Place sculptures in red and purple for Red Bow Week. Red Bow Week increases community awareness of rare diseases like muscular dystrophy and other neuromuscular conditions. Muscular Dystrophy Queensland provide support and equipment for Queenslanders living with muscle-wasting conditions.
On Saturday, Brisbane City Hall and Sandgate Town Hall will be lit pink for International Women’s Day and the charity fun run, in particular. This raises money for those going through breast cancer treatment and also is a campaign to educate Greater Brisbane and Queensland on the importance of breast screen health.
Item A on the agenda, the stores board submission, significant contracting plan physical security services. The purpose of this stores board submission is to establish a corporate procurement arrangement (CPA) for physical security services in the form of preferred supplier arrangements. This CPA will be for an initial period of three years with options to extend for an additional period of up to two years, with a maximum term of five years. The existing CPA for physical security services is due to expire on 31 October 2021. It’s recommended that the new CPA maintains the current, separate category structure, with an objective to rationalise providers by appointing suppliers to more than one category, where this is advantageous.
The type of categories include Category 1, security alarm monitoring services; Category 2, security patrol, lock up and let out and alarm response services; Category 3, security guards, security operations room and CitySafe operations; Category 4, public transport guarding and rapid response services; Category 5, locksmith related services; and Category 6, security guarding services for event security. So, there’s a whole range of different services that Council supports for different roles.
It could be something as simple as locking up a toilet block in a park at night or checking that gates are locked in various places that are secured at night. It could be the security guards that assist us in providing security on nighttime bus services or bus services that are determined to be in need of that extra security response, and including the security cars that trail bus services at certain times along certain routes, also the security alarm monitoring services in Council facilities with things like duress alarms, as well. So, there’s a whole range of very important services that we’re going out to procurement on with this one.
Item B is the Major amendment package I or L, is it?
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: I, for the Camp Hill zoning. Major amendment package I contains changes to the City Plan that will further protect our city’s unique character and heritage values. It includes a package for the proposed rezoning of properties to reflect the results of the Camp Hill zoning survey. Council has been working with the community since 2018 on this proposal, to protect the local character and put a stop to townhouses and unit developments in that particular area. The change will see just over 400 properties in the area rezoned from low-medium density to predominantly character residential and low density residential.
The amendment package also contains citywide changes, including updates to the Heritage overlay to include new local heritage listings, and updates to existing heritage places, the addition of 10 buildings, identified as being constructed prior to 1911, updates to the Traditional building character and Commercial character overlays to capture more sites. Public consultation on the package took place before—sorry, public consultation on the package took place between 24 August and 20 September last year.
Council received a total of 144 submissions, 139 of those were in relation to the proposed rezoning of Camp Hill, of which 123 submissions supported the changes and 16 opposed the changes. Having carefully considered all the submissions received, it’s proposed to proceed with the changes to City Plan as outlined in this package. The major amendment passed through Council today will go to the State Government for consideration and approval. Thank you, Mr Chair.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Chair. I’ll speak on both of these items.
Seriatim – Clauses A and B
|Councillor Jared CASSIDY requested that Clause A, STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING PLAN FOR PHYSICAL SECURITY |
|SERVICES; and Clause B – MAJOR AMENDMENT TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 – PACKAGE I, be taken seriatim for voting purposes. |
Councillor CASSIDY: Yes, thanks very much. I mean, that was quite an extraordinary performance of the LORD MAYOR in introducing these items. I think we went 10-plus minutes post an extension before he got to talk about these citywide issues, because he thought it was more important to complain about scrutiny on this Administration, complain about a Council Chamber scrutinising the decisions of him—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor CASSIDY: —and his LNP Administration—
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: —and perhaps the boss of the LNP was correct after all, Chair.
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY, please return your comments to the report at hand.
Councillor CASSIDY: I’m just absolutely flabbergasted, Chair, by the LORD MAYOR’s performance in there, that cannot go by without comment. He will shut down debate at any minute and we’ve all—
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY, I have asked you—
Councillor CASSIDY: —experienced that on this side, we’ve all experienced on this side—
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY, I have allowed you to make comment, but I do need you to return to the reports, please.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Point of order, Mr Chair.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor ADAMS.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Will the Leader of the Opposition take a question?
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY, will you take a question?
Councillor CASSIDY: Absolutely not.
Chair: No, Councillor CASSIDY declines.
Councillors interjecting.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Thanks for your transparency.
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY, please return—
Councillor CASSIDY: Absolutely not from you, no. No, no way.
Chair: —your comments to the report at hand.
Councillor CASSIDY: I’m sure the DEPUTY MAYOR can respond to things that I say in my contribution, but we are of course not allowed to respond to things that the LORD MAYOR says in his contribution, even though he spent almost the entire time introducing the E&C talking about us.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor CASSIDY: There’s groans coming from LNP Councillors.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Point of order, Mr Chair.
Chair: Point of order.
Councillor CASSIDY: They don’t like it.
Chair: Point of order to you—
Councillor CASSIDY: They don’t like the scrutiny.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor ADAMS.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Will Councillor CASSIDY take a question so he can comment on the LORD MAYOR’s comments?
Chair: No, no, hang on. No, no, no. We are going to follow the rules. We are going to follow the rules.
Councillor CASSIDY: Oh, talk—rules, yes, yes, the rules are very important to the DEPUTY MAYOR when someone else is talking, but they’re not—
Chair: Councillor—
Councillor CASSIDY: —important to her—
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY—
Councillor CASSIDY: —when she wants to get up—
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY—
Councillor CASSIDY: —and cause trouble and interrupt.
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY, I trust you recognise the irony of criticising another person for not talking about the report for a significant amount of your time. Please return to the topic.
Councillor CASSIDY: Therein lies the point, Chair.
Chair: Please return to the topic.
Councillor CASSIDY: Therein lies the point, that the LORD MAYOR wastes all this time talking about other Councillors instead of important citywide business, and we could have had the debate on those urgency motions, but he hasn’t got the backbone, of course.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor CASSIDY: So, on Clause A, Chair, on Clause A, the stores board submission for this contracting plan is a $54 million contract. It’s a huge contract, a very important expenditure of money, and it’s a contract for security guards, essentially, to outsource the work of security guards to lock and unlock public toilets, as we heard from the LORD MAYOR, provide security at bus interchanges and libraries, as well at events, and for a number of other purposes, as well. So, Chair, again we have another example where, if this Council can afford to contract out these basic services, they can afford to implement an in-house security team themselves.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor CASSIDY: This is a decision that this LORD MAYOR continues to make. Here today is a $54 million contract to casualise and create more insecure work here in Brisbane, rather than providing good, secure Council jobs for basic Council services. Now, according to the report before us, Council doesn’t have the capacity or capability right now to provide these services. I wonder why. I wonder why, Chair, that Council doesn’t have these capabilities, because they continue to contract out this basic work. Everything is being outsourced, so we have no in-house structure for physical security.
The LORD MAYOR even said in his comments that these are really simple tasks. They are protecting Council’s assets, protecting Council’s staff, going and locking and unlocking toilets and buildings. Why is it that Council can’t provide these services in-house? Why is there a political decision being made by the LNP to outsource these jobs to private companies? Companies that Council have absolutely no control over how they treat their workers on a day-to-day basis, how much those workers are being paid and the kind of conditions they’re working under, Chair, if they are casual or full-time, or if they’re being trained correctly while they’re being employed.
Now, we certainly hope that this $54 million contract isn’t a $54 million contract to increase insecure work or casualisation here in Brisbane, but we suspect that it is. This LNP Administration in Council, Chair, is the king of outsourcing because it suits them. They don’t want to be responsible for workers’ rights or conditions, and in fact, they would rather create two classes of workers here in Brisbane, and particularly within Council and the structure of Council.
These security companies can axe workforces whenever they want by simply terminating those contracts of those employees, not renewing them, and leaving workers without an income at all, no job security. Now, we know that the LNP has come seriously unstuck when it comes to large contracts and outsourcing significant works of Council like this one, and the last time we saw a contract like this where they sacked the entire in-house IT (information technology) team, outsourced that work, only to find those workers were being underpaid and exploited and threatened by their employer if they spoke out.
So, these are the risks that this Administration is willing to undertake when it comes to workers and how they’re being treated, and that situation was only sorted out because unions blew the whistle on that and took up that case for those workers, and those workers that were being subjected to modern day slavery were able to finally get some back payment, and it was no thanks to this Administration, who should have the ultimate oversight over these contracts. If we didn’t have these contracts, we would have the ultimate oversight of these employees because they would be permanent Council employees. This contract is a bad deal for workers and it is a bad deal for Brisbane.
On the major amendment, Chair, this is a big win for Camp Hill residents. It’s a win that was hard-fought by those residents, and those residents were supported by Councillor COOK each and every step of the journey. Now, I’ve already heard the LORD MAYOR try and rewrite a bit of history when it comes to this item, and I’m sure Councillor ADAMS is going to try and do this, as well, but the reality is, this Administration was dragged kicking and screaming to make this amendment, and if it wasn’t for immense public pressure, it would have been dismissed and ignored just like the LNP do to every other resident request.
The LNP put up what seemed like to those residents almost impossible barriers. They wanted it to fail from day one, but residents didn’t give up. They letterboxed, they door-knocked, they held meetings, they organised in the real sense of community organisation, and they demanded to be heard. Now, just last week, we saw our LNP Councillor Vicki HOWARD patronise her own residents, saying they were scaremongering because all they wanted to do was have a say in the redevelopment of New Farm Park.
So, this arrogance runs deep in the LNP, Chair. They’ve been in power for way too long, and no longer prioritise residents or residents’ concerns, but Camp Hill residents and Councillor COOK didn’t give up. The LORD MAYOR and his Planning Chair had no choice but to do the right thing in this instance, and this amendment now sets a precedent for other neighbourhoods. It sends a message to other residents around Brisbane that you can stick up for what you want and make yourself heard against this developer loving LNP Administration.
Now, Chair, we really hope this package is enough to stand up in court and will be honoured behind closed doors, because we do know, and we see very often, this LNP Administration rolling over in the Planning and Environment Court at the first challenge.
Councillor interjecting.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Point of order, Chair.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor ADAMS.
DEPUTY MAYOR: The third time for adverse reflection. I’m just reflecting on Councillor JOHNSTON’s comments. It shouldn’t be done in this Chamber.
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: Please, no, no, no. No interjections. There’s a point of order. Please do not—
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: Please do not—
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: Okay, look, we’re not going down this rabbit hole of people arguing among themselves. Councillor CASSIDY, do not reflect adversely on other people. Please proceed with your report.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor CASSIDY: I’ll make very clear, Chair, that I said this Administration and Council broadly. I didn’t single out the DEPUTY MAYOR or any individual LNP Councillor in this place.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor CASSIDY: The evidence—yes, that’s right, this is getting a little beyond belief, actually, the behaviour from Councillors on that side, Chair, but the evidence stacks up. We’ve seen it. There’s two cases just recently this year where LNP Councillors went out there and said, oh, we fought this to the death in the Planning and Environment Court and those orders were released and they were just consent orders. The Council had agreed behind closed doors with the developer. So that’s the point I’m making, Chair, so it’s important that this amendment is honoured and Council backs this community when it comes time.
There will be a time where a developer will seek a development and put in a DA in this area that does not meet these new requirements, and this community wants to know that this Administration will honour this amendment, because at the outset—at the outset, they set it up to fail. Despite this Administration and those hurdles, that community overcame that. So, we will continue to raise these issues, of course, Chair, and make sure that this Administration does honour these amendments in this case and everywhere around the city, because the community is sick and tired of being patronised by LNP Councillors.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor HOWARD.
Councillor HOWARD: Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to enter the debate on item B, the major amendment to the City Plan 2014 package I. Mr Chair, Council takes the protection of our city’s traditional building character and unique heritage places very seriously, and acknowledges the vital contribution that they make to our city’s lifestyle, identity and economy. We first introduced a heritage statutory protection in the 1987 town plan, and since this time, over 2,200 local heritage places have been identified and listed on our local heritage places online system, with more being investigated over time.
You may be interested to know that Council has been reviewing citations for local heritage places with a view to ensuring robust protection of every important heritage component of a property in place. As our city continues to grow and change, we will do everything we can to ensure our exciting future looks familial and our city remains a great place to live, work and relax. This amendment is just one of the ways we are working to protect the unique history and the character of Brisbane, including amendments to the Heritage overlay to protect previously unidentified local heritage places in Brisbane, including several in my ward.
Major amendment package I includes the addition or partial addition of six lots to the local heritage place subcategory, including the following properties within Central Ward: 46 Kingsholme Street, Teneriffe; 53 and 55 Merthyr Road, New Farm, included on the register, but not mapped; and 263 Gregory Terrace, Spring Hill; 391 Gregory Terrace, Spring Hill. This package also includes the addition or partial addition of a further 31 lots to the area adjoining heritage subcategory, including 42 and 50 Kingsholme Street, Teneriffe; 37 Crase Street, Teneriffe; 259, 263, 397 and 435 Gregory Terrace, Spring Hill.
Mr Chair, only the Schrinner Council Administration can be trusted to protect the heritage and character of our city, and I’m proud to work together with LORD MAYOR Adrian SCHRINNER and the DEPUTY MAYOR to secure further heritage protections for the Central Ward to ensure that Brisbane’s history continues to be preserved for future generations to enjoy.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, just with respect to item B. What a tale of two cities it is when it comes to protecting the heritage of Brisbane City Council, and I do commend Councillor COOK for her efforts here, I know this started a very long time ago, perhaps even with Councillor Sutton, and these residents have had to fight tooth and nail to have their traditional areas recognised in City Plan, but all over this city, we are losing 100-year old homes to modern development because this LNP Administration refuses to support changes to the planning scheme that ensure all pre-1946 houses are protected. At the moment, they are only protected if they are listed in the overlay, the TCB (Traditional character building) overlay.
In my area, in my ward, we have some of the most gracious 150-year-old homes in the city. They can be pretty much knocked down and changed with very little oversight by Council. The best example of this is the pink house at Yeronga. A journalist was asking me about it today, in fact. It’s on the corner of Kingsley Parade and Kadumba Street at Yeronga. It was built in the 1880s. It is the first house when that part of Yeronga was subdivided. The street used to end where that house is now. So, it is quite significant in terms of that actual house itself, as well as its contribution to the creation of the suburb of Yeronga. It is listed on the pre-1946 register, the Traditional building character overlay, but it’s not heritage listed.
So, as a result, a developer subdivided the block, chopped off the whole—all parts of the house, put in a development application to raise it and modernise it, and the gracious character house that was there has been completely destroyed and left now abandoned because they’ve been unable to undertake their development application. We do not have a house built in the 1880s, an iconic house that is the first in this part of Yeronga, that demonstrates the pattern of settlement. This LNP Administration has refused repeated requests by me to heritage list it. I’ve written to the former Planning Chair. I’ve written to the LORD MAYOR. Will they even consider it? They write back? No.
Here’s the other example of where this Administration is failing. The Yeronga Bowls Club, what a great one that is. After an epic fight through the DA process to protect the 107-year-old Yeronga Bowls Club from a high-rise development, after a Planning and Environment Court that absolutely in black-and-white confirmed the significance of the MacGregor Green of the Yeronga Bowls Club as the first evidence of the sport in the suburb, back in 1907 or whatever it was. You know what this Council did? Behind closed doors, they granted a heritage exemption certificate that allowed every single bit of evidence of this bowls green to be pulled up. It looks like a tip site. The green’s gone, there’s huge mounds of rubbish, there’s huge mounds of dirt—
Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON, I appreciate you’re making an argument, but you’ve spent quite a bit of time on the Yeronga Bowls Club. Would you just mind coming to the report in front of us, please?
Councillor JOHNSTON: A minute? A minute? I mean, I don’t think it’s a long time. The people of my ward don’t think it’s a long time.
Chair: No, I appreciate that—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes.
Chair: —but I’m just asking you to come back to the report.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, well, I’m just making the argument that this LNP Administration have not got this right. They have not got this right. We’ve just heard Councillor HOWARD stand up and argue that, oh yes, we protect heritage in this city. Well, no, you don’t, and that’s the argument that I’m making. This Administration has let this community down time after time after time, and it is so disappointing. The last one I’ll end on is 567 Fairfield Road, Yeronga. That house was relocated to provide road access to the Story Bridge when it was built in the 1930s. Despite the fact that it was protected and heritage listed, this Administration allowed it to be knocked down, a new DA brought in for a commercial childcare centre.
That’s how this lot roll. If it’s in their wards, they’re happy to go out and protect it. If it’s in other wards where it is equally important, this Administration plays petty political games and is not serving the interests of the residents of Brisbane. I’ve moved motions in here year after year. Every single pre-1946 house should be protected. Every single house should be mapped. Houses of very significant cultural and heritage status should be heritage listed, like the pink house at Yeronga, not ignored for political purposes.
This Administration needs to get tougher on approving DAs that allow beautiful, gracious, 120, 130-year homes to be chopped up, modernised, and turned into boxes. This Administration has absolutely failed the city of Brisbane when it comes to heritage. I’m pleased for Councillor COOK that Camp Hill is going to get some semblance of protection, but unfortunately, when she understands that the developers will put in major amendments to character homes and they don’t even need impact assessable DAs, she’ll be shocked to see how the officers behind closed doors allow beautiful character homes to be chopped up, despite the fact that they are ostensibly protected. This Administration’s planning scheme has failed the City of Brisbane.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor ALLAN.
Councillor ALLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to speak briefly on item A, Physical Security Services. It seems to me that Councillor CASSIDY, through you, Mr Chair, would bring into Council just about everything that he reasonably could. You know, we’ve had some suggestion here that, you know, maybe helicopter pilots, we should have a few of those. That, you know, we should have—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor ALLAN: Bridge designers.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor ALLAN: Cleaning—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor ALLAN: Only if they’re unionised, and now there is a suggestion that we should have a great team of—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor ALLAN: —multifaceted security people. The reality is that it is just not efficient for Council to be engaged and have an internal staff to do every service we need. We have a number of core activities where we have staff involved in those, but we can’t reasonably internalise every kind of function this Council needs. So, it’s not efficient for the ratepayers of Brisbane to go about business in this fashion. So, having these types of contracts allows us to provide greater flexibility. We can leverage the efficiencies that a broad-based security provider can give to us, in terms of pricing.
Their security guards are dealing across geographies where they’re servicing multiple clients, which feeds through efficiencies to Council. So, the pricing that we get by going to market is going to be significantly better than what we’re going to get if we internalise these roles. The industry is highly competitive, so the margins aren’t great. These guys have to be very, very competitive when quoting to Council. So, from a ratepayer perspective, it is not sensible to internalise these roles. It is better—
Councillor SRI: Point of order, Chair.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Will Councillor ALLAN take a question?
Chair: Councillor ALLAN, will you take a question?
Councillor ALLAN: No, I won’t.
Chair: No, he has declined.
Councillor ALLAN, please proceed.
Councillor ALLAN: So, the suggestion that this should be internalised, I think, flies in the face of good governance and getting best value for money for ratepayers, and that is the focus of this side of the Chamber. As I noted earlier, we have a lot of functions that are internalised, where they are undertaken by Council employees, where they do a terrific job and where it should be a core function of Council, but there are a raft of services where it just doesn’t make sense to internalise these.
So, if we touch upon some other points Councillor CASSIDY made, he had a suggestion that by outsourcing, there’s somehow an increase in worker abuse. Now, this is just nonsense, and I think it’s an insult to all of the businesses who contract to Council. A lot of these are very, very highly respected operations, and contracting, outsourcing, doesn’t by default lead to worker abuse. It’s a misnomer, and I believe that when we’re contracting, and when we’re procuring services, we make sure that those businesses that provide services to Council do so in an ethical way. Thank you.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Thanks, Chair. I wasn’t going to speak, but I thought this conversation about outsourcing of security services is an interesting one, and I just wanted to, I guess, make the point that I thought Councillor ALLAN’s explanation of how these guards were often already servicing a particular territory and they might be servicing multiple clients, I see the value in that and I see the logic of that. I guess there’s also an argument to be made, for example, that Brisbane City Council could simply employ security guards and if other companies then wanted to hire those Council services, there’s no reason those guards couldn’t also service other stakeholders. So I’m not sure that that argument alone necessarily holds water. For example, I know that Council gets contracted to provide some of the graffiti clean-up services for other stakeholders, so we employ some graffiti removal officers and then the State Government and a few other stakeholders then pay Brisbane City Council to help maintain some of their assets.
So there’s also—already kind of a precedent or a principal there that maybe it’s not so outrageous to consider that if Brisbane City Council really needs these services and really needs—could be employing these people and then there are also other stakeholders or potentially business clients in an area, maybe it’s not such a radical idea to suggest that Council employs those guards. Then, if other people want to use them as well, they could hire them off Council rather than the other way round.
I am pretty concerned about exploitation within that particular industry and the question I was going to ask Councillor ALLAN was whether he was confident that all those guards are paid minimum wage and are paid fairly for their time. Are they paid those overtime hours? If they’re going out on weekends, are they paid weekend rates?
I would hope so, but I—I’m not at all confident that that’s the case and I’d be interested if any of the Administration Councillors wanted to comment definitively on that and say that you are certain that everyone who’s working in these private security companies is paid the minimum wage and paid what they ought to be paid. But, yes, just wanted to pose that question and see if anyone had any answers.
Chair: Further speakers? Further speakers?
Councillor ADAMS.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair, and I rise to speak on item B, Major amendment I. Look, I would like to reiterate what the LORD MAYOR said and what I said in Question Time today when it comes to some of the changes that we’ve unfortunately seen in the Planning Act and the hard yakka we’re doing pushing it up hill to make sure we do protect the unique history and the character of Brisbane.
I have to say, we do know how important it is to engage with our residents and bring them on the journey as we plan for the future and that’s exactly what we’ve seen here today with this amendment package, in particular, obviously, including the changes to Camp Hill zoning and the result of that survey and the other changes that we’ve made as well.
I just have to take umbrage—surprise, surprise, at a couple of the things that Councillor CASSIDY said that, again and again, we see when the reports come out from the Planning and Environment Court that they’ve been sorted out behind closed doors and it’s not transparent and they did dirty deals with the developers. What we do is fight till we can possibly fight no more and then when we get ordered to mediate, we have to mediate. We don’t have a choice, to mediate when we are ordered to mediate, and we mediate with the best outcome for the residents, and based on our decisions possible.
As I said, unfortunately, those losses are becoming more frequent and more frequent with P&E Court. I also see that we were dragged kicking and screaming to this consultation and it was set up to fail. So I find it quite interesting, because if we hadn’t done all the consultation and made absolutely sure that every one of these residents were conscious of what was going on and knew what this meant for them, we would have been told that we ran roughshod over them.
If it was going the other way, we would have run roughshod if we do it too easy, but when we’re going for the consultation process that doesn’t suit them, we’re setting it up to fail. The reality is this was the first time that we did a zoning survey like this and first time we’ve reached this stage of the zoning survey to show us the community is very clear about what type of housing they want to see in their suburbs.
This is not a house here or a house there in character. This is an enormous part of a suburb, which is going to be—has been zoned low-medium density for nearly 50 years, but has managed to remain traditional tin and timber in most of that area that is now being rezoned to low density residential. Any way you cut it, that is a big change for an area, particularly for people that have owned their houses for many, many years, let alone just a couple of years when you do your conveyancing.
Most people—some people I have noticed may not, but most people do their conveyancing and they look at the property and the value and the opportunity or not, as the case may be, depending on its zoning. So this was a big change to go to low-medium—to low density from low-medium density.
We heard very clearly when residents told us they didn’t like townhouses and unit development taking away from the area and we had a few of those DAs knocked back, but we did get a petition with more than 500 signatures asking us to consider changing the zoning, so they didn’t have to keep fighting with the overlay of these protection laws in the area.
So we did the local survey in the area, as it sees on the maps there bounded by Old Cleveland Road, Wiles Street, Halland Terrace, Watson Street and Dorothy Lane. More than half of the nearly 450 property owners were in favour of the proposal to change the zoning to character residential. I love that Councillor CASSIDY can say I know exactly what Councillor ADAMS is going to say, when he absolutely does not, because I would love for him to answer my question, which would have allowed him to make it clear on the record whether he supported notified motions coming to Monday rather than Thursday.
But in this case, I do thank former Councillor Shayne Sutton who started the process here, was very keen to see this continue, and Councillor COOK who took up the baton and also worked with her community to make sure that they let us know what we wanted to hear. Because as much as there was 450 property owners in favour of the proposal, there are some very upset people in that area as well with the changes to this zoning and we need to balance that. That’s what the LORD MAYOR talks about.
When you need something difficult to be done, you need the LNP Administration, because Labor would sit back and do nothing or maybe have a panel or a community discussion about it and see where it may go.
Councillor interjecting.
DEPUTY MAYOR: They’d outsource their decision to a panel, exactly. But it was an impressive grassroots campaign from Councillor Sutton, followed by Councillor COOK and I thank them and the community for unwavering interest as we step through this amendment process, because I always say it’s a bit like Pantene. It doesn’t happen overnight, but it will happen. The final round of consultation for the amendment is now complete and we will send it off to the State in relation to those proposals. Out of the 139 submissions, though, 123 of those were in support and just 16 opposing. So there was definitely a majority.
I’m sure the 16 opposing are not happy with this, but we need to look at the majority and that is a strong majority in anybody’s words. It would definitely cover our local area traffic management survey, which I know are just as contentious sometimes as zoning. But that is why we needed to make sure that the community had their say and we were clear and confident the community had heard that there was a survey and they knew what this meant for them as well. Great win for that local community and even a greater win for the Greater Brisbane as well.
This amendment package is not just about Camp Hill, even though that’s a large part of it. It updates Heritage overlay to include new local heritage listing and existing heritage places. There’s an additional 10 buildings identified as being constructed prior to 1911 into the Pre-1911 overlay; updates to Traditional building character and Commercial character overlays to capture more traditional sites across the city.
As our cities continue to grow and change, we’ll do everything to ensure our exciting future looks familiar and remains not only a great place to live, work and relax, but we can see those beautiful tin and timbers for the decades to come. This amendment package will now make its way to the State Government for consideration and approval to adopt the changes to City Plan. I recommend it to the Chamber.
Chair: Further speakers? There being—any further speakers?
There being none, the LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Councillors who contributed to the debate. I just hear again and again the claim from the Labor Councillors that they apparently don’t support any outsourcing of staff or functions of Council. This claim, and I’ve said this before and while they continue to repeat this claim, I will continue to draw attention to the facts, which is that Labor, when they were in office, outsourced the most fundamental services that we have. Grass cutting. Grass cutting. Labor outsourced that. In fact, they outsourced it to a New Zealand company.
Rubbish collection, Labor outsourced that. So this argument that they have where, oh, if it’s an ongoing job of Council, then it should be done in-house, rubbish. They don’t even stick to their own approach for their own policy. So either Labor is just trying to con workers or they’ve had a change in position. It is quite possible they’ve had a change in position, because we’ve seen that Labor at the start of each year now gets their marching instructions from union bosses. They get told what they’re going to do by union bosses.
They have a Zoom meeting and they’re like, what would you like us to do, because Labor Councillors are acting like a wholly-owned subsidiary of the union movement. We know that’s who funds their campaign and that’s exactly who they’re answering to. So when they get up in Question Time and they ask questions, they’re asking questions based on what their union bosses tell them, not what the people of Brisbane are telling them. They’re asking questions and raising issues based on the interests of their union bosses. They outsource grass cutting, rubbish collection, ferry operations.
They outsourced the ferry contract. There’s some other basic things like security services. I think they outsource security services, because I can tell you, I have been a Councillor for 15 years, and security services have always been outsourced the entire time that I’ve been a Councillor. I don’t think it was our Administration that outsourced that. I think it was actually the previous Labor Administration. Tree trimming has been outsourced for years and years and years. I don’t remember that being a decision that we made. It has been there for as long as I can remember. Once again, they outsourced tree trimming. So they’re very quiet. They’re very quiet.
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: They outsourced everything that wasn’t bolted down—
Councillor SRI: A point of order, Chair.
LORD MAYOR: —and now they’re opposing it.
Chair: A point of order, Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Will the LORD MAYOR take a question?
Chair: LORD MAYOR, will you take a question?
LORD MAYOR: No.
Chair: He’s declined.
The LORD MAYOR, please continue.
LORD MAYOR: The reality is, and I want to make my position clear, I don’t have a philosophical view on whether outsourcing is a good thing or not. I think on a case-by-case basis, we need to make the assessment on what works for the people of Brisbane, the ratepayers of Brisbane, and this organisation. If there is a good case for working with the private sector to deliver a service and it’s good for the people of Brisbane and it’s good for the ratepayers, then we should consider it. If it’s not, then we should do it in-house. It’s really quite simple. I don’t have an ideological view on this.
I think that we need to deliver the best possible service for the ratepayers of Brisbane, acknowledging that the ratepayers ultimately pay for these services, and so sometimes that will be doing things in-house and sometimes it won’t. That’s been our approach consistently. The only people who are changing their approach is the Australian Labor Party.
Chair: We’ll now put the resolution. Recall that they are in—they will be taken seriatim each.
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 Charles STRUNK 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 Adrian SCHRINNER, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillors Greg ADERMANN, Adam ALLAN, Lisa ATWOOD, Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Tracy DAVIS, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Sarah HUTTON, Sandy LANDERS, James MACKAY, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Steven TOOMEY and Andrew WINES.
NOES: 5 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Jared CASSIDY, and Councillors Peter CUMMING, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK and Jonathan SRI.
ABSTENTIONS: 1 - Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON.
Chair: On 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.
Thereupon, the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillor Sandy LANDERS immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 25 - The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillors Greg ADERMANN, Adam ALLAN, Lisa ATWOOD, Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Tracy DAVIS, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Sarah HUTTON, Sandy LANDERS, James MACKAY, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES, and the Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Jared CASSIDY, and Councillors Peter CUMMING, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK and Nicole JOHNSTON.
NOES: 1 - Councillor Jonathan SRI.
The report read as follows(
A STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING PLAN FOR PHYSICAL SECURITY SERVICES
165/830/179/796
535/2020-21
1. The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.
2. The Chief Executive Officer and the Stores Board considered the submission, as set out in Attachment A (submitted on file), on 25 January 2021.
3. The submission is recommended to Council as it is considered the most advantageous outcome for the provision of the required services.
4. Commercial-in-Confidence details have been removed from this report, highlighted in yellow and replaced with the word [Commercial-in-Confidence].
Purpose
5. The Stores Board recommends approval of the Significant Contracting Plan to establish a Corporate Procurement Arrangement (CPA) in the form of Preferred Supplier Arrangements for Physical Security Services. The CPA will be for an initial term of three years with options to extend for additional periods of up to two years, for a maximum term of five years. The estimated expenditure is $54 million over the potential five-year term.
Background/business case
6. The existing CPA for Physical Security Services (CPA No. 510569) is due to expire on 31 October 2021. Council has an ongoing requirement for Security Services ranging from static guarding and patrol services to installation of secure locks and padlocks. Council’s physical security assets are located at numerous Council locations including buildings, parks, cemeteries, libraries, buses and other public spaces which form part of Council’s CitySafe system.
7. The expenditure for the CPA for 2019-20 was approximately $10.5 million.
8. The existing CPA comprises the six categories listed below, together with details of the annual spend:
- Category 1 – Alarm Monitoring Services – $59,789
- Category 2 – Alarm Response Services – $150,000
- Category 3 – Routine Patrol and Lock/Unlock Services – $1,013,681
- Category 4 – Security Guards, Security Operations Rooms and CitySafe Operations – $5,601,678
- Category 5 – Rapid Response Cars, Guards and Nightlink Security Services for Transport for Brisbane (TfB) – $2,906,199
- Category 6 – Locksmith Services – $798,272.
9. The primary business areas in Council that use this arrangement are TfB (31% of spend), Asset Management, Brisbane Infrastructure (BI) (21%), City Planning and Economic Development (CPED), City Planning and Sustainability (CPAS) (18%), City Hall, Community Facilities and Venues, Lifestyle and Community Services (LCS) (10%), Asset Services, BI (7%), and Library Services, LCS (6%). A further 18 business areas make up the remaining seven per cent of spend.
10. It is recommended to maintain the current separate category structure of the arrangement, with an objective to rationalise providers by appointing suppliers to more than one category where this is advantageous to Council.
11. The existing Category 2 – Alarm Response Services and Category 3 – Routine Patrol and Lock/Unlock Services will be combined into a single category in the new arrangement given there is a common supplier base for these services. There is considered to be less scope to consolidate the remaining categories, as potential suppliers generally cater for these individual services only.
12. Additionally, it is proposed to incorporate the services provided under Event Security and Security Related Services (CPA No. 510558) into this sourcing activity. This CPA provides security staff and event related staff specifically for live performance events. Currently, Riverstage is the only user of this contract, however, it may be used for event security at any location. Combining the scope of these services to provide a single contract covering both physical and event security offers the potential for operational and contract management efficiencies. The CPA for Event Security and Security Related Services is due to expire on 30 June 2021 and it is intended that a submission will be presented to the appropriate delegate seeking approval to extend this arrangement to 31 October 2021, to align with the commencement date for the new CPA.
13. The categories proposed for the new CPA are as follows:
- Category 1 – Security Alarm Monitoring Services
- Category 2 – Security Patrol, Lock Up/Let Out and Alarm Response Services
- Category 3 – Security Guards, Security Operations Rooms and CitySafe Operations
- Category 4 – Public Transport Guarding and Rapid Response Services
- Category 5 – Locksmith Related Services
- Category 6 – Security Guarding Services – Event Security.
Policy and other considerations
14. Is there an existing CPA/contract for these goods/services/works?
Yes, there are existing CPAs as stated in section 2.1.
15. Could Council businesses provide the services/works?
No, Council does not have the capacity or competencies to perform these activities.
16. Are there policy, or other issues, that the delegate should be aware of?
No
17. Have the following issues been considered in the development of the specifications and evaluation criteria: Environmental sustainability, access and equity, zero harm, quality assurance (QA), local benefit and support for locally produced and Australian products?
Yes, these have been considered in the specifications and the evaluation criteria includes essential questions to assess supplier’s responses. A weighting of 30% has been included in the evaluation scoring to address local benefits.
18. Does this procurement exercise need to be managed under the PM2 Governance and Assurance Framework?
No
19. Does this proposed contract involve leasing?
No
Market analysis
20. Industry employment numbers are expected to increase marginally over the CPA period due to the increased demand for surveillance technology as a result of a decline in manned security patrols due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Stricter government alcohol licensing regulations are likely to increase demand for the event security segment.
21. Profit margins have remained under intense pressure in the short term, as price competition has limited the ability of companies to increase prices and margins. Revenue has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has reduced demand for services during 2019-20, however, revenue has grown in response to concerns about domestic terrorism and is anticipated to increase by 10.3% in 2020-21. In the longer term, industry revenue is forecast to grow at an annualised rate of three per cent over the next five years.
22. Several large and well-established security companies (including some international providers) have expanded their operations in order to increase their market share. Some small firms have exited the industry.
23. Desktop research indicates there are national and local suppliers that specialise in providing security and related services in the Greater Brisbane area. The larger companies may have the broad scope of services to cover multiple categories but may not provide the expertise or experience required by Council in each category, which may be available from smaller providers. This market dynamic supports the proposed approach to offer each service requirement as a separate category in the tender.
Procurement strategy and activity plan
24.
|Procurement objective: |To establish a CPA for Physical Security Services in a way which complies with the Sound |
| |Contracting Principles set out in section 103(3) of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 and |
| |provides the most advantageous outcome for Council. |
| |The achievement of the above procurement objective will be measured in the post-market |
| |submission. |
|Title of contract: |Physical Security Services |
|Type of procurement: |Establishing a CPA in the form of Preferred Supplier Arrangements. |
|Process to be used: |Request for Proposals (RFPs) |
|RFP standard to be used (and any |The RFP standard will be Council’s corporate standard with no amendments. |
|amendments to the standard): | |
|Market engagement: |Offers are to be sought publicly via Council’s supplier portal. |
|How RFP is to be distributed and |Via Council’s supplier portal |
|submitted: | |
|How tenders/proposals are to be |Via Council’s supplier portal |
|lodged: | |
|Part offers: |Offers for individual categories may be considered but not if they are for part of a |
| |category. |
|Joint offers: |Joint offers will not be considered. |
|Contract standard to be used (and |Council standard Preferred Supplier Arrangement for high-risk professional services. |
|any amends): | |
|Period/term of contract: |An initial term of three years with options to extend for additional periods of up to two |
| |years, for a maximum term of five years. |
|Insurance requirements: |- Public liability insurance of $20 million |
| |- Workers’ compensation insurance in accordance with legislative requirements |
| |- Motor vehicle insurance of $20 million. |
|Price basis: |Schedule of rates |
|Price adjustment: |To be established as a result of negotiations and advised in the |
| |post-market submission. |
|Liquidated damages: |Not applicable |
|Security for the contract: |Not applicable |
|Defects liability period/warranty |Not applicable |
|period: | |
|Other strategy elements: |Nil |
|Alternative strategies considered:|The Queensland Government has an arrangement for the provision of Security Services |
| |(QPS91773) which is due to expire on 2 December 2022. However, this is an internal |
| |arrangement that Council is unable to access. |
Anticipated schedule
25. Pre-market approval: 2 March 2021
Date of release to market: 5 March 2021
Tender closing: 2 April 2021
Evaluation completion: 4 June 2021
Contract prepared: 18 June 2021
Post-market approval: 19 July 2021
Contract commencement: 1 November 2021
Contract expenditure and budget availability
26. Estimated total expenditure under this CPA (including any optional additional periods):
Estimated total expenditure is $54 million over the potential five-year term.
27. Sufficient approved budget to meet the total spend under this CPA?
Not applicable as establishing the CPA will not commit Council to any purchases. Approved budget is only required when an appropriately delegated Council officer approves placing an order under the CPA. Approved budget will be sourced from various programs and project budgets, as required.
28. Anticipated procurement savings (if any):
To be established and reported in the post-market submission.
29. Program budget line item:
Not applicable. Approved budget will be sourced from various programs and project budgets, as required.
Procurement risk
30. Summary of key risks associated with this procurement:
|Procurement risk |Risk rating |Risk mitigation strategy |Risk allocation |
|Transition issues |High |- Should new providers be selected, a minimum transition time of|Council |
| | |eight weeks will be required for transition between providers. | |
| | |- A 12-week transition period has been included in the current | |
| | |timeline in order to accommodate this should it be required. | |
| | |- The specification will include the requirement of a transition| |
| | |plan. | |
|Council’s exposure to |Low |- Fixed prices for each service item for the initial contract |Contractor/s and |
|unreasonable cost | |period. |Council |
|increases | |- Schedule of rates pricing. | |
| | |- Agreed price review formula. | |
31. Is this contract listed as a ‘critical contract’ requiring the contractor to have in place a Business Continuity Plan approved by Council?
Yes
Tender evaluation
32. Evaluation criteria:
(a) Mandatory/essential criteria:
- Public liability insurance of $20 million
- Workers’ compensation insurance in accordance with legislative requirements
- Motor vehicle insurance of $20 million
- Contractor/s must hold a recognised security industry licence to be appointed for each category
- Queensland Government Labour Hire Licensing Certificate (if using a subcontractor for the provision of staff)
- To be appointed for Category 3 – Security Patrol, Lock Up/Let Out and Alarm Response Services, the tenderer must present an acceptable risk to Council as a result of Council’s security intelligence assessment.
(b) Non-price weighted evaluation criteria:
|Weighted evaluation criteria |Weighting |
| |(%) |
|Capability of personnel and organisation capacity |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
|Local benefits |30 |
|Safe working environment – Zero Harm |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
|Social responsibility and quality assurance |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
|Commercial and value-adds |[Commercial-in-Confidence] |
|Total: |100 |
(c) Price model:
Basket of services and additional scenario-based pricing for Category 6 – Security Guarding Services – Event Security.
33. Evaluation methodology:
(a) Shortlisting process:
Proposals will be initially shortlisted, if required, using the total score against the non‑price weighted criteria. Further shortlists, if required, will be based on the value for money (VFM) index.
At any time during the evaluation, a proposal may be excluded from further evaluation or a shortlist where:
- a score against any criterion (regardless of the weighting) is so low that the proposal is considered to be high risk or not advantageous for Council
- the proposal contains non-compliances with the specification or proposed contract that the evaluation team considers to be unacceptable/not advantageous for Council
- the proposal/proponent is considered to be high risk or not advantageous for Council, regardless of the criteria stated in the tender documents.
A proposal may be shortlisted where the evaluation team considers that, despite scoring, there are strong, documented reasons for further considering the proposal as potentially advantageous to Council.
(b) VFM method:
Council’s standard VFM methodology. This is non-price score divided by price to create a VFM index.
34. The Chief Executive Officer provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed.
35. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT THE STORES BOARD RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING PLAN TO ESTABLISH A CORPORATE PROCUREMENT ARRANGEMENT (CPA) IN THE FORM OF PREFERRED SUPPLIER ARRANGEMENTS FOR PHYSICAL SECURITY SERVICES. THE CPA WILL BE FOR AN INITIAL TERM OF THREE YEARS WITH OPTIONS TO EXTEND FOR ADDITIONAL PERIODS OF UP TO TWO YEARS, FOR A MAXIMUM TERM OF FIVE YEARS. THE ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE IS $54 MILLION OVER THE POTENTIAL FIVE-YEAR TERM.
ADOPTED
B MAJOR AMENDMENT TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 – PACKAGE I
152/160/1218/392
536/2020-21
36. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the information below.
37. At its meeting on 27 August 2019, Council resolved to amend Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the planning scheme) to protect the character of an area in Camp Hill as well as other local heritages places and buildings constructed prior to 1911 (the proposed amendment). Council also resolved to send the proposed amendment to the then Minister for State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning (the then Minister) to request a State interest review and approval to publicly consult on the proposed amendment.
38. By letter dated 16 December 2019 (refer Attachment B, submitted on file), the then Minister confirmed that State interests were appropriately reflected in the proposed amendment and gave approval to proceed to public consultation.
39. Public consultation on the proposed amendment was undertaken from 24 August 2020 to 20 September 2020 in accordance with the Minister’s Guidelines and Rules made under section 17 of the Planning Act 2016 (the Guideline). Council received 144 submissions on the proposed amendment, of which 136 were properly made. Key issues raised in the submissions related to the proposed rezoning of Camp Hill properties and the inclusion of properties in the Traditional building character overlay and Pre-1911 building overlay.
40. A summary of the matters raised in the submissions, including descriptions of how the matters have been addressed, has been provided at Attachment C (submitted on file). The following changes are proposed after public notification.
- To remove 124 and 126 Boundary Road, Camp Hill, from the Traditional building character overlay – Neighbourhood character sub-category.
- To remove changes to the local heritage place at 40 Morris Street, Wooloowin.
- To remove a proposed change regarding 41 Amy Johnson Place, Eagle Farm, that was not necessary as the result of a subdivision.
41. The changes to the local heritage place at 40 Morris Street were made as part of Minor and administrative amendment to Brisbane City Plan 2014 – Package H, which was approved by Council at the meeting of 4 June 2019.
42. The proposed changes to the proposed amendment (refer Attachments D and E, submitted on file) do not make the proposed amendment significantly different to the version on which public consultation was carried out. The parts of the proposed amendment that remain unchanged after public consultation are set out in Attachment F (submitted on file).
43. Should Council decide to proceed with the proposed amendment, the Guideline requires Council to provide the Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning (the Minister) with a copy of:
- the proposed amendment, clearly identifying any changes made since the State interest review
- the consultation report
- a report including the changes made, when the changes were made, why the changes were made, what issues the changes respond to and how the changes relate to any relevant regional plan, the State Planning Policy or State interests
- a statement as to whether the changes are considered to be significantly different to the public consultation version.
44. The Divisional Manager provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed.
45. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL RESOLVE AS PER THE DRAFT RESOLUTION SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.
Attachment A
Draft Resolution
DRAFT RESOLUTION TO DECIDE TO PROGRESS A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO BRISBANE CITY PLAN 2014 – PACKAGE I
As Council:
(i) at its meeting on 27 August 2019, decided to make a major amendment (the proposed amendment) to Brisbane City Plan 2014 (the planning scheme)
(ii) was advised by the then Minister for State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning, by letter dated 16 December 2019 (refer Attachment B, submitted on file), that it may proceed to public consultation of the proposed amendment
(iii) has undertaken public consultation on the proposed amendment, pursuant to section 18.2 of Part 4 of Chapter 2 of the Minister’s Guidelines and Rules (the Guideline)
(iv) having considered the submissions on the proposed amendment pursuant to section 18.3 of Part 4 of Chapter 2 of the Guideline, has prepared a consultation report about how the Council has dealt with properly made submissions (refer Attachment C, submitted on file),
then Council:
(i) directs, pursuant to section 18.4 of Part 4 of Chapter 2 of the Guideline, that each person who made a properly-made submission be provided with a copy of the consultation report and that the consultation report be made available to view and download on Council’s website
(ii) decides, pursuant to section 19 of Part 4 of Chapter 2 of the Guideline, to make changes to the proposed amendment (refer Attachments D and E, submitted on file), which does not result in the proposed amendment being significantly different to the version released for public consultation
(iii) directs, pursuant to section 21.1 of Part 4 of Chapter 2 of the Guideline, that notice be given to the Minister to request to adopt the proposed amendment and that such notice be given in accordance with section 21.3 of Part 4 of Chapter 2 of the Guideline.
ADOPTED
Chair: We will proceed to the City Planning and Economic Development report, please.
CITY PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
The DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, Chair of the City Planning and Economic Development Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Fiona HAMMOND, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 23 February 2021, be adopted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
Councillor ADAMS.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair, and it was all about the Brisbane Business Hub this week. The Committee presentation last week from the Manager of the Business Hub, Miriam Kent. It was very exciting to see how well they’ve done since they opened on 20 October 2020. So 20/10/2020, a date to remember. Let me, first of all, just list what’s on for the next week, for those in the Chambers and those listening at home, to make sure that they don’t miss out on anything that’s coming up. On Thursday, we have from 3pm to 5pm, How Data is Building Resilient Cities from GWI and BCC business experts.
They will be talking about growing economic return and value of using data in small businesses. On 8 March, from 10am to 2pm, it’s International Women’s Day event panel discussions with the Lord Mayor’s Business Award female CEOs, so they’ll be talking about their journey from inception to business success. We’ve got Sandra Ebbott from Mizzie the Kangaroo; Marie Mortimer of .au; and Katie Richards from Virtual Legal and Law on Earth, all fantastic new businesses in Brisbane.
On the 9th, next week, we have the Customer Service and Loyalty Panel, so that’s being held with Yodel, Customology and Connect Collaborative to help customers—help businesses learn how to build loyalty and retain customers and build customer trust. Then from 3pm till 5pm on 9 March, Managing a Happy and Safe Workplace Practically; learn how to motivate, empower and give confidence to your staff. That is being sponsored by CCIQ (Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland).
So some great events there as well, but what we heard last week is what’s happened since October last year; 51 workshops have delivered, covering a number of aspects; 29 business partners, which provide support to local businesses; 739 businesses have attended the workshops delivered through the hub; and 15 business mentoring sessions; 115 Talk to the Planner sessions; and 44 Guide to Food Licensing meetings. The testimonials we saw last week in Committee were very, very buoying. I think what we’re hearing on the ground is that our local businesses are loving it.
If you haven’t spread the word to your local businesses yet, you should have this collateral in your ward office. If you don’t, let me know. Let them know how we can help them, so we can help them to drive a stronger economy in Brisbane. Thank you, Mr Chair.
Chair: Further speakers? Further speakers?
Councillor ADAMS?
I will now put the resolution.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the City Planning and Economic Development Committee was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows(
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE BUSINESS HUB UPDATE
537/2020-21
1. The Program Manager, Brisbane Business Hub, Brisbane Economic Development Agency, attended the meeting to provide an update on the Brisbane Business Hub (the Hub). She provided the information below.
2. The Hub was launched on 20 October 2020 as an initiative from the Economic Recovery Taskforce Plan. The Hub’s purpose is to provide service and support to the local Brisbane business community to grow and recover from the economic impacts of COVID-19.
3. Since the Hub’s introduction, 51 workshops have been delivered covering a number of aspects of business, including business operations, finance, human resources, legal requirements, government information, marketing and digital, and mental health and wellbeing clinics.
4. The Committee was advised of the Hub’s 29 business partners which provide support to local businesses. To date, 739 businesses have attended the workshops delivered through the Hub. One of the Hub’s partners, Groei, held three workshops: Self-leadership, Business strategy planning and Action planning for businesses.
5. The Hub has also delivered 15 business mentoring sessions, 115 Talk to a Planner business meetings and 44 Guide to Food Licensing meetings.
6. The Committee was shown business testimonials from those who have utilised the Hub.
7. The Committee was directed to the Hub’s website to view the free workshops calendar and shown how to book the free mentoring services offered.
8. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the Program Manager for her informative presentation.
9. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
Chair: Councillors, the PAT (Public and Active Transport) Committee, please.
Councillor LANDERS: A point of order, Chair.
Chair: A point of order to you, Councillor LANDERS.
ADJOURNMENT:
|538/2020-21 |
|At that time, 3.57pm, it was resolved on the motion of Councillor Sandy LANDERS, seconded by Councillor Sarah HUTTON, that the meeting |
|adjourn for a period of 15 minutes, to commence only when all Councillors had vacated the Chamber and the doors locked. |
| |
|Council stood adjourned at 4pm. |
UPON RESUMPTION:
Chair: Welcome back, Councillors. We’re just waiting for that bell. Welcome back, we will now return to the Committee reports, the Public and Active Transport Committee please.
Councillor MURPHY.
Councillor MURPHY: Did it just get a bit colder in here, Chair?
Chair: It’s warmer now that we’re all together again.
Councillor MURPHY.
PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE
Councillor Ryan MURPHY, Chair of the Public and Active Transport Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Angela OWEN, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 23 February 2021, be adopted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
Councillor MURPHY.
Councillor MURPHY: Thank you very much, Chair. I will very shortly get to the Committee report, which was an update on the Green Bridges Program. Before I do that, I just want to quickly address some of the debate that happened in Council earlier today. I must say, Chair, I’m not normally troubled by what Councillor CASSIDY and the Rail, Tram and Bus Union (RTBU) think about the things that I say, because as the LORD MAYOR has said, they live in the post-truth era, where it doesn’t matter what you say or the context, everything is politicised and everything is political.
Of course, the LORD MAYOR in his time as Public and Active Transport Chair was subject to far worse attacks than I have been so far in this role. But I think after the urgency motion in the Chamber, it’s important just to remind everyone how that debate came about. Councillor CASSIDY was, during contracts and tendering, arguing for the insourcing of a bus cleaning contract, which was given to an Indigenous social enterprise called Multhana Property Services.
I will now quote myself from Hansard on 1 September 2020, ‘I think frankly it’s a genuine and ongoing embarrassment that we have a Labor Party in this place who understand just so little about the real world, about how business works, about how wealth is generated and how it’s spread throughout the economy. That they think that the answer for everyone is to give them a cosy full-time Council job and that everybody just wants that. That’s the gold standard and that there’s no role actually for the private sector to play in provision of services to Council.’
I was making the point, Chair, that the Labor Opposition’s position on this issue was elitist, that they think that the gold standard of employment is a Council role and that outside contractors should not be allowed to work for Council. Certainly, I was not saying that all Council jobs are cosy. Certainly many of the jobs that our hardworking officers do are not cosy, particularly those hardworking bus drivers out on the frontline doing an incredible job with the public each and every day and I want to put that on the record.
But it’s true, Chair, that there are cosy jobs in Council and those are the jobs on the Opposition benches, Chair, because those are the jobs where you don’t have to work at all. You can come in here, you can spit vitriol, you can tell mistruths, you can spend all week dishing up personal attacks. You do zero policy work, you do no research and you put no pride or effort into coming to work like we do when we come to this Chamber—on this side of the Chamber. The only work that I see those in Opposition do in this entire term has been to develop a fake news website.
So I will give it a big tick to the team, whoever it was in the Labor Party, whether it was one of the advisors or indeed one of the Councillors that came up with the idea to set up an alternative fake news website. That is, from what I can see, the one piece of work that they have genuinely put in this term. So let’s separate the fact and the fiction, Chair, when it comes to cosy jobs, because Councillor CASSIDY is a wholly owned subsidiary of the RTBU and he will never let the truth get in the way of a good story. As usual, what we see here is the Labor Party trying to score cheap political points by taking a quote where I was supporting an Indigenous cleaning company.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Sorry to interrupt, just on acceptable meeting conduct, I’m confused, genuinely confused, because sometimes Councillors get pulled up when they say mean things about another Councillor and on other times Councillors can call people—accuse people of fake news, or telling mistruths or compare them to Trump and they don’t get pulled up. So I just want to understand from you where is that line? Because it seems to be shifting a lot as to—
Chair: Look, I don’t agree that it shifts. I think that there’s always been a level of tolerance for fair comment, but also there’s a point where it becomes unfair and that is, I suppose, your question is is there a level of subjectivity to that? I suppose there are assessments made around that.
Councillor SRI: Okay and just to clarify, you’re comfortable that Councillor MURPHY’s current comments aren’t going too far or aren’t—
Chair: Councillor MURPHY is exceptionally close to the line.
Councillor SRI: Okay.
Chair: Councillor MURPHY.
Councillor MURPHY: Thank you very much, Chair. As I said, I was supporting an Indigenous cleaning company, conducting an essential bus disinfecting service during a pandemic. Councillor CASSIDY was very insistent that we should in-house this work, that we should literally take this work away from Multhana unilaterally. I was simply defending an Indigenous social enterprise. Councillor CASSIDY has taken my support of this amazing company—one that won a competitive contract, one whose name, Multhana, in Kalkadoon language from Mount Isa, it literally means coming together to help each other—as a form of aggression towards Council officers and that couldn’t be further from the truth.
It was actually Council officers who chose Multhana for this contract. Councillor CASSIDY’s twisting of that debate is extraordinary and more than that, he has doubled down and asked me for an apology. Chair, he should be the one apologising for his conduct. He should be the one apologising to the hardworking employees of Multhana, for suggesting that they weren’t good enough, that their jobs would be better done if they were Council officers instead of working for a social enterprise.
To reiterate, Multhana Property Services is an Indigenous business that states their purpose is to create training and employment opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Queensland; landscaping, construction and building maintenance and the cleaning industry. As a Supply Nation certified business, Multhana are over 51% majority Indigenous-owned. How great is that, Chair?
What did Councillor CASSIDY want to do when he came in here to talk about that contract? He wanted to shut them down. He wanted to issue them jobs in Council. He wanted to take away from a productive social enterprise and put them in a Council uniform. Did he do any consultation with that company, as I have repeatedly asked him to provide evidence of? Did he have any conversations with that company’s employees before he made this pronouncement? I don’t think so, Chair.
So just to be clear, Councillor CASSIDY is advocating for us to not employ a local Indigenous cleaning company, that is what he is saying. He wants an apology from me, well he will be waiting a while, Chair. He is the one who should be apologising and, Chair, if standing up for an Indigenous social enterprise makes me wrong, then I don’t want to be right. I don’t want to be right, Chair.
But I’m okay with this, because it’s stunts like this, like Tom Brown, from the RTBU, and Jared CASSIDY working together, that continue to drive bus drivers away from the RTBU. That continue to make the point to bus drivers that this is a union that isn’t interested in their plight as bus drivers, but is only interested with coming into City Hall and playing petty political games with the Administration. So I welcome it, long may it continue, Chair, because it is being seen out there by the members and they are leaving that union in droves.
Now, Chair, on to more pleasant news. Last week’s Committee presentation was on the Green Bridges Program. Now, we know that the community response has been extremely supportive of this transformational program to build five new green bridges. Set to employ more than 500 people in a single year when we get into construction. In June 2020, Council announced the acceleration of Kangaroo Point and the Breakfast Creek green bridges.
When we undertook consultation in late 2019, approximately 60% of respondents indicated that they would use the Kangaroo Point bridge daily or weekly. There was strong support for the preferred alignment from Alice Street to Edward Street roundabout all the way through to Scott Street, with approximately 70% of respondents supporting this. This will be one of the city’s most used walking and cycling bridges and it’s forecast to accommodate more than 5,300 walking and cycling trips per day, with that figure expected to increase to 6,100 by 2036. That’s going to mean 84,000 fewer car trips using river crossings every year, that’s an enormous amount, Chair.
There’s also support from residents and commuters for the Breakfast Creek green bridge. This project includes a significant extension of the very popular Lores Bonney Riverwalk, used by a million cyclists and pedestrians over the past 12 months, a very popular initiative of the Kingsford Smith Drive (KSD) upgrade. We’re expecting to see a 15% increase in daily volume generated by this enhanced asset. On the Breakfast Creek green bridge, approximately 50% of survey respondents indicated that they would use the bridge daily or weekly, and 62% agreed with the alignment from KSD at Albion to Breakfast Creek Road at Newstead.
Procurement activities are now well underway for both of these bridges, to bring forward their delivery with construction to start as early as this year, as I’ve said previously, Chair. At the same time, further community consultation is underway for proposals of a Toowong to West End green bridge and a St Lucia to West End green bridge. There’s been broad support for both of these bridges, about 60% indicating they would use connections daily or weekly. We heard in 2019, that many people opposed the bridge catering for buses or other public transport and that is something that the LORD MAYOR and I have listened to, having announced that these bridges will progress for active transport only.
Of course, there are ongoing investigations in the location of a fifth green bridge and as we know, last year further targeted consultation on the proposed Bellbowrie green bridge was undertaken. Council decided not to progress this green bridge as a result of the strong community feedback that we received. So the next steps for the fifth green bridge are to continue preparing proposed options for pre-feasibility consideration. Business case development is in progress for each project, as well as the overall Green Bridges Program in consultation with Infrastructure Australia and the State’s Building Queensland. I will leave further debate to the Chamber.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor STRUNK.
Councillor STRUNK: Thank you, Chair. I rise up to speak in regards to the green bridge—the green bridges progress or whatever. Listen, every time—it seems every time one of those Living in Brisbane’s comes out, I get contacted by residents in regards to these green bridges. Constantly they keep saying to me, well, what’s in it for me? What’s in it for me, living out in my ward, living out in the Forest Lake Ward? I said well, I suppose if you take a bicycle ride into the Brisbane City and have a look around and when the green bridges get built you’ll probably be able to access them and probably have a nice view of the river. But they say that’s not our priority—and I’m paraphrasing here, but it’s not their priority.
Their priority’s their own patch, their own ward, they want to see more investment in their suburb. As much as I think green bridges are probably a good thing to get people active health wise and all the rest of it, I think we need to prioritise the funding that this Council spends. Now, if we have a look at potentially—well no, it’s not potentially—$550 million, which is a heck of a lot of money, and we’re either going to have to borrow it or pay back service growth to the residents to pay for it. It’s got to be paid for some way, it doesn’t come out of thin air, it’s not coming from the State Government or the Federal Government.
But that money that we’re going to spend on these green bridges and really is it going to be two, it’s going to be three, it’s going to be four, it’s going to be five, I really don’t have a lot of confidence in this Administration to keep to their promise of five green bridges, with the caveat that they’re only going to probably have to pay for maybe two of them because they’re going to need help from the other levels of government. I say that and then of course, the LORD MAYOR said earlier today that you can’t trust Labor to build anything. You can’t trust Labor to build the tunnels, the bridges and all the rest of it.
Then I look back to the biggest bridge that was ever built in this city called the Story Bridge. You all went to school, you all did the history of the Story Bridge, I would hope. Surprisingly—I just did a little bit of a Google check just to see what was happening back between 1934 and 1940 when the bridge was being constructed, and guess what? We had a Labor Premier—off course, it was paid for by the State Government—Labor Premier and a Labor Lord Mayor. Well, surprise, surprise, Labor can build things and they built the biggest bridge in the city. So I know it’s a bit of history, but listen, this LORD MAYOR loves to go back into history—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor STRUNK: Yes, they love it, they love it, but they won’t go back far enough and they won’t—and they just pick and choose. Anyway, bringing it back to the green bridges, I just think the priority is really not for green bridges. I think there are so many other things that have to happen and the investment has to happen in the suburbs before we even think about green bridges. Green bridges aren’t a bad thing, personally I think we should build more bridges across the river for connectivity, and they can be green bridges or vehicle bridges. But I just want to just put on the record that I don’t agree with the LORD MAYOR in regards to Labor.
Labor is doing Cross River Rail, yes, hello, that’s not the bad tunnel that someone else wanted to build. It’s Cross River Rail, so it’s a good piece of infrastructure. Of course, if we have a look at Metro, we look at how long it’s taken to even get Metro up and running, to be placing an order for some rolling stock. I was listening to it back in 2016, and it’s now 2021 and we’re not going to see anything probably—any rolling stock out there in that space probably for another two or three years. So it took six years to build the Story Bridge, we can’t even build a Metro in that time. So anyway, I’ll just finish my comments there, thank you.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Thanks, Chair. I rise to speak on the Green Bridges Program and, once again, I want to thank and acknowledge the Administration for supporting these valuable pieces of public infrastructure. I’ve been particularly excited about the Kangaroo Point bridge, I’m grateful to see funding allocated for that and for that project to be progressing.
However, I do want to note just for the sake of maintaining an accurate public record, I think it’s important to highlight that while I’m very supportive of that bridge and while I think the majority of Kangaroo Point residents are supportive of that bridge, it is the case that during the consultation stage there was no mention made of the possibility of closing the Thornton Street terminal. Councillor MURPHY has acknowledged that that wasn’t actually the plan back then at that time.
But we are now seeing that the bridge is being used retroactively as a justification for why that terminal isn’t being upgraded and why ferry services won’t be provided in that location going forward. I think it’s important just to state for the record that when we talk about how supportive residents were during the consultation of this bridge, they were expressing that feedback on the understanding that there would be no changes to ferry services at the Thornton Street ferry terminal and I do think that’s an important fact just to keep in mind.
I guess that brings me to my next question and Councillor MURPHY was kind enough to clarify this in the Committee today, but I hope he’ll just restate it again now on the public record, so I can show residents in the minutes that he said it. Which is just to clarify and emphasise that there are no plans to remove either the West End CityCat terminal or the Guyatt Park terminal, if indeed a St Lucia bridge were to be installed in that vicinity. I think that’s just really, really important to clarify because there is some concern about that understandably, considering the recent history with the Thornton Street terminal and the Kangaroo Point bridge.
Also just wanted to again raise the suggestion that we put through but didn’t really get a clear reply on, about activating spaces around the Kangaroo Point bridge more creatively than just with commercial uses like coffee carts. There’ll be a fairly significant bridge undercroft space on the Kangaroo Point side. One suggestion we’ve had which I put forward and that a lot of residents seem to like is the idea of using part of the bridge infrastructure for rock climbing. There’s already a lot of natural rockface climbing further along the Kangaroo Point Cliffs and there’s great demand for rock climbing in that area.
So we’ve got examples from other councils in other cities, like down in Fremantle, I think, also Fitzroy in Melbourne. Bridge areas attach rock climbing handholds and people can use the space under the bridge for active recreation. That can be arranged just with low height handholds so that people aren’t at risk of falling and there’s no need for harnesses or anything complicated. But it would be great to see some creativity and innovation go into how we make best use of that undercroft space.
I haven’t really had any details yet. I know it’s still early days and we haven’t locked in the tender. But I hope that that design planning around how we can make these great spaces and can make the most of this asset isn’t left as an afterthought and that we’re not trying to tack on this sort of stuff right at the end of the process. But that from the outset we plan closely with the project contractors and say look, this is an idea, what can we do to facilitate it? How much is it going to cost? Because I think that would be a really good opportunity.
There’s a real shortage of active recreation opportunities in the peninsula, but given that there’s already an established pattern of rock climbing along there, finding another space for rock climbing and bouldering under the bridge would be really great. Just talking more generally though about impacts to greenspace, some of the Councillors in this Chamber, particularly the LORD MAYOR and maybe the DEPUTY MAYOR, have been a little bit dismissive of the concerns about how bridges might impact greenspace. I’d be interested to hear Councillor MACKAY’s thoughts on this particular topic.
I think I’m personally of the view that a footbridge with a small footprint doesn’t destroy a greenspace. I think that’s probably a little bit hyperbolic and I think some residents have perhaps been a little over the top when they’ve said that a particular bridge might absolutely destroy a greenspace. But I very strongly feel that bridge infrastructure can have quite significant negative impacts on public greenspace and public parkland, particularly riverside public parkland. It’s not just about the square meterage or the exact area of the bridge land itself, but it’s also about how that infrastructure might change people’s experiences of that public space.
I’m sure Councillor CUNNINGHAM is alert to this, and I hope her officers have been consulted about these bridge projects and looped into that conversation. Because there is a big difference between a patch of parkland that’s just an open picnic area by the river, as opposed to a patch of parkland that has a big bridge landing in the middle of it and has high volumes of cyclists and broad bikeways leading up to it. So there are impacts inevitably from this infrastructure and I think it would be foolish and dishonest of the Administration to pretend that’s not the case.
Rather, what the Council should do is ensure that those impacts to public greenspace, that any impacts to trees are accounted for in the business case and in the cost benefit analysis for the various projects and landings. That’s something I’d like to ask Councillor MURPHY to respond to in his closing comments, if he would be so kind. Often these projects, they will quantify the cost of replacing removed trees, they’ll say well, if we have to replant this many trees, this is how much it will cost. But the cost benefit analysis and the business case doesn’t factor in the actual existing asset cost of existing established trees.
I would ask the Council, is it going to commit to including the asset value of existing trees when it’s conducting its business case and cost benefit analyses of these projects? Because if a particular bridge is proposing to remove a large established tree, then the actual dollar value—the dollar figure of that tree should be included in the business case analysis, rather than simply saying we have to cut this tree down but we’ve budgeted a smaller amount for some replacement trees. Those aren’t the same two things and it’s important that we get that right.
Because I worry that the value of those established trees in our Council parks will be overlooked and underestimated if that’s not factored into Council’s business case and cost benefit analysis processes. I would suggest that the same approach should be taken with land for greenspace as well. I know that when the Lytton Road was widened there was some commentary about whether there was a net loss of greenspace in the park. The Council Administration was at pains to point out that they had set aside a bit of additional land at the corner of the park to create a bit more greenspace, to offset the impact of the bike path coming through the rest of the parkland.
I would think in this situation a similar approach might be merited, where even if the bridge landing footprint itself is quite small, if there’s a lot of additional pathways leading through the park to get to a bridge landing, then that impact of all that concrete and hardstand does need to be offset by the creation of new greenspace nearby. The other day in the Chamber, the LORD MAYOR seemed to suggest that footpaths are a natural feature in a public park and they certainly are. I think there’s a balance to be struck.
But when we’re talking about major pieces of active transport infrastructure, we have to recognise that the size and scale of some of these linking pathways could be quite significant. That shouldn’t be dismissed, when residents raise that concern we shouldn’t dismiss that and say no, no, no, there’s no impact to greenspace, it’s still a public park. There are impacts and let’s have a rational and mature debate about exactly how significant those might or might not be.
I know some of that will be worked out down the track in the detailed design stage, but when residents are weighing up options and deciding, being asked to choose, for example, which I think is a pretty rude choice, but being asked to choose whether they would rather land the bridge in the middle of public parkland or whether they would rather a bridge resume private residential homes, it’s really important for Council to be giving as much information as possible about exactly which trees might have to be removed, exactly how much parkland might be converted to concrete.
Because that’s material information that residents want to know about when they’re providing feedback and when they’re making their decision as to whether they support a project, or which bridge they support. I would suggest that the lack of information about those sorts of details at this stage of the project are potentially undermining support for some of the bridge landing options, because not enough information has been provided to residents and as a result they’re just saying no.
Just finally, before I wrap up, just wanted to again reiterate the importance of ensuring that there are bike lanes and pedestrian crossings that do connect down to these bridge locations from nearby streets and major transport corridors. The Kangaroo Point bridge has been disappointing, because the funding for the Riverwalk hasn’t been included as part of the project. That’s a big shame and I hope we don’t make the same mistake with West End. That bike lanes and crossings that connect to the bridges are delivered as part of the big bridge projects themselves and not as an afterthought.
Chair: Councillor SRI, your time has expired.
Are there any further speakers? Further speakers?
Councillor MURPHY.
Councillor MURPHY: Thanks very much, Chair. I thank all Councillors for their contribution to the debate on this item, green bridges. I know that it is a discussion that sparks passions, passions that can sometimes run very deep. I know that passions are running deep on this issue in a number of different communities around the city at the moment.
Because we are talking about different alignments, we are talking about different benefits and disadvantages, there are perceived winners and losers in that conversation. These are difficult conversations, but I think we are having these conversations the right way, in the open. In the open, where we can talk, as Councillor SRI said and have a mature, rational debate, to quote him, about the benefits or disbenefits of these bridges and options and alignments. I know that there has been criticism from some in the community about us going out with three alignments.
But I can tell you that I will stand by the decision to go out with those three options every day of the week, because that has provided the community with a real and meaningful say on where these bridges should go. We have openly put out there the advantages of some and the costs that they will come at, both in terms of constructability and to the community, and to greenspace and people’s homes. These are not easy conversations. It does take Councillors with a mature head and with a bit of vision to actually see this one through and deliver these long-lasting pieces of infrastructure for our community.
Speaking of vision, just touching briefly on Councillor STRUNK’s comments. Councillor STRUNK said a couple of things during his debate, some very interesting things actually. The first bit was, he said, what about me? There’s nothing out at Forest Lake, these green bridges don’t affect me, my community’s not getting anything for this. I just put to you, Councillor STRUNK, what does your community think about infrastructure assets like the William Jolly Bridge? Or say the Merivale Rail Bridge that gets members of your community over the river and into Central and Roma Street stations?
So sometimes critical pieces of infrastructure for the entire city need to be located in the inner city and that is exactly what has happened with the Green Bridges Program. These pieces of infrastructure will be—Councillor STRUNK, I put this question to you, is the University of Queensland only used by people of St Lucia? Is it only people in West End that go to West End restaurants and enjoy—where do international students live? Is it only in Forest Lake? So we could go on forever on this, but sometimes infrastructure needs to be placed—
Councillor STRUNK: Point of order, Mr Chair.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor STRUNK.
Councillor STRUNK: Chair, he’s asking me questions directly and he knows that I’m not able to respond.
Chair: Thank you, Councillor STRUNK.
I will remind Councillor MURPHY, please direct all comments to and through me.
Councillor MURPHY: It’s a fair point, Chair. Councillor STRUNK also said that he was worried about the cost of these bridges. I’m really glad that he said that, Chair, because at least we know there is one fiscal conservative over there on the Opposition benches, who’s actually watching the cheques, he’s got a good idea of cost controls. But I would suggest before he tries to lecture us on cost control, he should have a chat to his Labor colleagues who have never found a dollar of ratepayers’ money that they didn’t want to spend, have never come in here and offered up a saving.
Even when we were talking about the Norman Park ferry the other week, a ferry that carries less than one passenger per trip and the Labor Party could not help themselves but to say that we were cutting essential public transport services. So even in savings that are as simple as that, they cannot bring themselves to support them. So I would suggest, Councillor STRUNK, if you’re on a mission to find savings, that you should start in your own backyard. Then, Councillor STRUNK, the absolute classic, lecturing this Administration on the last Labor city administration that built something in this place and he had to go back to the Great Depression to find someone that built this place.
He actually talked about their economics—this is a Labor administration that could—well, I actually did just a cursory search on the Premier and the Council that were in at that time and what do you know, he’s right. It was a Labor Council administration that funded the commission to build the bridge, but do you know what? They had to hand it to the State Government because they ran out of money to build it. So he couldn’t even get the facts right, that the Labor Party had the money to build this bridge in the first place.
To give us—they say to us that’s the Soorley administration, that was in the 1990s, that was so long ago. Here he is giving us a lecture about what they did in the Great Depression. Come on, Chair, seriously—the Great Depression. So I’ll never hear any lectures from the Labor Party, if you want to bring up burning buses or the last piece of infrastructure that the Labor Party delivered in this place, which was the Coronation Drive tidal flow system. We all know how that ended up, Chair. So please, Councillor STRUNK, next time come prepared for a substantial debate on green bridges and we are more than happy to have that.
Now, Councillor SRI, you mentioned Guyatt Park and the West End ferry terminal, and I can—sorry, through you Mr Chair to Councillor SRI. You mentioned the Guyatt Park and the West End ferry terminal. I can confirm Council has absolutely no plans to close down those terminals. Unlike the Thornton Street cross-river ferry terminal, the Guyatt Park terminal is a modern DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) compliant terminal.
We have only just upgraded it and it services CityCats and services a much wider catchment than that cross-river ferry terminal. So we see—if indeed option A at Guyatt Park is selected by the residents of St Lucia and West End as the preferred alignment, we see that the bridge will function in concert with the ferry terminal, to be able to provide two different services for the residents of the western suburbs and inner city suburbs.
You also spoke about the undercroft of the bridge and I can tell you that the green bridges team is well advanced in their assessment of the two shortlisted tenderers that we have at the moment. The undercroft of the bridge was not—for the purposes of getting tenders in and assessed as quickly as possible, the undercroft of the bridge was not something that Council asked them to bid back to us on. However, when we have selected a successful tenderer and a successful design and we can then go off that design, I’m happy to have a further conversation about activation of the undercroft of the bridge. Keeping in mind the cost envelope of the project and integration of the undercroft of the bridge into the wider surrounding riverside parkland.
Lastly, you mentioned a loss of greenspace and I’ve got to say this Administration is absolutely committed to preserving greenspace, to creating more greenspace and enhancing our parks across the city. I know that’s exactly what Councillor CUNNINGHAM wants to do, it’s what all of us as Councillors in our local wards want to do. These green bridges are sustainable green infrastructure and to suggest that a green bridge will cause the loss of greenspace, I think, is misleading. The truth is quite the opposite, we are increasing the amount of valuable greenspace that residents on either side of the bridge have access to.
Green bridges provide access to far more greenspace than they take away. Through this program, we’re seeking to provide a net benefit to existing open space and that includes looking at options for additional land for park purposes. I’ll say that again, that includes options for additional land for park purposes. So in response to people’s concerns about impact of greenspace on, say, Guyatt Park, for example, I’ve asked for an idea of what the footprint of the bridge would look like, should this become the confirmed landing point when we get to the end of consultation on 28 March.
I’m told we’ll be looking at about five per cent of the park area that would be lost through the bridge landing point. So that’s a total park area of 36,800 square metres. The specific footprint of the bridge landings will be confirmed through the detailed design of each bridge and we are not there yet. We haven’t even chosen an alignment. So we’ll be looking to incorporate new and enhanced park infrastructure, things like play equipment, barbecue facilities, shade trees and pathways and to enhance the park, and of course, to recognise its importance as a community treasure, if indeed it is selected as the preferred alignment.
But I come back to what Councillor SRI said in his debate. Any discussion of greenspace loss we are happy to have, as long as it is quote, unquote, a mature, rational debate about the benefits and the disbenefits for loss of greenspace. These are really, really important pieces of infrastructure for our city, multimillion dollar projects. We want to make sure that we get them right, that we build something and deliver something that leaves a long lasting legacy for communities on both sides of the river. Thank you, Chair.
Chair: We’ll now put the resolution.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Public and Active Transport Committee was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows(
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – GREEN BRIDGES PROGRAM UPDATE
539/2020-21
1. The Project Director Major Projects, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on the Green Bridges program. He provided the information below.
2. The Committee was advised of the progress made on the overall program development including:
- community consultation
- Kangaroo Point Green Bridge (KPGB) procurement
- Breakfast Creek Green Bridge (BCGB) procurement
- West End green bridge planning and consultation
- fifth green bridge considerations.
3. Five new green bridges were announced on 31 March 2019. In June 2020, Council announced the acceleration of the KPGB and BCGB.
4. Procurement activities are underway for the KPGB and the BCGB. Further community consultation is underway for the proposals of a Toowong to West End green bridge and a St Lucia to West End green bridge. There are ongoing investigations into a potential fifth green bridge.
5. Business case development is in progress for each project, as well as the overall program, in consultation with Infrastructure Australia and Building Queensland.
6. In November 2019, initial community consultation was conducted on the Green Bridges program. Broad support was received with many community members believing the bridges will improve access to key destinations, encourage more walking and cycling, and help to address local congestion.
7. From May to June 2020, further targeted consultation on the proposed Bellbowrie Green Bridge was undertaken. Council decided not to progress this green bridge as a result of the community feedback received.
8. From August to September 2020, consultation on the KPGB draft reference design and BCGB concept design was undertaken. Over 70% of online survey respondents supported the bridge designs.
9. The Committee was shown an image of the KPGB draft reference design.
10. The preliminary business case for the KPGB forecasts patronage to be more than 6,100 trips per day in 2036, as well as a benefit cost ratio of 1.0 inclusive of land use and demographic impacts.
11. The KPGB has an estimated capital cost of $190 million and the following benefits are expected:
- increased walking and cycling trips
- improved community health and lifestyle benefits
- improved pedestrian connections to public transport services
- accelerated development and activation in both the CBD and Kangaroo Point, including new tourism opportunities.
12. The KPGB procurement approach is for early tenderer involvement (ETI) for design and construction. Currently, there are two shortlisted proponents who are engaging with Council in ETI sessions. Final submissions from tenderers are scheduled for April 2021 and Council expects to award the contract in mid-2021.
13. Online community engagement survey results for the KPGB indicated support for the following design and construction elements:
- opportunity for food and beverage outlets
- landscaping and urban design features
- construction timing and impacts
- upgrading ongoing connections
- impacts on river users
- dedicated cyclist and pedestrian paths
- shade and weather protection.
14. Further, the following online survey results were returned for the KPGB:
- 71% overall support for the draft reference design
- 69% support for the design of the Kangaroo Point landing
- 72% support for the design of the Brisbane CBD landing.
15. The Committee was shown an image of the BCGB artist’s impression.
16. The following benefits of the BCGB are expected:
- completion of a high-quality cycle link extending the Lores Bonney Riverwalk
- increased pedestrian and cyclist safety
- improved links to high density development in Hamilton Northshore and Newstead
- enhanced accessibility to important tourist destinations, for example Newstead House
- an estimated 15% increase in daily corridor volume generated by the enhanced facility
- a 60% volume increase with urban densification from 2021 to 2041.
17. The BCGB procurement approach is for early tenderer involvement (ETI) for construction of a Council design. Currently, there are three shortlisted ETI proponents who are working with Council to develop the detailed design. The Request for Tender (RFT) will be issued in mid-2021.
18. Online community engagement survey results for the BCGB indicated 70% support for the concept design, and the following design and construction elements:
- maintaining access to Breakfast Creek
- opportunities for shade cover
- protecting and enhancing greenspace
- upgrading ongoing connections
- providing dedicated cyclist and pedestrian paths
- enhancing active transport to Newstead Avenue.
19. The Committee was shown a map highlighting the locations of the proposed Toowong to West End green bridge and St Lucia to West End green bridge.
20. The next steps for the KPGB are:
- receiving all tender responses by April 2021
- awarding the contract in mid-2021
- commencing construction in the second half of 2021 through to the second half of 2023.
21. The next steps for the BCGB are:
- completing ETI workshops by May 2021
- issuing the RFT to ETI proponents in mid-2021
- receiving RFT responses by September 2021
- completing the detailed design by September 2021
- awarding the construction contract in late-2021
- commencing construction in late-2021.
22. The next steps for the proposed West End green bridges are:
- completing community consultation on alignment options (closing 31 March 2021)
- announcing the consultation outcomes and preferred alignments
- preparing business cases and concept designs on the preferred alignments for further consultation.
23. The next steps for the fifth green bridge are to continue preparing proposed options for pre-feasibility consideration.
24. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the Project Director Major Projects for his informative presentation.
25. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
Chair: Councillors, the Infrastructure Committee please.
Councillor McLACHLAN.
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
Councillor David McLACHLAN, Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Steven HUANG, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 23 February 2021, be adopted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN: Mr Chair, before I move to the item before us, the Committee presentation on Move Safe, I just want to make a few additional comments to the discussion that we had earlier in Question Time about the Olympics coming to Brisbane in 2032, with the announcement that Brisbane is the probable host for the 2032 Olympics. It comes as no surprise to us that this is the case, that with Brisbane’s climate, our lifestyle, our infrastructure and our natural environment, we are indeed an ideal candidate to host those Games.
I have no doubt, Mr Chair, that we’re being considered favourably because of our first-class infrastructure and there is no better example of this than the Kingsford Smith Drive upgrade, which I think everyone would agree that it provides a fantastic backdrop for a future marathon run, somewhere between the probable Olympic Village and a probable stadium at Albion, both of which happen to be in the Hamilton Ward. So I’m certainly looking forward to participating in the debate about those important pieces of infrastructure, should those proposals develop which we’ve all seen being speculated upon in the press.
I’m very keen to hear precisely what the State Government has in mind, particularly for its priority development area at Hamilton Northshore, which was one of the reasons that we embarked on the upgrade of Kingsford Smith Drive. Because otherwise there was no alternative public transport proposed for the 20,000 residents that were initially proposed to be in that priority development area. But if it happens to be that it becomes a future Olympic Village and post-Olympic Village, a home for tens of thousands of people, then indeed the Kingsford Smith Drive upgrade was certainly fortuitous to be undertaken and certainly shows the foresight of this Administration and previous administrations to embark on that project in particular.
Mr Chair, we’re also updating other projects. I heard Councillor STRUNK talk earlier about the Story Bridge being the largest bridge in Brisbane. I don’t think it’s quite as big as Gateway Bridge, but I’ll take the point. We’re certainly making sure that it will be up to scratch as the iconic symbol of our city and we’re undertaking other important infrastructure upgrades as well. Indeed these infrastructure improvements and new projects will be certainly important over the next 10 to 11 years, as we look forward to the Olympic Games.
Mr Chair, the Committee presentation, we’ve talked about some of the larger infrastructure issues that we face in the city and upgrades and delivery of infrastructure projects. But just as important are safety issues, road safety issues and that was what our Committee presentation was about last week, the implementation of the Move Safe schedule under the Transport Plan for Brisbane, the implementation plan that we released in 2018. In 2018, the safety review followed consultation across the city over 2018, concluding in August.
There were, Mr Chair, over 6,000 pieces of feedback that were received, which included comments about how to make our roads and footpaths safer and how to deal with cars that are traveling too fast. So the report was finally released at the end of 2018 and included 31 specific projects under nine outcomes. All of those have been undertaken, Mr Chair. For example, we’ve reduced speed limits at locations in the CBD, in Moorooka, in Indooroopilly, in Hawthorne, in Sandgate, the Kelvin Grove Urban Village and West End. We’ve upgraded 13 traffic signals across the city to provide pedestrians with greater safety, many of which involved implementing pedestrian protection arrows.
Most of us, I’m sure, will be aware that we now have scramble crossings at the Albert Street and Mary Street intersection, and the Albert Street and Charlotte Street intersection. These were both direct outcomes of Move Safe. Scramble crossings are great for removing conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians at busy crossroads. Another outcome, Mr Chair, was changing traffic signal timing to improve pedestrian priority and to give walkers more time to cross. We’ve implemented these changes at 24 intersections, which is particularly helpful for elderly and more vulnerable pedestrians.
Mr Chair, we reviewed slip lanes at 10 intersections, to identify future upgrade works and also recently completed a nearly $1 million project to remove the right turn slip lane at the intersection of Creek Street and Ann Street in the CBD. It wasn’t safe enough for the 1,600 pedestrians that cross this intersection in the morning peak hour alone. So the slip lane was removed and converted to a footpath and that’s a great outcome to see there. Pedestrian road safety reviews were also completed for Boundary Street in West End and Ipswich Road in Annerley, which has led to a speed reduction for Ipswich Road which will be implemented by the end of this month.
We’ve also opened the new signalised crossing on Adelaide Street, between Albert Street and Edward Street, because there was clearly a desire to cross at this location and we needed to stop pedestrians making risky moves to cross Adelaide Street. Mr Chair, the list goes on, there’s much more I can say about the Move Safe initiatives that have made Brisbane a safer city. But I’ll conclude by highlighting that in the current financial year the broader budget allocation for Move Safe has been reallocated to the important outcome for our Safer Paths for Seniors, as outlined in the current budget book. This is placing focus on Outcome 7 of Move Safe, which is Senior Citizens’ Safety Zones.
This program is all about helping Brisbane’s senior citizens move safely around our city by building new pathways, widening existing ones, filling in missing sections. With an aging population, Mr Chair, projects like this may seem minor, but can make a big difference to older residents who really need solid and secure paths to walk on. I’ll leave any debate, as there were no petitions, to the Chamber, thank you.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, I rise to speak on item A, the death of the Move Safe Brisbane initiative. When I read this report, I was truly shocked by this Council’s decision to kill off a dedicated pedestrian safety initiative in Brisbane. When Move Safe was put out for consultation three, nearly four years ago now, I encouraged my community to speak up and to participate as part of the process and they did that in droves. They strongly advocated for pedestrian safety improvements right around my ward, but particularly in Annerley and in Graceville, and Chelmer and Sherwood, and certainly there was a lot more than that.
This Administration has pretty much failed to deliver on those initiatives. One of the ones that most concerns me is the issue about slip lanes, which is listed as Outcome 4. Now, the report before us today basically says that there was a review of slip lanes at 10 intersections. How many slip lanes are there in Brisbane? There’d be hundreds, if not thousands, right? So this Council, three years, three years they’ve had. What’s Councillor McLACHLAN been doing? He’s reviewed 10 intersections. Hasn’t actually delivered on any, except one in the city where 1,600 people a day cross, if I’ve got that number right.
His department, as of yesterday, advised me that they were extending the slip lane at Ipswich Road, Annerley, at Cracknell Road. Not putting in a safe crossing point across that slip lane, and do you know how many people cross the road there every day? 1,445. Mainly school students who go to Yeronga State School, Yeronga High School, Mary Immac. and Our Lady’s. Now, this Council is ignoring its own policy advice. That policy advice, which was a good decision, was to stop doing these slip lanes. Now we’re seeing that project completely abandoned, completely abandoned by this Administration.
The design I got yesterday is increasing the length of the slip lane, making it bigger and easier for cars to zap around the corner, where 1,445 people cross the road every single day. Do they get a green walk signal? No. Do they get a zebra crossing? No. It is shameful, shameful that this Administration has taken something that could have led to important walkability and safety improvements around our city and is basically saying now that that’s for old people, that is for old people. Of course, seniors need safe paths to get around the community, but that’s not what Move Safe is about.
Move Safe is about ensuring that everybody in all walks of life can move safely around their neighbourhoods. It was about identifying where there are problems in the community and taking practical actions to address them, taking policy steps to fix them, like removing these slip lanes. This Council’s done basically nothing. Nothing. It’s been a massive campaign for a decade to get Ipswich Road down to 50 and what a battle that’s been. It’s only that we’ve shamed Council into action over the last few years.
Two people have died up at Annerley Junction and it’s only 18 months ago that someone died on Venner Road, and we still can’t get Council to address one of the most dangerous roads in Brisbane, at Venner Road, where I think it’s 1,100 people a day cross the road. The figures for pedestrian movements around my ward are astonishing. The lack of investment into the walkability and safety that was identified in Move Safe and that is just being ignored now by this Administration.
We heard Councillor McLACHLAN, he’s given himself a pat on the back, job done. Just going into the basket with the old people now, we don’t have to worry about this anymore, it’s in the budget, it’ll just be with the seniors. Well I’m sorry, but all over my ward there are initiatives that have not been delivered when it comes to Move Safe. It’s two years ago now that this Council passed a resolution for a zebra crossing outside Graceville rail station. I can’t even get (Comments removed at the request of the CEO, in accordance with the AP068 Production of Council Minutes Policy approved by Council on 8 August 2012) to call me back, I can’t get her to call me back. I’ve been asking, asking, asking over and over again for revised design plans.
It is not reasonable that this Council ignores vital public and active travel initiatives in this city that are fully supported by this Council, fully supported by this Council. We’ve got major rail projects going on and we can’t even get Council and the State Government to talk about safe crossing points across busy roads to get to the improved train station. It is shocking, it is shocking. So I am appalled that Councillor McLACHLAN thinks that he deserves a pat on the back for killing off Move Safe, for killing off Brisbane’s walkable, safe, active transport initiative, that really should be fully delivered. Because it’s not being delivered.
Pedestrian protection at all traffic signals, yes, well you haven’t done that. Signal phased alterations, well haven’t done that. Slip lane removals, haven’t done that. Road safety reviews, well they might have done a couple of those but in most places they haven’t actually delivered on anything. Four-lane zebra crossing reviews, I think they did two or three of those. I don’t think they’ve actually done anything to improve them and I’d be really interested to hear if there was anything done to improve them.
Improving safety at key locations, well what about an intersection where this Council has invested $300,000 this year at the corner of Cracknell Road and Ipswich Road, where it is expanding a slip lane in direct contravention of what Move Safe actually says we should be doing at a policy level on slip lanes, where 1,445 people per day cross the road? What do those pedestrians get out of this road safety improvement that Councillor McLACHLAN is overseeing? They get nothing, not a thing. This is all about giving vehicles right of way.
This Council has failed when it comes to improving pedestrian safety around Brisbane. The footpaths in my ward and many other wards are ancient. Most of them are a metre wide, they’re 60 years old, there’s no bikeways. Meanwhile, Councillor McLACHLAN kills off Move Safe, says now we’re just going to treat it as an older person’s issue and basically gives himself a pat on the back. Not good enough. Fail.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Thanks, Chair. I wanted to speak on Move Safe and just wanted to note that I too was a little disappointed in how things panned out. I don’t really hold Councillor McLACHLAN personally responsible for that. I think it’s a broader structural failing of the way Council works and operates and the values that sit within the Administration and within the public service. I did want Councillor McLACHLAN to please at least take note of the fact that Boundary Street was identified in Move Safe as having a lot of quite serious safety issues.
It’s a very high volume for pedestrians and cyclists, but Move Safe didn’t actually lead to any safety improvements for Boundary Street that I’m aware of. So I could be wrong and hopefully he’ll get up and correct me, but he mentioned Boundary Street in his speech and specifically noted that Council had looked at it, but had determined not to make any changes, even though we know that the current configuration of this street isn’t up to current standards in terms of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. There are certainly some serious flaws with most of the intersections along that central commercial part of Boundary Street.
I’m optimistic that funding might be allocated in the future for some kind of corridor modernisation project or a corridor study, but to date we’ve had no confirmation from Council of any improvements for Boundary Street, which is pretty concerning when you consider that an apartment complex of 1,600-plus apartments was approved right there on Boundary Street. That’s a pretty big number of apartments, it’s a pretty dense development. I’m talking about West Village.
Council approved it, then the State Government approved it to be a little denser still, but either way, that’s a very big development to go into a street without any changes or improvements to pedestrian safety and access. Certainly there’s been a lot more traffic along Boundary Street due to that and many other developments in the area. But Boundary Street’s certainly not the only street in my ward where there are serious concerns about pedestrian safety and comfort.
I think really what Move Safe highlighted was that there is a great deal of concern in the community about these issues, but actually addressing them is quite expensive. It can be expensive to redesign intersections, it can be expensive to install pedestrian crossings, et cetera. I acknowledge that that’s a challenge, but I would suggest that part of that challenge comes from the fact that Council is often unwilling or reluctant to take away space from cars or to deprioritise motorists.
I’ve worked closely with the Council officers on several projects and I’ve found that there’s a bit of variation in terms of attitudes within the traffic team and the engineering team. I certainly think officers are doing their best within the parameters that are open to them, but I’ve seen examples, for example, where Council has said, we don’t want to lower the speed limit, therefore, if we are to put in a pedestrian crossing at this location, it has to be designed in this way. That’s going to be very expensive, therefore, we’re not going to do anything at all.
Whereas if Council had been willing to lower the speed limit, then it would have been cheaper to put in a lower impact pedestrian crossing, or traffic calming or what have you. The two often end up in a circular loop where we can’t drop the speed limit because the current road environment doesn’t support a lower speed limit, but we can’t redesign the road environment because the road is intended to carry cars travelling at a certain speed limit. So it ends up a bit of a cyclical problem, can’t drop the speed limit because we would need to change the road, can’t change the road because we need to maintain the current speed limit.
That seemed to be a problem for a lot of the projects in areas that I identified as concerns within my ward during the Move Safe consultation. But I do think when you look into it closely and you ask those detailed questions of the Council designers and engineers and traffic planners, often there are cheaper options and solutions available if we are willing to narrow the road corridor, or take away a few bays of street parking, or reconfigure the timings of some of the traffic lights so that pedestrians get more time and cars get less. Council has done some of that in some locations, but only to a very limited degree and certainly not to the extent that I think local residents are asking for.
It’s, I think, not coincidental that many of the areas where residents are most concerned about pedestrian safety, the LNP has also seen a fairly noticeable drop in their primary vote in the most recent Council election. I think there is a correlation there, the areas where residents don’t feel safe crossing the road, where they don’t feel safe letting kids walk to school have also been some of the areas where the Mayor’s popularity and the LNP primary vote has dropped quite significantly. I would suggest it would be wise for the Council Administration to consider allocating a bit more funding towards local pedestrian safety upgrades, even if that comes at the expense of road widenings or other major intersection upgrades.
I distinctly recall the discussion about that redesign of the intersection of Main Street and River Terrace, which cost Council around $6 million. Doesn’t seem to have had much of an impact in terms of improving traffic flow on Main Street or River Terrace, certainly it seems just as busy and congested as ever along there. But that money, that $6 million could have been spent much more wisely on a wide range of local pedestrian upgrades and I think is a good example of how this Administration continues to allocate money in the wrong places when it comes to improving our transport network and improving pedestrian safety.
I do want to acknowledge that the Administration has made some good steps. It’s genuinely been cool to see some of those pedestrian signals trying to prioritise pedestrians a little bit more. It’s been good to see some streets moving some way along towards lower speed limits, but the rate of progress is achingly slow. The scale of changes and the scale of projects that Council is taking on is woefully inadequate. The broad fundamental problem here is that the design and funding of our road network and our transport network still disproportionately prioritises cars.
Which means that people don’t feel safe or comfortable using other modes of transport, which means that they continue to drive, which means that we continue to prioritise cars. Until this Administration has the courage to make some significant shifts in that respect and really put pedestrians first, which is what all the independent transport planners and designers would advocate, until this Administration is genuinely willing to put pedestrians first, we’re going to keep seeing people killed on our roads, we’re going to keep seeing rise in dissatisfaction with the way Council responds to local pedestrian safety concerns.
I think really the greatest disappointment with Move Safe is that it was a missed opportunity. There were so many good ideas coming forward from residents. We’ve drawn so much knowledge to identify those hot spots, to identify those biggest priorities, but only a small number of those issues were actually addressed. It’s not clear that the rest have ended up in any kind of pipeline for further improvements through other projects.
Some of the sites that were identified as priorities for pedestrian safety upgrades, like along Montague Road, around Forbes Street and Ferry Road, further south of the existing Victoria Street project, locations along Logan Road which I think now in Councillor CUNNINGHAM’s ward, there’s that zebra crossing which is very dangerous and a lot of people have raised concerns about. Gladstone Road, Dornoch Terrace, Ganges Street, Vulture Street, so many areas where people have raised concerns that they don’t feel safe crossing roads or walking along the footpath. These things need to be taken seriously and looked at more closely.
I also wanted to just make the suggestion to Councillor McLACHLAN that maybe his team and Councillor MURPHY’s team could work together a little more closely around how we plan specifically for bus stop access. This is something that came up again and again in Move Safe, where people identified that they wanted to get to the bus stop, but they didn’t have a safe place to cross the road.
Through you, Chair, Councillor McLACHLAN, you would no doubt be aware that at the moment planning for bus stops, it’s kind of like they look at where the existing pedestrian crossings are and maybe try and put a bus stop near there. But sometimes there’s an opportunity to relocate a bus stop for efficiency’s sake, but the residents don’t want that relocation to happen because it would take them further away from an existing pedestrian crossing.
Whereas if there’s money allocated in parallel to build a new localised pedestrian crossing, we could perhaps move the bus stop at the same time as we put in a new pedestrian crossing. But the bus stop relocation and optimisation projects don’t happen in close collaboration or in concert with planning for new pedestrian crossings. So we’re missing opportunities there where we could make our bus route network more efficient and we could also improve connectivity to those bus stops at the same time, but the two funding cycles don’t match up at all. So hopefully that’s something that Councillor McLACHLAN will take on board and maybe his officers could look into a little bit more closely. Thanks.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: I was waiting for someone from the LNP side to get up, but no one’s getting up. I just want to add to the comments made so far in relation to the Move Safe Program. We were surprised that the program has gone. From our perspective, it was a very effective program. It was one that, I think, or we think, should be made a permanent program of Council. It was working, it was producing results. For the amount of money that was being contributed to it, it was achieving results as well.
Now, we understand the need for the Seniors’ Safer Paths, sure that’s important, but we also need to recognise that there are many people crossing the roads and needing pedestrian access, be they teenagers, young people, kids. We need to cater for the whole community. So, once again, we think this program should be reinstated and certainly we would reinstate it. In relation to some of the achievements, yes, there were many achievements with this program, but something that could have been picked up more, we felt, and improved with this program, is improving footpaths.
I know I’ve discussed this with Councillor MARX, is getting more money to fix our broken and damaged footpaths, which would certainly work alongside this program in producing better results for the residents of Brisbane. Hopefully Councillor MARX is successful in her budget bids in relation to that. So yes, disappointing that we’ve actually lost Move Safe from some great work that Council was doing and disappointing that no one from the LNP side are standing up to say we need to keep this program. Thank you.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair, I’ll respond to some of those issues raised. One thing that I will say upfront to Councillor SRI is that we certainly won’t be motivated by undertaking any improvements in our road network by political considerations, as he suggested. The fact that you even suggest that that should be our policy, to undertake changes to road safety because of concern for what voters might think—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor SRI: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: I claim to be misrepresented.
Chair: Noted.
Councillor McLACHLAN: That was precisely what you said, Councillor SRI, that we should be motivated by political considerations for endorsing traffic fixes.
Councillor SRI: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: I claim to be misrepresented.
Chair: Noted.
Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN: Hansard will record what you actually said, Councillor SRI. Look, I’m generally used to being misquoted by Councillor JOHNSTON in this place and no exception in her performance here tonight. The misquote there was on the Ann Street and Creek Street slip lane. I said 1,600 pedestrians in the morning peak, not per day. There are thousands and thousands of people who cross there, it’s immediately outside the Central railway station and of course, it’s a significant improvement.
I can say to other issues raised by Councillor JOHNSTON, it never ceases to amaze me when she, when Councillor JOHNSTON, through you, Mr Chair, objects to minor traffic improvements. One thing I can say generally is that of the thoughts that people put on paper, their pins on the website during the Move Safe exercise, doesn’t mean the end of doing the things that people ask for. We’ve got a big budget for infrastructure improvements and these things can be undertaken by the means that we have always available to us, through local area LATMs (Local Area Traffic Management), the local access network improvements, through—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No, Councillor JOHNSTON, please do not yell at people across the room.
Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN: Improvements like slip lane replacements, yes, that remains a policy of Council to review slip lane effectiveness in the management of traffic in the city. Does it mean that—okay, so Councillor JOHNSTON’s sitting there shaking her head at me. I’ve seen Ipswich Road and Cracknell Road, there’s no validity in her belief that the slip lane there is being widened. That’s not true.
This is a congestion busting project which, as a consequence of Councillor JOHNSTON’s objection to it, means that the budget that was being made available for that project will have to be held and the project won’t be undertaken. Because it needed to be done with money available from the State in this financial year. Well thanks to your intervention, Councillor JOHNSTON, that project won’t happen in this financial year and we’ll have to review whether it’s possible to do in a future financial year. But the whole congestion busting—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No more interjections please.
Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN: Congestion busting projects are projects that were undertaken within an existing road reserve. If there is a need to take out a slip lane by signalising a pedestrian crossing, that’s an issue that can be addressed. But it is a significant budget that’s required to install traffic signals. The alternative is to look at ways to improve road safety, pedestrian safety, with relatively minor improvements and that was what was being undertaken at Ipswich Road and Cracknell Road. That project, that safety project, as a consequence of Councillor JOHNSTON’s intervention to not support it, can’t proceed now in this financial year.
Chair: Councillor SRI—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor SRI, you have two misrepresentations. Please address them now.
Councillor SRI: They were both comments that I was suggesting the Administration ought to be making decisions about road safety according to political priorities. In fact what I’m suggesting—and I thought I was quite clear about this—was that the overall lack of funding allocated towards pedestrian safety upgrades and the tendency to prioritise car movements ahead of pedestrian safety and convenience was perhaps hurting the LNP electorally.
Chair: Thank you, Councillor SRI.
We will now put the resolution.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Infrastructure Committee was declared carried on the voices.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Division.
Chair: Is there a seconder? There is not.
The division lapsed for want of a seconder.
The report read as follows(
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – MOVE SAFE BRISBANE UPDATE
540/2020-21
1. The Transport Network Operations Manager, Transport Planning and Operations, Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on the Move Safe Brisbane – Pedestrian Safety Review. She provided the information below.
2. The final report for the Move Safe Brisbane – Pedestrian Safety Review was presented to Council on 4 December 2018. The report contained 31 project recommendations under nine outcomes.
- Outcome 1 – speed limit reductions
- Outcome 2 – pedestrian protection at traffic signals
- Outcome 3 – signal phase alterations
- Outcome 4 – slip lane reviews
- Outcome 5 – road safety reviews
- Outcome 6 – four-lane zebra crossing reviews
- Outcome 7 – senior citizens’ safety zones
- Outcome 8 – improving safety at key locations
- Outcome 9 – communication and enforcement.
3. Outcome 1 included speed limit reductions at six locations:
- Beaudesert Road, Moorooka
- Station Road, Indooroopilly
- Riding Road, Hawthorne
- Flinders Parade, Sandgate
- Kelvin Grove Urban Village
- Montague Road, West End.
4. Outcome 2 – pedestrian protection at traffic signals identified 15 sites for investigation, resulting in upgrades of 13 sites. The upgrades included implementation of pedestrian protection arrows, traffic signal upgrades and scramble crossings.
5. Outcome 3 identified signal phase alterations at 25 sites for investigation and, as a result, there were changes made to signal timing in order to improve pedestrian priority at 24 intersections. Outcome 4 involved the review of slip lanes at 10 intersections, including eight signalised intersections. The investigations identified future upgrade works to improve pedestrian safety. The Committee was shown before and after photos of the Ann Street and Creek Street intersection upgrade.
6. There has been a pedestrian road safety review completed for Ipswich Road, Annerley, and Boundary Street, West End, as a result of Outcome 5. The improvements implemented include:
- the upgrade of the pedestrian warning signage
- street lighting improvements
- completing design and planning for future works
- a speed limit review for Ipswich Road, which resulted in a speed reduction from 60 km/h to 50 km/h to be introduced by the end of March.
7. Outcome 6 resulted in the investigation of options to improve safety at four zebra crossings on multi-lane roads at Orange Grove Road, Salisbury; Logan Road, Woolloongabba; Logan Road, Holland Park West; and Gladstone Road, Highgate Hill. Investigations provided direction for future design and upgrade works, with interim improvements made at the four locations.
8. Outcome 7 identified two locations, Beaudesert Road, Moorooka, and Old Cleveland Road, Stones Corner, for senior citizens’ safety zones. As a result of the investigation, future works were identified and listed, with changes made to the speed limit, kerbside allocation and traffic signal arrangements.
9. Following Outcome 8, Council has developed a Move Safe Plan template to be used by high-volume pedestrian destinations, such as universities, hospitals and retirement villages. Council has worked with 29 hospitals and medical centres. The template is suitable for destinations where users may have cognitive or physical impairment.
10. Under Outcome 9 – communication and enforcement, Council delivered three community engagement sessions in conjunction with the Queensland Police Service during Queensland Road Safety Week at Sunnybank Plaza. Council also organised a Move Safe information stall at the Lord Mayor’s International Student Friendship Ceremony. Council will continue to seek culturally and linguistically diverse meetings to deliver pedestrian safety messages and materials.
11. The Move Safe Brisbane program has been rebranded in 2020-21 to ‘Safer Paths for Seniors’. This change will reflect Council’s new focus on improving pedestrian safety for seniors.
12. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the Transport Network Operations Manager for her informative presentation.
13. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
Chair: Councillors, the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee report.
ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE
Councillor Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Chair of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Tracy DAVIS, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 23 February 2021, be adopted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
Councillor CUNNINGHAM.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Thank you, Mr Chair. Before I move on to the Committee presentation, I wanted to respond to Councillor JOHNSTON’s question in Question Time to the LORD MAYOR about some of the stormwater drainage projects listed in Council’s Local Government Infrastructure Plan. In response, I want to let Councillor JOHNSTON know that not all of the projects in the LGIP will be constructed in the timeframes originally indicated. The schedule is revised yearly, as are the priorities and funding availability. Due to a variety of circumstances, the project delivery date and the project details may change.
Council considers the best available information to form growth patterns. However, development patterns are not entirely predictable, which in turn influences the sequencing of the stormwater infrastructure. A number of projects in Yeronga remain listed in Council’s Local Government Infrastructure Plan between now and 2026, but they are dependent on development occurring in those areas. If any construction—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No interjections please.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: If any construction project happens in the area, we will work constructively to progress the stormwater works if and when possible.
Councillor McLACHLAN: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order to you.
Councillor McLACHLAN: Mr Chair, Councillor JOHNSTON just yelled out across the room that Councillor CUNNINGHAM was delusional. I point out to you that that’s a clinical definition of somebody who’s suffering from mental illness. I ask her to withdraw that comment.
Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON, you’ve been asked to withdraw one of your interjections where you called another Councillor delusional. Would you please do so. I’m calling up you to—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Is that a direction?
Chair: Excuse me?
Councillor JOHNSTON: Is that your direction?
Chair: No, I’m asking you to do so as a courtesy to a fellow Councillor.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Well, if you’re just asking, then no.
Chair: Councillor CUNNINGHAM.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Thank you, Mr Chair. Our Committee presentation last week was on the Creek Neighbours Program. Creek Neighbours is a free educational program aimed at kindergarten-aged children, which encourages families to play a part in protecting and valuing Brisbane’s creeks and our catchments. I often reflect that the best way to teach our children to value and protect the natural environment is to share it with them and so that’s what this program is all about. Research shows that the early years are critical for initiating an environmental identity, which can lead to a long-term connection to the environment and foster some stewardship.
The program is specifically focused on kindergartens located next to creeks. The program is delivered by our environment centre staff and the resources developed for the program are also used in the Council’s environment centres. The pilot program has been a huge success and indeed it has 100% satisfaction rate from kindergarten teachers, including some of your own local kindergarten teachers, Mr Chair. The program will be rolled out to additional kindergartens this year and we hope to soon have some online resources available to all kindies right across Brisbane.
Mr Chair, we also have a park naming submission and a petition. Item C is a petition requesting Council install fencing around the basketball court in Ducie Street Park at Darra and the response outlines that Councillor HUTTON is funding work on a new full-size basketball court with fencing from the Jamboree Ward Suburban Enhancement Fund.
On item B, a park naming submission, during the Committee, Councillor DAVIS asked a question about the drafting of the submission, clarifying that the intent of the petition previously brought before the Committee and Council was to name a section of a park, rather than the entire park. Therefore, Mr Chair, I will be moving an amendment to clarify the submission and I have provided the wording of the amendment to you.
Chair: Thank you, do you have that amendment? Could you please read that?
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Yes, certainly, Mr Chair.
MOTION FOR AMENDMENT TO CLAUSE B:
|541/2020-21 |
|It was moved by Councillor Fiona CUNNINGHAM, seconded by Councillor Tracy DAVIS, that Clause B, PARK NAMING – FORMAL NAMING OF THE PARK|
|KNOWN AS STRINGYBARK DRIVE PARK, 25 STRINGYBARK DRIVE, ASPLEY, TO ‘KERRIE BLENCOWE PLACE’, of the report be amended as follows: |
|(i) in the title, after the word ‘of’, remove ‘the park known as’ and add ‘a place in’, |
|(ii) in paragraph 16, after the word ‘requesting’, add ‘a place in’, |
|(iii) in paragraph 23, after the word ‘renaming’, add ‘a place in’, |
|(iv) in paragraph 25, Recommendation, after the word ‘RENAME’, remove ‘THE PARK KNOWN AS’ and add ‘A PLACE IN’. |
Chair: Is there a debate to the amendment?
Councillor CUNNINGHAM?
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: No, it’s pretty self-explanatory. Thanks, Mr Chair.
Chair: Further speakers to the amendment?
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: This is quite unusual and I would just appreciate some—it is weird. I would just appreciate a little bit further advice. I note that Councillor CUNNINGHAM didn’t offer any debate about this. Obviously these things go through a huge process before they come to Council for approval. There’s community consultation that the local Councillor undertakes, there’s discussion with the Council officers about whether it’s a place or it’s a park naming. A formal submission is prepared by the officers, which is then reviewed by the local Councillor. It then goes up to the Committee, where it is reviewed by a group of Councillors from across the city.
I don’t know how this has gone so very wrong, so I would appreciate some further explanation about what’s happened here. It just seems extremely odd, it did seem to be very straightforward. So if it was just a mistake, if it was an intention to rename the whole park, that’s great. But I just don’t know how it got to this point, given all the inbuilt checks and I would appreciate some further explanation.
Chair: Further speakers to the amendment? Any further speakers?
Councillor CUNNINGHAM.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Mr Chair, I would just note that other levels of government go through amendments all the time and it happens very regularly. There was a drafting error on a park, the local Councillor brought it to my attention and we’re trying to fix it up for her. I would do the same for any other Councillor. Thank you.
Chair: Thank you.
All right, we’ll now put the amendment.
The Chair put the motion for the amendment to Clause B to the Chamber resulting in it being declared carried on the voices.
Chair: Is there any further debate about the amended motion? Not the amendment, the amendment has been carried. The new amended motion and therefore, the Committee report, right?
Okay, Councillor HUTTON.
Councillor HUTTON: Sorry, Mr Chair, I was a little bit confused, but I rise to speak very briefly on item C. As Councillor CUNNINGHAM has mentioned, I am very supportive of this petition, so much so that these three petitioners are getting much more than simply just a fence behind the half court, basketball court at Ducie Street. We’re actually installing a full basketball court adjacent to the current court, but away from the rolling hills of Ducie Street. Through this initiative I hope to encourage more locals to get out and be active. So I look forward to shooting hoops with many of these youngsters coming July.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor DAVIS.
Councillor DAVIS: Thank you, Chair. I rise to speak briefly to items A and B. Item A relates to the Committee presentation on Council’s Creek Neighbours Program. As the Chair mentioned in her contribution, this program is really focused on fostering an early connection to our waterways amongst our youngest members in the community and works with kindergartens which operate in the vicinity of our creek catchments. In October last year I was able to see this wonderful program in action at the Downfall Creek Bushland Centre in the McDowall Ward, with children from our local Tumble Tots Kindergarten were getting involved, learning about our local creek catchments. How they provide a home for our native wildlife and, of course, the role which we all play in protecting these spaces.
During that time, the children enjoyed games, as well as the educational session and plenty of arts of crafts. Some of the signs that the children painted are now permanent fixtures in the garden beds at Downfall Creek. Creek Neighbours is a fantastic early education program and I’d like to personally thank the Council officers who have worked really hard to make this program such a great success.
Moving to item B, which concerns the naming of a place in Stringybark Drive Park in Aspley to recognise the work of local resident, Kerrie Blencowe. Our Councillors may recall that last year I had the opportunity to highlight Kerrie’s work in our community, but to recap, Kerrie has been coordinating a local walking group in Aspley for a long time. Every Tuesday and Thursday morning up to 30 people meet at the same location in Stringybark Drive Park in Aspley to participate in the group.
Thanks to Kerrie’s dedication to organising these meetings the group has become quite a social hub, which allows residents to meet their neighbours, make friends and stay connected with the people who live and work around them. The fact that group members went to the effort to petition to name a place in Stringybark Drive Park, Kerrie Blencowe Place, to acknowledge Kerrie’s contribution to the health and wellbeing of our local residents really is a testament to how she has touched the lives of many people who have gone from being strangers to neighbours. I look forward to attending the special unveiling of the Kerrie Blencowe Place signage in the near future.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor CUNNINGHAM?
I’ll now put the resolution.
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.
The report read as follows(
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – CREEK NEIGHBOURS
542/2020-21
1. The Water, Energy and Environment Systems Manager, Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability, City Planning and Sustainability, attended the meeting to provide an update on Brisbane’s Creek Neighbours program. She provided the information below.
2. Creek Neighbours (the program) is a free, educational program aimed at kindergarten-aged children which encourages families to play a part in protecting and valuing Brisbane’s creeks and catchments. The program strategically targets kindergartens located next to, or near, creeks.
3. The program is important as it creates future environmental stewards, has the potential to increase awareness and membership of habitat groups, and complements Council’s Bush Neighbours and Student Environmental Leadership Network programs. Further, the program is used as an educational tool to activate the community to help achieve Council’s environmental goals and targets.
4. Kindergartens are the specific focus of the program as:
- research identifies the under-five age group as a critical age group to initiate an environmental identity, which can lead to environmental connection and stewardship
- it fills an identified gap in programs catering to this age group
- it provides an ideal foundation for Council’s school-based environmental programs
- the resources developed for the program are also used in the Council’s Environment Centres.
5. A pilot of the program was conducted in 2019, offering an educational, four-step program designed to foster environmental stewardship by connecting kindergarten-aged children and their families with their local creek catchment. Twenty-nine lessons were conducted with over 750 student interactions across three kindergartens. The program was a success with positive reviews from teachers, parents and students.
6. Highlights of the pilot included:
- dipnetting activities and other fun games
- a live native wildlife presentation
- Celebration Day
- environmental projects in the kindergarten.
7. The first session was a creek visit facilitated by the Environment Centre education team. It was an immersive experience including dipnetting activities, exploring waterbugs, and playing educational games to learn which species live by the creek and how to protect them.
8. The second session was a live wildlife presentation where students learnt which native wildlife species live by the creek through a ‘touch and see’ session. The students learnt to value the wildlife that live in, or by, the creek and about their natural habitats. Animals included a blue tongue lizard, frog, turtle, python, possum and water dragon.
9. The third session was Celebration Day, an occasion where families, community partners and other areas of Council came together to celebrate the creek.
10. The fourth session was an in-kindergarten project to reinforce the concepts learnt in the program. The project was delivered by Environment Centre staff in the kindergartens.
11. The program achieved a 100% satisfaction rate from kindergarten teachers and some testimonials were shared with the Committee.
12. In 2021, the program will be rolled out to an additional five kindergartens, bringing the total to 10 kindergartens. An online program is under development.
13. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the Water, Energy and Environment Systems Manager for her informative presentation.
14. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
B PARK NAMING – FORMAL NAMING OF A PLACE IN STRINGYBARK DRIVE PARK, 25 STRINGYBARK DRIVE, ASPLEY, TO ‘KERRIE BLENCOWE PLACE’
161/540/567/207
543/2020-21
15. The A/Manager, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.
16. Council received a petition requesting a place in Stringybark Drive Park (D0949, B-RE-2664), 25 Stringybark Drive, Aspley, be renamed ‘Kerrie Blencowe Place’. The petition received 36 signatures supporting the park naming request and was approved by Council at its meeting held on 1 December 2020.
17. Stringybark Drive Park is a local park that follows Little Cabbage Tree Creek and is situated between Horn Road and Martindale Street, Aspley.
18. For the past 15 years, Ms Kerrie Blencowe has conducted walking group activities for up to 30 people, who would meet at the end of Horn Road every Tuesday and Thursday morning.
19. Ms Blencowe organised group birthday morning teas, celebratory lunches such as Christmas in July, and flowers for funerals, as well as publishing the Run Walk and Jog newsletter each month. Ms Blencowe has dedicated countless hours of her own time over the years to create a welcoming and vibrant community group in Aspley.
20. The proposed park naming sign panel will be installed near the corner of Horn Road and Stringybark Drive.
Funding
21. Funding for the name sign is available in the North Region, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, recurrent budget allocation for 2020-21.
Consultation
22. Councillor Tracy Davis, Councillor for McDowall Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
Customer impact
23. Formally renaming a place in Stringybark Drive Park, Aspley, to ‘Kerrie Blencowe Place’ received local support and will acknowledge Ms Blencowe’s voluntary contributions to the local community.
24. The A/Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.
25. RECOMMENDATION:
that approval be granted to rename A PLACE IN Stringybark Drive Park, 25 Stringybark Drive, to ‘Kerrie Blencowe Place’, in accordance with Council’s OS03 Naming Parks, Facilities or Tracks Procedure.
ADOPTED
C PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL INSTALL FENCING AROUND THE BASKETBALL COURT IN DUCIE STREET PARK, DARRA
CA20/1280609
544/2020-21
26. A petition from residents, requesting Council install fencing around the basketball court in Ducie Street Park, Darra, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 17 November 2020, by Councillor Sarah Hutton, and received.
27. The A/Executive Manager, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.
28. The petition contains three signatures.
29. Ducie Street Park is a multi-use park with various recreational facilities, including a large playground, picnic facilities and a half basketball court.
30. Asset Services, West Region, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, has been working with Councillor Sarah Hutton, Councillor for the Jamboree Ward, on a project to install a full-size basketball court in the park, with this proposal to be funded through the Jamboree Ward Suburban Enhancement Fund.
31. As part of these works, Councillor Hutton suggested the installation of a fence along the southern side of the court. Attachment B (submitted on file) shows the area where the fence will be installed. The old half basketball court will be removed and a new full-size basketball court, including volleyball posts, will be installed. A fence will be installed as part of the new park upgrade. This proposal is currently being scoped, with works anticipated to be completed by the end of June 2021.
Funding
32. Funding has been approved and will be obtained from the Jamboree Ward Suburban Enhancement Fund.
Consultation
33. Councillor Sarah Hutton, Councillor for Jamboree Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.
34. The A/Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.
35. RECOMMENDATION:
that the draft response, as set out in Attachment A, hereunder, be sent to the head petitioner.
Attachment A
Draft Response
Petition Reference: CA20/1280609
Thank you for your petition requesting Council install fencing around the basketball court in Ducie Street Park, Darra.
Council has completed an onsite investigation and considered your request.
Councillor Sarah Hutton, Councillor for Jamboree Ward, supports the upgrade of the basketball court and the inclusion of fencing along the southern side of the court in Ducie Street Park, and has agreed to fund this work from the Jamboree Ward Suburban Enhancement Fund.
The upgrade will consist of a new full-size basketball court including volleyball posts, and a fence which will be installed along the southern side of the court. This proposal is currently being scoped and these works are anticipated to be completed by the end of June 2021.
Please let the other petitioners know of this information.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Shane Klepper, Regional Coordinator Parks, West Region, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3407 0013.
Thank you for raising this matter.
ADOPTED
Chair: Councillors, the City Standards, Community Health and Safety Committee please.
Councillor MARX.
CITY STANDARDS, COMMUNITY HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE
Councillor Kim MARX, Chair of the City Standards, Community Health and Safety Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Steven TOOMEY, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 23 February 2021, be adopted.
Chair: Is there any debate?
Councillor MARX.
Councillor MARX: Yes, thank you, Mr Chair. Firstly, before I get to last week’s Committee presentation, as I mentioned, last week I was an apology at that Committee meeting when I was with the LORD MAYOR at the Visy visit that we had. We talked about the dangerous issue of batteries going into rubbish bins and particularly recycling bins, or any bins for that matter. The other thing that I mentioned at the time was plastic bags that were still continuing to be put into the recycle bins. The irony was I went to an event on Sunday 27 February, which was the Tzu Chi—which is spelt for the record T-Z-U C-H-I—Foundation at their New Year Blessing event.
At that time, 5.34pm, the Deputy Chair, Councillor Steven TOOMEY, assumed the Chair.
Councillor MARX: One of the things that I remember from them from my first meeting with them was the fact that they make blankets out of plastic bottles, which I was intrigued and thought that was the most amazing thing. So when they were there that night at SunPAC, I knew I had to buy one, so I bought one. The irony is it’s on polar bears and if you haven’t noticed, in this room it’s fairly arctic in this place here. You only have to look at the flags behind me to see that they’re swaying in the wind, so hence the reason for the blanket. I will keep it here in the Chamber for me moving forward for a number of meetings.
That’s in case I forget a cardigan, a jacket again. It doesn’t seem to affect Councillor SRI, yes, through you, Mr Acting Deputy Chair. On that, I don’t want to go any further. I know that you were looking forward to talking on the City Botanic Garden presentation. I’ve heard reports and, as always, Dale Arvidsson does a fabulous job. But you’re now sitting in the big seat, so you can’t, so maybe someone else might want to talk on it. Thank you.
Deputy Chair: It happens. Thank you, Councillor.
Is there any further debate?
There being none, Councillor MARX? No?
We’ll now put the motion.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the City Standards, Community Health and Safety Committee was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows(
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – CITY BOTANIC GARDENS – LIVING COLLECTIONS HIGHLIGHTS 2015-2021
545/2020-21
1. The Curator, Brisbane Botanic Gardens, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on the City Botanic Gardens’ living collection highlights. He provided the information below.
2. The City Botanic Gardens has been a place for growing plants since 1828. From 1855, the land was recognised as a formal botanic garden, with a plant collection that educates and assists the community in matters of botany, agriculture and horticulture. The City Botanic Gardens contains a comprehensive and important plant collection consisting of local and wet tropic plants.
3. The Committee was shown pictures of two of the City Botanic Gardens’ oldest planted trees; the Indian Plains Bamboo (Bambusa balcooa), which was planted in 1845, and the Tamarind (Tamarindus indica), which was planted in 1849.
4. The term ‘Tropicalia – Tropicalian’ was used to describe the City Botanic Gardens’ living collection and its ‘lush, jungle-like feel’. The Committee was shown a collection of photos highlighting the tropical feel of the City Botanic Gardens.
5. The City Botanic Gardens is a living museum of diverse plant collections and features a mix of historic specimens and present-day plantings from Australia and around the world.
6. The City Botanic Gardens Master Plan (the Master Plan) investigates the renewal of historic plant collections, including edible crops, fruit trees and medicinal plants. Each entry to the City Botanic Gardens creates a sense of welcome, wayfinding and unique themes related to historic plant collections. The Committee was shown pictures comparing the Alice Street and Albert Street entry from 2015 and 2019-20.
7. The Master Plan aims to increase accessibility and connection by creating a new boardwalk link between the Albert Street concourse and Bunya Walk to provide access to the playground and to protect the health of Hill’s Fig Avenue. The Master Plan includes the installation of interpretive signage and shade-tolerant understorey planting. The Committee was shown a photo of the Hill’s Avenue Boardwalk and the new garden beds at the commencement of planting.
8. The Master Plan will improve the quality of the rainforest with understorey planting, a new boardwalk and interpretive signage.
9. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the Curator for his informative presentation.
10. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
Deputy Chair: Councillors we will now move on to Finance—oh, sorry, my mistake.
Councillor HOWARD.
Councillor interjecting.
Deputy Chair: Jumping the gun, sorry.
Councillor HOWARD: I wouldn’t let you forget me—
Deputy Chair: I know, you’d correct me.
Councillor HOWARD: —Acting Chair.
Deputy Chair: Thank you.
COMMUNITY, ARTS AND NIGHTTIME ECONOMY COMMITTEE
Councillor Vicki HOWARD, Chair of the Community, Arts and Nighttime Economy Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Sandy LANDERS, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 23 February 2021, be adopted.
Deputy Chair: Councillor HOWARD.
Councillor HOWARD: Thank you Mr Deputy Chair. Last week we had a presentation from the Manager of Library Services on Council’s early literacy programs. Council’s early literacy programs set the foundations for reading in the first five years of a child’s life which is a crucial development window. The program aims to assist parents and caregivers in supporting their child’s early literacy development as their child’s first and most important teacher.
It’s to develop emergent literacy skills such as oral language, conventions of print, alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness and pre-writing skills. To provide positive, fun experiences, as enjoying reading is an indicator that a child is well placed for learning, and to encourage social connection and sharing between parents, carers, children and libraries.
I really want to thank the Manager of Library Services for the very informative talk that we had. We had a wonderful discussion around it and I know that my granddaughter absolutely loves reading and it’s one of the special memories that I have with her. I know that many in the Committee shared their memories as well.
So I really want to thank all of our officers for the work that they do within this program, because it absolutely is a critical part of the early development and the love of books that we want to have all of our citizens of Brisbane enjoying. Thank you.
Deputy Chair: Thank you, Councillor HOWARD.
Councillors is there any further debate? Any speakers? Nobody?
Councillor HOWARD? No?
We’ll put the motion.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Community, Arts and Nighttime Economy Committee was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows(
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – EARLY LITERACY PROGRAMS
546/2020-21
1. The A/Manager, Library Services, Lifestyle and Community Services, attended the meeting to provide an update on early literacy programs. She provided the information below.
2. Reading is an essential foundation for learning and is vital to ensure individuals have the best chance for opportunities and success, both at school and in their future, which supports the long-term economic prosperity of the city. It is core to the vision, values and role of public libraries, underpinning much of Council’s library service offerings, supporting lifelong readers and learners. It also aligns with the Brisbane Vision 2031 themes – Our smart, prosperous city and Our vibrant, creative city.
3. Council’s early literacy programs set the foundations for reading in the first five years of a child’s life, which is a crucial development window. The programs aim to:
- assist parents and caregivers in supporting their child’s early literacy development as their child’s first and most important teacher
- develop emergent literacy skills such as oral language, conventions of print, alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness and pre-writing skills
- provide positive, fun experiences as enjoying reading is an indicator that a child is well placed for learning
- encourage social connection and sharing between parents, carers, children and libraries.
4. Council delivers regular in-library programs for children from birth to five years of age with their parents and caregivers. These programs include:
- Babies, Books and Rhymes
- Toddler Time
- Storytime
- First 5 Forever Stories and Signs.
5. These programs were adapted to maintain delivery during COVID-19, with initiatives such as:
- recorded sessions published on library and Council social media pages
- three online ‘live’ sessions via Zoom per week
- Pop-up Library delivery in parks
- informal sessions in library outdoor spaces.
The in-library programs have been gradually reintroduced in February 2021.
6. Council aims to deliver its early literacy programs beyond the branch network into communities in order to reach existing, new and targeted audiences. The Pop-up Library Children’s Storytime in Parks program has had a 122% increase in attendance across October 2020 to December 2020 when compared to 2019. The Pop-up Library has also made appearances at festivals and community events, since recommencement in November 2020.
7. The Little Stars Reading Club promotes and encourages literacy development and a growing love of reading and library membership for children from birth to five years of age with their parents and carers. It aims to strengthen links between libraries, communities and Council, with almost 20,000 participants since it commenced in 2016. The 2020 program of the Little Stars Reading Club ran from 19 October 2020 to 20 November 2020. The 2021 program will run between 1 May 2021 to 31 July 2021.
8. The Committee was shown testimonials and an image of the Pop-up Library at Rocks Riverside Park.
9. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the A/Manager for her informative presentation.
10. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
Deputy Chair: Now we move on to Finance.
Councillor ALLAN, please.
Councillor interjecting.
FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE
Councillor Adam ALLAN, Chair of the Finance, Administration and Small Business Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Steven HUANG, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 23 February 2021, be adopted.
Deputy Chair: Councillor ALLAN.
Councillor ALLAN: Thank you Mr Chair. In last week’s Committee meeting we had a report on Brisbane City SES Unit and I did touch upon this is Question Time last week, but I will quickly just highlight a couple of things that were outlined in that presentation.
In the context of SES functions it includes storm damage and temporary repairs. They also undertake land searches in conjunction with other agencies, they have flood boat operations. They provide support to other agencies like QPS (Queensland Police Service), QAS (Queensland Ambulance Service) and QFES (Queensland Fire and Emergency Service) and they also provide support in the context of incident management.
They have total membership of 807 members, of which 572 are active, 204 are probationary and 31 are reserve members. They have a waiting list of more than 700 parties who are interested in joining SES. So clearly a lot of support for them.
The presentation outlined the range of depots that they’ve got in the city, and they are well spread across the Brisbane local government area. The presentation highlighted the range of resources and equipment they’ve got available. Some of the other things that they highlighted were the changing dynamic of the SES membership. The training modules they go through and the amount of training that they go through before they are put in the field.
They highlighted some the interesting changes to construction methodologies that impacts the way they conduct their business. So as some people may be aware, SES go out to secure houses where the roofs have been blown off. Modern building has included things such as solar power and battery storage which makes their job of securing homes, and particularly damaged roofs, a little bit more challenging. So it’s interesting to see how technology is impacting the way they operate.
The SES is currently going through a review, that’s an external, independent review, which I recall was being undertaken by QFES, with a view to just ensuring that SES is structured most efficiently and we’re currently awaiting the response of that review. Last week the Council and the Brisbane City SES, and some other Council units, had a stall at the Brisbane Home Show at BCEC on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. I popped out to the show on Friday to meet the team out there from SES.
Look, they’re an enthusiastic mob, you know, they really enjoy what they’re doing. They enjoy the camaraderie of being together and focusing around a community outcome and the enthusiasm is palpable, so congratulations to all of them. Thank you.
Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Is the any further debate?
Councillor STRUNK.
Councillor STRUNK: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Deputy Chair. Listen I just want to put on the record of course from this side of the Chamber as I’m sure it’s right across the Chamber. A big thank you to the SES men and women right across Brisbane that do the work for us. Especially during storm season and other disaster times. It was encouraging to hear that there is actually more than 700 people actually signed up that want actually to join the SES, ready to join. Of course, the Chair said that there is over 800 that are currently undertaking that work for us as a community.
I suppose I’m benefiting a little bit in my ward too with an increase in the facility capacity at Richlands. I’m sure our local residents, of course, will be very grateful for that when, God forbid, a disaster rains down upon us. We’ll really appreciate that capacity to be able to respond as quickly as they will be able to with that increased vehicle and equipment space and equipment in that new equipment space.
So I just wanted to put it on the record to again thank the SES men and women for the work that they do within our community. I’ll leave my comments there. Thank you, Chair.
Deputy Chair: Thank you, Councillor.
Any other speakers?
Councillor MARX.
Councillor MARX: Yes, thank you Mr Acting Chair. I just wanted to mention that I forgot to say before, the other thing that I was at the Tzu-Chi Foundation. Gina, our Coordinator, Disaster Management, was also there and was awarded a certificate on behalf of Council from the Foundation for all the work that the SES workers do within Brisbane City Council.
Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Councillor—oh sorry, any further speakers?
Councillor ALLAN?
We’ll now put the motion.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the Finance, Administration and Small Business Committee was declared carried on the voices.
The report read as follows(
A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE CITY SES UNIT
547/2020-21
1. The Manager, Disaster Management, City Administration and Governance, attended the meeting to provide an update on the Brisbane City State Emergency Service (BCSES) unit. He provided the information below.
2. The Committee was provided an overview of the BCSES unit and current challenges including changing volunteer demographics, changing construction and the SES review.
3. Supported by a Memorandum of Understanding between Brisbane City Council and Queensland Fire and Emergency Services (QFES), the legislative basis for the BCSES unit is the Fire and Emergency Services Act 1990 (Qld), principally sections 129 to 160.
4. SES functions include:
- attending to storm damage and temporary repairs
- conducting land searches
- flood boat operations
- providing agency support to the Queensland Police Service, Queensland Ambulance Service and QFES
- incident management.
5. As at 4 February 2021, there were 807 volunteer SES members in Brisbane, aged between 16 and 80 years of age, including:
- 572 active members who regularly attend training and have basic skills
- 204 probationary members who regularly attend training and do not yet have basic skills
- 31 reserve members who do not attend training but have basic skills
More than 700 people are waiting to join.
6. BCSES unit depots are located in the following areas:
- Headquarters and Metro/Operations groups – 66 Wilston Road, Newmarket
- Northern group – 19 Hutchins Street, Kedron
- Southern group – 26 Lillian Avenue, Rocklea
- Eastern group – 481 Wynnum Road, Morningside
- Western group – 20 Josling Street, Toowong (Perrin Park)
- South-western group – 75 Orchard Street, Richlands
- Moggill group – 398 Hawkesbury road, Anstead
- North-eastern group – 280 Lancaster Road, Ascot
- Moreton Island group – Ridge Road South, Tangalooma
There are 13 training nights held across these 10 groups.
7. Principal BCSES equipment includes:
- 42 vehicles including medium-sized trucks, vans and utilities, such as Ford Ranger dual cabin utilities and Hyundai iLoad vans
- seven all-terrain vehicles (ATV) such as Kubota ATVs
- 11 flood boats such as Swifts.
8. The Committee was shown a map indicating the locations of the BCSES unit depots across Brisbane.
9. BCSES membership is dynamic due to changing volunteer demographics which affects the volunteering availability and retention of members. Volunteers are recruited and trained through a traditional model, and the BCSES unit is investigating different ways to do this and work with non-government organisations. The BCSES unit is also assessing the optimum ‘footprint’ for depot locations across Brisbane.
10. Another challenge is the changing development and construction landscape across the city, such as high-density living and large apartment buildings, solar-powered infrastructure on properties and battery-stored power.
11. An independent review of operations commenced in October 2018 to determine future management and funding. The review was submitted in March 2020 and Council is awaiting a response to the review from the Queensland Government.
12. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chair thanked the Manager, Disaster Management, for his informative presentation.
13. RECOMMENDATION:
THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED
CONSIDERATION OF NOTIFIED MOTION:
(Notified motions are printed as supplied and are not edited)
548/2020-21
The Deputy Chair of Council (Councillor Steven TOOMEY) then drew the Councillors’ attention to the notified motion listed on the agenda, and called on Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS to move the motion. Accordingly, Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS moved, seconded by Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON, that—
Given the Lord Mayor’s public and private support for the Inland Rail Project, including the Acacia Ridge to Brisbane Port road freight option, this Council immediately releases any expert reports and modelling undertaken by Brisbane City Council to understand the traffic and environmental impacts of thousands of trucks per day on Brisbane roads and dozens of trains per day passing through Brisbane’s southern suburbs.
If Brisbane City Council has not undertaken any reports or modelling on the impacts of the Inland Rail Project of Brisbane’s southern suburbs, that Council resolves to undertake independent traffic and environmental reports to fully understand the impacts and risks of the Inland Rail project rail and road options on Brisbane residents health, amenity and safety.
Deputy Chair: Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, thank you Mr Chair. This motion is all about transparency and it’s about— actually this is a major project for our city that is going to have major, major impacts, not just in my area but across the whole city well into the future. For those who don’t know a lot about this project, it is to date a $20-billion-plus project proposed by the Australian Government. It will link Melbourne and Brisbane via a 1,715 kilometre freight route between the two cities.
Interestingly enough, the Toowoomba to Acacia Ridge, or Toowoomba to Brisbane, section of the project will take—and this is according to research—50% of the budget. Even though it only covers 10% of the distance. So it is a massive investment that the Federal Government is making and it will have significant impacts on our city.
At that time, 5.47pm, the Chair, Councillor Andrew WINES, resumed the Chair.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: In particular for me it will have, as I can see as I’ve researched this, it will mean greater congestion, more population, more social impacts and I think there are severe or important questions regarding the economic case for this particular project. I do note that the LORD MAYOR and LNP are fully supportive of this project, but I think because they are fully supportive of this project, it doesn’t mean to say that we shouldn’t be looking out for the residents of Brisbane.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: That is my concern today, and certainly Councillor JOHNSTON’s concerns, in terms of what it means for the city. I do also note that I did ask for a presentation on this project in the Infrastructure Committee and was advised that because it was a Federal Government project there would be no presentation. We also—or Councillor JOHNSTON has done an FOI (Freedom of Information Application) regarding the Inland Rail project. What it has revealed is that Council, Brisbane City Council, is quietly beavering away assisting this project to proceed. So that raises alarm bells for me because we’re not actually—we don’t seem to want to shine a light on the issues related to this this particular project.
Can I also say at this time I am disappointed that given the LORD MAYOR’s lecture of us that he wanted more Notified Motions, that he’s not in the Chamber. Given the significance of this for the debate I would have thought that the LORD MAYOR would have been in the Chamber.
I think for me, and I’ll go through the issues that I see with this particular project, but the first one is that it—the first and probably the most logical one for everyone here is the project actually fails to connect the Port of Melbourne up with the Port of Brisbane.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: That means that we have this issue of the freight landing in Acacia Ridge, 36 kilometres from the port. So we’re spending all this money delivering freight to Brisbane, dropping it off at Acacia Ridge and generating a huge amount of traffic, and I’ll come to that later, that has to get to the port.
Now I was interested to read the Member for Bonner in The Sunday Mail on the weekend said that all Queensland LNP members would be supporting trains from Acacia Ridge to the Port of Brisbane. I was really amazed by that because I thought well that means everyone in this Chamber will be supporting that too. Once you start looking at that issue then you actually realise that we’re talking potentially another $3 billion tunnel from Acacia Ridge to the Port of Brisbane.
My understanding from investigating this and researching this is it will be partly above ground and significant—16 kilometres will be underground. With such a significant cost and also with the issue that the freight will be diesel, will be done by diesel trains, there are significant issues with pollution in a tunnel.
So my question to the LNP Councillors here today, is whose ward or whose suburbs are going to be the location of the numerous pollution stacks that will be supporting this tunnel?
There’s Sunnybank, Mount Gravatt—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: —Wishart, Holland Park, Carindale, Murarrie—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: —Carina, Belmont. They are all sites for potential pollution stacks as part of this tunnel. You’re all—and I would say, are all LNP members supportive of these pollution stacks going into your communities? There’s deafening silence. That is the first point and, obviously from my perspective, it’s the most illogical to spend so much on a project like this, $20 billion, and not to deliver it to the Port of Brisbane.
Then for the rail project, excuse me, which will potentially cost another $3 billion, we’re not hearing a lot of research around where those pollution stacks will go. What will it mean for the suburbs that it is travelling under or travelling through, which will be not my suburb but your suburbs.
The second point I’d like to make is this whole project will result in significant congestion for our city. It’s not just Acacia Ridge, it’s not just the south-west suburbs of Brisbane. There will be 40 trains a day and these trains will be 1.8 kilometres in length and double stacked with freight. So let me repeat that, 40 trains a day, 1.8 kilometres long and double stacked with freight. The majority of that freight will be coal.
They then have to travel 36 kilometres to the port. That means initially there will be 3,000 additional truck movements a day from Acacia Ridge to the port. Figures over the next 20 years say that that will rise to 11,000 truck movements per day. My issue for Council and for the Administration is where is our modelling on this? Where is our research on this? What are we taking to the residents of Brisbane? How are we looking after our communities? Once again the LNP are silent.
The third point I’d like to make is the issue of pollution, and this is where it affects all of us, because research by—my understanding is—by the company putting this together—indicates that pollution will be worse for our airshed. In particular, our particulates and photochemical smog will affect residents of Brisbane and greater Brisbane.
So we’re talking up to three million residents will be affected by this ongoing assault on the air that we breathe. Once again, what is the LNP’s position this? What research are we doing? What are we saying to the public about this particular impact on the residents of Brisbane?
The fourth point for me is quality of life and I suppose this does impact on my residents, the impact on people’s homes. There’s a nursing home right next door, in fact 50 metres from where all this unloading’s going to be done. There’s noise, dust and vibrations and these will be happening 24 hours a day, seven days a week, forever.
Where are we taking into account how this project is impacting on the residents of Brisbane? Our residents, the residents we represent. I also note that the Councillor for Calamvale Ward has just put out a survey asking people how this may impact them, because the trains are actually going to go through her communities. So it’s interesting that finally one Councillor seems to be taking some interest in this, but I’m not sure if that’s related to her ambitions Federally or not.
But I am concerned and I remain concerned about the impact on residents and particularly local residents of Acacia Ridge. Even though they aren’t the richest residents in the city, they are proud of their homes.
Chair: Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: —they have worked hard—
Chair: Councillor GRIFFITHS your time has expired.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Thank you.
549/2020-21
At that point, it was moved by Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON, seconded by Councillor Jared CASSIDY, that Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS be granted an extension of time. Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion was declared lost on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Nicole JOHNSTON and Jared CASSIDY immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared lost.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 5 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Jared CASSIDY, and Councillors Peter CUMMING, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK and Nicole JOHNSTON.
NOES: 17 - DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillors Adam ALLAN, Lisa ATWOOD, Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Tracy DAVIS, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Sarah HUTTON, Sandy LANDERS, James MACKAY, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Steven TOOMEY and Andrew WINES.
Chair: We will proceed to another speaker. Are there any further speakers? Are there any further speakers at all? Anybody?
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Goodness me. Thank you Mr Chairman. I rise to speak on the motion that I have seconded today and I just want to make some opening remarks. Firstly, that I think it is very disappointing that the LORD MAYOR could not be bothered to be here for the debate.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: The impact of this project and the adverse consequences for our city are significant. The fact that he made such a song and dance earlier today about the importance of notified motions and then chooses to be absent from the Chamber for such an important discussion, reflects poorly on his leadership on behalf of the city.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Secondly, the reason that this project is so complicated and difficult for Brisbane is because of the LORD MAYOR’s political interference in this matter. Now as the local Councillor for one of the areas impacted by this project, the LORD MAYOR has flip-flopped all over the shop on the status of Inland Rail and he has put politics—party politics before the interest of residents of the city when it comes to Inland Rail.
Now, we heard from Councillor GRIFFITHS about the background to the project. I am concerned particularly about the impacts of traffic. The project as it is currently proposed and is supported by the LORD MAYOR and all LNP Councillors—including Councillors whose wards will be directly affected by this project. Is that the Inland Rail line stops at Acacia Ridge at an intermodal point and 1,100 containers, off one 1.8-kilometre train, are put on to trucks. That’s done 87 times a day and those trucks then are dispersed to their destination.
Sometimes, that will be the Port of Brisbane, in many other occasions it will be road transport to their destination. As my ward adjoins Councillor GRIFFITHS ward and we already have a massive truck problem through Annerley, I am extremely concerned about the impacts of truck movements through the southern and eastern suburbs of Brisbane. It is ridiculous that this project is not considering a port to port solution. Which port, I think, is a very valid question and one still to be resolved.
But this LORD MAYOR is playing politics. We haven’t heard a single word, a single word publicly other than political gamesmanship from this LORD MAYOR about the project. We don’t know, we do not know what the air quality impacts of the truck movements—the exhaust—will be on our city and on our residences.
If there is a tunnel of some 17 to 38 kilometres from Acacia Ridge to the port. Are we going to have ventilation stacks every kilometre running through suburban eastern suburbs, spewing out diesel—toxic diesel emissions into the eastern suburbs of Brisbane?
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Dramatically impacting on the air quality of the eastern suburbs. Now, I hear Councillor MURPHY objecting. This is what his good mate Ross Vasta wants.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: This is what he wants. What is the impact on this city? Where is Brisbane’s assessment of the impacts—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: —of noise, of vibrations, of environmental emissions and on traffic for this city? What has this city done? The only thing this LORD MAYOR has done is latch himself on to the Federal Liberal Government and support this project in the style that Joh Bjelke-Peterson will be proud of—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: —all the way with Canberra. That’s what he wants to do. Now the big problem here is the LORD MAYOR has not put the interests of our city first. We know, we know that there will be between 3,000 and 11,000 additional truck movements per day, as a result of this project, on Brisbane roads if it proceeds as currently planned.
That is—it should concern every single Councillor in this city, but particularly Councillor MARX who’s also now gone MIA (missing in action), the LORD MAYOR who’s gone MIA.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Councillor OWEN who’s gone MIA. Councillor ATWOOD’s there and, I think, she’s probably got no idea about how it’s going to impact on her ward. Councillor MURPHY who’s squirming around in his chair because he does know. But he doesn’t have the guts to hop up and speak.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor ADAMS: Point of order, Mr Chair.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor ADAMS.
Councillor ADAMS: I think Councillor JOHNSTON is doing exactly what she is outraged when other people adversely reflect on Council. I ask her to turn and speak through the Chair as well.
Chair: Thank you, Councillor ADAMS.
Just make ruling on the matter, all Councillors will address their comments to and through the Chair.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes.
Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Absolutely, Mr Chairman, and you know my call to you is that I think Councillor MURPHY should be standing up and telling us his position on this.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: So, you know, what about the Planning Chairperson? Here we go, she just wants to run interference here. What about the Planning Chairperson? Is she going to make sure that there are environmental assessments done—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: —to make sure there are no adverse impacts on residents, on their health, on the health on the residents of Brisbane, on our environment, on our greenspaces? Is she going to do any kind of work that you do for an ordinary DA? No. At this point in time, the LNP Administration has simply jumped on board the Federal Government’s project for political purposes and has failed to undertake the ground truth, the testing, the modelling, the reports, the independent analysis that are absolutely critical to ensure that there are no adverse impacts from this project.
Now, worse than that, the LNP Councillors have in the last week or so jumped on board this idea that there’ll be a tunnel. They haven’t through that one through—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: —because every kilometre or so, there has to be a ventilation stack. These trains are huge diesel trains, 1.8 kilometres long. They spew out toxic emissions and that is going to pump out into the eastern suburbs of Brisbane and that is what this Administration is planning. Look at Councillor MURPHY, he thinks it’s funny, he thinks it’s funny. It’s going to go right through his ward.
Pop up, let’s be part of the debate, let’s remind everyone what this motion is doing. It is calling for transparency. It says that this Council should release any reports that it has now. So the residents of Brisbane can fully understand the impacts of this project on the health and wellbeing of our city and its residents.
If this Council has not done any of those reports, it should do them immediately. We cannot trust the Australian Rail Track Corporation to undertake this work. We must undertake independent, scientific reports to ensure that there are no adverse air quality impacts for Brisbane and there are no adverse traffic impacts for Brisbane.
The southern and eastern suburbs of Brisbane will be adversely impacted if this Council does not put its residents first. At this stage, the only thing this Council is doing is putting politics first. By supporting this project with open arms and without independent scrutiny. Now, no LNP Councillor has bothered to hop up and speak to this issue, none.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: I listened to Councillor GRIFFITHS earlier. Certainly, he’s asked for a briefing on this and Councillor McLACHLAN told him ‘yep, not our business’. This is the biggest infrastructure project that will impact on the State and what’s Brisbane’s position? It’s cutting a swathe through the southern suburbs, Calamvale Ward, Runcorn Ward, Doboy Ward, Sunnybank ward? What’s Councillor HUANG’s ward, sorry, yes, Councillor HUANG’s ward—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Doboy Ward. All of these wards, it’s going to go through them and where is the advocacy by the local Councillor to make sure that there are no adverse impacts for the residents of Brisbane? They’re silent. They are silent. The impacts of these trains on the freight line will be shocking for any residents, particularly in Logan and Brisbane. They live right on the rail line.
But the issue of how traffic gets to the port from the intermodal port at Acacia Ridge could have catastrophic impacts for traffic safety in the southern suburbs of Brisbane. As well as on the health and wellbeing of Brisbane residents. It is essential that this LNP Administration stops playing politics, undertakes the necessary independent assessment of the impacts of the Inland Rail project, comes clean about what it supports. Because one week it’s ‘oh no, we’re not going to have this, we’re going to have trucks’. The next week, ‘yes, we’ll go back to having a tunnel’.
Well I’d like to know which project you’re going to support. I’d like to know where you think the ventilation stacks are going to go.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: I’d like to know what environmental and air quality testing you’ve done to make sure that no one is going to be adversely impacted. These things need to be done and they are not being done because this LNP Council is more interested in sucking up to their Liberal mates in Canberra than putting the residents of Brisbane first.
Chair: Further speakers? Further speakers?
Oh, Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you very much Mr Chair. I rise to speak on this motion. The sky is falling yet again. This is another Councillor GRIFFITHS, Councillor JOHNSTON attempt to make Council responsible for matters that rest with other levels of government and built on the foundation of, yet again, a classic straw man.
You can see it in the first couple of lines. The motion claims that the LORD MAYOR publicly and privately—privately—publicly and privately—supports a road freight option for the Federal Government’s Inland Rail project, connecting Acacia Ridge to the Port of Brisbane. How the Councillors know that he’s saying that privately I’d be interested to know. But the LORD MAYOR’s only public position has been for—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor McLACHLAN: —the rail tunnel connection from Acacia Ridge.
Chair: No, Councillor JOHNSTON, please do not interject.
Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN: From Acacia Ridge, from the Inland Rail terminal to the Port of Brisbane. Now, this is a classic ALP strategy straight from the Graham ‘whatever it takes’ Richardson playbook. Keep saying something and, hopefully, it will stick, that’s what they’re trying to do here, saying the project—means trucks on the road. Well they’ve flipped a bit saying it’s not just trucks on the road, they’ve done a flip looking at the discussion that’s been held over the last couple of days. That’s fine, there has been a call for a tunnel option to make that vital connection from Acacia Ridge down to the Port of Brisbane.
But the motion also calls for the immediate release of BCC expert reports and modelling to understand the traffic and environmental impacts of truck movements on Brisbane roads from the Acacia Ridge terminal. Now, Councillor GRIFFITHS, speaking on behalf of Councillor JOHNSTON, in their close collaboration, says that Councillor JOHNSTON sought access through a Freedom of Information request to these claimed expert reports. I’m pretty sure they would have found that they don’t exist because there haven’t been expert reports undertaken.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor McLACHLAN: There are officers, yes, who are the point of contact for the project proponents.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor McLACHLAN: But through you, Mr—
Chair: Councillors, Councillors, please. No stop. Please allow the speaker to be heard in silence.
Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN: Through you Mr Chair, if the Councillors have undertaken the research that they said they’ve undertaken, I’m sure they would have got to the minutes of the Inland Rail ARTC, Kagaru to Acacia Ridge and Bromelton Community Consultative Committee report, dated 3 August 2020. Here are the minutes. Did you get to that Councillors in your research?
Chair: Councillor McLACHLAN, Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN: Through you, Mr Chair. At item 3, it records an update on actions by the project delivery authority the ARTC, the Australian Rail Track Corporation. It says I quote, ARTC—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
Councillor McLACHLAN: —to report back to members regarding progress—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order, please Councillor McLACHLAN, a point of order.
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Mr Chairman. I’ve been told by the CEO that that document is Commercial in Confidence—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: —and I am not allowed to release it in writing. I would love to be discussing all of this in great detail. But I have been told it is Commercial in Confidence and I am not allowed to release it.
Chair: Thank you, Councillor JOHNSTON, you’ve made your point.
Councillor McLACHLAN, is that document, can you just turn your microphone on. Could you please turn your microphone on.
Councillor McLACHLAN: The document I have says it’s uncontrolled when printed, but it isn’t stamped Commercial in Confidence.
Chair: It is not.
Councillor McLACHLAN: It is not apparently stamped Commercial in Confidence.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: All right, we will move forward with that then.
Councillor McLACHLAN: These appear to be the minutes of the committee, the consultative committee. Which I understand why you wouldn’t like to have this on the record because it makes responsible—clearly who’s responsible for dealing with this issue, which is the TMR, Transport and Main Roads.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor McLACHLAN: That’s exactly what it says.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor McLACHLAN: The Australian—
Chair: Now, Councillors.
Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN: The Australian and Queensland Government’s Port of Brisbane Strategic Rail Access Study—’to assess the future requirements of a dedicated freight rail link between the Inland Rail and the Port of Brisbane’. Says that ‘further planning will be built on the findings of the initial study and to provide more certainly about the future needs and timing for a dedicated rail freight line’. The Department of Transport and Main Roads is now managing the future planning.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor McLACHLAN: This goes back to, guess who? Minister Bailey so—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor McLACHLAN: —the TMR is the lead agent for the future planning of what might be done to get freight from the terminal to the Port of Brisbane. So, there we have it, this is the process that’s underway. What we’ve said is that we shouldn’t be jumping at speculative shadows based on hearsay, which is what we’ve heard so far today. There is little point to this motion other than in terms of transparency, the only transparency here is a transparent attempt to play politics on the issue.
As design for the Kagaru to Acacia Ridge and Bromelton freight connection progresses, Mr Chair, Council will certainly work cooperatively with the ARTC to understand what the implications might be for the project and what the implications will be for Brisbane residents. We’ll continue to look at what the options are, including tunnels options, that appears to be one of the preferences.
But Council will continue to have a role as we advocate for the best possible outcome for the Brisbane community. But one thing for sure, Mr Chair, we won’t be spending money needlessly replicating traffic and environmental modelling that is the domain, as we know, the domain of the TMR and the Federal Government through their joint committee on this. We certainly won’t be supporting the motion here today.
Chair: Further speakers? Further speakers?
Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: There you go, yes, there you go. Astounding, absolutely astounding, but it says a lot about the LNP and their lack of integrity. I find—first off I find the whole performance of the LORD MAYOR wanting today—more notified notions. ‘We want to hear, we want a debate, we want to be in here’. He’s absent, absent. No leadership, no integrity, nothing. In terms of the city, what’s he doing? He’s selling it out.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: There’s this big project—a massive project that is going to have massive impacts on our city. Not just my part of the city, the whole city. What’s this LNP crew doing? They’re sitting quiet, they’re letting it happen. Councillor OWEN’s not even in the Chamber and Councillor OWEN wants to run Federally—has a desire to run Federally, and she’s not even in the Chamber to voice her opinion.
I just, I’m dumbfounded by the level of just gameplaying that goes on here. Here’s an issue that we should be talking about, we should be dealing with, we should be getting into. Yet, there’s just silence on that side of the Chamber. Well, I think what we’re seeing here is a sell-out to the Federal LNP Government. I don’t think we’re seeing—and Councillor MURPHY keeps laughing and giggling. I’m sure not sure if he’s playing games over there. But I find it astounding for such a serious issue that someone can sit in the Chamber and laugh and giggle. I’ve found that before when we had the urgency motion.
What we are asking here is—we’re saying release the reports. This is going to have a massive impact on our city. If we haven’t done the reports, let’s do the reports, let’s do the environmental reports, let’s do the social reports, let’s do the transport reports. Let’s understand how this will impact our city. Let’s be fair dinkum with the residents of Brisbane. If we’re talking about a tunnel, let them know about the smokestacks. If you’re really convinced that’s what you want to do, go out there and talk about it.
But at the moment we’re just being met with silence. I have massive concerns about the impact of this project on our city. Not just now, but into the future. I also have significant concerns about the economic viability of this project. I think if—particularly when the majority of the freight carried is actually not going to be—it’s actually not going to be agriculture and fisheries—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: —and forestry. It’s actually going to be coal. It’s going to be veneered coal being delivered to our city and carried through the streets of our city.
Now, I want to see a project succeed, I think this has got huge potential for our country, but I think just to say well it needs to end up in Brisbane might not be the best option. Certainly, Gladstone is putting its hand up and saying, actually, we have a port, we have rail to a port. We’d like to take this project. Then why aren’t we looking at that as another option?
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Why aren’t we looking at that as a way of going forward? Why don’t we have some leadership from the Mayor of this city in relation to that? Logan City’s doing it. Logan City has a gutsy Mayor who’s speaking up. They have gutsy Councillors who are speaking up. Because they know how it’s going to impact their city. Brisbane, we’re sold out to the LNP down in Canberra. It’s a project that has real questions on it environmentally, socially and from a congestion point of view. That’s why I would encourage everyone to support this debate. Thank you.
Chair: We’ll now put the motion.
The Chair submitted the motion to the Chamber and it was declared lost on the voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Nicole JOHNSTON and Peter CUMMING immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared lost.
The voting was as follows:
AYES: 5 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Jared CASSIDY, and Councillors Peter CUMMING, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK and Nicole JOHNSTON.
NOES: 17 - DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Krista ADAMS, and Councillors Greg ADERMANN, Adam ALLAN, Lisa ATWOOD, Fiona CUNNINGHAM, Tracy DAVIS, Fiona HAMMOND, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Sarah HUTTON, Sandy LANDERS, James MACKAY, Peter MATIC, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Steven TOOMEY and Andrew WINES.
PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:
Chair: Councillors are there any petitions?
Reminding all Councillors that if you do have a petition, please leave it on your table after you’ve announced it. They will be collected at the conclusion of the meeting.
Councillor ALLAN.
Councillor ALLAN: Mr Chair, I have two petitions. One requesting Nudgee Beach remain as a dog off-leash area. The other requesting Nudgee Beach be left for shore birds to inhabit and not be used as a dog off-leash area.
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks Chair, I have a petition on behalf of Councillor COOK, requesting Council install a basketball half-court in Lavarack Park, Camp Hill.
Chair: Councillor CUNNINGHAM.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Yes, thanks Mr Chair, I have a petition requesting Council support off-road cycling facilities in Coorparoo Common and Whites Hill Reserve.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Councillor HAMMOND.
Councillor HAMMOND: Thank you Mr Chair, I have a petition, something unusual, requesting upzoning in an area of my ward.
Chair: Any further petitions? May I please have a resolution to receive them?
550/2020-21
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Sandy LANDERS, 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 |Topic |
|CA21/219274 |Adam Allan |Requesting Council support Nudgee Beach remaining as a dog off-leash area. |
|CA21/219145 |Adam Allan |Requesting Council support Nudgee Beach being left for shorebirds to inhabit |
| | |and not be used as a dog off-leash area. |
|CA21/218966 |Jared Cassidy on behalf of Kara|Requesting Council install a basketball half court in Lavarack Park, Camp Hill.|
| |Cook | |
|CA21/218822 |Fiona Cunningham |Requesting Council support off-road cycling facilities in Coorparoo Common and |
| | |Whites Hill Reserve. |
|CA21/218724 |Fiona Hammond |Requesting Council rezone a block of units located in Lutwyche. |
GENERAL BUSINESS:
Chair: Councillors are reminded before we move to General Business that if you have not signed the book, it is here in front of me. Please sign the attendance register before you leave.
Councillors, General Business.
Are there any statements required as a result of an Office of the Independent Assessor or Councillor Ethics Committee order?
Councillor HAMMOND: No.
Chair: There being none, are there any other matters of General Business?
Councillor HAMMOND.
Councillor HAMMOND: Thank you Mr Chair, I think I was too quick to my feet. I definitely don’t have anything to apologise for. I want to rise and speak about a few issues that have—or events that have been happening in the Marchant Ward over the last week. First of all, I would like to say a very big congratulations to Gaylene and Peter for their 50th wedding anniversary that they celebrated in the ward on Saturday.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor HAMMOND: I was greatly honoured to be invited to the morning tea, which I certainly did drop in and give my congratulations to Gaylene and Peter. Something that I will never get to, my first marriage was 11 years and I think I’ll be too old for my second marriage—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor HAMMOND: —to reach the 50 years. So, I do—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor HAMMOND: —I do take my hat off to people who have that much love—commitment to each other to last the distance of 50 years.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor HAMMOND: Another thing I’d like to speak about is the Movies in the Park. Marchant Ward had a Movie in the Park last weekend at Burnie Brae Park, a new area of Marchant Ward that I have picked up. The name of the title—I think you’ll get a gist of what’s happening in my ward at the moment—thank you Anthony in my ward—was Dog’s Way Home. It was a huge success, it was the first Movie in the Park back in Marchant Ward for over a year and it was great to see the community embrace the event.
If you bought your pooch, because the pooches were very much encouraged to come and watch the Dog’s Long Way Home, you did get a goodie bag. There were so many people there that I did run out, but I do have extras in the ward office if people want to come up and grab another goodie bag for their dog.
Inner North Lions, thank you so much for giving up your time and doing the sausage sizzle. They sold out before the movie started, that’s how successful the Movies in the Park were on Saturday. There was a sprinkle of rain, but that was a little bit refreshing, we all enjoyed that.
Next weekend, again, thank you Anthony in my office—next weekend is The Queen’s Corgi. So, there’s definitely a dog theme happening in Marchant Ward with their Movies in the Park. You will get a prize because we’re asking people to come on down, dress up as your favourite royal. The person who dresses up as their favourite royal will raise a prize. I will say I will not be dressing up as Meghan Markle.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor HAMMOND: I’ll leave that to somebody else—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor HAMMOND: —who may support her.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor HAMMOND: So we take—we again encourage people to come down, enjoy the Movies in the Park. They’re a fantastic way of meeting your neighbours, getting the community together and just seeing the community spirit. Burul Scouts, I know you’ll do the Marchant community proud with your efforts of doing the sausage sizzle on the weekend and also hamburgers.
So, any residents, if you want to come down to the best ward in Brisbane. Please come on over to Huxtable Park. Bring a blanket and enjoy the evening. Thank you.
Chair: Further speakers? Any further speakers at all?
I declare the meeting closed. Goodnight everybody.
QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:
(Questions of which due notice has been given are printed as supplied and are not edited)
Submitted by Councillor Nicole Johnston (received on 19 February 2021)
Q1. What is the total amount of the Lord Mayor’s COVID-19 Direct Assistance Programme funding approved to date?
Q2. What is the total amount of the Lord Mayor’s COVID-19 Direct Assistance Programme funding pending approval?
Q3. How much of the $3m allocated in the Budget for the Lord Mayor’s COVID-19 Direct Assistance Programme remains available?
Q4. When is the Lord Mayor’s COVID-19 Direct Assistance Programme closing?
Q5. Please provide a list by name and grant amount of all groups who have received the Lord Mayor’s COVID-19 Direct Assistance Programme funding to date?
Q6. Please provide a list of community groups eligible for the of the Lord Mayor’s COVID-19 Direct Assistance Programme that have not applied for funding?
Q7. Have any community groups been refused funding for the Lord Mayor’s COVID-19 Direct Assistance Programme? If yes, please provide a list and reason for refusal.
Q8. Will the Lord Mayor make any left over funding available to not-for-profit community groups who are not on Council leased land but provide valuable support and services to their local communities in Brisbane and have missed out because they are on Church land, own their own property or State land?
Submitted by Councillor Steve Griffiths (received on 25 February 2021)
Q1. Please provide the rates revenue by suburb in the 2019-20 financial year.
|SUBURB |2019-2020 REVENUE FROM RATES |
| | |
Q2. Please provide a list of complaints made under Council’s AP186 Administrative Action Complaints Procedure as an Administrative Action Complaint (AAC) in 2020 and 2021 (to date) with the details of the subject of the complaint, the party which submitted the complaint and the date the complaint was lodged.
|SUBJECT OF COMPLAINT |PARTY |DATE LODGED |
| | | |
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:
(Answers to questions of which due notice has been given are printed as supplied and are not edited)
Submitted by Councillor Nicole Johnston (from meeting on 23 February 2021)
Q1. On what date was the damaged footpath on the Oxley Rd frontage of 4-8 Skew St, Sherwood logged for repair?
A1. The request came from a customer on 22 October 2018.
Q2. On what date was the damaged footpath made safe with temporary repairs on the Oxley Rd frontage of 4-8 Skew St, Sherwood?
A2. The site was inspected on 23 October 2018 and make safe works were completed on 24 October 2018, using an asphalt fillet.
Q3. On what date was the damaged footpath on the Oxley Rd frontage of 4-8 Skew St, Sherwood properly repaired?
A3. 27 June 2019.
Q4. On what date will the damaged footpath on the Oxley Rd frontage of 4-8 Skew St Sherwood be properly repaired? How much longer do residents have to wait on essential footpath repairs leading to Sherwood State School, Sherwood Rail Station and the Sherwood Shops to be undertaken?
A4. Council received further advice on the 7 June 2020 indicting that new damage had occurred at this location. A new asphalt fillet was placed on 8 June 2020 as a make safe intervention on top of previously repaired section. This is a low priority repair, with the fillet due for replacement in the coming months.
Q5. At Council on 16 February, the Lord Mayor publicly stated that $71m is being invested in parkland capital works this year. Please provide a breakdown of total funding by ward for this expenditure?
A5. The $71 million quoted as being invested in parkland capital works this year relates to the Capital budget in Outcome 3.3. Approximately $23m of which is included in the schedules of the 2020-21 Council Annual Plan and Budget. This information is listed by suburb, not by ward.
The remaining budget is allocated under Service 3.3 and includes projects across the City, and has the following breakdown:
- Delivering Iconic Parks for Brisbane – various suburbs - $13.89 million
- Delivering New Parks for Brisbane – various suburbs - $11.88 million
- Delivering Sports Parks for Brisbane – various suburbs - $18.92 million
- Mt Coot-tha Botanic Gardens Refurbish Assets and Enhancements - $4.99 million
- Towards 2025: Sherwood Arboretum Anniversary - $216,000.
Submitted by Councillor Steve Griffiths (from meeting on 23 February 2021)
Q1. Please provide traffic volumes (average vehicles per day) on Kingsford Smith Drive for the following years: -
|YEAR |AVERAGE VEHICLES PER DAY |
|2021 | |
|2020 | |
|2019 | |
|2018 | |
|2017 | |
|2016 | |
|2015 | |
|2014 | |
|2013 | |
|2012 | |
|2011 | |
|2010 | |
A1-6. Please note for the following tables:
- only weekday traffic volume and peak hour speed are considered
- 2010 and 2011 peak hour speeds are not available
- traffic volumes data for Kingsford Smith Drive (KSD) and Wynnum Road are for both directions
- travel time (speed) data are for inbound directions only for KSD and Wynnum Road.
A1.
|YEAR |AVERAGE VEHICLES PER DAY (BOTH DIRECTIONS) |
|2021 |61,653 |
|2020 |52,887 |
|2019 |57,727 |
|2018 |56,917 |
|2017 |59,194 |
|2016 |62,969 |
|2015 |62,433 |
|2014 |60,602 |
|2013 |53,092 |
|2012 |55,473 |
|2011 |58,220 |
|2010 |57,861 |
Q2. Please provide average traffic speeds during weekday AM and PM peaks on Kingsford Smith Drive for the following years: -
|YEAR |WEEKDAY AM PEAK |WEEKDAY PM PEAK |
|2021 | | |
|2020 | | |
|2019 | | |
|2018 | | |
|2017 | | |
|2016 | | |
|2015 | | |
|2014 | | |
|2013 | | |
|2012 | | |
|2011 | | |
|2010 | | |
A2. It is assumed that this question relates to the recently upgraded section of Kingsford Smith Drive which was completed in 2020.
Data on average speeds is not available during the construction period.
|YEAR |WEEKDAY AM PEAK SPEED (KM/H) |WEEKDAY PM PEAK SPEED (KM/H) |
|2021 |- |- |
|2020 |- |- |
|2019 |- |- |
|2018 |- |- |
|2017 |- |- |
|2016 |- |- |
|2015 |29.0 |37.4 |
|2014 |31.9 |38.4 |
|2013 |35.1 |40.1 |
|2012 |29.0 |42.7 |
|2011 |NA |NA |
|2010 |NA |NA |
Q3. Please provide traffic volumes (average vehicles per day) on Wynnum Road for the following years: -
|YEAR |AVERAGE VEHICLES PER DAY |
|2021 | |
|2020 | |
|2019 | |
|2018 | |
|2017 | |
|2016 | |
|2015 | |
|2014 | |
|2013 | |
|2012 | |
|2011 | |
|2010 | |
A3.
|YEAR |AVERAGE VEHICLES PER DAY (BOTH DIRECTIONS) |
|2021 |35,667 |
|2020 |33,490 |
|2019 |35,744 |
|2018 |38,273 |
|2017 |39,050 |
|2016 |39,024 |
|2015 |39,009 |
|2014 |38,581 |
|2013 |38,252 |
|2012 |38,136 |
|2011 |38,041 |
|2010 |37,215 |
Q4. Please provide average traffic speeds during weekday AM and PM peaks on Wynnum Road for the following years: -
|YEAR |WEEKDAY AM PEAK |WEEKDAY PM PEAK |
|2021 | | |
|2020 | | |
|2019 | | |
|2018 | | |
|2017 | | |
|2016 | | |
|2015 | | |
|2014 | | |
|2013 | | |
|2012 | | |
|2011 | | |
|2010 | | |
A4. It is assumed that this question relates to the recently upgraded section of Wynnum Road which was completed in 2020.
Data on average speeds is not available during the construction period.
|YEAR |WEEKDAY AM PEAK SPEED (KM/H) |WEEKDAY PM PEAK |
| | |SPEED (KM/H) |
|2021 |- |- |
|2020 |- |- |
|2019 |- |- |
|2018 |- |- |
|2017 |25.2 |30.2 |
|2016 |25.8 |32.3 |
|2015 |26.3 |33.8 |
|2014 |27.2 |33.1 |
|2013 |32.7 |36.7 |
|2012 |30.3 |36.5 |
|2011 |NA |NA |
|2010 |NA |NA |
Q5. Please provide traffic volumes (average vehicles per day) on the Inner City Bypass (East Bound and West Bound) for the following years: -
|YEAR |AVERAGE VEHICLES PER DAY EAST BOUND |AVERAGE VEHICLES PER DAY |
| | |WEST BOUND |
|2021 | | |
|2020 | | |
|2019 | | |
|2018 | | |
|2017 | | |
|2016 | | |
|2015 | | |
|2014 | | |
|2013 | | |
|2012 | | |
|2011 | | |
|2010 | | |
A5.
|YEAR |AVERAGE VEHICLES PER DAY EAST BOUND |AVERAGE VEHICLES PER DAY |
| | |WEST BOUND |
|2021 |55,641 |46,454 |
|2020 |53,679 |47,601 |
|2019 |61,234 |53,457 |
|2018 |58,248 |51,437 |
|2017 |55,453 |49,507 |
|2016 |55,131 |49,252 |
|2015 |49,588 |46,400 |
|2014 |44,492 |42,596 |
|2013 |39,964 |40,039 |
|2012 |37,889 |37,755 |
|2011 |35,260 |34,497 |
|2010 |34,413 |33,271 |
Q6. Please provide average traffic speeds during weekday AM and PM peaks on the Inner City Bypass (East Bound and West Bound) for the following years: -
|YEAR |EAST BOUND |WEST BOUND |
| |WEEKDAY AM PEAK |WEEKDAY PM PEAK |WEEKDAY AM PEAK |WEEKDAY PM PEAK |
|2021 | | | | |
|2020 | | | | |
|2019 | | | | |
|2018 | | | | |
|2017 | | | | |
|2016 | | | | |
|2015 | | | | |
|2014 | | | | |
|2013 | | | | |
|2012 | | | | |
|2011 | | | | |
|2010 | | | | |
A6. Data on average speeds is not available during the construction period.
|YEAR |EAST BOUND |WEST BOUND |
| |WEEKDAY AM PEAK |WEEKDAY PM PEAK |WEEKDAY AM PEAK |WEEKDAY PM PEAK |
|2021 |56.6 |54.6 |53.3 |58.2 |
|2020 |54.5 |54.3 |48.5 |58.5 |
|2019 |40.9 |51.2 |43.3 |57.4 |
|2018 |- |- |- |- |
|2017 |- |- |- |- |
|2016 |57.7 |57.6 |47.8 |60.2 |
|2015 |60.7 |61.4 |47.9 |58.2 |
|2014 |63.1 |62.8 |43.4 |58.0 |
|2013 |63.7 |62.9 |48.8 |59.3 |
|2012 |62.4 |62.9 |51.9 |55.5 |
|2011 |58.4 |55.8 |47.1 |56.5 |
|2010 |NA |NA |NA |NA |
Q7. How many Council officers were employed to investigate dog attacks for each of the following years: -
|YEAR |NUMBER OF COUNCIL OFFICERS |
|2020 | |
|2019 | |
|2018 | |
|2017 | |
|2016 | |
|2015 | |
A7.
|YEAR |NUMBER OF COUNCIL OFFICERS |
|2020 |8 |
|2019 |8 |
|2018 |8 |
|2017 |7 |
|2016 |7 |
|2015 |7 |
Q8. How many dog attacks occurred in each of the following years:
|YEAR |NUMBER OF DOG ATTACKS |
|2020 | |
|2019 | |
|2018 | |
|2017 | |
|2016 | |
|2015 | |
A8.
|YEAR |NUMBER OF DOG ATTACKS |
|2020 |1,636 |
|2019 |1,751 |
|2018 |1,638 |
|2017 |1,648 |
|2016 |1,567 |
|2015 |1,584 |
Q9. Please provide the total number of Brisbane City Council managed roads broken down by the following road hierarchy classifications:
|CLASS |NUMBER |
|Arterial Routes | |
|District Routes | |
|Neighbourhood Roads | |
|Suburban Road | |
|TOTAL NUMBER | |
A9.
|CLASS |NUMBER |
|Arterial Routes |292 |
|District Routes |360 |
|Neighbourhood Roads |10,767 |
|Suburban Road |4,112 |
Q10. Please provide the total number of contract staff and total FTEs working at Council’s resource recovery centres: -
|CENTRE |TOTAL NUMBER |TOTAL FTE |
|Nudgee | | |
|Willawong | | |
|Ferny Grove | | |
|Chandler | | |
A10. 0. Staff working at these sites are not employed by Council.
Q11. Please provide the total number of contract staff and total FTEs driving the fleet of rubbish trucks: -
|CONTRACT STAFF |TOTAL NUMBER |TOTAL FTE |
|Truck drivers | | |
A11. 0. Staff driving this fleet are not employed by Council.
Q12. Please provide the total revenue received from rates for each of the following financial years:
|FINANCIAL YEAR |TOTAL RATES REVENUE |
|2004/05 | |
|2005/06 | |
|2006/07 | |
|2007/08 | |
|2008/09 | |
|2009/10 | |
|2011/12 | |
|2012/13 | |
|2013/14 | |
|2014/15 | |
|2015/16 | |
|2016/17 | |
|2017/18 | |
|2018/19 | |
|2019/20 | |
A12.
|FINANCIAL YEAR |TOTAL RATES REVENUE |
|2004/05 |426,538 |
|2005/06 |455,174 |
|2006/07 |482,566 |
|2007/08 |512,637 |
|2008/09 |569,205 |
|2009/10 |588,299 |
|2010/11 |631,422 |
|2011/12 |641,154 |
|2012/13 |673,837 |
|2013/14 |705,253 |
|2014/15 |736,182 |
|2015/16 |758,645 |
|2016/17 |816,783 |
|2017/18 |851,191 |
|2018/19 |891,906 |
|2019/20 |916,954 |
Q13. Please provide the total revenue received from Waste Utility Charges for each of the following financial years:
|FINANCIAL YEAR |TOTAL RATES REVENUE |
|2004/05 | |
|2005/06 | |
|2006/07 | |
|2007/08 | |
|2008/09 | |
|2009/10 | |
|2011/12 | |
|2012/13 | |
|2013/14 | |
|2014/15 | |
|2015/16 | |
|2016/17 | |
|2017/18 | |
|2018/19 | |
|2019/20 | |
A13.
|FINANCIAL YEAR |TOTAL WASTE UTILITY CHARGES REVENUE (SEWAGE AND WASTE DISPOSAL PRIOR TO |
| |FORMATION FOR QUU) (‘000) |
|2004/05 |282,792 |
|2005/06 |301,079 |
|2006/07 |308,939 |
|2007/08 |322,375 |
|2008/09 |342,571 |
|2009/10 |368,168 |
|2010/11 |116,209 |
|2011/12 |119,388 |
|2012/13 |127,466 |
|2013/14 |134,997 |
|2014/15 |143,662 |
|2015/16 |149,912 |
|2016/17 |163,116 |
|2017/18 |171,650 |
|2018/19 |184,700 |
|2019/20 |195,022 |
Q14. Please provide the total revenue received from the Environmental Management and Compliance Levy for each of the following financial years:
|FINANCIAL YEAR |TOTAL RATES REVENUE |
|2004/05 | |
|2005/06 | |
|2006/07 | |
|2007/08 | |
|2008/09 | |
|2009/10 | |
|2011/12 | |
|2012/13 | |
|2013/14 | |
|2014/15 | |
|2015/16 | |
|2016/17 | |
|2017/18 | |
|2018/19 | |
|2019/20 | |
A14.
|FINANCIAL YEAR |TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND COMPLIANCE LEVY REVENUE (‘000) |
|2004/05 |22,222 |
|2005/06 |23,208 |
|2006/07 |25,128 |
|2007/08 |26,543 |
|2008/09 |29,017 |
|2009/10 |29,669 |
|2010/11 |31,733 |
|2011/12 |32,017 |
|2012/13 |33,581 |
|2013/14 |35,780 |
|2014/15 |37,102 |
|2015/16 |38,169 |
|2016/17 |41,428 |
|2017/18 |42,978 |
|2018/19 |44,908 |
|2019/20 |45,873 |
Q15. Please provide the total revenue received from Bushland Preservation Levy for each of the following financial years:
|FINANCIAL YEAR |TOTAL RATES REVENUE |
|2004/05 | |
|2005/06 | |
|2006/07 | |
|2007/08 | |
|2008/09 | |
|2009/10 | |
|2011/12 | |
|2012/13 | |
|2013/14 | |
|2014/15 | |
|2015/16 | |
|2016/17 | |
|2017/18 | |
|2018/19 | |
|2019/20 | |
A15.
|FINANCIAL YEAR |TOTAL BUSHLAND PRESERVATION LEVY REVENUE (‘000) |
|2004/05 |12,059 |
|2005/06 |12,671 |
|2006/07 |13,210 |
|2007/08 |13,734 |
|2008/09 |18,865 |
|2009/10 |19,985 |
|2010/11 |21,326 |
|2011/12 |21,986 |
|2012/13 |23,242 |
|2013/14 |24,391 |
|2014/15 |25,781 |
|2015/16 |26,923 |
|2016/17 |28,905 |
|2017/18 |30,032 |
|2018/19 |31,454 |
|2019/20 |32,305 |
Q16. Please provide the average annual rates bill and average percentage rates increase for Category 1 – Residential Owner Occupied properties for each of the following financial years:
|FINANCIAL YEAR |AVERAGE ANNUAL RATES BILL |AVERAGE ANNUAL INCREASE (%) |
|2004/05 | | |
|2005/06 | | |
|2006/07 | | |
|2007/08 | | |
|2008/09 | | |
|2009/10 | | |
|2011/12 | | |
|2012/13 | | |
|2013/14 | | |
|2014/15 | | |
|2015/16 | | |
|2016/17 | | |
|2017/18 | | |
|2018/19 | | |
|2019/20 | | |
A16. Please note the following in relation of the below table:
- the table below details total rates for Category 1, inclusive of water and sewerage which is noted by an *. From 2009/10, water and sewerage charges were removed from rates following the State Government creating the distributor-retailer Queensland Urban Utilities
- the reduction in 2005/06 is due a reduction in water consumption and associated water costs following the introduction of water meters
- in 2008/09 total rates was adversely impact by a State requirement to increase water rates by 30 cents a kilolitre
- the Average Annual Rates Bill from 1992 to 2003 is not available, however the percentages are included.
|FINANCIAL YEAR |AVERAGE ANNUAL RATES BILL |AVERAGE ANNUAL INCREASE (%) |
|1992/93 |- |4.5% |
|1993/94 |- |2.6% |
|1994/95 |- |6.4% |
|1995/96 |- |3.93% |
|1996/97 |- |3.34% |
|1997/98 |- |6.22% |
|1998/99 |- |6.55% |
|1999/20 |- |3.87% |
|2000/01 |- |6.21% |
|2001/02 |- |2.83% |
|2002/03 |- |2.89% |
|2003/04 |- |2.25% |
|2004/05 |$1,663.92* |2.3% |
|2005/06 |$1,659.26* |-0.3% |
|2006/07 |$1,686.47* |1.6% |
|2007/08 |$1,732.68* |2.7% |
|2008/09 |$1,833.18* |5.8% |
|2009/10 |$1,916.59* |4.6% |
|2010/11 |$1,343.82 |5.0% |
|2011/12 |$1,375.02 |1.8% |
|2012/13 |$1,436.85 |4.5% |
|2013/14 |$1,478.13 |3.8% |
|2014/15 |$1,529.93 |3.9% |
|2015/16 |$1,564.00 |2.5% |
|2016/17 |$1,631.28 |4.7% |
|2017/18 |$1,669.30 |2.4% |
|2018/19 |$1,709.61 |2.5% |
|2019/20 |$1,750.00 |2.5% |
RISING OF COUNCIL: 6:27pm.
PRESENTED: and CONFIRMED
CHAIR
Council officers in attendance:
Victor Tan (Council and Committee Coordinator)
Katie Loader (A/Council and Committee Officer)
-----------------------
Dedicated to a better Brisbane
[pic]
Dedicated to a better Brisbane
[pic]
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- table of common cardiac medications
- mbti table of personality types
- time table of examination 2019
- complete table of values calculator
- table of values equation calculator
- table of values generator
- graph table of values calculator
- linear equation table of values
- table of standard scores and percentiles
- table of derivatives pdf
- table of integrals exponential functions
- table of exponential integrals