Chair: Councillors, welcome. Could you please
stand.
Almighty God, we the representatives of the
citizens of the City of Brisbane are assembled
here to strive and care for the welfare of
our city and all its people. Lord, we ask
that you guide us in the decisions we make
today. Amen.
We acknowledge the traditional custodians
of the land on which we meet and pay our respects
to elders past and present. Please be seated.
I declare the meeting open and I remind all
Councillors of your obligations to declare
material personal and conflicts of interest
where relevant, and the requirement of such
to remove yourself from the Council Chamber
for debate and voting where applicable.
Councillors, are there any apologies?
Councillor CASSIDY: Yes, Chair.
Councillor CASSIDY: Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: I just wish to advise
that Councillor COOK will not be joining the
meeting today, and move that she be granted
a leave of absence.
Councillor STRUNK: Second.
Chair: Is that Councillor STRUNK?
Councillor STRUNK: Yes, I second.
Chair: Is that all?
I have an apology for Councillor COOK. It’s
been moved by Councillor CASSIDY, seconded
by Councillor STRUNK that Councillor COOK
be granted a leave of absence from today’s
meeting.
All those in favour say aye and raise your
hands.
Councillors say aye.
Chair: Thank you. The noes, please raise your
hands. The ayes have it.
Councillors, you may recall some weeks ago
we had an unwell public participant. The good
news is Mr Poxon has recovered and he will
be providing his presentation to us today.
Mr Poxon, please enter the room, or please
have him admitted to
the room.
Actually, excuse me, Councillors; I have made
a minor error. Could I please have the Confirmation
of Minutes?
Councillor LANDERS: Mr Chair, I move: that
the Minutes of the 4,619th meeting held on
Tuesday 2 June 2020 be received, taken as
read and confirmed.
Councillor HUTTON: I second that.
Chair: Thank you. It has been moved by Councillor
LANDERS, seconded by Councillor HUTTON, that
the Minutes of the 4,619th meeting of Council
held on 2 June 2020 be received, taken as
read and confirmed.
All those in favour say aye and raise your
hands, please.
Councillors say aye.
Chair: Thank you. Those against, no, and raise
your hands. Thank you; the ayes have it.
Welcome, Mr Poxon; you are here to address
us about an advocacy to increase the JobSeeker
payment. Please proceed, Mr Poxon, you have
five minutes.
Mr Jeremy Poxon: Thank you, Mr Chair, LORD
MAYOR and fellow Councillors for your time.
My name is Jeremy Poxon. I’m a representative
with the Australian Unemployed Workers Union,
which is a national organisation with branches
throughout the country, including here in
Brisbane, made up of Social Security recipients,
made up of people on the JobSeeker payment,
essentially campaigning and advocating for
better conditions for all unemployed workers.
I’m also a local resident; I live in Norman
Park. I’m currently on the JobSeeker entitlement,
and I’m one of many thousands, tens of thousands
of Brisbane residents extremely worried about
what’s going to happen to us and to our
town and to our economy when the Federal Government
decides to remove the current temporary COVID
supplement from the JobSeeker payment on 24
September.
As part of the Raise the Rate campaign, the
AUWU, alongside ACOSS, alongside the Anti-Poverty
Network, as you may have heard, have been
lobbying local councils across this country
to start advocating for a permanent raise
to what used to be called Newstart but is
now called the JobSeeker payment. This campaign
has been an incredible success to date. We’ve
gotten 47 local councils across the country
to pass motions, to start publicly advocating
for a permanent and much-needed raise to the
JobSeeker entitlement.
You might remember advocates from the Anti-Poverty
Network in 2018 successfully got the local
Logon City Council to start publicly advocating
for a permanent raise to Newstart to the Henderson
Poverty Line. This is something I’m calling
on Brisbane City Council to do today, as soon
as possible, to put up a motion to start publicly
advocating for all the residents here who
are subsisting on the JobSeeker payment, who
are terrified about what’s going to happen
if and when the Federal Government dump us
all back on $40 a day, because we know what’s
going to happen when the government chooses
to do that.
I won’t bore you with all the stats and
the details, but we know just how criminally
low the old rate of Newstart was, the rate
that the government wants to put us back on
in a few short months. According to the data
from ACOSS, we know that 84% of us on the
JobSeeker payment were regularly skipping
meals in order to survive. We know that 66%
of JobSeeker payment recipients couldn’t
afford to put heating on in winter. We know
that more than half of JobSeeker payment recipients
only had $100 to spend after their housing
costs.
We know that Brisbane particularly is a hard
city for people like myself, for people on
the JobSeeker payment, to live. According
to the most recent Anglicare snapshot for
rental affordability, they basically found
zero—I repeat—zero affordable rental properties
for a single person like myself on Newstart.
So, I’m really appreciative that the government
has temporarily doubled the dole, and we think
that’s shown how easy it is for them to
continue this permanently.
That’s something else I’m calling on Council
to think about and do whatever they can to
support, because I really want to bring your
attention that we’re in for a real cataclysm
and real poverty crisis once the government
strips this supplement away on 24 September.
There are estimates that there are going to
be 1.7 million people in this country still
on the JobSeeker payment, still unemployed,
at that point, so we’re looking on 24 September
as the single biggest dumping of Australians
in poverty in our history. We’re looking
on 24 September of the biggest dumping of
Brisbane residents in poverty in our city’s
history. We’re talking about tens of thousands
of people needlessly dumped into poverty on
that date.
This is why local council, businesses, all
of us advocates, need to come together and
do everything we can to stop this from happening.
This is a big crisis; this is a big moment
for us to do whatever we can to protect the
health and wellbeing of Brisbane residents,
and do everything within our power to stop
this from happening.
I will mention that I’ve previously approached
the LORD MAYOR on this issue. He was supportive,
but ultimately, he told me that the level
of Newstart is outside of Council’s jurisdiction
and directed me onto the Federal Minister,
Anne Ruston. I sort of want to put a pin in
that idea and make the case really clear that
this is an issue for local council. I’m
hoping that, given we are in the worst unemployment
crisis we’ve seen in 90 years, that local
council will take a more hands-on approach
with this issue.
Job seekers are really scared about what’s
going to happen to them after 24 September.
They’re contacting the union extremely worried.
They’re already planning to skip meals and
try and save as much of the supplement as
they can going forward.
Chair: Mr Poxon, your time has expired.
Mr Jeremy Poxon: It’s really time for folk—
Chair: Mr Poxon, your time has expired.
Mr Jeremy Poxon: Many thanks for your time.
Chair: There is a response I believe coming
from Councillor ALLAN.
Councillor ALLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair, and
thank you to Mr Poxon for coming in and presenting
to Council today. Certainly, this is a topic
that you feel strongly about, and in the current
environment, certainly a greater number of
people are either going to be unemployed or
may experience unemployment, and we’re conscious
of the increasing level of unemployment in
Brisbane, as it is right across the country,
so it is not something that we are unsympathetic
to, and we do really appreciate that the pressure
is out there.
You made a point in your comments there that
Council needed to take a hands-on approach,
and that’s certainly something that we have
done. In recent months, we’ve responded
to the financial pain that the residential
and commercial community in Brisbane is feeling,
and have taken certain initiatives to minimise
the pressure on them. We will continue to
take on a role of providing targeted support
for the community in Brisbane.
I note the points you raise that clearly the
JobSeeker fortnightly payment is pitched at
around $1,115, and obviously that includes
a component for the coronavirus supplement
which, as you’ve indicated, will at this
point be removed on 24 September. I’d further
note, I guess, that the provision of childcare
support, income support, Medicare, et cetera,
is wholly within the remit of the Federal
Government through Services Australia. As
the responsibility of the Federal Government
is in this domain, my recommendation will
continue to be that you pursue your objectives
through the Federal Government and through
your local federal member of Parliament.
From a Council perspective, we are very focused
on people retaining employment and creating
an environment where people can seek and secure
employment. This is a role that is sort of
relevant to Council, both as an organisation,
so we’re keen to ensure that our staff retain
employment, that we deal with our stakeholders,
staff and registered unions, and the wider
community to support employment outcomes in
Brisbane.
So, the opportunity to create an environment
where people can secure and retain employment
is seen by us as our key priority. We will
continue to pursue initiatives that will support
the job market in Brisbane. Accordingly, our
engagement and advocacy with the Federal Government
will focus on job creation and encouraging
the Federal Government to deploy funds into
job-creating projects.
At the moment, Council is currently engaged
in negotiations with the Federal Government
to fast-track a number of projects here in
Brisbane, and once again they’re focused
on driving job outcomes. I guess the view
is that we have a view that the best form
of support is a job. However, we do acknowledge
that circumstances arise where people don’t
have a job and they need support. We see obviously
JobSeeker payments as part of the role of
helping people through a period of unemployment,
and ultimately, back into the workforce.
But we do acknowledge that the level of JobSeeker
payments is solely at the discretion of the
Federal Government. They have much better
visibility to the position of their own budget,
and any constraints that might exist there,
and they also have a better sense of where
their priorities lie. As you’d appreciate,
in these unprecedented times, it’s incredibly
difficult to know where to direct funding.
I think in this particular instance, the Federal
Government continues to have this under close
scrutiny. I think it’s too early to tell
just exactly what they might do come the end
of September, but once again that’s very
much a decision for them.
So, from a Council perspective, our primary
responsibility is to the residents of Brisbane,
that they expect us to continue to provide
services and picking up rubbish, smoother
suburban streets, getting on with infrastructure
projects such as Brisbane Metro, and that
will remain a key focus for us. Certainly,
we will continue to provide support to the
residents of Brisbane within the Council remit.
However, the provision of income support payments
or even support for an increase is outside
of our remit or plan.
As you may be aware, the LORD MAYOR will hand
down the Council budget on 17 June, next Wednesday,
and hopefully we will have further announcements
to make in that budget that will help support
the residents of Brisbane. Thank you again,
Mr Poxon, for coming in and presenting to
Council today. Thank you.
Chair: Thank you, Councillor ALLAN; thank
you, Mr Poxon.
Mr Jeremy Poxon: Thank you.
Chair: Councillors, I would now draw your
attention to Question Time. Are there any
questions of the LORD MAYOR or any Standing
Committees?
Councillor MACKAY.
Councillor MACKAY: Thanks, Chair; my question
is to the LORD MAYOR. Over the weekend, the
SCHRINNER Administration announced the next
stage of construction of the Brisbane Metro
will soon be under way. Can you explain these
exciting next steps on a vital project for
our city?
Chair: LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank
you, Councillor MACKAY, for the question.
It was a very exciting day on Sunday to confirm
that we’ve got the green light for major
construction on Brisbane Metro. We’ve got
the green light to create 2,600 jobs, and
we’ve got the green light to deliver Brisbane’s
first turn-up-and-go mass transit system,
Brisbane Metro.
So, we are absolutely committed to progressing
this project. We have jumped through every
hurdle, we have confronted every obstacle,
we have taken on the challenge of Brisbane
Metro—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: We are committed to this project.
Brisbane deserves better public transport.
Brisbane deserves a turn-up-and-go mass transit
system—
Councillor CASSIDY: It deserves a better Mayor.
LORD MAYOR: —and that is exactly what they
will be getting with Brisbane Metro.
Just last week I confirmed that the Council
procurement team had short-listed the three
major construction tenderers down to one consortium,
Brisbane Move, which is made up of ACCIONA
and ARUP, and it was great to be there on
the weekend to confirm now that we’ve got
State Government agreement on a key sticking
point in the Brisbane Metro project.
It was this time last year, in June last year,
that the State Government asked us to go back
to the drawing board and redesign the Cultural
Centre Station. They asked us to look at underground
options at the Convention Centre and modified
underground options at the Cultural Centre,
and we have been doing that work. In all that
work that’s happened, we’ve had almost
12 months of delay. For a major part of the
project, there’s been money and time expended,
but what’s important now is that we have
reached a sensible outcome to progress the
project. We’ve reached a sensible outcome
to get on with creating those jobs.
Last year we awarded the contract for the
construction of the Metro vehicles. In fact,
the first pilot vehicle to come out here for
testing through the company HESS, which is
under construction at the moment, we’re
looking forward to it arriving in Brisbane,
but that part of the project was a great outcome
for Metro, because it will deliver a fully
electric, the first of its kind in Australia,
Metro vehicle that will quickly and efficiently
move large numbers of people and provide a
frequency of service which Brisbane has not
ever experienced.
Now, with major construction going ahead on
other parts of the project, including the
Adelaide Street tunnel, the conversion of
Victoria Bridge to a green bridge, the improvement
of not only public transport but also pedestrian
and cycling facilities, and upgrades across
the network that this will make possible,
we are really excited now to be getting on
with it.
I have to particularly commend Minister Mark
Bailey for the way in which he has been—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —dealing with us in recent weeks.
We have been able to achieve more progress
in the last few weeks than we have in 18 months
of dealing with the State Government. We know
that it’s been much publicised there have
been over 200 meetings that have been held
with the State Government, but yet, in the
matter of two or three meetings in recent
times, we have been able to get positive agreement
and map out a way forward, and we are doing
that with the decision on the Cultural Centre
station.
What is being proposed today through the Special
E&C submission is an amendment to the significant
contracting plan which will see upgrades occur
to the above-ground station at the Cultural
Centre, and the deferral of the underground
station to a later date. This is something
that—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —the State Government agrees
with; this is something that the minister
agrees with, and something that we have also
talked to the local state member on as well.
So, we’re moving forward, creating jobs,
and making sure that Brisbane Metro can be
delivered as soon as possible for the residents
of Brisbane.
Now, we know that the challenges that Brisbane
has to face when it comes to a public transport
system are that there are key bottlenecks
in the system that need to be unlocked, and
by upgrading—
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —the Cultural Centre station,
we are upgrading the busiest station in the
Queensland public transport network. The upgrade
that will occur to the above-ground station,
once it’s completed—
Chair: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.
Are there any further questions?
Councillor STRUNK.
Councillor STRUNK: Thank you, Mr Chair; my
question is to Councillor MARX. For many years
you have promoted Brisbane as a clean, green
and sustainable city. You proudly boast that
Brisbane possesses a green canopy that is
the envy of many cities. On 12 May in reply
to a question from Councillor CUMMING on the
removal of two mature gum trees from Rotary
Park, Calamvale, you said that the trees had
to be removed because the subsurface root
system would be compromised as a consequence
of excavation work to install a playground
and seating.
Councillor MARX, what you may not have been
told was that the excavation work for the
playground, including two rows of seating,
had already taken place without impact on
the root system. It wasn’t until stage 2
when a third row of seating was added that
the trees were removed. Additionally, the
file made recently available shows no arborist
report or consultation in support of the removal
of the trees. Councillor MARX, will you undertake
to investigate the removal of these two mature
healthy gum trees from Rotary Park, Heathwood,
and explain why the extra seating was more
important than the mature gum trees that provided
the only shade for this playground?
Chair: Councillor MARX.
Councillor MARX: Thank you, Chair, and thank
you—
Chair: No, Councillor MARX, if you could turn
your video back on, please?
Councillor MARX: Sorry, my video is playing
up. I push it and it disappears.
Chair: That’s all right. It may just—
Councillor MARX: My apologies. Thank you.
Okay, sorry; thank you, Chair, and I thank
Councillor STRUNK for the question. So, he
mentioned the trees that were in Rotary Park
in Heathwood, and as I mentioned previously
when this question was asked three, four Chambers
ago, I wasn’t the Chair at the time, but
I was more than happy to investigate, and
the investigation was undertaken. We’ve
talked about this one or two Chambers ago,
and we talked about how the project was entirely
funded by the Ward Park Trust Fund in two
parts.
Stage 1, which was the initial project scope,
was to install a new program with rubber under-surfacing,
create a DOLA (dog off-leash area), and there
was also removal—it included the removal
of eight Hoop Pine trees and one large Ironbark.
There was also a small Jacaranda growing at
the base of one of the other trees that was
also removed. This tree was not identified,
but it was removed as part of that project.
Stage 2 was a further allocation that was
submitted to establish a multi-level terrace
surrounding the playground with sandstone
blocks and other works. That was when the
removal of the two Eucalyptus trees was slated
to occur. As we also mentioned at the time,
offset planting did take place at the time.
That project was funded, as we said at the
time, by two different projects—one was
the Ward Park Trust Fund and it says here,
the information I’ve got is exactly what
I’ve just said: stage 1 was 8 Hoop Pines,
one large Ironbark and one small Jacaranda,
and stage 2 was the two Eucalyptus. As I said,
there were 27 45-litre trees planted and maintained
as the offset of those removals. So, the information
hasn’t changes since you last asked the
question.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Further questions.
Councillor HAMMOND.
Councillor HAMMOND: Thank you, Mr Chair; my
question is to the Chair of the City Planning
and Economic Development Committee, Councillor
ADAMS. DEPUTY MAYOR, Brisbane City Council
heard from the Local Government Minister just
last week that Brisbane will receive just
$5 million in funding from a pot of $200 million
for the COVID Works for Queensland program.
Can you update the Chamber on this outrageous
disregard of Brisbane residents in terms of
economic recovery for our city? Are you aware
of how this compares to the amounts received
by other local governments?
Councillor JOHNSTON: Now you know what it
feels like.
Chair: Please cease interjecting.
Councillor ADAMS, please answer the question.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank
you, Councillor HAMMOND, for the question.
As Chair of Economic Development, what we
have seen happen over the last few days from
the State Government is nothing less than
absolutely appalling. But let’s just get
it right from the outset as well, though.
I do want to congratulate the State Labor
Government for their consistency. Every election
cycle they always find some new way to prop
up vulnerable MPs and their candidates. Allocating
money for political advancement is as strong
as ever.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Order! Point of order to you, Councillor
JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, yes; yes, thank
you. Councillor ADAMS is imputing motive,
and that is disorderly under section 21 of
the Meetings Local Law.
Chair: Right, okay. Well, as Councillor ADAMS
well knows, no one here is allowed to impute
motive, and I encourage her that, if she is
doing so, to not do so anymore.
Councillor ADAMS.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair; I was talking
about the actions of the State Government.
What I was saying is that what we see under
the veil of the COVID to prop up Council’s
cash injections, what we actually have is
a program to get themselves re-elected in
seats where they need it most. They announced
it—
A Councillor: You hypocrite. You hypocrite.
DEPUTY MAYOR: —at the State’s work—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.
A Councillor: Is this a comedy?
Councillor JOHNSTON: I understand that Councillor
ADAMS was a PE teacher and not an English
teacher—
DEPUTY MAYOR: Excuse me.
Chair: Okay, no, no; make your point of order.
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: No, no; no cheap shots. No cheap shots.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No, do not speak while I’m speaking,
Councillor JOHNSTON. Please do not speak while
I’m speaking. I ask—I direct you and I
ask all Councillors to refrain from taking
cheap shots at each other. Okay? All right?
Make your point of order; don’t take any
cheap shots. Be quick about it. Councillor
JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Councillor ADAMS is defying
your ruling—21(1) says—21 says you cannot
impute motive. Councillor ADAMS is doing that
when she says why the State Government is
allegedly putting this money in the way that
it is, and that is disorderly, Mr Chair.
Chair: You say section 21(1) of the Meetings
Local Law?
Councillor JOHNSTON: 21(1)(c).
Chair: Well, that’s actually quite specific,
and doesn’t actually define or include the
things you’re talking about. However, I
will—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Mr Chair.
It says—
Chair: No, no, no, Councillor JOHNSTON—
Councillor JOHNSTON: —on the motive of a
member of the public—
Chair: No, you don’t speak while I’m speaking.
Don’t argue with me, please. You’ve asked
for a ruling, and a ruling doesn’t involve
a discussion or debate between you and I about
it. Okay? It just doesn’t. You’ve asked
whether, under 21(1)(c), Councillor ADAMS
was impugning motive.
Now, the section for all Councillors says,
‘A Councillor commits an act of disorder
at a meeting of Council or a Committee if
the Councillor makes a statement reflecting
adversely on the character or motives of a
Councillor, a Council officer, a member of
the public or any Committee of Council.’
Now, in my strict reading of that, Councillor
ADAMS actually hasn’t done what you’ve
said. However, I will ask her to refrain from
imputing motives generally. Okay?
Councillor ADAMS.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair, and I’m
very clear here that the question was: what
do I believe about the $5 million funding
that Brisbane got, just 2.5 per cent of the
entire bucket that the State received? I think
Councillor JOHNSTON made it very clear. What
I alleged—did not accuse—what I allege,
and I will continue my answer, disregarding
the rudeness we see from the other side of
the Chamber.
This was a program that was designed to get
Queenslanders back to work. Bring forward
infrastructure jobs. Naturally I would think
in cities with the most unemployment. Right?
Wrong. That is not what we have seen the State
Labor Government do. This initiative was about
to be about job creation, not their job creation,
not their own jobs, but jobs of the unemployed
in Queensland.
Brisbane’s unemployment figure predicted
to this June quarter is 135,000 people. We
get the equivalent of $4 per person. That’s
less than a cup of coffee. We have higher
unemployment in Brisbane than many regional
councils have population. But Councillor CASSIDY
said this morning on ABC that there could
be an argument that maybe we need more funding,
but you know, it’s probably enough. Well,
that’s how the ALP on that side of the Chamber
support Brisbane residents. Go and explain
that to the guest speaker that we just had,
Councillor CASSIDY, when we’re being offered
money, but only 2.5 per cent of an entire
pot in the State’s capital.
But we do know, Councillor CASSIDY, obviously
you don’t fight too hard for your residents
lest you contradict Minister Hinchliffe. But
it does beg the question—
Chair: Now, Councillor ADAMS, can I please
ask you that you direct all comments through
the Chair, and that references to other Councillors
be made in the third person, please.
Councillor CASSIDY: Point of order, Chair.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair, of course,
I’m sorry.
Chair: Point of order; Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: Well, Councillor ADAMS
is clearly imputing motive on me, now, so
I think 21(1)(c) does apply in this case.
Chair: No, I appreciate the point you’re
making. As I’ve said, the direction I issued
earlier stands. I’ll issue it again. Please
resist from imputing motive.
Councillor ADAMS.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. We do know
that they will protest so much, they don’t
like what they’re hearing, because we don’t
like what we’re seeing. It’s an absolute
outrage, and I agree with Councillor CASSIDY:
it’s an outrage, and he should be doing
more but he’s not.
Councillor interjecting.
DEPUTY MAYOR: He is not doing more. It turns
out what we see from the State Government
is that there definitely wasn’t an economic
rationale in this, and that cannot be disputed.
If this was about getting unemployed back
to work, it cannot be said that an economic
rationale was used.
South-East Queensland councils have 70% of
the population; they only got 25% of the funding,
and Brisbane as I said only got 2.5 per cent
of that funding as well. From a cash-poor
Work for Queensland. But what is interesting
is the breakdown of funding between councils
across the state, and maybe the rationale
that may have been used, through you, Mr Chair,
with the State MPs in that area. In Cairns
Regional Council, the seat of Cairns held
by Labor by only 3.4 per cent, got $7.4 million.
Fraser Coast Council, the seat of Maryborough
held by Labor by only 2.5 per cent got $9
million. Mackay Regional Council, the seat
of Whitsunday, is held by an Independent with
0.7 per cent, and a known Labor gain, they
want to get that, $6.9 million.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Mr Chair.
DEPUTY MAYOR: And of course—
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor JOHNSTON.
DEPUTY MAYOR: I’m not imputing motive. Sorry—
Chair: Please turn your microphone on, Councillor
JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: I understand that Councillor
ADAMS wants to keep doing this, but again
she’s imputing motive against—members
of the Labor Party are members of the public,
Mr Chair, and you might not like them, you
might not like what they do, you might not
agree with their policies—
Chair: Hey, whoa, Councillor JOHNSTON, now,
you—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: —are now imputing motive on me. That’s
exactly what you just did just now, and I
won’t have that.
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: No, no, no. I have, as you well know,
a more generous interpretation of the rules
to allow people to make statements. You have
now—you have now imputed motive on me, and
that is not acceptable, and I direct you to
never do so again, please.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Mr Chair.
Chair: No, I am not finished. I am not finished.
Councillor ADAMS was making a point that I
don’t believe was necessarily opinion; she
was comparing margins to financial support,
which I don’t believe falls into the category
of opinion, which is what you were talking
about, and I will allow her to continue.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Motive—imputing motive.
She can offer any opinion she wants, Mr Chair,
but 21(1)(c) is where—
Chair: Thank you.
Councillor JOHNSTON: —she says the reason
it’s happening is because Labor wants to
win a seat. That is imputing motive.
Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON, I don’t know
if you recall, only moments ago we had a discussion
where I said that points of order raised by
you weren’t opportunities for you and I
to have a discussion or debate about particular
things. I appreciate that you don’t always
listen to what I say or accept what I say—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: That is part of life. But I would ask
that, when I say in the future, please don’t
debate me, that I do actually mean that, and
please don’t debate me during discussions
about points of order, which won’t occur.
I will make a ruling and we’ll move on;
okay?
Councillor ADAMS, please continue.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. Is that
a point of order? Sorry.
Chair: Point of order—I don’t see a point
of order.
LORD MAYOR: Yes, point of order, Mr Chair.
Chair: Point of order; LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Look, I might suggest that it
might be worth getting a legal interpretation
of this issue about motive that we’ve been
talking about, because it would be good to
have it cleared up for all Councillors. If
you’re going to use the Councillor JOHNSTON
definition, then every single question asked
in Question Time is impugning motive. Every
single question—
Chair: LORD MAYOR, I’m going to have to
stop you there, because I feel that, if we
go down this path, we are going to have a
discussion about this rather than Question
Time. I’m just going to have to—I accept
the premise of what you’re saying, I will
seek further advice, but I must insist that,
if we keep going like this, this will be a
discussion about the nature of points of order
rather than Question Time. I’ve been arguing
with some Councillors that we shouldn’t
be doing that; we should be asking questions
and having them answered. Okay, that’s what
we’ll—all right, that’s what we’re
going to try and do. However, I will seek
an opinion through the City Legal Officer.
Okay, Councillor ADAMS, please continue.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Can I just check, Mr Chair—I’ve
got a minute left?
CHAIR: Forty-five seconds.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Forty-five seconds; thank you
very much. I’ll continue repeating the very
clear statistics that I was reading out before
I was interrupted. Townsville City Council,
two seats with margins less than 1.2 per cent
for Labor, they got funded more than any other
council in Queensland at $13.5 million. They
are the facts.
What I ask is: what rationale was used, because
it was not the economic rationale needed for
the councils with the highest unemployment
across the state. What it shows that only
people who are worthy of economic stimulus
are those that are living in marginal seats.
There is a direct correlation that has been
shown. Today we are calling on the Premier—
Chair: DEPUTY MAYOR, your time has expired.
DEPUTY MAYOR: —to allocate fairly.
Chair: Are there further questions?
Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks, Chair; my question
is to the Chair of Finance, Administration
and Small Business Committee, Councillor ALLAN.
Much is made by this LNP Administration of
the $20 million it receives in dividends each
year from the City of Brisbane Investment
Corporation. However, this Council doesn’t
tell the ratepayers that, in the 2018-19 financial
year, it directly paid the CBIC $15.5 million
in rent, with a further $6.1 million in rent
paid on buildings once owned by ratepayers
through CBIC and then on-sold. Is this another
reason you won’t commit to freezing rates
for residents doing it tough?
Chair: That was to Councillor ALLAN, wasn’t
it?
Councillor CASSIDY: Yes.
Chair: Yes, Councillor ALLAN.
Councillor ALLAN: That’s right, Mr Chair.
Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Councillor
CASSIDY, for the question. First to the operations
of CBIC, CBIC is an investment business. The
investments they undertake and the reporting
on those investments is all clearly outlined,
you know, it’s very transparent. They produce
an annual report. They’ve got a website
that outlines all the projects that are going
on. They’ve got an independent board. So,
the fact that CBIC helps to develop buildings
that may ultimately be used by Council is
a good thing. We’ve had some absolutely
first-class facilities built in partnership
with CBIC. Obviously the one closest to me
is the Chermside—the North Regional Business
Centre at Chermside.
CBIC develops those properties. They then,
if the opportunity arises, if they get a particularly
good offer on those, they will take those
in order to maximise returns to the residents
of Brisbane. That’s absolutely what their
mandate is. They’ve been given a mandate
to provide returns to the City of Brisbane.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor ALLAN: They do that through property
investment. So, whether that includes a yield
on a building and ultimately a sale of a building,
that is something that an investment fund
such as CBIC does. That would be a normal
part of their trading activities.
In the context of your point about CBIC dividends
and how they’re paid every year, obviously
we receive a dividend each year—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Please allow the answer to be heard
in silence.
Councillor ALLAN: It’s something we expect
from them. That’s something that we look
to achieve with them year in and year out.
As you know, that $20 million goes into our
green future fund for the creation and acquisition
of recreational and green space in Brisbane,
so a really admirable outcome there.
So, the commentary and criticism of CBIC is
incredibly poorly founded, and the performance
of CBIC over many years since inception has
been exceptional. They’ve returned over
$130 million in dividends to Council. Their
return has been in excess of 11% per year.
The actual economic performance of that entity
is beyond reproach.
Now, to your question on rates, I know you’re
anxious, but 17 June isn’t too far away.
You’ll know more about what our intention
is around rates. Certainly, the dividend payment
from CBIC is a part of our overall revenue
stream, but I don’t believe that that alone
is the key determinant of what our rates position
might be on 17 June. So, I know that you’re
anxious, but I will take the opportunity to
remind you that this Administration has had
a very reasonable approach to rates and rate
increases over its term in Administration,
unlike yourselves—and I’ll remind you,
Councillor CASSIDY, 6 per cent four times.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON: That’s you; that’s
what you’ve done.
Councillor ALLAN: In fact, on one of those
occasions, it was approaching 7 per cent.
So, Councillor CASSIDY, I don’t think you
guys have a position on—a credible position
on rates.
Councillor CUMMING: What’s the inflation
rate?
Councillor ALLAN: I think that our record
is proven. We’ve been very, very consistent.
We’ve been very, very modest. But in terms
of what’s going—
Councillor JOHNSTON: You’ve been high.
Councillor ALLAN: —to happen in the budget—
Chair: Councillors, please—sorry, Councillor
ALLAN, please stop. Councillors, there’s
a lot of interjecting today. There’s been
a lot of interjecting in the last minute or
so. Please, a question has been asked of Councillor
ALLAN; I would like as many Councillors as
possible to hear the answer. Please allow
him to answer the question in silence.
Councillor ALLAN.
Councillor ALLAN: How many more seconds have
it got, Mr Chair?
Chair: Sixty-one.
Councillor ALLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. So,
Councillor CASSIDY, you will have to wait.
But I will remind you that Brisbane has the
lowest rates in South-East Queensland. The
services and programs that we provide, and
the infrastructure that we provide for this
city is second to none. So, in the context
of a growing city, everything that we do in
this city, the programs that we run, our rates
are absolutely first class.
Now, as I said, the budget has been a challenge.
I’ve said that in recent weeks when you’ve
asked a very similar question. I think that
you will have to wait until 17 June. We are
very, very conscious of the burden that residents
and businesses in this city are facing, but
I certainly think that any speculation that
the CBIC dividend is going to have a significant
and tangible impact on the decisions—
Chair: Councillor ALLAN, your time has expired.
Councillor ALLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair.
Chair: Further questions?
Councillor LANDERS.
Councillor LANDERS: My question is to the
Chair of the Community, Arts and Nighttime
Economy Committee, Councillor HOWARD. The
State Government announced late last week
that they were again increasing the price
of the State bulk water charge. With this
bulk charge continuing to be one of the largest
burdens on our local groups, how can the State
Government do their part in supporting our
clubs from facing financial ruin?
Chair: Councillor HOWARD.
Councillor HOWARD: Well, thank you, Mr Chair,
and I thank Councillor LANDERS for the question.
Councillor LANDERS, at this very moment, every
Australian, Queenslander, and every resident
in Brisbane is in the fight of their lives.
No one is safe from the economic toll of this
pandemic. Our community organisations are
doing it tough. They’re fighting an uphill
battle of untold proportions.
We know the devastating impact COVID has taken
on them, on our entire communities. So, I
say to each and every one of them: we’re
with you. We will do everything possible to
support you through this extraordinary time.
Seven days ago I spoke in this Chamber about
the hard work that Council has been doing
to support our community sports organisations.
I told you that our clubs have been telling
us that utility bills were their biggest concern;
how they are struggling to water their fields,
and how desperately they need financial support.
I talked about how LORD MAYOR Adrian SCHRINNER
listened and answered their call for help
by announcing a $1 million COVID-19 community
sports fields water rebate; how Council is
giving more than 180 sports clubs a one-off
water payment of $5,000—enough to pay for
about 1 million litres of water. This is not
the first time the SCHRINNER Administration
has answered their call for help, and it certainly
won’t be the last.
Last year LORD MAYOR Adrian SCHRINNER was
there to answer the call for help when clubs
were battling to keep their fields alive in
the face of one of the driest, harshest droughts
Brisbane has seen in years. We took immediate
action to provide relief by doing whatever
we could to ease the pain for our community
clubs by giving them a 50% rebate on the retail
component of their water bills, up to $5,000.
We called on the State Government to do their
part by cutting the exorbitant bulk water
costs which account for 65% of every water
bill, because we know that, without enough
water, especially over an extended period,
playing fields can deteriorate so badly that
they become unplayable and unsafe.
These are just some examples of how the SCHRINNER
Administration has answered our clubs’ calls
for help. So, Councillor LANDERS’ question
is important. What was Labor’s answer to
easing the pain of these enormous water bills
that our clubs are struggling to keep up with?
Labor’s answer was to hike up the cost of
water, not just for our community clubs but
every Queenslander right across the state.
In the seven days since I spoke in this Chamber
about the $1 million of relief that we are
providing to help our struggling sports clubs,
Labor has come out and announced a 3.5 per
cent increase on their already unaffordable
water prices. At a time when Queenslanders
are in the fight of their lives, when residents,
businesses and communities are struggling
to pay their bills and make ends meet, the
Labor State Government decided to make this
uphill battle even steeper, harder, tougher
and more heart-breaking than it needed to
be. While we are providing rent relief and
water bill subsidies, Labor has decided to
make the cost of staying alive more expensive
and more impossible.
Unlike our one-off payment to take $5,000
off the weight of their water bills, the State’s
price hike is not the first, not the second,
not even the third, but the fifth time that
Palaszczuk has hiked up water prices and hiked
up the cost of living for Queenslanders. Now,
Queenslanders are as tough as they come, and
we are Australia’s fiercest battlers, and
there is no battle that is too tough and no
disaster too big for us to handle, but I have
to say that, right now, Queenslanders are
fed up, and they’re getting tired.
They are sick and tired of fighting an uphill
battle against the very people that are supposed
to be leading the way and lifting them up,
not pushing them down. So, today I ask every
Councillor in this Chamber to join me in calling
on the State Government to put an end to this
madness and to stop this endless barrage of
price hikes. Queenslanders deserve better.
It’s not acceptable for the Palaszczuk Government
to treat the State’s coffers like bottomless
pits and then punish Queenslanders for the
State Labor Government’s reckless financial
decisions.
Send the Palaszczuk Government a message that
the taxpayer is not an ATM. It’s time for
the State Labor Government to take responsibility
for their actions, and to stop relying on
hard-working taxpayers to pick up the slack
for their reckless financial management. This
should end right now. Thank you, Mr Chair.
Chair: Further questions—is that a point
of order?
Councillor HAMMOND: Point of order.
Chair: Yes, Councillor HAMMOND.
Councillor HAMMOND: Point of order, Mr Chair.
I move the suspension of Standing Orders to
allow me to move an urgency motion in relation
to the State Labor State Government’s bulk
water charge.
Chair: Do I have a seconder?
DEPUTY MAYOR: Yes, here, sorry.
Chair: Urgency motion from Councillor HAMMOND,
seconded by Councillor ADAMS; Councillor HAMMOND,
three minutes to urgency. I trust that this
resolution, that this urgency motion will
be distributed to the CCLO and distributed
to all Councillors by email.
Councillor HAMMOND: That’s correct, Mr Chair.
Chair: Thank you; please proceed; three minutes.
Councillor HAMMOND: Thank you, Mr Chair—as
Councillor—sorry?
Chair: You have three minutes; please limit
your comments to urgency.
Councillor HAMMOND: Okay. Thank you, Mr Chair.
As Councillor HOWARD so eloquently outlined,
we heard late last week that the State Government
will again jack up the prices of State bulk
water charges by 3.5 per cent in the 20-21
financial year. This is unbelievable by the
Labor State Government. We are in the midst
of a global pandemic where our sporting clubs
and community groups are fighting for their
lives to remain open, to be there for whatever
age you are, whether young or old, when we
finally get back to some resemblance of normal
life.
We also know that the biggest costs of these
community groups, particularly sporting clubs,
is the cost of water to put on their fields.
What is the largest component of the water
bill, Mr Chair? Well, that would be the State
Government bulk water charge. The State Government
bulk water charge can account up to an extraordinary
75% of these water bills.
Chair: Councillor HAMMOND, Councillor HAMMOND,
I appreciate what you’re saying. Much of
what you’ve said so far is substantive.
Can you please—can I please ask you to bring
your comments back to urgency, why the matter
must be dealt with now.
Councillor HAMMOND.
Councillor HAMMOND: Well, thank you, Mr Chair.
This is urgent because we are urgently calling
on the State Government to do the right thing.
The residents of Brisbane want nothing more
for their local sporting clubs, leagues clubs,
soccer, bridge, to get back up and running
once our lives come back to normal following
the global pandemic.
The State Government needs to make changes.
This is why it’s urgent. They need to make
changes to help these clubs in their time
of need, not to burden them with the extra
cost of essential things like water.
Chair: Thank you. I will now put the urgency
resolution: all those—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes. We still haven’t
been given the motion, so it’s not reasonable—
Chair: No, hang on. You’ve made your point
of order. You have not yet received it. It
has been sent from the CCLO. You will receive
it very, very shortly.
All right. I will now put the vote on the
topic of urgency.
All those who believe this matter is urgent
please say aye and raise your hands.
Councillors say aye.
Chair: Thank you. Those who do not believe
this matter to be urgent, please say no and
raise your hands.
A Councillor: Aye.
Councillors say no.
Chair: I think that was a no.
Councillor STRUNK: Yes, it was a no, sorry.
Chair: That’s all right. My interpretation
is the threshold of two-thirds has been met
and we’ll now have an urgency debate on
this matter.
Councillor HAMMOND.
Councillor HAMMOND: Thank you, Mr Chair. I
move: that this Council acknowledges the State
Government’s 2009 decision to remove water
and water pricing responsibility from Council’s
control. We further note the significant investment
Council has undertaken in reducing water costs
for sporting clubs and community groups. The
State bulk water charge is the single largest
cost these clubs and groups can face, which
has seen an increase of almost 215% since
2009. We therefore call on the State Government
to urgently introduce measures to reduce this
financial burden on our sporting clubs and
community groups.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Seconded.
CHAIR: Seconded. All right, I have the resolution
as read, moved by Councillor HAMMOND, seconded
by Councillor ADAMS.
Is there any debate?
Councillor HAMMOND.
Councillor HAMMOND: Yes, thank you, Mr Chair.
I know the Labor Party don’t like hearing
about the failings of their own party or their
mates up in William Street taking advantage
of sporting clubs and community groups to
help fill their coffers which they have left
bone dry. But this is urgent. I know in my
ward of Marchant, whether you play soccer,
cricket, rugby league, or play lawn bowls,
these bills are crippling our clubs, the water
bills, and they are suffering.
One of my clubs—because I don’t want to
identify them in any way—one of my clubs
one year had a $70,000 water bill— $70,000,
and 75% of this was made up of the State Government
bulk water charge. Another club sent me through
a copy of their water bill, their urban utilities
bill. This bill, just recently, the latest
one, was a cost of $17,468. The State Government’s
bulk water charge amount on this bill was
a staggering $11,354.20. That leaves them
a usage bill of $6,113.80. With the generous
offer that the LORD MAYOR did, and sent out
a relief package for the club of $5,000, that
leaves the usage costs of this club as $113.80.
On the same day last week the increases of
the Labor Government’s bulk water charge
was announced, Urban Utilities came out and
announced that they would be freezing increases
to water and sewerage prices for six months—that’s
freezing the price of water and sewerage.
Urban Utilities recognise that the past three
months have been exceptionally tough, not
only for our sporting clubs and community
groups, but also the residents and businesses
within their catchment. This is a move we
can only hope that the Labor Party would follow
and pass down from the State.
Those in the Council Opposition are only too
happy to point fingers and argue that they
think this Administration is not doing enough.
But what about this outrageous move by their
mates down at the State? The SCHRINNER Administration,
on the other hand, unlike the State Government,
which is only too happy to gouge community
groups run by volunteers.
Mr Chair, we are prepared to put our money
where our mouth is and invest in these facilities,
provide them with options to help them reduce
their costs, and reduce their water bills.
In December last year, this Administration
announced support for more than 180 clubs
across Brisbane, with an offer of up to $5,000
in rebates on their water bills, and helping
them adopt sustainable water practices when
we were in the middle of drought conditions.
Then, Mr Chair, just three weeks ago, we announced
a further one-off payment of $5,000 in water
rebates, where more than 150 sporting clubs
were eligible.
As the LORD MAYOR recently said—and I truly
believe—the sporting clubs are the lifeblood
of our community. But, the coronavirus and
the State Government restrictions have forced
most to close their doors without a healing
hand. I am urging the State Government to
abandon their increase of 3.5 per cent because
this is a slap in the face for our community
clubs and sporting groups and volunteers.
We know the State Government have pushed back
their budget until October this year. So,
at the very least, they could give these clubs
and groups some kind of reprieve on the significant
costs they are facing, without the support
of revenue coming in through their door. Thank
you, Mr Chair.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Chair.
What a pathetic and desperate attempt by members
of this Administration to distract from their
failings when it comes to supporting community
clubs. It’s quite amazing, Chair, to think
that this Administration didn’t talk about
this issue—they didn’t care about this
issue, and this issue has been around for
a lot longer than the last couple of weeks,
or the last couple of months, until a little
bit of public pressure was being applied to
them.
We’ve had, over the last couple of weeks
alone, over 1,200 residents of Brisbane sign
our petition calling for more support for
our community clubs—not just sporting clubs,
but all our community clubs and leasing organisations.
We’ve had dozens of sports clubs and community
groups sign our open letter to the LORD MAYOR
which was delivered to him last week. It’s
only after this, it’s only after this public
campaign and this public pressure, that we
finally see the old catch-up LNP think, oh,
we’d better do something because people
are starting to get angry.
I mean, the LORD MAYOR and these LNP Councillors
are like those French revolutionaries, Chair,
when they saw a mob running past, they thought
to themselves, I’d better find out where
they’re going so I can lead them there.
They’ve never had an original idea. All
they do is try and use these forums to pick
a fight with the State Government because
they know their LNP colleagues up there in
State Parliament are completely and utterly
useless.
So, Chair, let’s have a look at this Administration’s
track record. Councillor HOWARD and the LORD
MAYOR are very quick to point the finger at
other levels of government over water bills
that are being charged to struggling community
clubs, yet every day of the week this same
Council that is run by Adrian SCHRINNER receives
more than $500,000 in clear profit from QUU.
That’s $500,000 each and every day; that’s
$200 million each and every year from water
that is sold by QUU.
Now, in the motion here, it says that we acknowledge
the State Government’s decision to remove
water and water pricing responsibilities from
Council’s control. What also came with that
was a complete and utter clearing of Council’s
debt, and what we’ve seen under this LORD
MAYOR’s stewardship is the ballooning of
that debt to $2.5 billion. We see every project
that he touches turns to absolute garbage
and mud, and we know that the reason that
he’s not providing adequate support for
our community clubs, including our sporting
clubs, all the while receiving $200 million
a year from QUU, from the residents of Brisbane,
is because of his complete and utter financial
ineptitude.
So, the water grant that was given to the
150 or so grass sports clubs soaked up about
a day and a half’s worth of this Council’s
water profits. So, when you look at the actual
facts here, Councillor HAMMOND, through you,
Chair, in your own goals here, is that you
are highlighting the fact that 363½ days’
worth of water profit from QUU is going into
servicing the hideous amount of debt that
this Administration has racked up through
failed projects.
You are only giving $5,000 as a one-off grant
to a small number of community clubs, and
you think that is enough.
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY, I appreciate you
premised your comments with ‘through you’,
but I must ask you to refer to other Councillors
in the third person, please.
Councillor CASSIDY: Yes, sorry, Chair. So,
we have clubs around this city, not just sporting
clubs but clubs that are in Council leased
sites that are struggling to keep the lights
on. Some of those clubs are literally crumbling
around their ears, and we have an Administration,
Chair, here that has no plan for our clubs;
they have no care for our clubs and our community
organisations. All they’re interested in
doing is, when a bit of public pressure is
applied to them for their failings, Chair,
is to try and create some conflict with the
State Government to distract from their own
failings.
So, while this Administration receives $500,000
each and every day in clear profit for doing
absolutely nothing but owning 85% of QUU,
I don’t buy this argument one bit. It is
up to this Administration, it is up to this
Council, to support our community and sporting
clubs. Instead of passing the buck, this Council
needs to stand up and be counted for once.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you, Mr Chair,
for the opportunity to speak on the urgency
motion. Look, the political game-playing that’s
going on with this motion and the LNP’s
actions today are doing a significant disservice
to the people of Brisbane in my view. This
is all about party politics, and that is really
disappointing for our sporting and community
clubs who are actually struggling and doing
it very tough.
A number of my clubs have indicated to me
that they did not get the entire rebate, and
yet their water bills are quite significant.
They have very large playing fields. So, I
asked, just very recently, about the $5,000
grant that this Council is giving, and I was
told I wasn’t entitled to that information,
and that if I wanted to get information about
the eligible sporting clubs in my area, I’d
have to follow the Councillor RTI process.
Now, this is a simple question about asking
which clubs in my ward are eligible and going
to get the $5,000 grant.
So, if this Administration wants to play stupid
political games with the State Government
and with local Councillors who are trying
to work with their clubs, I find their behaviour
to be quite appalling. The motion, as it’s
been moved here today, is just a pathetic,
juvenile attempt to malign the State Labor
Government. We’re what, there, four months
out from a State election. The LNP clearly
doesn’t want to talk about their agenda
in this Council, through questions or through
motions. Is there a motion on the table from
the LNP Administration to improve things for
our local sporting clubs? No, there is not.
There is simply a motion on the table to attack
the State Government and to try and praise
themselves.
We note the significant investment Council
has undertaken in reducing water costs for
sporting clubs and community groups. I don’t
think you guys have got any idea about the
pain that community—
Chair: Please, Councillor JOHNSTON, please
use—please refer to Councillors by the third
person, and through me, please.
Councillor JOHNSTON: I don’t think the LNP
Councillors have got any idea, any idea, about
the pain that sporting clubs are going through.
The fact that you won’t even discuss the
significant investment Council has undertaken,
which I understand today it’s been up to
$5,000 for some clubs, not all clubs—that’s
pathetic. It is pathetic. And it is pathetic
from a point where you have ignored clubs
in my ward for a very long time, and now when
they need help, you are simply ignoring the
real issue—
Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON, Councillor JOHNSTON,
I only asked you a moment ago—and you did
it once and went back to old habits for three
times. Please refer to other Councillors in
the third person.
Councillor JOHNSTON: I apologise, Mr Chair,
and I’ll make sure I’m raising this issue
with you when others do it, too. I apologise.
Chair: No, no, as I said—
Councillor JOHNSTON: I apologised.
Chair: No, no, I’ve let you get away with
it more than I called you up on it. I don’t
expect misuse of points of order from you,
all right. I let you get away with a great
deal. I’m asking you—I let you get away
with very—
Councillor JOHNSTON: I didn’t make a point
of order, Mr Chair.
Chair: And—
Councillor JOHNSTON: I’m trying to debate
the motion.
Chair: No, don’t debate me.
Councillor JOHNSTON: I’m debating the motion.
Chair: No, I am speaking, so you’re not.
So, in future, please don’t misuse points
of order as you’ve threatened.
Councillor JOHNSTON: I’m not making a point
or order.
Chair: Please use the correct titles for all
Councillors and please refer to people in
the third person. Councillor JOHNSTON.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor JOHNSTON: No, I’m speaking, definitely.
Chair: No—
Councillor JOHNSTON: I am definitely speaking
on this motion.
Chair: No, please—
Councillor JOHNSTON: So, let me be clear:
I haven’t made a point of order, I’m just
trying to speak on the urgency motion which
tries to praise the LNP Administration for
handing out a miserly amount of money whilst
undertaking a juvenile political attack on
the State Labor Government.
At the same time, when local Councillors are
asking for information about how this will
be rolled out locally, we are told we are
not entitled to that information. Now, if
this was such a great idea by the LNP, then
I can’t see why that information would not
be readily made available to the clubs and
to the local Councillors. It is so disappointing
that all this Administration wants to do is
talk about the State Labor Government up in
George Street rather than talking about what
we can do as a Council to help our community
groups. It is simply a political distraction.
It is juvenile politics, and it is not acceptable
in my view.
Now, all of this, the hypocritical part of
all of this is that this Administration has
only just recently frozen its own fees in
relation to clubs. It has raised them year
after year after year. The leasing requirements
that this Council puts on clubs, condition
audits, huge costs in terms of capital improvements
and maintenance, this Council puts extraordinary
pressure on clubs, and if you ask any single
sporting club out there, they will tear their
hair out telling you how hard it is that this
Council makes it—not the State Government—but
this Council makes it for them to go about
their business.
So, do I think the State Labor Government
should be doing more on water? Yes, I absolutely
do. Who knows what they’re doing. They’re
completely incompetent. But I have to agree
with one thing Councillor CASSIDY said. The
LNP Opposition up in George Street are so
incompetent, if they can’t hold that State
Government to account for how badly they are
failing to deliver—
DEPUTY MAYOR: Point of order.
Councillor JOHNSTON: —for our community
sporting clubs—
DEPUTY MAYOR: Point of order, Mr Chair.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor ADAMS.
DEPUTY MAYOR: I’ve listened for the eight
minutes, and the imputing motive has been
worse than what I was saying. She’s just
strayed into the exact same territory that
she complained about. I ask you to bring her
back to the debate.
Chair: Thank you, Councillor ADAMS. Yes, I
agree that Councillor JOHNSTON, for the bulk
of her presentation, impugned motive on others
to a much greater extent than she—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: However, this is a debate in Chamber.
All right, so Councillor JOHNSTON would expect
a higher standard from others than she has
presented herself today, that’s true. However,
I would ask her and all Councillors to resist
the urge to impugn motive.
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: So, let me be clear:
I was just actually agreeing with you all,
that the State Labor Government are a bit
incompetent.
Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON—
Councillor JOHNSTON: That is not imputing
motive.
Chair: I’ve asked you to use the proper
titles and speak in third person on multiple
occasions. I appreciate that you’re a little
worked up now, but please maintain decorum.
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Oh my God. Righto, it’s
going to be like this all meeting. I’m done.
This is a joke.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Thanks, Chair. I wasn’t
going to enter into debate on this motion,
because I could see that it was a pretty shallow
attempt at party political games. But I’ve
been feeling quite angry over the past few
minutes, and I wanted to share my disgust
at the rank hypocrisy I’ve just witnessed
in this Chamber.
Now, I’m sure all Councillors across the
political spectrum will agree that I’m generally
quite restrained in my criticism, and I try
to avoid singling out individual Councillors,
and I try to avoid making party political
criticisms as much as possible. I try to hold
myself to a standard of respect and offer
respect to others, even when I disagree with
the positions they are taking.
But I am disgusted at the hypocrisy of this
Chamber when I see—we’ve just spent all
this time moving a motion calling on a higher
level of government to take action, and fair
enough, that’s great. It makes sense for
Council to be advocating about issues that
are primarily under the control of a higher
level of government. I think that’s an appropriate
thing to do, to be saying to the State Government
or the Federal Government, you need to take
action on this.
Yet we’ve just had a presentation from a
member of the public about the importance
of raising the unemployment rate, where Councillor
ALLAN stood up in this Chamber and said it
is not appropriate for this Council Administration
to weigh in on the issues that are the responsibility
of a higher level of government. There’s
a clear contradiction here. A very obvious
example of disgusting contemptible hypocrisy,
where the LNP Administration has, on the one
hand, said, no, no, we don’t get involved
in issues that are about a higher level of
government, and then on the other hand has
taken up meeting time debating a motion which
simply calls on a higher level of government
to take action. There’s a very obvious contradiction
here in terms of strategy and what the LNP
considers to be appropriate behaviour and
appropriate fields of responsibility for this
Council to weigh in on.
That contradiction is not resolved logically.
It is simply a function of selfishness, self-interested
party politicking, and a contempt for the
lower income residents of this city. Because
that public speaker earlier on was calling
for something very simple. They were calling
for this Council to support a motion calling
on a higher level of government to take an
action, and that action would have materially
improved the lives of many Brisbane residents.
That’s exactly what we’re doing again
now. We’re now debating a motion calling
on a higher level of government to take action.
So, why the hell is it that this Council Administration,
that these LNP Councillors, feel that it’s
fine to put forward this motion but don’t
even want to countenance the possibility of
debating a motion about calling for an increase
to JobSeeker payments or maintaining the higher
rate of JobSeeker payments.
I’m just livid. I am so frustrated and disappointed
and disgusted with the LNP Councillors in
this Chamber who maintain this double standard
and pat themselves on the back like they’re
doing a good thing for the community, like
they’re standing up as community advocates,
when actually they are throwing the most vulnerable
residents of their community under the bus
by failing to speak up publicly about such
an important issue.
There are Councillors in this Chamber from
the LNP who I actually respect, who I think
are reasonable people, and who I think try
to do the right thing. But I do not understand
how you can look yourselves in the mirror
and play these party political games and score
cheap political points while refraining to
speak up on the important issues that we should
be expressing a view on, because, oh, that’s
the responsibility of a higher level of government,
and we don’t get into that. What disgusting
hypocrisy.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, thanks, Mr Chair.
I will just speak—I won’t speak for 10
minutes on this, but I just want to add some
comments to this. I have to say I agree with
a number of Councillors here that this is
just a stunt. There doesn’t appear to be
anything genuine behind it. If anything, it’s
deflecting on the performance of this LNP
Administration. All they’re doing is backing
their mates up in George Street, and yes,
it’s disappointing that this is how they’re
playing the game.
QUU have announced a six-month freeze, and
they’ve done that specifically because of
COVID. So, that actually has been put in place
by the State Government. This is actually
to help many residents. They’ve frozen the
bulk water charge to help many residents.
This is a good thing that they’ve done.
We should be acknowledging that and congratulating
them for doing that.
We as a Council take a massive profit. We
own 80% of QUU. What, do we take $200 million
a year in profit—in profit—into our own
coffers. Are we offering to cut back on that?
Are we offering to redistribute that to any
of our residents? Are we offering to do more
for our sports clubs, other than the pathetic
little amount we are doing? You know, we should
be ashamed. The LNP should be ashamed of this
motion and the hypocrisy of this motion.
I find it very interesting that the LM and
the LNP are calling for a greater freeze on
QUU and the bulk water supply. I hope—I
hope this is an indication that the LORD MAYOR
will be freezing rates for the next year.
I hope that’s the message that we’re taking
out of this because, at the moment, if they
don’t freeze rates, then it clearly stands
to show the sheer hypocrisy of their very
action in moving this motion.
The other interesting fact that I found from
QUU that I thought hasn’t been reflected
in this is that they are going to spend $350
million on providing infrastructure in the
next financial year across our city and across
four other cities. This is good for the economy.
This is good for residents. This is good for
development. This is what they need to be
doing so that the economy moves on. We need
to keep people working. We need to keep people
in business, and playing games like this won’t
do that.
Once again I hope—and I ask this as a question
to the LORD MAYOR, through you, Mr Chair—I
hope this is an indication that the LNP will
be freezing rates next financial year for
all those people out there battling with the
situation they’re in with COVID. Thank you.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor ADAMS.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise
to speak on obviously a very emotional topic
when it comes to the Chamber, and something
I think that people have taken a little bit
hysterically. We’re hearing stupid political
game, juvenile political attack, abhorrent
hypocrisy. What we are doing here today is
moving a motion to support our sporting clubs
and community clubs who have an enormous water
bill that the LNP Administration has made
significant contribution to over the last
six months, by asking the State Government
to reduce their water bulk bill. That is it.
Reduce the bulk bill water charges.
Councillor HAMMOND made it clear in her example,
an over $11,000 bill came down to $130 without
the bulk water bill, because of the work that
the Council have done to support them. We
hear from Councillor JOHNSTON that these are
stupid political games. Well, these stupid
political games, as Councillor JOHNSTON calls
them, through you, Mr Chair, is what the LNP
are standing here today calling supporting
our local clubs.
Councillor SRI: Point of order, Chair.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Supporting our clubs.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Will Councillor ADAMS take
a question about the importance of—
Chair: No, no, no—
Councillor SRI: —supporting low income residents?
Chair: Councillor ADAMS, will you take a question?
DEPUTY MAYOR: No.
Chair: She won’t be taking a question today.
Councillor ADAMS, please continue.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Because, with respect to the
speech that Councillor SRI just gave us, or
should I say the lecture that Councillor SRI
just gave us, I respect Councillor SRI’s
opinion. He is more than allowed to have that
opinion, but I don’t agree with him. The
only important issues that Councillor SRI
sees are the issues that he thinks are important.
Councillor SRI: Point of order, Chair.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Will Councillor ADAMS take
a question about the difference between water
bills—
Chair: No, Councillor—
Councillor SRI; —and unemployment welfare?
Chair: You know that that’s now how you
do this. That’s not how the process for
asking a question works. However, I will ask
Councillor ADAMS: would you take a question?
DEPUTY MAYOR: No, thank you, Mr Chair.
Chair: Councillor ADAMS has declined.
Councillor ADAMS, please continue.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Because the reality is, Councillor
SRI, if you haven’t figured it out, we’ve
got people in Brisbane who work in our sporting
clubs, and if we can keep our sporting clubs
going, we can keep people in employment. Some
of them have been able to access JobKeeper;
some of them haven’t. But do you know what?
I bet you they’d want a job over JobKeeper
any day of the week. That is what this Administration
is focused on.
Councillor JOHNSTON said we only just recently
started supporting our clubs. We announced
a retro package of relief from 30 March for
rates relief, a $7.9 million business relief
package, to all businesses on Council land
and leases and properties, including those
sporting clubs. We gave a top-up amount to
$5,000 to our sporting clubs in January, which
is what Councillor JOHNSTON was talking about,
not the second grant of water for $5,000 that
we gave just recently, the second one in six
months, Councillor JOHNSTON. Get your details
right. Facts are just not anything that Councillor
JOHNSTON worries about.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
DEPUTY MAYOR: To just put on the record, Mr
Chair—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Councillor JOHNSTON did not
ask for her ward—
Chair: Point of order; Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Mr Chair, I know you’ve
been very strict about this today, so I presume
you want Councillor ADAMS to stop referring
to me in the first person.
Chair: She’s already corrected herself,
but yes, I would have expected it.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Yes. I said, through you, Mr
Chair. Through you, Mr Chair, I will correct
Councillor JOHNSTON, that she did not ask
for her details from her ward office sporting
clubs and get refused. She asked for the entire
city, and was correctly told to go through
the information request process. Any Councillor
can get information they want on their ward,
but as I said, Councillor JOHNSTON does not
let the details get in the way of a good political
debate in this place, which she does as much
as anybody else—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
DEPUTY MAYOR: —when she stands up and talks
about juvenile political game playing—
Chair: Point of order; Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order; Councillor JOHNSTON.
DEPUTY MAYOR: —through you, Mr Chair.
Chair: I’ve called you twice.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Can’t hear you, Mr
Chair.
Chair: Well, I’ve called you twice, all
right?
Councillor JOHNSTON: Thank you, and I appreciate
that. Well, Councillor ADAMS yet again referred
to me in the first person, Mr Chair, and I
know that you don’t like this, and I’m
sure you would like to call her up on the
matter.
Chair: Well, Councillor JOHNSTON, Councillor
ADAMS had corrected herself, as we said before
you left the screen, and the time when I asked
you, where I insisted it, you’d already—I’d
only pulled you up on the third occasion when
you’d done it, not the first; the third.
I only pull people up on it when they do it
multiple times, and I insist it as a courtesy,
all right. So, I appreciate that you like—you
enjoy these sorts of tête-à-têtes you have
with me, but I must ask you to always try
and keep them in proportion. I only asked
you on the third error that you made, not
the first. Okay?
Councillor ADAMS.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Can I just clarify, Chair. So,
if I want to rebut the debate made by the
Councillor for Tennyson, through you, I need
to call her the Councillor for Tennyson Ward,
is that correct?
Chair: Only Councillor JOHNSTON.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Okay, thank you.
Chair: Not you or she, but Councillor JOHNSTON,
please.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Okay. Thank you, Mr Chair. I
would just like to respond to a comment made
by the Councillor for Moorooka, Councillor
GRIFFITHS, that the State Government froze
QUU’s fees. Well, you can’t have your
argument both ways, Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Either we are the stakeholders or the State
is. Council-owned QUU, yes, retailer froze
their charges, not the State Government. What
did the State Government do? They jacked up
their water bills, and that is why we are
making this debate here today.
Unfortunately, Councillor COOK is not with
us in the Chamber because, on 17 May on ABC
Radio, she made it very clear how she felt
about her local representatives, and she does
represent her local areas as a member of my
Committee. We talk quite frequently about
her local areas. Clubs are crying out for
help, she’s claimed, because they are facing
possible closure and they need urgent financial
assistance. They simply don’t have the funds
for ongoing expenses, like water.
I spoke to one of those clubs yesterday who
just got a $15,000 water bill but they have
no income to pay that bill. Sounds very much
like Councillor HAMMOND’s as well. It’s
a pity that Councillor COOK isn’t here to
vote with us today in saying: thank you, Administration,
for over $5,000 worth of support to our sporting
clubs so far on top of the business relief
package, and please, State Government, stop
jacking up your prices of your bulk water
bills. In three weeks’ time, a water bill
just went up by another $525 a quarter for
that club she’s talking about. Do you think
they’re going to be able to afford that
anymore now than they could when Councillor
COOK was speaking to them in May? Maybe the
ALP should just organise another jointly-signed
letter and see how it goes if they send it
up to the other end of George Street.
Look, what we see time and time again is a
State Government with no plan except looking
after themselves. I remember in my time as
Lifestyle Chair we were having this same argument
with the single figures cost for local clubs;
five years on is still the State bulk water
charge. Despite being smack bang in the middle
of an economic crisis, corporations are gouging—corporations—the
State Government’s corporations are gouging
small clubs to water their lawns. Those clubs
employ people, Councillor SRI, through you,
Mr Chair.
It’s not good enough just to say we’ll
delay it, we’ll decrease it. But no, no,
they haven’t even done that; they’re jacking
it up. It’s about time that Labor on that
side of the Chamber and the Independent Councillor
and the Greens Councillor stood up for their
local people and said, enough; absolutely
enough. Thank goodness the people of Brisbane
saw through that façade in March and we’ve
got an Administration that are here to support
our local sporting clubs, our local businesses
and the people of Brisbane, and I am looking
forward to the June 17 budget which will do
exactly that.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor STRUNK.
Councillor STRUNK: Yes, thanks, Chair. Listen,
I want to enter the debate on this motion
because I think we’re forgetting a number
of things that have happened over the last
couple of years. Does anyone remember the
water remissions that pensioners used to get
that we took away for anyone that was becoming
a pensioner wouldn’t be able to apply; that
was removed, and of course pensioners—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor STRUNK: —who moved addresses
would lose that support as well. At the time—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor STRUNK: At the time we raised this
issue about water and how important it was
for those pensioners to continue to get that
remission, because it was worth a lot of money,
and of course we did point out at the time
that our income from QUU was approaching $200
million, and how petty it was that we would
take this small amount of money which was
only a few million dollars, I think, at the
time, away from the pensioners.
So, now we’re coming and we’re talking
about the support for sporting groups which,
listen—we all love our sporting groups,
and we would want to support them as much
as we can as a Council, but I think Council
is being really disingenuous about the income
that they receive on a yearly basis for doing
nothing. You do not do any work for this money
that comes in. You should be thanking the
arrangement that goes back so many, many years
ago, 2009 whatever it was, that made this
arrangement so that this Council could have
an income support from the State Government
indirectly for doing nothing, to be able to
support our bottom line.
Now, you would hope that some of that money,
a lot more of that money, could be used in
these particular—in the next 12 months to
support our clubs, rather than trying to hypocritically
suggest or demand that the State Government
reduce bulk water charges or eliminate them
for a period of time—I’m still not really
clear on this motion as exactly what you want—but
I just wanted to again reinforce the fact
that this Council, a couple of years ago,
removed any new pensioners from water remissions
and, if you moved, you were then not able
to attract that water remission as well. It
was a very small amount of money.
We made—from this side of the Chamber, we
made the point that it was a very small amount
of money but what did the LORD MAYOR say at
the time? We could not afford to continue
with these water remissions into the future
for new applicants. I think today you really
are showing a hypocritical way of thinking
about these things. We didn’t do what we
needed to do for our pensioners, and now you’re
expecting the State Government to do something
that you won’t do yourself. Thank you, Mr
Chair.
Chair: Further speakers? I see no further
speakers.
Councillor HAMMOND.
Councillor HAMMOND: Sorry, Mr Chair; thank
you. It was a very interesting debate, and
I thank all the speakers for participating.
But, Councillor STRUNK, not sure where you
were getting at, but I am not going to thank
the Labor State Government for jacking up
the State Government bulk water charges by
215% to put into their coffers. I am not going
to thank them for that, and nor are my sporting
groups.
It’s interesting that Councillor CASSIDY—sorry,
I nearly had to laugh when he was talking—that
he said that we’ve only just jumped into
action on this. Councillor CASSIDY, where
have you been? We froze—we gave the rebate
earlier on this year. We’ve given almost
$10,000 to some sporting clubs this financial
year as part of their usage of the bulk water
charge. You only woke up when—
Chair: Councillor HAMMOND, Councillor HAMMOND—
Councillor HAMMOND: —the LORD MAYOR himself—
Chair: Councillor HAMMOND—
Councillor HAMMOND: —announced that he was
giving more—
Chair: Councillor HAMMOND!
Councillor HAMMOND: —more help—
Chair: Please refrain from referring to other
Councillors as you, and please refer all comments
through the Chair, and refer to Councillors
in the third person.
Councillor HAMMOND.
Councillor HAMMOND: Thank you. Through you,
Mr Chair, Councillor CASSIDY, you only woke
up when the LORD MAYOR, Adrian SCHRINNER,
announced some more help for our sporting
groups. Within days of this pandemic coming
out, the LORD MAYOR froze the fees for our
sporting clubs, and tried to help our sporting
clubs.
It’s interesting—my community saw straight
through the Opposition’s political stunt—
Councillor CASSIDY: Point of order.
Councillor HAMMOND: —that’s when the petition
that was sent—
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: Yes, Councillor HAMMOND
is misleading the Chamber. She’s a bit confused
about—
Chair: No, no, no—
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: Thank you. Councillor HAMMOND, please
continue.
Councillor HAMMOND: My community groups contacted
me when they received the petition that their
Labor State Government mates—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
Councillor HAMMOND: —sent through to our
sporting groups, appalled—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order to you—
Councillor HAMMOND: —at Labor’s political
stunt.
Chair: Point of order; Councillor JOHNSTON.
I have called you. I do call you more promptly.
I don’t know why people aren’t hearing
me, though. But I have called you. That was
the third time. So, I am doing it.
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: All I could hear was
Councillor HAMMOND; I apologise. Just to be
clear, Councillor CASSIDY made a point of
order, and you have declared to my understanding
last week that misleading the Chamber is a
point of order. So, can I ask why you did
not make a ruling on that point of order,
please, and ask that you do so.
Chair: I did review, as it was discussed last
week, we had a request about the nature of
the point of order, misleading the Chamber.
As I said at the time, it’s not express
or explicit; it’s one we accepted at the
time. I have consulted with a few people,
and it’s my view that its use should be
limited to the strict nature that it is written
into the rules. Now, Councillor JOHNSTON,
you have enjoyed using that particular point
of order often; which rule do you think allows
misleading the Chamber?
Councillor JOHNSTON: Mr Chair, I’m the person
that asked you to make a clarification on
this. Councillor de Wit made up the rule that
you could mislead the Chamber and that happened
about a decade ago. For the past decade, that
rule has been allowed to be used. But different
Chairs have interpreted it differently. It’s
not in the Meetings Local Law, but I asked
you last week to make a ruling on whether
or not we could use it, and my understanding
was last week you told Councillor ADAMS that
you could. But just then you said to Councillor
CASSIDY that he couldn’t. So, I just seek
consistency and clarity about whether it’s
a valid point of order, and I seek a clear
ruling from you.
Chair: All right; you’d like a clear ruling.
Because it’s not explicitly stated within
the rules, because I believe that Councillors
use the point of order misleading the Chamber
in my opinion cynically to interject their
own arguments into the speeches of others,
it will no longer be permitted.
Councillor HAMMOND.
Councillor HAMMOND: Thank you, Mr Chair. As
I said, my clubs were absolutely appalled
by the email that they received from their
State Labor members pushing through that Brisbane
City Council are doing nothing for their clubs,
because they know that is not true. They also
expressed their displeasure to their local
State member and asked him to desist from
playing games. This State member does nothing
for the club; only turns up for the quick
photo opportunity.
I’d also like to say to Councillor SRI,
I know people are doing it tough, and I understand
your point of view, but these sporting groups
and community groups also do support people
who are in our most vulnerable. A lot of our
sporting groups actually pay for some of the
children to actually play these sports, and
be a part of our community. So, this really
is important to try and reduce those costs
on the clubs so they can continue doing so.
It’s not just about sporting, Councillor
SRI, it’s also about our other community
groups where people go to be with people in
some cases that helps with their mental health
issue. So, I just want to make that clear,
that our sporting groups are as important—are
very important to keep going for our whole
community.
I also would like to add that the ALP Councillors
are trying to insinuate that this Council
absolutely does nothing. Well, I’m not sure
what they use the Lord Mayor’s Community
Funds for, and how they support their local
groups, because this money is vital to our
local groups to sustain just sometimes simple
things like fertiliser through. I’m not
sure if the Opposition Councillors actually
get to speak to their local groups, or listen
to their local groups, because for years I’ve
been working with my local groups about the
ridiculous cost of the State Government bulk
water charges.
In closing, I’m just going to repeat those
figures, and I hope that everyone in this
Chamber supports this motion. One of my club’s
sporting bill is $17,468—
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Your vote, it keeps
going backwards.
Councillor HAMMOND: State Government bulk
water charge was $11,354.20. That left the
club $6,113.80. With the $5,000, they got
off with a bill of $113.80. Surely the State
Government can freeze the State Government
bulk water charge of 3.5 per cent—3.5 per
cent—freeze it, and give our clubs some
kind of support instead of jacking it up in
this terrible time of need, of 3.5 per cent.
Noting that they’ve given themselves a pay
rise in their own costs that they can go and
self-promote themselves before an October
election.
We know that they pushed their budget out,
because they’re afraid of this budget, and
they don’t want to help our community. They’ve
pushed their budget out until October because
they are afraid. Come on, State Government:
put your money where your mouth is and stand
by our community. They need you right now.
They need your support. Please, think seriously
about reducing this ridiculous, absolutely
ridiculous increase of 3.5 per cent. I look
forward to this whole Council standing united
and say no to the State. Thank you, Mr Chair.
Chair: I will now put the resolution.
All those in favour say aye and raise your
hands.
Councillors say aye.
Chair: Thank you; please lower your hands.
All those against say no and raise your hands.
Councillors say no.
Chair: The motion is carried. The ayes have
it.
[A Division is called by Councillor ADAMS
and Councillor LANDERS.]
Chair: All Councillors are present; you may
now turn off the bells.
All right, again, all those in favour say
aye, raise your hand and hold it there so
it may be counted.
Councillors say aye.
Chair: Thank you; please lower your hands.
Those against, please say no, raise your hand
and hold it there so it may be counted.
Councillors say no.
Chair: Thank you; please lower your hands.
Clerks, please read the result.
Clerk: Mr Chair, the ayes have it, the voting
being 20 in favour, four against and two abstentions.
Chair: Thank you; the ayes have it.
Councillors, we will now return to Question
Time. The time remaining is 16 minutes 20
seconds. Excuse me.
Further questions?
Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Thanks, Chair; my question
is to the LORD MAYOR. During the COVID-19
shutdown—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
Councillor SRI: —some homeless Brisbanites
have been housed temporarily in empty apartments
or hotels.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: I’m sorry, Councillor
SRI. But something is wrong, because I should
be getting a question before Councillor SRI.
I didn’t get a question last week, and I
haven’t got a question this week, and I
believe that, on the pro-rata—
Chair: As we discussed last week, after the
scrutiny placed upon the Question Time by
yourself, Councillor JOHNSTON, and Councillor
SRI, the pro-rata system had not been satisfied
the way that it had been required to be, and
I had—excuse me, that’s not correct. The
pro-rata system was at one end and it was
biased heavily in your favour. As a result,
questions had to be provided to the Labor
Party to adjust that, and it was square at
the conclusion of the last meeting.
Councillor SRI: Point of order, Mr Chair.
Chair: Point of order; Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Can I suggest that, going
forward, it might be appropriate to either
publish or to privately circulate a running
tally of the questions. This could be circulated
by the Council and Committees’ email list
just so Councillors can keep track, because
I’ve had concerns in the past that you haven’t
been keeping track well.
Chair: Well, we do keep track, or I do keep
track, I should say.
Councillor SRI: Sure.
Chair: My view is that this question belongs
to a cross-bencher. I apologise if Councillor
JOHNSTON felt it was hers. Councillor SRI
was the first hand I saw from the cross-bench.
Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Sure. I’ll start the question
again, to the LORD MAYOR. During the COVID-19
shutdown, some homeless Brisbanites have been
housed temporarily in empty apartments or
hotels. This pandemic has reminded all of
us that offering vulnerable people stable
housing actually benefits everyone in our
city. So, I’m wondering what steps will
your Administration be taking to ensure that
homeless residents placed in temporary crisis
accommodation aren’t pushed back on to the
streets in a few months’ time, and that
the supply of public housing in our city actually
increases?
Chair: LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank
you, Councillor SRI, for the question. It
was interesting, because we have been talking
about homelessness in this Chamber and it’s
something that Council has been focused on
for quite some time. I previously said in
response to questions from Councillor SRI,
I’ve talked about the long public housing
waiting list and how the State Government
had no plan to actually build the many public
houses that are required. I think there was
more than 30,000 people on the waiting list—I’m
speaking from memory—yet there were plans
to build just a handful, a few thousand houses
for those people.
Yet, come COVID, suddenly the State Government
has found homes for many of our homeless residents.
Councillor SRI has referred to some of the
situations. There are people who were previously
homeless that are being housed in apartments
and hotels in various parts of the city. So,
there would be an expectation that, if the
State Government can step in in this way during
COVID, that they should do a lot more to step
in in ordinary times as well.
Now, we will continue to play our part as
a Council, and we have in our submission to
other levels of government, including the
Federal Government, put forward funding requests
for support for additional support for the
construction of affordable and social housing
to the Federal Government. I’ve been working
with the capital city Lord Mayors on a submission
that has gone to the Federal Government asking
for a whole range of initiatives across the
capital cities of Australia, including support
for the construction of more affordable and
social housing in response to COVID, and as
part of the stimulus program.
So, I will continue to work with the other
levels of government in that respect. But
I have to say I don’t have a lot of confidence
that this State Government will come up with
a decent long-term plan. It is concerning
that, once the COVID immediate situation is
over, that those people that currently have
homes might end up back on the street. So,
Councillor SRI has raised a very legitimate
point. Homeless people, or previously homeless
people being put up in homes during COVID
may become homeless once this immediate crisis
is over, and that is not a good outcome at
all. It just highlights the need for all three
levels of government to work together to make
sure that we have a plan to deliver improvements
to the affordable and social housing in our
city.
We will continue working, as I said, with
the Federal Government, in terms of trying
to obtain some of the stimulus funding that
might be available in this respect, but the
State Government really needs to step up as
well. If they can find the money in the short
term to provide housing and accommodation,
then I think it’s not reasonable for them
to put people out, to kick people out on to
the street, after this immediate crisis is
over.
So, look, thank you, Councillor SRI, for the
question. I can’t speculate on what the
State Government might do when the current
arrangements come to an end, but you have
raised a legitimate issue. It is a legitimate
issue, and one that I share your concern about,
because we do need to make sure that all three
levels of government are working together
on the issue of homelessness. Hopefully we
can get some good funding from the Federal
and State Governments to help deal with the
supply of that social and affordable housing.
Look, like I said, I can’t speculate on
what might happen, but we are working to make
sure that there is funding granted to the
needs of homelessness, not only in Brisbane
but the capital cities of Australia that are
suffering from significant problems, particularly
in the case—if you look at the discussions
we’ve had with other Lord Mayors, it’s
interesting. Some of the states have done
what Queensland has done, which is to provide
that temporary accommodation during COVID;
some have not. But, we know that in places
like Melbourne and Sydney, a similar thing
is happening.
What’s the next step? What’s the next
step? That’s a legitimate question. We don’t
want to see people being thrown out of accommodation
when they are in desperate need of it. So,
thank you, Councillor SRI, for raising the
question. You have raised and highlighted
a very legitimate issue.
Chair: Further questions?
Councillor HUTTON.
Councillor HUTTON: My question is to the Chair
of the Infrastructure Committee, Councillor
McLACHLAN. As the works on Kingsford Smith
Drive near completion, can you update the
Chamber on the facts of this vital infrastructure
project, including a response to the continued
misrepresentation by the Labor Party about
the delivery of this project?
Chair: Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor CUMMING: It’s a shambles.
Councillor McLACHLAN: Through you, Mr Chair,
thank you for your question, Councillor HUTTON,
and for the opportunity to provide an update
on this critically needed project that’s
future-proofing our city and transforming
one of Brisbane’s most significant transport
corridors built in horse and cart days to
cope with the citywide needs of the 21st century.
The river road, as it was called, was built
to provide a connection through to the 19th
century convict era women’s prison at Eagle
Farm, and now called Kingsford Smith Drive.
Beneath the road surface is a complex network
of public utility services, including power,
water supply, gas, telecommunications and
wastewater infrastructure that service not
only the immediate area but Brisbane more
broadly.
Upgrading these services is the sort of work
I’m referring to when I talk about this
as a future-proofing project. Much more than
a congestion-busting project that’s ensuring
that road, public transport and utility infrastructure
will be able to service the future needs of
Brisbane. Current works are stabilising the
rock face on the outbound lanes. Over time
the rock walls on the northern verge that
were excavated nearly 200 years ago have been
destabilised by vegetation and work is reducing
risk of erosion and rock fall.
New road pavements and asphalt laying is also
under way as well as the construction of new
kerb and footpaths, installation of streetlights
and landscaping works. Finished works include
the Lores Bonney Riverwalk, Bretts Wharf Plaza,
Cameron Rocks War Memorial precinct, and all
the roadworks to the east of Harbour Road.
The project is on track to be finished in
the second half of this year, within the contracted
budget. I will repeat that again, through
you, Mr Chair, for the benefit of the Leader
of the Opposition: KSD is on track to be completed
this year within the contracted budget. The
Leader of the Opposition—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor McLACHLAN: —attempted in the
third budget review debate—I hear an interjection—in
the third budget review debate—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor McLACHLAN: —to negative spin
a clearly marked amount of $17 million that
was brought forward from next year’s budget
to the current financial year, not an extra
cost as was claimed. So, through you, Mr Chair,
Councillor CASSIDY either doesn’t know how
to read the budget papers—and that’s certainly
noted for future reference—or chooses to
ignore the truth in the interests of continuing
his pre-election propaganda.
Mr Chair, businesses in the area are reaping
the benefit of the completed works, particularly
in the industrial and commercial areas of
the Australia Trade Coast. For example, a
story in The Courier-Mail last week—and
I know the Leader of the Opposition won’t
acknowledge this story—I’ll hold it up;
it was in—oh, you can’t really see it,
but I’ll quote from it, a story in The Courier-Mail
last week reports on a Sunshine Coast cabinet
manufacturer relocating its warehouse and
distribution headquarters in the Australia
Trade Coast to take advantage of the precinct’s
significant upgraded roads, of which Kingsford
Smith Drive is the main artery.
The article highlights how the Trade Coast
precinct serves as an area of high demand
for industrial uses, given its location close
to the port, airport and CBD. Mr Chair, the
article says—and I’ll quote from it, ‘The
extensive upgrades that have been undertaken
to the road network have resulted in an area
that allows major occupiers to access arterial
networks in all directions with ease. This
road access was of major importance to the
manufacturer who can have multiple truck movements
between their Sunshine Coast manufacturing
facility and Pinkenba daily.’
Mr Chair, this is one example of how the Kingsford
Smith Drive upgrade is supporting the future
of our city. Now, more than ever, we need
projects like this that are not only generating
jobs by virtue of the work itself but supporting
job creation in the coming years. The Trade
Coast, Port of Brisbane and Brisbane Airport
precincts are set to become South-East Queensland’s
second biggest employment generator, expected
to support 33,000 jobs and 25% of Brisbane’s
export growth over the next 20 years.
Mr Chair, I’m proud that the Kingsford Smith
Drive upgrade is providing vital connections
to this precinct, and ultimately helping to
keep jobs and growth in the city’s industrial
sector. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition
doesn’t care about jobs and growth in our
city. The Leader of the Opposition only denigrates
job generating projects, and disrespects the
workers slogging it out every day to help
make a better Brisbane. Thank you, Mr Chair.
Chair: That concludes Question Time.
Councillors, I draw your attention to the
Committee Reports. The Establishment and Coordination
Committee Report, please.
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. I move: that
the Report of the Establishment and Coordination
Committee meeting held on Monday 1 June 2020
be adopted.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Seconded.
Chair: It’s been moved by the LORD MAYOR,
seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR, that the Report
of the Establishment and Coordination Committee
meeting dated Monday 1 June 2020 be adopted.
Is there any debate?
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, we’ve
seen some interesting things already in this
meeting happening. We heard a question from
the Leader of the Opposition about CBIC, and
one question which really is a fascinating
insight into the way Labor Councillors and
the Labor Opposition seems to view financial
matters. Councillor CASSIDY may not be aware
of the history, but his suggestion that Council
paying rent to CBIC was some kind of problem
is quite fascinating, this sort of suggestion,
the implication in his question.
So, let’s go into a little bit of history
about Council facilities and who owns them
and whether we rent or own or buy, because
there’s a building right behind City Hall
that currently Telstra is in, and it was previously
called the Brisbane Administration Centre.
That building was owned by the Brisbane City
Council and therefore by the ratepayers of
Brisbane.
Under Labor, that building was sold. It was
sold for $35 million at the time. Then the
Labor Council at the time decided that they
would spend over $30 million fitting out and
renting Brisbane Square. Now, the $30 million
was just for the initial fit-out and then
there was many millions in rent paid each
year for Brisbane Square. So, that is obviously
the building where many of our Council officers
are in at the moment.
So, under Labor it was okay to sell an existing
Council asset and move into a rented asset,
and to spend almost as much on fitting out
the rented asset as you received in the sale
proceeds for a CBD building. Then, on top
of that, pay millions and millions of dollars
each year to a private investor. That was
okay for Labor, but apparently what is not
okay now is for us to pay rent to a Council
investment fund which then in turn provides
a dividend back to us.
Just consider that for a moment. So, it’s
okay to provide rent to an investor where
we get nothing else in return for it, other
than the right to be in the building, yet
somehow Labor thinks it’s not a good deal
if we pay rent to ourselves or a Council-owned
investment fund and then get something back
at the end of that. Wow! This is why Labor
should never run a $3.1 billion budget in
the City of Brisbane. Because they can’t
get that basic financial concept that, if
you’re renting off the City of Brisbane
Investment Corporation, and then there’s
money coming back from that to Council to
support the green future fund, then that is
a good thing, not a bad thing.
But then we saw in the meeting some other
interesting things happen. True to form, the
Labor Councillors will do and say anything
to defend the indefensible. They will do and
say anything to support their Labor colleagues
in George Street. Consider for a moment that
it was an LNP State Government that was jacking
up the bulk water charge which then got passed
on to residents, businesses and sporting clubs.
Do you think Labor Councillors would have
taken the same approach? I think we all know
the answer to that question. But the reality
is this Opposition will simply fall into line
with their colleagues in George Street on
every important matter.
We saw another example of that with the allocation
of funding this week. So, not only have they
refused to defend the people of Brisbane,
the sporting clubs, the businesses, the residents,
the householders, who are getting hit with
a 3.5 per cent increase in their bulk water
charges at a time when the Council-owned water
retailer is freezing charges—so, on the
one hand, you have Council’s retailer freezing
charges, and the State Government jacking
them up by 3.5 per cent.
But yet, at the same time, you have a State
Government and a Minister for Local Government
that deliberately—deliberately denied funding
to Brisbane residents to send that money elsewhere
in Queensland. Yet the Labor Party will not
stand up and defend the people of Brisbane.
They will only defend their own colleagues.
They will only fall into line and fight to
defend their own colleagues, not for the people
of Brisbane, not for the unemployed people
of Brisbane who deserve funding to support
local projects and jobs.
Not for the sporting clubs of Brisbane who
are getting hit with a bigger bill, a water
bill, as a result of the Labor State Government
jacking up the price of bulk water, yet they
will only defend their own party. We will
stand up for the people of Brisbane when it
is right to do so.
I think the best example that you can point
to was during the bus network review. Some
Councillors were here, some Councillors weren’t.
But this was an LNP State Government proposing
bus network changes which we believed as a
Council were not beneficial to the people
of Brisbane. We stood up, even though it was
a government of the same colour as ours, and
we defended our residents. We did the right
thing, and we had a stoush. I’ve got to
say there are some people who still in our
own party haven’t forgiven us for that.
But we did the right thing.
The contrast is clear. Labor will always defend
their Labor mates over the people of Brisbane.
We will stand up for the sporting clubs and
the residents and the businesses, and we will
do the right thing. We can’t fix every problem
here, but we will provide the targeted support
where it makes a difference, just as we provided
support late last year when sporting clubs
were experiencing drought. They were experiencing
an incredible drought. We had many, many months
of little or no rainfall. We gave them support.
Now, as they’re experiencing COVID, we have
given them support. We have given them support
through responsible financial management,
by finding savings elsewhere in the budget,
by taking funding from projects that either
have been delayed or cannot go ahead due to
COVID, and making sure that money gets targeted
to support the community and sporting clubs
that are in need.
I can say next week in the budget there will
be further support as well. So, we want to
do everything we can to provide support to
those in need, and we can do that through
responsible financial management. We will
continue to do that.
Mr Chair, as I usually do, I just wanted to
give you an update on the lighting up of Council
assets. This coming Saturday will mark 30
years of the MS Brissy to the Bay bike ride.
This well-known bike ride supports the work
of MS Queensland which aims to help people
living with Multiple Sclerosis to get the
best of life and to advocate change and to
search for a cure. While the road unfortunately
can’t proceed this year, the MS Brissy to
the Bay is going virtual, with a 30 for 30
challenge. They’re asking participants to
set yourself up, challenge to complete in
the next 30 days. To show our support, the
Victoria Bridge and the Story Bridge will
be lit red and blue on Saturday.
On the Sunday and Monday, the Victoria and
Story bridges will be lit in purple to support
World Elder Abuse Week—not Elder Abuse Week,
Elder Abuse Awareness Week, which is important.
The Elder Abuse Prevention Unit, supported
by Uniting Care Queensland, works in the prevention
of elder abuse as well as providing a help
line and supports community education as well.
Mr Chair, the items in front of us—item
A is a dedication, effectively to support
the dedication of road reserve as a result
of the Inner City Bypass upgrade that we completed
in late 2018. Obviously, the widening of Inner
City Bypass has created a need to update our
records to dedicate this 395 square metres
as road reserve which reflects what it is
at the moment. So, this is a tidying up of
that process.
Item B is the contracts and tendering report
for April. There’s a number of projects
that are worthy of mention in this particular
contracts and tendering report, but the work
goes on to upgrade our facilities and provide—
Chair: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Extension.
Councillor McLACHLAN: Seconded.
Chair: Extension of time moved by Councillor
ADAMS, seconded by Councillor McLACHLAN.
All those in favour say aye and raise your
hand.
Councillors say aye.
Chair: Those against say no and raise your
hand. The ayes have it.
LORD MAYOR, 10 minutes.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you. There’s a number
of notable projects in the list—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Mr Chair.
Chair: Point of order; Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Mr Chair; for many
years the Chair of this Council, including
yourself, has been very strict about breaks
for the purpose of relieving the Clerks. I
note that in recent weeks, since we’ve been
doing Zoom meetings, we have not been abiding
by those in the afternoon or the evening.
Can you advise why the change, given the purpose
of the breaks has always been to give the
Clerks a break?
Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON, are you moving
the motion to go to tea?
Councillor JOHNSTON: I’m seeking some advice
from you as the Presiding Officer about why
there’s been a change to the procedure in
this place, and why we’re not doing what
we normally do?
Chair: I always take the resolution as presented.
So, I don’t insist that it be strictly at
4. I accept the resolution when it arrives.
At the moment—nor has it ever been in my
experience that a resolution of that nature
would occur during a speech or presentation
by a Councillor.
Okay, LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you. I will be brief, Mr
Chair. Some of the noteworthy projects, the
Shelgate Street bridge replacement and the
Tallowwood Place bridge replacement; there’s
access and inclusion works going on. The Kangaroo
Point Cliffs Park early works; Murarrie Recreation
Reserve early works; the decking supply for
the Cultural Centre Riverwalk.
Councillors would be aware, this section of
the Riverwalk, very well used, but some issues
with the decking that have existed for a long
time. Obviously, the standards that we have
now for the construction of Riverwalk are
very different than the standards that existed
when that Cultural Centre section of Riverwalk
was built. So, we’re taking the opportunity
to do some important works on that section
of Riverwalk and to put a new surface on.
This is the surface—and Councillor MURPHY,
you’ll correct me if I’m wrong—that
has wooden panels. It’s also a surface that
from time to time gets inundated with high
tides and river flooding. So we’ll be obviously
replacing that Riverwalk surface, and Wagners—sorry,
not Wagners—Newbow have won the tender for
that work, which is fantastic.
Then there’s the Commercial Road and Doggett
Street intersection upgrade. I was out there
just a matter of days ago to have a look at
the work going on at that location. Obviously
a very busy intersection in Newstead. A lot
of traffic, and this is one of the projects
funded as part of the Better Roads for Brisbane
program which is a joint Federal-Council investment
of $500 million of upgrades across the suburbs
of Brisbane. This is the first cab off the
rank. Works are well under way on that upgrade,
and looking forward to seeing that completed
later on this year.
There’s also the disinfecting and sanitising
of our bus fleet, which is something that
we were able to gear up very quickly as a
result of COVID, and something that occurs
at all seven depots every night. I had the
pleasure of visiting the Carina depot in recent
times with Wolfgang, and we saw firsthand
the sanitising work that goes on and the process
to clean, thoroughly clean, each bus every
night. There is a big team of people out there
working to keep our travelling passengers
safe, our bus drivers safe, and people that
work on the buses as well, safe as well.
So, there’s a great effort going on there,
but you can see that’s a major exercise
each night, seven depots, 1,200-plus buses
being sanitised to keep Brisbane people safe.
Mr Chair, I’ll leave my comments at that,
and welcome debate on these two items.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor LANDERS.
Councillor LANDERS: Point of order, Chair.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor LANDERS.
Councillor LANDERS: Mr Chair, I move: that
Council now adjourn for afternoon tea for
15 minutes which commences only when all Councillors
have left the meeting.
Councillor HUTTON: Seconded.
Chair: I’ve got a motion moved by Councillor
LANDERS, seconded by Councillor HUTTON, that
this Council adjourn for the purpose of afternoon
tea for a period of 15 minutes commencing
when all Councillors have vacated the meeting.
All those in favour say aye and hold up your
hand.
Councillors say aye.
Chair: Those against say no and hold up your
hand; the ayes have it.
Thank you, Councillors, we’ll see you in
a moment.
Chair: Welcome back, Councillors. Are there
any further speakers?
Councillors interjecting.
Chair: Please, someone has their microphone
on.
Councillor CASSIDY: Yes, I do.
Chair: Yes, Councillor CASSIDY, I have called
you.
Councillor CASSIDY: Thank you, I didn’t
hear you, Chair. Thanks. I’m speaking on
both these items, and just ask that they be
taken seriatim for voting purposes, please.
Chair: Items A and B taken seriatim for voting.
Councillor CASSIDY: Yes, thank you. So, on
clause A, the surrender of the trusteeship
for 271 Gilchrist Road, Herston, which is
the parcel of land that was impacted on by
the ICB upgrade which was completed in November
2018, the decision will formally surrender
the land from Victoria Park to road reserve,
which has already happened in practice, given
the work is already done. So, we don’t have
any issues, given we supported that project,
with these changes being made in terms of
paperwork.
On clause B, the contracts and tendering for
April 2020, I’m quite amazed that, after
a number of weeks of pushing the LORD MAYOR
to provide more information on this item,
that he has finally started doing so. So,
I’ll cover off on some of those that he
has mentioned. But we still have a number
of questions concerning these contracts, Chair.
So, before us today there’s 12 ticking off
$8.4 million in public spending for April
2020. Again, I went up to level 23 to the
very helpful Committee staff that were up
there, and checked out the files, and again
there’s no additional information about
any of these projects whatsoever on the file
there. So, I will deal with some of the information
the LORD MAYOR did provide, and hopefully
Chairs will be able to provide information
throughout the debate.
But if you want to be clear, Chair, just because
we, the Labor team in Council, has questions
about some of these contracts or about the
process in which these contracts come to Council
and the lack of information, doesn’t mean
we don’t support some of the items in here
at all. These contracts, as is the case each
and every month, are voted on in a block rather
than individually, so if we want to support,
for instance, contracts for access and inclusion
but oppose the quarter of a million dollars
for market research, we can’t do so individually.
So, I just want to make that absolutely clear
for all Councillors in the Chamber.
It’s simple that that is a lack of information
provided to Councillors who are expected to
come to these meetings and vote on these items,
and approve the decisions of Council’s delegates
who are not elected representatives of the
people of Brisbane; we are. They are making
the decision to spend this money, and we are
here to make a decision whether we endorse
that spending or not.
So, in terms of finding out information for
our residents, the ones we represent and more
broadly the residents around Brisbane, on
contract 1, the City of Lights bud lighting
design supply and installation, which is a
$320,000 contract, we’d like to know where
these lights are being installed; which precincts
they will be going up in, and whether they
have already been installed, given this is
a contract from April, and if not, when will
they be installed.
We have some questions about the asbestos
remediation works at Grinstead Park, Enoggera,
in your ward, Chair, a $1.4 million project.
That is a fairly significant remediation project,
so some information about what works are occurring
as part of that would be appreciated. Is that
the entirety of the project, or is that simply
part of the project?
The LM mentioned the Shelgate bridge replacement
at West Chermside, and Tallowwood Place bridge
replacement at Bridgeman Downs, although he
just mentioned them. There’s $1 million
for these works. It says in the contracts
document that the price has been normalised
due to delay costs. So, we would like to know
what are these costs and what are the delays?
Have they now been overcome, and is this project
now proceeding as normal, and why did the
delays occur in this contract?
Contract 4, access and inclusion package 1
for 2019-2020; we support this program. We
always have—these initiatives, but there’s
no information on the contracts. It’s probably,
we assume from the funding, a refit or a fit-out
of a facility. Is it for one project or many
projects, Chair, is a question we have, and
what is the nature of the work that is being
undertaken?
Contracts 5, 6 and 7 all appear to be landscaping
projects—Chermside Hills, Kangaroo Point
Cliffs and Murarrie Recreational Reserve.
The LORD MAYOR mentioned those. It is significant
landscaping works of $1.2 million for these
contracts, so what is being undertaken at
these? The LORD MAYOR did detail contract
8, the decking for the Cultural Centre Riverwalk,
so that’s great to know.
Contract 9 is almost $2.3 million for the
safety upgrade of Commercial Road and Doggett
Street. The LORD MAYOR mentioned this is one
of the federally funded upgrades, road projects,
and there are no specifics on this file. But,
according to the Council website, it’s focused
on improving pedestrian safety at that intersection,
so we of course are supportive of initiatives
which improve pedestrian safety. We’d like
to see more of an emphasis in our outer suburbs,
not just inner-city areas.
This is, as the LORD MAYOR mentioned, one
of those projects that the Federal Government
announced they were funding. I’m not sure
when we’re going to see details of other
projects that this funding was supposed to
provide works for, particularly those ones
out at Bracken Ridge. I’m sure Councillor
LANDERS will be all across that, particularly
Norrish Road, those series of intersection
upgrades that were supposed to have been undertaken
a considerable time ago.
Contract 10 is for the disinfection and sanitisation
of Brisbane’s bus fleet during COVID-19.
It absolutely has our full support. Keeping
commuters and bus drivers safe during the
health pandemic is paramount, so doing this
work is absolutely important, and we could
never afford the risk of transmission of COVID-19
on our public transport network. The successful
tenderer, Multana Property—Multhana or Multana
Property Services—is an indigenous business
providing training and job opportunities for
Australia’s first nations people.
Interestingly, something the LORD MAYOR didn’t
mention, but the name of that organisation
means coming together to help each other in
the Kalkadoon language spoken in and around
the Mt Isa region. So, it’s certainly a
fantastic organisation for Council to be supporting,
and we support contracts going to organisations
like these who are creating jobs and training
opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Australians. But, again, having that
information at hand would be very useful for
Councillors coming into this place and approving
these significant contracts.
Contract 11 is nearly $200,000 for a construction
project management software. We, you know,
like to know which construction projects this
is going to be affecting. You can certainly
hope that it would be to rein in some of the
cost blowouts we’ve seen on projects like
Kingsford Smith Drive or on Brisbane Metro.
We’d like to know more about this software
before we are voting on these items.
And, of course, last but not least is contract
12 which is the item for around a quarter
of a million dollars being awarded, but this
is—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Appalling contract.
Councillor CASSIDY: —a portion of $7 million
in total, which is $1 million a year for the
total of this contract on market research.
Now, given millions of dollars that the LORD
MAYOR spends on glossy Living in Brisbane
self-promotion flyers and the millions of
dollars of ratepayers’ money wasted on the
Brisbetter ads, we are concerned about this
contract, and are always concerned about this
type of money being spent on market research
without any detail as to what is being done
with this contract.
So, unlike the LORD MAYOR, we don’t think
a quarter of a million dollars on market research
is actually small change. We have questions
about this, and the answers can’t be found
on the E&C files. For example, where are the
projects—sorry, what were the projects for?
Essentially, what was being tested, and what
research was being conducted, what messages
were being tested in focus groups, we can
imagine; how many market research projects
were we getting for the $250,000 in total?
Who was involved in the research? Were they
simply residents of Brisbane? Were they organisations
within Brisbane? Were they for specific projects
or were they for overall branding and messaging
in the lead-up to the last Council election?
Were they done as surveys or polls, or were
they done as face-to-face or over Zoom market
research sessions? So, there is a lot of information
that Councillors do require before we make
a judgment on awarding or approving these
contracts that have already been awarded,
particularly items like the $7 on market research.
So, without this information being provided
each month, Chair, and these items being voted
on as a block, while we support some of these
wholeheartedly, we can’t act as a rubber
stamp for this Administration.
Chair: Councillor CASSIDY, your time has expired.
You don’t want an extension? No.
Councillor CASSIDY: No, thank you.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor DAVIS.
Councillor DAVIS: Thank you, Chair; I rise
to speak briefly to item B with regard to
the contract for the replacement of the Shelgate
Street bridge in Chermside West and the Tallowwood
Place bridge in Bridgeman Downs. Mr Chair,
since the 1960s the current timber bridge,
or the current timber pedestrian bridge at
Shelgate Street has served the community well.
It’s provided connectivity across a drainage
channel on Melaleuca Green, along Downfall
Creek between Shelgate Street and Kinnerton
Street, but it also leads to a playground
on Melaleuca Green.
But, 50 years on, the bridge has reached the
end of its serviceable life. The new bridge
will be a 3.6-metre wide steel bridge with
a concrete deck which will be safer and more
accessible for pedestrians and cyclists. That’s
really important at the moment because, with
more and more people out and about using the
local network of bikeways and pathways, the
new bridge will be an important piece of infrastructure
that will not only offer pedestrian access
but will be designed for other forms of active
transport, including cycling and scootering.
Mr Chair, this week I caught up with some
long-time locals, June and Graham, who came
to see me about the new bridge, and this lovely
couple has been living near Melaleuca Green
for some time, and they use the bridge on
their daily walk, so they were very interested
of course on the progress of this replacement
piece of infrastructure. Like many young couples
in the 1960s, they decided on the outer northern
suburbs to build their new home, and that
was part of the housing estates that sat alongside
Melaleuca Green that is off Kinnerton Street
and Shelgate Street. They moved into their
new home in 1965, and they were telling me
that they recall the bridge being built a
few years later.
The Tallowwood Place bridge is an important
link across Cabbage Tree Creek between Coolabah
Crescent and the Jim Wilding Reserve. The
existing bridge was built in 1998, and the
new bridge will be replaced with a new 3.1-metre
wide steel and concrete bridge.
Mr Chair, local residents love our little
part of Brisbane. We love it because of the
parks and the open spaces, and of course the
connected active transport networks where
you can take your kids for a walk, you can
take your dog for a walk, you can run, you
can ride your bikes, and just actually enjoy
the great Brisbane outdoor lifestyle that
we have.
I’m looking forward very much to the new
bridges at Shelgate Street and Tallowwood
Place. Both bridges will absolutely enhance
our active transport routes, and just more
examples of how this Administration is investing
in the right sort of infrastructure to get
residents home quicker and safer with improved
active transport options as part of our growing
network of safe, convenient and connected
pathways and bikeways. Thank you, Mr Chair.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you, Mr Chair;
I rise to speak on items A and B. Firstly,
just with respect to item A briefly, it’s
really disappointing to see what is the formalisation
of the loss of part of Victoria Park. This
is one of—this is Brisbane’s oldest park,
and it is really, really sad to see that it
continues to be carved up. I’ve spoken on
this when other projects have chopped chunks
of it off, and it’s disappointing to see
that being formalised in item A here before
us today.
It is item B, however, that I would like to
speak on, and like Councillor CASSIDY, it’s
contract 12 that is of concern. Now, we’ve
heard today from the LNP Councillors about—and
I quote, ‘the significant investment they’re
making in clubs’ through water rebates;
$5,000 in the latest announcement by the LORD
MAYOR for 150 clubs—I don’t know, about
$700,000, I think. Let’s compare that what
the LNP describe as a significant investment
with the amount that they’re going to spend
on market research.
So, the contract approved under the leadership
of this LORD MAYOR is for $7 million over
a potential seven-year term—so we don’t
know if that’s how many add-ons and extensions
there might be. But this Council is going
to divide $7 million, so that’s about $1
million a year, more—more on doing surveys
and ringing residents and annoying them at
night that they’re going to spend on investing
in supporting our sporting and community clubs.
Now, Councillor HAMMOND got all upset earlier
today when people were sort of critical of
the meagre investment that this Administration
had made in sporting clubs, and this is exactly
why. More than anything else on the agenda
in this item, does this demonstrate the wrong
priorities that this Administration has.
Now, I know that the LORD MAYOR is going to
come back with his earnest, you know, but
very pedantic explanation of, we always do
the survey. Well, we don’t really need to
do it; we could let it go for a year or two
and redirect that money into other priorities,
given there’s a global pandemic that is
having a massive impact on the budget.
Did anybody in a senior leadership position—say
the LORD MAYOR or the DEPUTY MAYOR, who is
probably in charge of all of this as part
of Economic Development, or even the CEO,
you know, he knows big numbers; he’s very
familiar with big numbers—maybe somebody
in a leadership position, or Councillor ALLAN,
I mean, the new Finance Chair, surely he’s
had a look at this and gone, Geez—oh, sorry,
shish, $7 million; that is a lot of money
to be spending on market research.
I think it is just disgusting, and normally
I vote for—even when I don’t agree with
everything the Administration is doing, I
always vote for contracts and tendering, because
this is the Administration that’s been elected
to run the city. However, there are no circumstances
under which, in the current financial climate,
that I am going to support this Administration
spending $7 million on market research, $7
million on market research, while residents
are struggling, small businesses are struggling.
I’ve got footpaths that have been on waiting
lists for six or seven years. We’ve got
clubs that are struggling, yet this Administration
is prepared to spend $7 million on marketing,
on surveys, ringing people at night and annoying
them.
Here are the companies that have been awarded
this largesse: Schottler Consulting, Colmar
Brunton, The Lab Insight and Strategy Brisbane,
Nature—as trustee for Nature Unit Trust,
and Ipsos public affairs. Now—sorry, one
more, Q&A Market Research Services. So, this
Council’s got a list of research companies.
Presumably—we don’t know what they’re
going to do with this money—but presumably
they’re going to put their ideas out there
and then go out in the background and market
test them and check that, what the LORD MAYOR
is doing actually reflects what the people
of Brisbane want.
Councillor CUMMING: Early election.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Well, I can tell you—yes.
I can tell you now that the people of Brisbane
do not want $7 million spent on market research.
The big problem with the way the LORD MAYOR
is running this city, and the CEO and the
Finance Chair and the DEPUTY MAYOR is, they
keep telling us that there have been financial
impacts to the budget because of the global
pandemic, but we’re not seeing adjustments
to our expenditure that could reasonably assist
in mitigating the adverse impacts of the financial
impacts of COVID-19 on residents.
Instead we’re seeing extraordinary largesse—$7
million, that this administration is going
to spend on navel gazing. Now, it could go
into clubs; let’s remember that the LNP,
Councillor ADAMS, Councillor HAMMOND and others
today, stood up and said what a significant
investment they were making in sporting clubs
with the $5,000 water grant. That’s less
than a million dollars—less than $1 million;
it’s only about $700,000 that they’re
going to spend. Yet they’re prepared to
back, defend and say that this $7 million
of expenditure is appropriate in the current
circumstances, is a good use of ratepayers’
payments to the Council, is a good thing in
the current circumstances. Well, I do not
believe it is.
This is a massive waste of money. It is completely
unnecessary and the Council is not going to
grind to a halt because we stopped doing market
research for a year or two and redirect those
millions of dollars into expenditure that
will assist the residents of Brisbane, the
businesses of Brisbane and the clubs of Brisbane
to cope with the impacts of COVID-19. This
is not a good use of money; this is an appalling
waste of money.
It just shows the level of hypocrisy by the
LNP Councillors who want to stand up and take
credit for spending less than a seventh of
the same amount of money on sporting clubs
and say how fantastic that is. But they want
to spend $7 million on navel gazing, seeking
self-approval and that is just unacceptable
in the current financial environment. As I
said at the beginning of this item, I normally
support the contracts and tendering, as I
have done for many years. I will not be today.
This—the decision to progress this expenditure
just should never have happened. This just
clearly shows that the leadership of this
Council, the LORD MAYOR, the DEPUTY MAYOR,
the Finance Chair and the CEO, are asleep
at the wheel when they let $7 million of expenditure
roll through that could otherwise be directed
to more important priorities around this city,
which include managing the impacts of COVID-19.
Or, just doing anything actually useful like
building some safer pedestrian crossings,
fixing bikeways, improving parks facilities.
We’ve got residents who are out in the suburbs
more than ever and we’re not seeing that
additional investment needed out there. So,
this demonstrates today to me that this administration
are absolutely delusional about how to spend
money in the best, most effective way to support
Brisbane residents and I will not support
the expenditure of $7 million for market research,
an exercise in navel gazing, when Brisbane
residents, businesses and clubs are doing
it so tough. It’s the wrong decision.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor ATWOOD. Councillor ATWOOD, your
microphone, please.
Councillor ATWOOD: Apologies. Thank you, Mr
Chair. I rise to speak on item B, the Murarrie
Recreation Reserve, home to the Balmoral Cycling
Club and arguably the best skate spark in
Doboy Ward. The Murarrie Recreation Reserve
was once the tip for Brisbane’s eastern
suburbs and closed in 1975. Council’s first
stage of recycling the area into a recreational
facility came about for the 1982 Commonwealth
Games, where Brisbane saw 36 competitors from
15 nations participate in a four day archery
tournament.
The overall vision for the Murarrie Recreation
Reserve now is to build the best cycling facility
in South East Queensland, with something for
everyone. I think that the positioning for
this upgrade couldn’t be better, with direct
access to the Murarrie train station, across
the road from the Cannon Hill bus interchange,
along Wynnum Road and only eight kilometres
from the Chandler Velodrome. But back to the
master plan.
I’ve been hearing extensive feedback from
various cycling stakeholders, other local
sporting clubs, including rollerblading groups
and other members of our community on what
they would like to see. I am very excited
to see this master plan come together.
To improve the facilities for cyclists, Council
would like to upgrade the 1.4 kilometre criterium
to a two kilometre closed circuit criterium,
bringing it into line with other racing tracks
across the globe and add an open pavilion
for cyclists to warm up, official starting
line with a podium, lighting to make the most
of this terrific facility and fencing to help
protect cyclists and park users. These upgrades
will allow Brisbane to chase world-class cycling
events and bring more business to Brisbane.
To also help foster their junior program,
Council are looking to build a learn-to-ride
circuit, a smaller loop off the criterium,
a pump track next to the skate park and this
will create a kids/teen area away from the
main criterium. While this master plan is
still underway and may see some changes, upgrades
to the Vicki Wilson playground have started.
This upgrade isn’t just your run of the
mill playground; it has a real focus on something
for everyone and as a mum who spends a lot
of time at our playgrounds, I am very excited
about the parents’ and guardians’ nook
with an adult swing set, more picnic playgrounds
and shelters of barbeque facilities and different
play areas for various age groups.
Lastly, I’d like to thank all of the Council
officers involved, especially Helena, who
has helped bring this vision for our community
to life and I can’t wait for this project
to come to fruition. Thank you.
Chair: Further speakers?
I see no hands; I call on the LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. Just briefly,
thank you to the Councillors who contribute
to 
the debate or discussion. I would simply point
out that Councillor JOHNSTON appears to have
watched that movie, Austin Powers a few too
many times, because she quoted a number again
and again, which simply is not a reflection
of reality.
What we are seeing here is a continuation
of existing arrangements and if you look very
clearly, the document in front of us shows
that it is a three year arrangement which
sets upper limits. But that doesn’t mean
that that’s what will…
Councillor JOHNSTON: $7 million.
LORD MAYOR: Doesn’t mean that that is what
will be spent.
[Over speaking]
Councillor JOHNSTON: $7 million.
Chair: Please allow the LORD MAYOR to be heard
in silence.
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: It doesn’t mean that that’s
what will be spent. We will ensure that the
level of expenditure is appropriate for the
times but this is an arrangement that goes
well beyond the period of COVID and we will
make sure that we continue to do what we can
to support our community in its time of need.
It is very easy for Councillor JOHNSTON to
pluck a figure out and say, oh well, you know,
what would—what else would you be able to
do with that money? It costs—and I’m speaking
from memory here, it costs more than $20—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
LORD MAYOR: —million a year—
Chair: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Claim to be misrepresented.
Chair: Noted.
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: It costs well over $20 million
a year just to have Councillors in Brisbane
City Council. You know, democracy; come to
the cost. We could easily argue if you’re
using Councillor JOHNSTON’s logic that Brisbane
City Council can do without the cost of having
Councillors. Surely, we could run better without
Councillors; ah, no.
The reality is, Council will continue to be
a good, responsible, democratic manager of
our city, providing guidance and leadership
during a time of critical importance to the
people of Brisbane. That means that we will
cut the costs to measure when it comes to
our expenditure and the items in front of
us are no different. They are no different.
So, I’d simply reject what Councillor JOHNSTON
was saying about a level of expenditure. That
is not what will be spent. That is simply
an upper limit over a seven year period and
the initial term is only for three years.
So, we will spend a responsible level in a
time when our community needs it and just
because Councillor JOHNSTON says that Council
is spending a certain amount of money, I caution
anyone who is listening with the advice, that
is not the case. Thank you, Mr Chair.
Chair: That—Councillor JOHNSTON, you had
a misrepresentation. Please limit your comments
to the misrepresentation at hand, Councillor
JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, the LORD MAYOR has
claimed that I plucked a figure out of the
air and the $7 million that is actually in
the Council papers, page 5, contract 12—
Chair: Thank you—
Councillor JOHNSTON: —which is for $7 million—
Chair: All right, now we will now put these
items. Item—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Mr Chair.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: I would appreciate being
able to make my misrepresentation in an appropriate
way without you universally just cutting me
off.
Chair: You made your misrepresentation—
Councillor JOHNSTON: No, I did not.
Chair: Did you have more to add?
Councillor JOHNSTON: Well, you cut me off.
I would like to make my point of order.
Chair: You’ve made it. All right, thank
you, Councillors, we’ll now put.
Councillor JOHNSTON: I would like to make
my point of order, Mr Chair. It was a reasonable—I
made it in an appropriate way and I would
like to make my point of order about misrepresentation
without being cut off.
Chair: No, you have made your opinion clear.
Councillor JOHNSTON: It’s not my opinion,
Mr Chair.
Chair: Item—
Councillor JOHNSTON: I am claiming a point
of misrepresentation and I am entitled under
the Meetings Local Law to correct it.
Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON, I consider that
you are displaying unsuitable meeting conduct
in accordance with Section 21(5) of the Meetings
Local Law 2001. I hereby request that you
cease speaking over me when I am talking and
refrain from exhibiting this conduct. Councillors,
Item A. all those in favour—
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Mr Chair.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: I move dissent in your
ruling.
Chair: There’s dissent in my ruling. Do
you have a seconder? Councillor GRIFFITHS.
All those who believe—all those who wish
to dissent in my ruling, say aye and raise
your hands.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Aye.
Councillors say aye.
Chair: Those against, say no and raise your
hands.
Councillors say no.
Chair: The noes have it. I will now put item—
A Division is called by Councillor JOHNSTON.
Chair: Division called by Councillor JOHNSTON.
I see no seconder.
I will now put Item A.
All those in favour of Item A, please say
aye and raise your hands.
Councillors say aye.
Chair: Those against, please say no and raise
your hands. The ayes have it.
On Item B.
All those in favour, please say aye and raise
your hands.
Councillors say aye.
Chair: Okay, please lower your hands and those
against, please say no and raise your hands.
Councillors say no.
Chair: The noes have it.
[A Division is called by Councillor CASSIDY
and Councillor JOHNSTON.]
Chair: A division has been called by Councillor
CASSIDY and Councillor JOHNSTON. Please ring
the bells. Thank you, Clerks. All those in
favour, please raise your hand, say aye and
hold your hand in the screen so it may be
counted.
Councillors say aye.
Chair: All right, thank you. Please lower
your hands. Did you get that? Those against,
please say no, raise your hand and hold it
there so it may be counted.
Councillors say no.
Chair: Councillor CUMMING, you voted both
yes and no. Would—could you please indicate
verbally which you prefer. No?
Councillor CUMMING: No. No, sorry.
Chair: Thank you. Councillors voting no, please
hold your hand there, at the—just so it
can be counted by the Clerks. Thank you, please
lower your hands. Clerks, please read the
result.
Clerks: Mr Chair, the ayes have it, the voting
being 20 in favour, three against and three
abstentions.
Chair: Thank you, and the ayes have it.
Councillors, there is a second report of the
Establishment and Coordination Committee,
the LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. I move that
the report of the Establishment and Coordination
Committee meeting held on Friday 5 June 2020
be adopted.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Seconded.
Chair: Moved by the LORD MAYOR, seconded by
the DEPUTY MAYOR, the report of the Establishment
and Coordination Committee meeting dated Friday
5 June 2020 be adopted.
Is there any debate?
The LORD MAYOR.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, I seek the following
further information with respect to Item A
and I’ll just say there’s quite a list
of things that I am seeking. Firstly, the
cost of Council’s expenditure to date regarding
the Metro project; the total cost of the revised
Metro project; an explanation of the delays
that will arise from the revised Metro project;
an explanation about the queuing impacts and
the impacts on the Melbourne/Grey Street intersection
from the revised Metro project; an explanation
about why the scramble pedestrian crossing
has to be cut from the project at Melbourne
Street and Grey Street; the revised timeframe
for delivery of the Metro project and finally,
any changes to the business case that may
have been undertaken to support the revised
Metro project, if it did indeed have any changes
made to it.
Chair: Thank you, the LORD MAYOR. Those questions—if
time permits—can I encourage you to answer
those questions if time permits, please.
LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. Before going
into the substantive item and the nature of
what we’re talking about here, which is
what I referred to in question time, it’s
important that we get a little bit of history
about where we have come to when it comes
to public transport in Brisbane, why the Metro
project is so critical and why we are now
proceeding down the path that we are.
The history of public transport in Brisbane
has been one where the Council has consistently
stepped up and done more than its fair share
of heavy lifting, but we make no apologies
for that. We certainly aren’t complaining
about that, we just think it’s an important
part of the job that we do in providing a
better Brisbane.
But the reality is, you don’t see other
councils doing what Brisbane City Council
does. You don’t see other councils subsidising
public transport like we do, you don’t see
other councils building major transport infrastructure
and if they do, it might be on a one-off basis
as a contribution to a project being done
at an upper level of government. Whereas Brisbane
City Council leads and delivers major transport
infrastructure projects. As I said, we do
that because it’s important for delivering
a better Brisbane.
The problem of bus congestion in the Brisbane
CBD and inner-city areas is effectively related
to the fact that the busway network we have
has become the victim of its own success.
The busway network is so popular, it carries—and
our bus network as a whole, carries far more
people than rail carries and that is different
to many cities around the world.
Our busway network is effectively the arteries
of our public transport network and we’ve
had a number of projects over the years that
have been aimed at trying to free up those
arteries, to clog—to unclog the congestion
in those arteries. Because unless you do that,
you can’t put on more public transport services.
So, when someone in Carindale, someone in
Bracken Ridge, someone in various parts of
the city says, why can’t I have more bus
services in my area or why can’t I have
more frequent bus services in my area, the
limitation of our transport network are those
bottle necks that we’re seeing in parts
of the bus network and parts of the busway
network.
Freeing up that problem has been the source
of our focus for many years and we’ve consistently
come forward with projects that seek to do
that but they have consistently, unfortunately,
been shot down by State Governments.
I’ll go back to the Suburbs 2 City bus link
project. That was—that had a similar intent
to Brisbane Metro; we did the research on
the project; we developed a whole lot of work.
We went to the State Government, State Government
said, no, we don’t like the design of this
bridge that might go in front of the Queensland
Museum and Art Gallery. Back to the drawing
board. So, they—the State Government put
the kybosh on that project.
In response to that, an alternative was proposed
called the BaT Tunnel, which was a combination
of Cross River Rail with also a bus functionality—bus
and train tunnel. That was designed to solve
the dual problems that we’re seeing Metro
and Cross River Rail looking to solve. Congestion
in the busway network, congestion in the rail
network.
Work progressed on the BaT Tunnel; we were
working cooperatively with the State Government
and then there was a change of government
and the BaT Tunnel was scuttled. Why? Was
it because it was a terrible project? No.
Because it was an LNP idea and the current
Labor Government didn’t like that idea,
simply because it wasn’t theirs.
Then we’re back to Cross River Rail, which
had no improvements whatsoever for the busway
network or the bus network and so instead
of a project that would deal with two problems,
they went to a project that would deal with
one problem, Cross River Rail. That is a real
problem and it needs to be solved.
But we are here with Brisbane Metro, because
the State Government would not step up and
solve the challenges in the busway network
and it is the third such project that we have
put forward to help deal with those issues.
What’s missing in this whole equation is
the State Government stepping up to solve
the problems in their transport network.
Rail, apparently, is the only section of the
transport network worthy of a solution, yet
we acknowledge and understand that the busway
network carries just as many if not more people
each day and is also worthy of a major solution.
So, summary of why Brisbane Metro and why
it’s so important for our public transport
network, but it also provides important perspective.
When we had a challenge with the State Government
on the design of the Cultural Centre Station,
and that was originally proposed as an underground
station, I can tell you that I am not going
to let Brisbane Metro go the way of the Suburbs
2 City bus link or the BaT Tunnel, which both
were scuttled by Labor State Governments.
The reality is that we need to get on with
Metro because the problem exists now and it
will only get worse as the years go on. So,
if the Cultural Centre Station was a source
of contention and a source of disagreement,
then it is the right thing to do to park that
decision and move on with the other vital
parts of the project that we need to be getting
on with. Because the problems in our network
won’t get less as time goes on, they will
get greater.
The ability to put on more bus services for
the suburbs is dependent on us getting this
project going and so it was the right decision
when Councillor MURPHY, myself and Minister
Bailey met recently and agreed that we would
not spend any more time arguing about what
the optimum design is for the underground
Cultural Centre Station.
But instead, we would park that decision and
move on with other aspects of the project
that are absolutely critical. In doing this,
we also through our tender process had a number
of the tenderers submit designs for the improvement
of the above-ground station at the Cultural
Centre. This was something that came out of
the competitive tender process that we have,
with three short-listed tenderers bidding
and putting their creative efforts into that
bid.
Out of that, I think we have achieved a good
outcome which will see the project going forward,
which will see at least a decade of life in
the above-ground upgraded Cultural Centre
Station. But, having said that, it doesn’t
jeopardise the potential for an underground
station to be built in the future, should
the State Government decide on what design
that they would like or what they would like
to do in that respect.
So, I will, as I said, not let this project
be scuttled because it’s very difficult
or challenging or complex; it needs to happen.
Why? It needs to happen because it’s the
right thing to do for the people of Brisbane;
it needs to happen because it will create
jobs and it needs to happen to provide a true
turn up and go mass transit system, one that
Brisbane deserves.
So, yes, there have been a lot of hurdles
put in the way of this project. Yes, it is
a very complex project with many moving parts,
but we are not deterred by that. This is such
an important and good project for our city
and I am so delighted now that we have reached
agreement with the State Government to move
forward.
By doing this upgrade to the Cultural Centre
above-ground station, continuing ahead with
converting the Victoria Bridge to a green
bridge, by continuing with the Adelaide Street
tunnel construction, albeit with a different
construction methodology, a board tunnel rail
than a cut and cover tunnel, we can get on
with the major components of this project
and creating those jobs that come with it;
2600 jobs that come with this project.
In the meantime, work continues on the development
and construction of the pilot Metro vehicle,
ready for testing next year here in Brisbane,
in Brisbane conditions. Once again, something
that I’m incredibly excited about and in
the meantime, work continues on planning—
Chair: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.
Councillor ADAMS: Move for an extension.
[Over speaking]
Chair: —Councillor ADAMS and seconded by
Councillor LANDERS.
All those in favour, say aye and raise your
hands.
Councillors say aye.
Chair: Thank you. Against, no and raise your
hands. Thank you, the ayes have it.
LORD MAYOR, 10 minutes.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you. It would—in the meantime,
work also continues on the planning of the
Rochedale Metro depot as well for a—to receive
a fully electrified fleet. So, this project
not only has early works underway but we have
now been given the effective green light for
the major works to really gear up, so it is
a very exciting thing.
What we are seeing today is an amendment to
the significant contracting plan that came
to Council in 2018. This amendment is effectively
to do exactly what I’ve suggested, which
is to put aside discussions and design work
on the underground station and to proceed
with the upgrading of the above-ground station.
Also, the amended components of the project
that come with that decision.
I—as I did earlier in question time, want
to commend the State Government for their
approach on this. Obviously, I’ve made my
frustration clear in recent years but certainly,
the way in which the government has approached
this project in recent times is something
I am grateful for.
But it’s also the appropriate thing, because
the State Government knows that this is a
good project for Brisbane; the State Government
knows that they don’t have an alternative
solution for the bus network problems and
the busway problems.
The State Government is—while they would
never admit this, secretly very grateful that
this Council is prepared to put in a billion
dollars into fixing a problem which is effectively
theirs, a problem which they would have to
fix if we weren’t stumping up. So, this
is a project which delivers a contribution
from Council and a contribution from the State—Federal
Government towards fixing a State Government
problem.
But, in the end, it is a project which will
deliver benefits across all those three levels
of government and benefits, most importantly,
to the people of Brisbane who will get that
turn-up-and-go transit system.
So the change to the significant contracting
plan that we’re seeing today, as I mentioned,
reflects those changes. Now, Councillor Johnston
referred to costs and speculated on costs.
You are not, Councillor JOHNSTON, being asked
to prove any change to cost as part of this.
You are not—-
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Mr Chair.
Chair: Point of order to Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, I’m sure you don’t
want the Lord Mayor addressing me in the first
person, Mr Chair.
Chair: All right. LORD MAYOR—-
LORD MAYOR: Through you, Mr Chair. Through
you, Mr Chair, councillors are not being asked
to change—prove a change to the budget of
Metro and they’re—we’re having a budget
next week and, as part of that, in the normal
way, there will be budget information sessions
for each program and a great opportunity to
discuss different projects and project budgets
and what that might entail.
So that will be coming next week in the budget
but what they—what we are simply asking
people to do today is to update the previous
contracting plan which was approved by Council
to reflect the change in scope. To reflect
the agreement that we’ve reached with the
State Government and to progress this project
and create 2,600 jobs and deliver turn-up-and-go
public transport for the Brisbane residents.
So I would appreciate the support of the Chamber.
I remain ever optimistic and hopeful that
we’ll get everyone supporting this project.
Councillor Cassidy has been smiling, so I
know that he’s ready to support the project
and finally get on board Brisbane Metro. He’ll
resist his party political affiliations because
guess what? The State Government has resisted
their party political affiliations to support
his project, too. So welcome aboard, Councillor
CASSIDY, look forward to your support.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor CASSIDY?
Councillor CASSIDY: Well thank you very much,
Chair, and the Lord Mayor always thinks that
it’s someone else’s problem. He thinks
that the bus congestion on the Victoria Bridge
is someone else’s problem that he is coming
in to solve.
Well it’s a problem for the residents of
Brisbane. It’s a problem for public transport
users in Brisbane and we have consistently
said over the last couple of years, just get
on with this job but, Chair, what we see before
us today now, is the project that we have
had to have because we’ve got Adrian Schrinner
as our mayor.
Metro has been exposed for exactly what it
is. A great big con job. I remember back in
early 2016, the great fanfare when Graham
Quirk and Councillor Schrinner announced this
project. That was four and a half years ago.
They told us it would be a grand subway system
that would rival Paris or Montreal and be
as transformative for Brisbane as the London
Tube.
The LNP even put out glossy brochures showing
us trains in grand red brick underground stations
zooming past. Obviously, some people believed
you at the time.
The Lord Mayor doubled down, Chair, and insisted
the vehicles would be trains that ran on tracks,
thus making this project a Metro. Oh, how
far Councillor Schrinner has fallen, Chair.
What we have before us today is a very modest
busway extension which is fairly fitting for
the sort of administration that Councillor
Schrinner runs, Chair. This is the councillor
that was responsible for the CityCycle contract
which is now $20 million in the red. The IT
contract which is $27 million in the red.
The Kingsford Smith Drive contract which is
in the red in every sense possible and now
the Brisbane Metro and we don’t even know
how much that’s going to cost anymore.
The original business case told us there were
13 options, Chair, considered for the Brisbane
Metro and this was whittled down to just a
handful. All of those options were kept hidden
from the people of Brisbane and we still don’t
know what those options were, why they were
considered and why some of them were cast
aside.
We know that this solution is probably the
third or fourth option that was considered.
Or we can assume that, anyway. This option’s
analysis should now be released for full scrutiny
by Council and by the people of Brisbane.
The LNP simply cannot be trusted to keep this
behind closed doors, Chair.
The business case that was presented to us
all about three years ago said for the princely
sum of $944 million, we would be getting a
Metro system that included a stately underground
station, the Cultural Centre, and tunnels.
Lots of tunnels, apparently, Chair.
It turns out that that was just a couple of
hundred metres of tunnels. Well, today, we
know that we’ve got our busway extension
from King George Square to North Quay and
that’s it. Now, that original price of $944
million, Chair, blew out by $100 million on
the electric bendy buses and then we know
it was going to blow out by at least about
another $100 million on the cultural centre
busway station.
This Lord Mayor, Chair, has fundamentally
been caught with his pants down. What is most
galling is the fact that this would have been
well known before the last election. He kept
this one well and truly hidden from the people
of Brisbane because he knew this would have
been a bigger embarrassment than his KSD blunder,
Chair.
You almost feel sorry for this Lord Mayor,
except when you consider that this latest
re-design was in fact all by design. The project
could never have proceeded as planned as long
as it remained so fundamentally unplanned.
It was born on the back of envelope, Chair,
and apparently hasn’t progressed much past
that now, despite all the TV ads, despite
all the newspaper ads and the glossy brochures.
A piece that appeared in The Sunday Mail in
May 2018 sums up this whole situation quite
nicely, Chair, and I’ll quote from some
of that. In the middle of an election campaign,
the Quirk administration wallpapered Brisbane
with glossy brochures touting the Brisbane
Metro Subway System. They used photos of passengers
standing on underground train stations as
fast trains zoomed past. They even included
a map of Brisbane’s new subway.
Even this early in the piece, the Lord Mayor
must have known he would have to come clean
with the people of Brisbane eventually. He
knew this project would fundamentally change
once it was scrutinised through a business
case process yet he laboured on.
Six months later, during the budget debate,
he persevered and said, the Brisbane Metro
is not a bus. It runs on tracks just like
the Paris Metro. That was Councillor Quirk.
Then Deputy Mayor, Adrian Schrinner doubled
down four months later to re-affirm the Brisbane
Metro would be an underground rail system
and he said, well it is a metro just like
the London Underground is a metro and the
Tokyo Metro is a metro.
So Brisbane was to get a subway like the 400-kilometre-long
underground in London and the 300 kilometre
Tokyo Metro. Fast forward just a few months
from those unequivocal comments and the project
was totally reborn into a busway extension
with some bendy buses just as Labor had predicted.
I hate to be the one to say, I told you so,
to the Lord Mayor, through you, Chair, but
I told you so. Today, we are back at square
one. This project is being redesigned again
with an even smaller busway extension than
before.
How can we have any confidence that this project
will proceed on any sort of budget when it
hasn’t been able to, to date, ever? We are
supposed to be blindly trusting this Lord
Mayor with over a billion dollars of Brisbane
rate payer’s money to come up with new options
completely and utterly on the run.
We know that Spanish company, ACCIONA has
recently been included in the Brisbane Metro
project. That is a company that was associated
with the New South Wales Liberal Government’s
train wreck of a Sydney light rail project
which blew out to more than $3 billion. More
than double the project cost.
ACCIONA blamed the Liberal Government for
misleading it through, get this, poor planning
and the Government countered the company was
deliberately on a go-slow program. There were
billion-dollar lawsuits lodged and a bitter
dispute over exactly what was needed to be
done and what work needed to be done.
Given the continual changes to this metro
project and the specs that are constantly
changing, how can we be confident that a company
like ACCIONA has been given all the detail
they need to carry out this project? Do we
know there won’t be cost blow outs on the
electric buses? Do we know that the electric
buses will even work in Brisbane?
All of this planning should have been done,
Chair, from day one. Not started on day 1,591.
One thousand, five hundred and ninety-one
days has now passed since the Metro was announced
over two elections ago. We have consistently
said, as I said at the outset, if you get
the planning done right on this project and
get on with it but when this Lord Mayor has
attempted that—even when this Lord Mayor
has attempted that, Chair, he has bungled
it.
We want to see the final cost of this project
because if you remove an underground station
that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars
to the project, it should come a whole lot
cheaper and after poring over the files, there
is not one mention of costs involved.
So, Chair, in conclusion, we will support
this item today but reserve our final judgment
when the costs are presented to Council. But,
Chair, we’ve got to say this Lord Mayor
has now been exposed as one of the most ineffectual
and inconsequential Lord Mayors this city
has ever seen.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor MACKAY?
Councillor MACKAY: Thank you, Chair, and I
arise to speak to the submission. We just
heard how Councillor Cassidy is not getting
on board with Metro despite his State counterparts
finally coming to the party. So now I’ll
tell him why I think he should get on board.
I’m very honoured to speak on this game
changing project as the councillor—-
Councillor CASSIDY: Point of order.
Chair: Point of order, Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: Claim to be misrepresented.
Chair: Noted.
Councillor MACKAY, please continue.
Councillor MACKAY: I am very honoured to speak
on this game changing project as the councillor
who represents Walter Taylor Ward, which includes
the significant UQ St Lucia campus.
I believe UQ St Lucia is the largest commuter
campus and is second only to the CBD as the
second—as the biggest trip generator for
our city. Shaping SEQ south-east regional
plan of 2017 tell us that by 2041, south east
Queensland will be home to nearly 1.9 million
extra people. We need to keep pace with that
growth and with Metro, we will.
Following on from the Lord Mayor’s announcement
on 26 May and on Sunday, I am very pleased
to see another milestone be achieved, the
preferred tenderer to be named. The reason
that is important is this, work is now underway
to get the awarding of the contract for the
works. What a great start to inoculating our
city against the economic impacts of the pandemic
with some 2,600 jobs that this project will
deliver.
This submission before us reflects the change
to the proposed roll-out of the infrastructure
works for Brisbane Metro. Particularly around
the Cultural Centre precinct with the modelling
confirming that at least some years after
the Metro comes online and is fully operational,
the existing at-grade station can deliver
the same performance for Brisbane Metro.
For the fine ward of Walter Taylor, Brisbane
Metro will provide a service that connects
18 stations along dedicated busways between
Eight Mile Plains and Roma Street, including
along the health and education corridor between
the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital,
all the way to the University of Queensland,
Lakes Station.
I note the community consultation that was
undertaken from 2018 confirmed the strong
support from the community for the high frequency
turn-up-and-go services that Metro would deliver.
Chair, I feel that my colleague, Councillor
Sri, might like to ideologically block all
vehicles from West End in South Brisbane but
that would cause a problem. Montague Road
provides a critical connection for students
who use Brisbane City Council buses to get
to and from UQ. So I would encourage Councillor
Sri to get on board with Metro and not be
left at the station.
Brisbane Metro is a critical investment in
public transport and the students—-
Councillor SRI: Point of order, Chair.
Chair: point of order to you, Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Will Councillor Mackay take
a question?
Councillor MACKAY: No, I won’t.
Chair: No. No, he declines.
Councillor MACKAY, please continue.
Councillor MACKAY: Brisbane Metro is a critical
investment in public transport and the students
and staff at UQ St Lucia campus will know
that only too well. Of course, it’s not
just the students because the residents who
live around the massive campus, just a few
clicks from the CBD, will have commuter times
of just a few minutes to the city.
With two bus stations currently on the UQ
St Lucia campus, I look forward as the project
progresses to find out the detail of how it
will work at the UQ Lakes Station for Brisbane
Metro as well as the charging station that
will need to be there for our fabulous fully
electric vehicles which have, of course, zero
tail pipe emissions. These of course are to
be a far better option than the old diesel-type
engine.
The Brisbane Metro will make many improvements
to the lives of Brisbane residents, including
reducing congestion in the heart of the city
by removing buses, utilising buses from the
CBD into the suburbs, providing better options
for transport from the city and all over Brisbane,
to UQ.
As we know, Chair, you can travel from the
city to UQ with a variety of options but the
Metro will provide a fine alternative to driving
on Coronation Drive which does, of course,
have one of the slowest average speeds in
Brisbane of just 19 kilometres per hour and
I’ll tell you why that’s important. The
Metro will replace the Route 66 bus service
at the UQ Lakes Station.
Now, the Route 66 currently operates every
five minutes within peak periods and is the
busies route within the Brisbane network.
Over the years, the demand for the service
has continued to increase, resulting in the
need for additional services to be implemented
in 2019. This trend is anticipated to continue
and the M2 will better meet these future demands.
The Metro 2 service will operate for 24-hours
over the weekend and up to 20-hours on weekdays.
In peak periods, the service will operate
at three-minute frequency. Brisbane Metro
integrates with Cross River Rail by servicing
key interchanges at Roma Street and Boggo
Road, allowing rail passengers to easily access
destinations not serviced by rail such as
education facilities like UQ and QUT Kelvin
Grove as well as major hospitals.
Brisbane Metro provides improved access to
key centres, meeting places, employment and
health and education facilities supporting
enhanced social and economic outcomes for
community members, not just in Walter Taylor.
In addition, Route 66 currently travels through
Queen Street Bus Station where it does not
stop. The M2 will travel through the Adelaide
Street Tunnel instead of the Queen Street
Bus Station, before heading across the Victoria
Bridge to the Cultural Centre Station. This
makes the M2 metro line an attractive choice
for the thousands upon thousands of students,
academics and staff who travel to UQ from
all over Brisbane.
This Council has delivered $7 billion of major
infrastructure under the TransApex Plan, the
largest combination of infrastructure projects
ever delivered in Australia by a Council.
Since Legacy Way opened in 2015, more than
120,000 vehicle movements have been removed
off our city surface roads and bus users have
experienced average journey time savings of
up to 13 minutes with patronage increase by
40% on in-bound bus services.
I mention those stats, Chair, because it’s
the kind of outcome I know will be delivered
through Brisbane Metro for my community and
wider Brisbane. I say to everyone who is not
already on board, get on board. Support this
investment in public transport improvements.
Support the 2,600 jobs that will be created
and support this city’s construction industry.
Thanks.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor JOHNSTON?
Oh, excuse me, Councillor JOHNSTON, there
was a misrepresentation to Councillor Cassidy.
The misrepresentation, please.
Councillor CASSIDY: Yes, thanks, Chair. Councillor
Mackay’s pre-written speech obviously didn’t
account for the fact that we said we’ll
be voting in favour of this item. He said
we weren’t supporting it, so there you go.
Chair: Thank you. Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you, Mr Chair,
I rise to speak on Item A. I will not be supporting
this project before us, today. When this matter
has come to Council in previous years, I have
expressed my concern about the project and
that concern has crystallised under the incompetent
administration of the Lord Mayor and the CEO
of Council with this revised Metro project.
I asked six question of the Lord Mayor in
seeking further information earlier today.
Critical information required to make an informed
decision about this project and the Lord Mayor
has refused and failed to answer any of those
questions.
When I became aware of this item yesterday
morning, we were given this paper on Sunday,
I asked the CEO for a briefing and he said
we had all the information we needed to make
a decision. So I’m going to run through
the issues of concern as I see them and place
on the record, my disgust at the way that
this Council is handling the Brisbane Metro.
Firstly, costs. Two- and a-bit years ago when
the first version of the significant contracting
plan came to us, we were given a total value
for the project which included three components,
of which, Council is keeping those figures
secret. They are not public information.
One of those was by far and away the largest
component of the Brisbane Metro Project, the
inner city works, which included the Cultural
Centre tunnel and new underground—state
of the art underground bus station. It is
approximately half. You know, it’s a big
chunk of the project.
Now, that has been cancelled. Let me be clear.
It’s not been postponed, it no longer forms
part of the project and it is just disingenuous
of the Lord Mayor to say it has been delayed.
It is extremely clear in the Council papers
that this project no longer includes an underground
tunnel, an underground station.
In the material provided on the Council file
today, it is extremely clear in the document,
2 June 2020, that there is no further need
for the portal, which is discontinued and
I’m quoting from the document. There is
no further need for the portal, which is discontinued.
Now, the Lord Mayor has tried to imply that
somehow, he’s come to agreement with the
State Government about this project. The agreement
is, he has cut the most significant part of
this project, the underground tunnel linking
the Melbourne Street busway through to the
Victoria Bridge, where the most significant
bottleneck is, he’s cut it. Completely.
It’s just not going to happen. Instead,
the buses are going to continue on the road
network that so woefully does not accommodate
the buses now.
Now, Council is going to remove all the cars
from these roadways to try and get travel
time savings so let’s move to that issue.
Delays. Again, the documentation in the Council
files before us today highlights that under
the revised scope that we are being asked
to consider today, far from what Councillor
Mackay has just said, and he used the word,
it would be the same. It is extremely clear
that all the language in this document, and
I doubt he’s read the files, is similar.
So let’s look at what they consider to be
similar. The estimated delays around the new
at-grade surface station are up to one to
two minutes. These delays start from 2021.
Now, I don’t know why 2021 is being used
as a figure. Is that when this project is
now going to be delivered?
I don’t think a project of this size can
be delivered in the next year. I don’t know
why we’re saying that in 2021 there are
going to be delays to travel times when the
project is not going to start until 2022 or
even later. So one of my questions was, when
is this project going to be delivered? The
Lord Mayor cannot answer that, either.
Now, there are extremely significant delays
that are going to result in the delivery of
this project due to the change in scope. In
particular, I want to note my concern about
the queueing length delays and the time boarding
delays that are going to occur at multiple
stations, including numerous south side stations.
Including most specifically and egregiously
at Buranda and Boggo Road.
The Council papers that are—were available
on the file for any councillor to look at,
provide huge detail about—well not huge
but some detail, about the impacts, and the
adverse impacts, that are going to occur from
congestion as a result of the way in which
these buses are now going to move through
the revised project.
It is outlined in black and white in the document
dated 2 April 2020. So the leader of the opposition
is completely correct that the administration
were well aware that there were massive problems
with the delivery of this project including
adverse time impacts from the new busway as
far back as early April. Now, that was when
the report was produced so presumably the
information had been prepared earlier than
that.
So, let’s move on to the pedestrian impacts.
Because there are adverse impacts for queuing
at the new Cultural Station Bus Centre, the
estimated storage capacity is going to blow
out at certain peak periods up to 71 metres.
This means that there are going to be queuing
impacts back to the intersection of Melbourne
Street and Grey Street.
That is going to impact on the crossing point.
That is why this scramble crossing that was
proposed to improve pedestrian access around
one of the busiest places in Brisbane, is
being scrapped. Scrapped. In black and white
in here.
It is absolutely inappropriate that this administration
scraps pedestrian improvements around this
area. We are going to see buses queuing along
Melbourne Street at the Cultural Centre Bus
Station. That is the problem now. That is
going to be the problem from the minute this
project starts. That is what is identified
in Council’s documents and in the project
before us today.
We don’t know how much this project is going
to cost. The business case was based on a
completely different project. We don’t know
if it still stacks up. Certainly, it doesn’t
on queuing times. It doesn’t on delays.
We know that there’s 125 bus services going
to be cut. We still don’t know where. We
know there is no direct connection for south
side residents to the University of Queensland.
It’s so wonderful, wonderful for Councillor
Mackay that you’ll be able to get from the
north side to UQ but if you live at Salisbury
or Mount Gravatt or Runcorn or Oxley, you
can’t get directly to the University of
Queensland because there is no connection
between the two routes on the south side of
Brisbane and you have to go into the Mater
Station and then come back through all the
congested stations to get to UQ.
Now, let me be clear. This project was poorly
conceptualised way back when it was announced.
It was a thought bubble by this Lord Mayor
and we’ve heard the problem fundamentally
today. He will not let this project be scuttled.
That is what the Lord Mayor has said to us
today. He is persisting with a project that
has gone pear shaped at every stage. Rail
project, tunnel project, none of these things
are happening any longer.
It has been bungled. It no longer adds up
and today, he’s asking us to approve massive
changes to a project without telling us how
much it will cost. In principle, we’re cutting
the most substantial part of the infrastructure
delivery but the Lord Mayor has publicly said
the project is going to cost more.
Why? Why can’t the CEO tell us? Why can’t
the Lord Mayor tell us? Why are we having
a project that no longer delivers the bus
improvements that this city needs, delivering
the most important part of the project, which
was solving the bottleneck around South Brisbane?
This project no longer does any of those things.
It has been bungled and this Lord Mayor is
persisting with a botched project simply because
he wants to deliver something.
It is not the right project and trying to
sell it as a positive, when clearly it no
longer in any way, shape or form, will deliver
on the necessary future infrastructure that
we need for this city, is just appalling.
Chair: Councillor JOHNSTON, your time has
expired.
Councillor JOHNSTON: I would definitely seek
an extension of time if I could.
Chair: By convention, well if there’s—is
there someone moving one?
Councillor SRI: Yes, I’d move an extension
of time. I’d be interested to hear what
Councillor Johnston has to say.
Chair: Councillor SRI. Is there a seconder?
Councillor JOHNSTON: Can I second it?
Chair: No.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Oh, Steve?
Councillor SRI: Councillor Griffiths had his
hand up.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Thank you.
Chair: Councillor GRIFFITHS? All right, I
have an extension of time moved by Councillor
Sri, seconded by Councillor Griffiths.
All those in favour for an extension of time,
please say aye and raise your hand.
Councillors say aye.
Chair: Those against, please say no and raise
your hand.
Councillors say no.
Chair: The no—-
Councillor interjecting.
Chair: The noes have it. The noes have it.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Oh, division. That was
definitely the ayes had it.
Chair: No, they didn’t but we can have a
division if you wish? Is there a seconder?
All right, the noes have it.
Further speakers?
Councillor ADAMS.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. I also
would like to speak on the amendment to the
significant contracting plan and those are
the three words that I like to say in this
place. Significant contracting plan because
it means that this Council is getting on with
the job of creating jobs, confidence and ensuring
that our public transport infrastructure keeps
pace with our city’s growth.
If you were listening from home, which I know
there’s not many people that do, and you
listen to what Councillor Johnston just said,
you would be wondering what the heck was going
on.
First of all, we hear it’s a thought bubble
form this Lord Mayor when it clearly has been
something that this administration has proudly
stood by for more than five years in this
place. Not a thought bubble by this Lord Mayor
but that is just the beginning of the misreading
of details that we hear from the councillor
from Tennyson again.
I’m glad to hear that Councillor Johnston
is now a transport expert and she can read
the papers. Unfortunately, she’s read the
papers on what the issues would be if we did
not do this project. There would be queueing,
there would be delays and it would not work.
That is why—-
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
DEPUTY MAYOR: —-this administration—-
Chair: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.
DEPUTY MAYOR: —-took the step to yes, Councillor
Cassidy, to you—-
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Mr Chair.
Chair: Yes, noted.
Councillor ADAMS, please continue.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Mr Chair.
Chair: Yes, Councillor JOHNSTON?
Councillor JOHNSTON: Thank you. Claim to be
misrepresented.
Chair: I’ve already said I’ve noted it
so.
Councillor ADAMS.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you and as I was just
saying through you, Mr Chair, to Councillor
Cassidy, that this is the job of the State
Government but it also is, as he said, the
responsibility of Council to make sure that
we deliver for our residents. So we are doing
the heavy lifting for the State Government
on their responsibility in public transport
as well.
As the Lord Mayor announced to the Chamber
two weeks ago, another milestone has been
reached for this game changing metro with
the preferred tenderer of Brisbane Move being
announced.
I congratulate them as the preferred tenderer
and I’d like—and I, like the Lord Mayor,
would like to acknowledge the hard work and
effort and passion to helping deliver the
Brisbane Metro that they and the other two
consortia demonstrated with their tenders.
It was a long, long job and they did an amazing
work, working with Council and the officers
as well.
I was very proud for just under 12 months
to be the chair for Buses, Boats and Bridges
because I could see clearly what we are delivering
here in this administration, is an improvement.
It is going to be better for Brisbane. That
is why I am so passionate about seeing the
Brisbane Metro every day getting closer to
being delivered.
What we have here today is a significant contracting
plan for the first stage and the original
one for the inner city infrastructure we had,
had the early works and the Metro vehicles
to allow us to go to market with the tenders
and ultimately award contracts. Today, we’re
to deliver the investment in the public transport
network that will get residents home 50% quicker
with peak services every three minutes.
Get those buses and no, not Council buses,
through you, Mr Chair, to Councillor Johnston,
get those buses into the CBD, back out to
our suburbs that are not needed once the Metro
has a turn-up-and-go system as well. Reduce
the congestion in the city and make it easier
for people to travel across the city as well.
It is true that this no longer includes the
undergrounding in this contract. Again, a
detail that Councillor Johnston seems to misunderstand.
This is for the contract at hand—-
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Mr Chair.
Chair: Point of order to you, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Claim to be misrepresented.
Chair: Noted.
Councillor ADAMS.
DEPTUY MAYOR: Thank you. Mr Chair, through
you, Councillor Johnston clearly said the
underground is off the table. Off the table.
Never to be done. Off the table. That is not
the case. It is not in this contracting plan
because we have amended it with our agreement
with the State Government and we are going
to be upgrading the existing surface roads
to make sure that we have capacity for 10
years to deliver a turn-up-and-go system to
the people of Brisbane.
The buses will not be just travelling through
what you see there now at South Brisbane.
It will be a new surface network and clearly
says so in the documents we have here today.
Existing at-grade surface station improvements
to increase capacity, improve the urban design
and the public realm outcomes. To include
the whole vicinity for active transport and
public safety, which means pedestrians as
well.
We know also from what we’ve heard from
over the years from our ALP opposition, that
they haven’t always been positive about
the Metro but they do advocate for more investment
in public transport so they have always said,
as they would only support Metro if we reached
an agreement with the State and that is what
we actually have here. I’m glad to hear
that Councillor Cassidy is supporting this
significant contract plan today, to go forward
so we can invest in public transport for this
state.
As the Lord Mayor has clearly said and we’ll
reiterate it again for the likes of Councillor
Johnston, the State Government has said we
can get on with this project. That we can
remove the Cultural Centre underground station
of this critical path because the modelling
shows we can get at least 10 years of existing
ground station solution.
That means we can start the public realm improvements,
which are underground, Councillor CASSIDY,
in one of our most iconic streets, in Adelaide
Street as well.
We can start working on the green Victoria
Bridge, which is a fantastic outcome for the
whole of the city and moving around the CBD
and of course, the works at North Quay, which
will offer a great access to one of our beautiful
natural assets, the Brisbane River, on that
side of the river as well.
Brisbane Move is made up of ACCIONA and ARUP,
both of whom have an extensive history in
partnering with Council on projects as well
as for our state. ACCIONA was in the consortium
that built the second range crossing at Toowoomba
as well as the Legacy Way tunnel. That, when
completed, as a result of again this Council’s
record investment in TransApex, has meant
the removal of more than 120,000 vehicles
off our surface roads and improved travel
times for public transport of at least 13
minutes through the western suburbs.
ARUP has also got an extensive experience
through projects like Airport Link, Cross
River Rail and stage one of the Gold Coast
Light Rail as well. So, following this agreement
with the minister, we can get onto that next
milestone, finalise the design and award the
contract to deliver the public realm improvements
for Adelaide Street.
Great public realm and improved active transport
connections at North Quay. Deliver our commitment
to a green Victoria Bridge with three lanes
for buses and Metro surface. A bidirectional
bike way and improved pedestrian pathways
which will all see a vastly improved public
realm in the Queensland cultural precinct.
We’ve also been future proofing the land
for the Rochedale Depot as well and making
sure that with the latest technology, we have
zero tailgate emission and battery electric
vehicles. We have started work on those four
intersection upgrades that are needed at Peel
Street and to future proof the Victoria Bridge
as well as, ultimately, the undergrounding
of the Cultural Centre Station.
So as I said, I thank those on the opposition
side that are going to support this today.
This city will now see another undergrounding
through Adelaide Street with fantastic public
realm benefit.
It’s unfortunate that the undergrounding
at South Brisbane has been a stumbling block
for Jackie Trad—sorry, for Minister Bailey
but we now have the ability to see a generational
upgrade to transport and support the 2,600
jobs that will be fast-tracked as a result.
I recommend this report to the Chamber.
Chair: I’ve—Councillor JOHSTON, you have
two items of misrepresentation.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, on the first item,
Councillor Adams claimed that I made certain
comments about the removal of the portal.
I quoted from the document which very clearly
says the portal has been cut from this project
and has been discontinued.
With respect to the second point of misrepresentation,
which is about travel times, it is extremely
clear in the Council documents provided to
us today that I relied on, that there are
significant adverse time delays as a result
of the revised scope of this project between
one and two minutes. That is very clearly—-
Chair: Thank you.
Councillor JOHNSTON: —-outlined in the document
I referred to—-
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor SRI?
Councillor SRI: Thanks, Chair. I don’t want
to speak for too long on this item. I just
want to note again, for the record, that I
am very, very supportive of closing off Grey
Street just before where it intersects with
Melbourne Street in South Brisbane. So I have
shared this idea with Council in the past
but in a nutshell, the proposal is that Grey
Street would become a cul-de-sac in front
of the South Brisbane Train Station and would
also become a cul-de-sac for vehicles around
the vicinity of Fish Lane.
What that would mean is that there would be
no through-traffic, no general motor vehicle
traffic through the intersection of Melbourne
Street and Grey Street. That opens up quite
a broad range of opportunities in terms of
the cultural centre station re-design such
as turning part of Grey Street into a large
public park in front of South Brisbane Train
Station. It also allows for a freer flow of
pedestrians between the existing site of the
current Cultural Centre busway station and
the South Brisbane Train Station.
So there are quite a few options available
to Council if there is a general willingness
to close off Grey Street to through traffic
and I think, while I’m not supportive of
this motion today and I have concerns with
the whole process, I think what the delay
in finalising decisions about the Cultural
Centre Station does do is facilitate opportunities
for further discussions about how we can make
the best of this Metro project to re-design
the whole precinct in a way that delivers
more public greenspace and community facilities,
perhaps.
So yes, still generally supportive of the
principle of the Metro. Still have a lot of
concerns with how it’s been administered
and how it’s been delivered but I just want
to emphasise very clearly that the—there
is a really good opportunity here if we’re
willing to close off Grey Street to cars and
that that would potentially save Council a
lot of money by perhaps opening up a few other
options in terms of where—the way that buses
and Metro vehicles flow through the Melbourne
Street intersection.
I also just want to note again, for the record,
my ongoing concerns that I’m not receiving
regular enough briefings about the Metro project
as the local councillor, despite the fact
that some of the most significant elements
of this project fall within and directly impact
my ward.
Generally, I find that there’s very little
consultation about what’s going on. I often
find that the—when I am consulted, it’s
more of a, here’s what we’re going to
do, rather than a what do you think? I think
that causes problems down the track because
Council doesn’t actually check in with me
and the local community about what the community’s
views are for that area.
As a result, then the community has to engage
in advocacy targeting the State Government.
The State Government then has to express concerns
back to Council. It all gets very messy and
causes a lot of additional rigmarole.
So if Council is feeling frustrated that sometimes
decisions between Council and the State Government
aren’t going smoothly, it might actually
help to brief me as the local councillor more
often so that at least I’m aware of what’s
going on and can advocate for the project.
Because I think, at the moment, there’s
a bit of shadow boxing going on and a lot
of crossed wires because there aren’t good
communication channels.
I’ve actually found it quite disappointing
to experience so little consultation as a
councillor over such a big project. The briefings
are very infrequent and lack detail. So hopefully,
going forward, we can change that.
There’s an opportunity here, particularly
in terms of the South Brisbane elements of
the project, to involve me as a local councillor
to find out what I have to say and what I
think could be viable. Work with me constructively
so we can actually get some really positive
outcomes rather than cutting me out of the
conversation, not treating me as a major stakeholder
and then later having to deal with pushback
and problems down the track.
So it’s in general been really frustrating
and concerning that so many decisions about
the Metro around the South Bank and South
Brisbane precinct have been made behind closed
doors without involving local residents and
without involving me as local councillor.
Obviously, the fig trees on Peel Street and
Stanley Street, that’s one small example
but there have been a lot of occasions where
it’s felt like other institutional stakeholders
have been consulted a lot more than I have.
Often, as a councillor, I find that it’s
quicker for me to go to QPAC or to Queensland
Museum or to look for inside channels within
the State Government to find—to ask State
Government employees hey, what’s going on
with the Brisbane City Council Metro project?
Because it’s easier for me to find out information
about what’s happening with Council’s
Metro project from talking to public servants
or employees in other NGOs than it is to get
information out of Brisbane City Council directly.
So I provide that as constructive feedback
for Council in the hope that going forward,
I’ll be able to be kept in the loop a bit
more and that Council officer will actually
approach me to ask for my opinion before decisions
are made. I think that would be much more
constructive and a much better way forward.
So I’ll leave that with the Chamber to consider.
Thanks.
Chair: Further speaker?
Councillor MURPHY?
Councillor MURPHY: Yes, thank you, Mr Chair.
I rise to speak on Item A, which is the submission
presented to the special E&C committee meeting
held on Friday and this is another milestone
for the game changing project for our city
that has been reached with the announcement
of the preferred collaborative partnership
tenderer for the scope of works that are outlined
in this submission before us.
I note that Councillor Adams and the Lord
Mayor have already acknowledged the very impressive
track record of ACCIONA, in particular their
contribution to building the Legacy Way Tunnel
which was the jewel—or is the jewel in the
crown of the TransApex program.
Thousands of employees across the world are
employed by ACCION, including 40 staff right
here in Brisbane and our design partner in
Brisbane Move, has 400 staff in the city.
So it’s great to see these companies working
on a game changing project for our city.
I do think it was kind of disappointing that
Councillor Cassidy attacked ACCIONA over the
Sydney light rail project. The reality is
that that project was at a hard dollar designing
construct contract in very difficult circumstances.
We’ve avoided the pitfalls that are associated
with those kind of contracts by going with
a collaborative partnership model of procurement.
This procurement model is actually best practice
for complex projects such as Brisbane Metro.
Councillor Cassidy also had a go at the project
timeframes. He said we should have done all
the planning at the start in 2016 but I have
with me, Chair, I keep it close to me at all
times, I go to bed with it. It’s the Rod
Harding Light Rail Plan released in 2016.
That’s the last time the Labor Party did
any hard work on policy development for a
Council election and that has a timeframe
set out for procurement of this major light
rail project.
Step one, establish a project executive to
oversee the planning and delivery. There’s
seven steps and I won’t go through them
all, Chair, but essentially it starts, start
design and construct of the initial route
in 2019-20.
So the timeframe that Councillor Cassidy is
so, so convinced that it’s all gone to hell
and the project is behind schedule is the
exact same timeframe that the former leader
of the ALP outlined for his own major project.
The last time the Labor Party took a major
project to an election. So, I mean, let’s
just get a dose of reality when it comes to
them criticising the timeframes we’ve been
working to on this project.
He also—he called the Lord Mayor the most
ineffective and inconsequential Lord Mayor
ever. I simply say to that, you should see
the guy he beat. You should see the guy he
beat because if this is the most ineffective
and inconsequential Lord Mayor, he holds 19
out of 26 seats in this city. So you know,
I think that is self-evident in the opposition.
Now, in turning to the submission for the
revision of this SCP, this significant contracting
plan before us. I think it’s very simple.
The SCP came to full Council on 22 June 2018
and this was an SCP to allow Council to go
to the market to tender for the delivery of
the inner city works, the Metro vehicle and
then the early works as well.
This was not supported at the time by the
ALP and I’m really pleased that they have
changed their tune and they’ve gotten on
board Brisbane Metro. Back in June 2018, they
said they wouldn’t support industry and
construction jobs being created. They didn’t
support investment in a turn-up-and-go service,
24-hours on the weekend, connecting 18 stations
along a 21 kilometre alignment of dedicated
busway corridor. They didn’t support peak
services every three minutes, getting people
home quicker and safer.
The revised SCP reflects the residents don’t
want to hear us squabbling about this project.
They want to see us taking steps to go forward
and that’s what this SCP shows. It shows
agreement with the state government that the
underground Cultural Centre Station can be
deferred. It can be taken off the critical
path because the modelling shows us that the
at-grade Cultural Centre Station will work
for at least 10 years after Brisbane Metro
comes online.
The revised scope of works being put forward
today for support will deliver the biggest
investment in public transport that Council
has ever seen. Since—and actually, one of
the biggest investments that we’ve made
in a single project since the Legacy Way tunnel.
As well as creating 2,600 jobs at a time when,
as we’ve heard from the Deputy Mayor previously,
Brisbane unemployment is the highest it’s
predicted to have been in living memory for
so many people.
Now, this revised SCP will deliver the Adelaide
Street tunnel by mining instead of more impactful
cut and cover. Minimising the impacts of one
of most iconic streets, an early street of
our city. Also the impact that would be felt
on local businesses, as well as pedestrians
and public transport.
The revised SCP will deliver on the vision
for Adelaide Street from Edwards Street to
Victoria Bridge to deliver a world class public
realm and the revised SCP will deliver a public
realm and active transport connections at
North Quay between Adelaide Street and Victoria
Bridge, including a rest stop at North Quay
to enjoy the view of our beautiful river.
The revised SCP will deliver on a green Victoria
Bridge. A boulevard that connects the heart
of our CBD to the heart of our cultural and
art’s precinct. A dedicated bidirectional
bike way with improved pedestrian connections.
This revised SCP delivers vastly improved
public realm in the Queensland cultural precinct
and I know that Councillor Cassidy has seen
those images because his response was the
standard response from the Australian Labor
Party. Even—and the answer was no. Even
when his own colleagues in the State Government
are saying that they support the approach
that Council is taking with the surface option.
By deferring the Cultural Centre underground
station, because the CP tenderer has said
that they can deliver this outcome and because
the modelling shows we can get 10 years at
the siting grade solution, because we’ll
never get back a year’s worth of delays
because projects only get more expensive,
because we said we would continue to work
with the State and the precinct stakeholders
and because we support jobs for our economy,
2,600 jobs, we will be supporting this submission
today.
We know the Labor Party in the Chamber aren’t
happy, even though they are going to vote
for it and I really do welcome that support.
I really do but you have to ask, Mr Chair,
what Labor Party really matters here? The
same tired old opposition with the same tired
played out lines they’ve been running on
Metro for many years. You know, calling it
a big bendy bus and carrying on.
Or, the State Labor Transport and Main Roads
minister, Mark Bailey, who has been working
very closely with Council. Hand in hand to
progress this project over the past few weeks
and months now. We thank him for his support
and cooperation and we look forward to working
very closely with the State’s Cross River
Rail Project to transform public transport
in Brisbane.
Brisbane Metro will deliver a greater transport
network. It will get buses out of our city
and back into our suburbs. It will deliver
a turn-up-and-go service 24-hours on the weekend.
It is a game changer and I commend the submission
before us to get on with the job, create the
2,600 jobs that will be created by this Council
investment and get Brisbane moving. Thank
you, Chair.
Chair: Further speakers?
I see no hands; the LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. Right, so,
I predicted Councillor Cassidy would finally
get on board and support the Brisbane Metro
today and I just want to say, I told you so.
I told you so. It is an historic moment in
the city’s history where the Labor Party
gets on board Brisbane Metro despite years
of bagging it. In fact, despite bagging the
project today, they’re still getting on
board and that’s what’s important.
History will show in the record that they
voted to support the next vital phase of Brisbane
Metro. So thank you, Councillor Cassidy. I
appreciate that support. Even though it was
given with forked tongue, support is support
and we will take it because this is the right
project at the right time for the city of
Brisbane.
Look, Councillor Cassidy obviously had a prepared
speech. Not sure whether he wrote that or
someone else wrote it for him but it’s the
same tired lines that he’s been trying to
pedal for years. He seems to have this view
that if only people knew that this is big
bendy buses that we’re talking about, they
would vote the LNP out of office.
Well the project changed in 2017, Councillor
CASSIDY, and you’ve been calling them big
bendy buses since 2017. Okay, we had an election
between then and now—-
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: —-and guess what? The people
of Brisbane want this Brisbane Metro project.
They are champing at the bit to ride on those
big bendy vehicles or whatever you might want
to call them. Like trams. Whatever you might
want to call them, they’re champing at the
bit to ride on those turn-up-and-go services.
History will also show that people that stood
in the way of this project will be judged
harshly. Now, Minister Bailey knows that and
he’s on board and I will give him the first
ticket to ride on Brisbane Metro because good
on him. He knows this is an important project
and commendation to Mr Bailey, Minister Bailey,
for his work in recent weeks.
But, Councillor Cassidy will be riding at
the back of the vehicle, sulking all the way
down the 21 kilometre route when Metro services
first start running but the reality is, like
I had touched on before, this is such a critical
project that we cannot afford to spend more
time talking about the design of an underground
station when we know that an upgrade—-
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
Deputy Mayor: —-to the above ground station
has at least a decade—-
Chair: Point of order—-
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
Chair: Yes. Yes, I was calling you. Point
of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Mr Chair, your microphone
doesn’t appear to be working, then. I’m
sorry.
Chair: You’re the only one who’s been
saying so. So please, just make your point
of order.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes. Thank you. Would
the Lord Mayor take a question?
Chair: Lord Mayor, will you take a question?
No, he won’t.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Won’t say how much
it will cost?
Chair: No, that’s—no, he’s not taking
the question. You know the rules.
LORD MAYOR, please continue.
LORD MAYOR: Thank you. The Brisbane Metro
Project is about getting people home quicker
and spending more time talking about the design
of the underground Cultural Centre Station
will not get people home quicker. That is
the reality. So at the modelling shows that
upgrades to the above ground station have
at least a decade in them. A decade of fantastic
transport benefits.
A decade of seeing the Victoria Bridge working
properly with its conversion to a green bridge
to become part of the separated transport
network.
The Adelaide Street tunnel becoming part of
the separated transport network. Delivering
better travel times. Delivering better reliability
and delivering that ability to deliver the
three-minute turn-up-and-go type service that
we’re talking about here.
So, we know that with the complexity of the
underground station, you could easily spend
many, many more months or even years talking
about what the optimum design is.
We’ve had hundreds of meetings with the
State Government. We’ve engaged with all
of the stakeholders and we have tried every
angle and looking at every possible design
but the right decision is to draw a line under
that. To take that underground station off
the critical path and to move forward with
the other major construction components of
the project.
There will be an upgraded Cultural Centre
Station. It will be simply at surface as opposed
to underground. That upgraded Cultural Centre
Station will deliver improvements in capacity
and deliver travel time savings. The conversion
of Victoria Bridge to a green bridge will
deliver improvements to capacity and travel
time savings, not to mention improvements
for pedestrians and cyclists and the construction
of the Adelaide Street tunnel linking into
King George Square Station will deliver once
again travel time savings and reliability
improvements.
This project, Brisbane Metro, is a system.
Labor or other councillors would have you
believe it’s about a different vehicle.
Some people would say, interestingly now,
that it’s about one station. No. It is a
system. It is a mass transit system. That
is the way that it was set up from the 2017
change of design which we released publicly
and very clearly as the best way to proceed
with this project. Since then, it has always
been a system.
A system is a range of multiple working parts
that work together to deliver a better outcome.
A more efficient outcome. A more reliable
outcome with better, more frequent services.
That is what Brisbane Metro will do and from
the perspective of the people of Brisbane,
it cannot come soon enough.
So this decision today, which I am told has
bipartisan support, is the right decision
and I look forward to getting on, working
with ACCIONA and ARUP, to get on with the
major construction and create those jobs.
Working with our partners in the State Government,
in the Federal Government, in industry, to
deliver a fantastic outcome for the city.
I finally wanted to touch on the commentary
about ACCIONA and add onto what Councillor
Murphy said. Well, the comment about Sydney
light rail came up. Now, we know that Labor
councillors were, in the lead up to 2016 election,
promising modern light rail. They were promising
a Sydney light rail—-
Councillor interjecting.
LORD MAYOR: Sydney light rail style of project.
So, one thing that ACCIONA knows and they’ve
learnt, is that getting rid of the tracks
and the poles and the wires and de-risking
the project is the right thing to do. I would
remind people that on the day that Sydney
Light Rail opened, the Minister for Transport
in New South Wales said that there won’t
be any further extensions of Sydney Light
Rail and that the future was trackless trams.
He was referring to the type of vehicle that
we will be using for Brisbane Metro. It’s
the type of vehicle that’s being investigated
for other public transport projects in Sydney
and in other cities.
I’m proud that Brisbane will be leading
the way in Australia when it comes to this
type of technology, because it helps to cut
down a lot of those risks and problems and
impacts that come with the older technology
of tracks and wires that we’ve seen in places
like Sydney. So, ACCIONA, more than anyone,
knows the lessons of that project. They know
the lessons of projects like Legacy Way. They
know the lessons of projects like the Toowoomba
Second Range Crossing.
This is a team of people that we’ve worked
with before, have an incredibly professional—and
when I stood on Sunday with the Managing Director
of ACCIONA for the Asia Pacific Region and
New Zealand, a gentleman called Fernando,
he reminded me that he came to Brisbane as
the project director of Legacy Way, on behalf
of ACCIONA. That was around 10 years ago he
came to Brisbane. He is now not only an ongoing
proud Brisbane resident, but he has become
an Australian citizen. He’s a member of
our community and is so proud, not only of
what has been delivered through Legacy Way,
but proud of the opportunity now coming with
Brisbane Metro.
It’s a great success story to see people
coming here to work on infrastructure projects,
becoming Australian Citizens, integrating
into local community and now working with
us to create thousands of jobs and deliver
Brisbane’s very first turn-up-and-go mass
transit system. So, I thank Labor Councillors
for their support of this important submission.
We look forward to progressing the project
and getting on with it. The support is certainly
appreciated. Thank you, Mr Chair.
Chair: Thank you. Councillors, I will now
put the resolution.
All those in favour of Item A, say aye and
raise your hands.
Councillors say aye.
Chair: Thank you. Please lower them. Those
against, say no and raise your hands.
Councillors say no.
Chair: Thank you. The ayes have it.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Division.
Chair: Division called by Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: We definitely need a
division.
Chair: I see no seconder.
Thank you. Thank you, Councillors. I will
now draw your attention to City Planning and
Economic Development Committee please.
The DEPUTY MAYOR.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. I move
that the City Planning and Economic Development
Committee report, for the meeting held on
Tuesday 2 June 2020, be adopted.
Chair: Is there a seconder? Yes, I see. It’s
been moved by the DEPUTY MAYOR, seconded by
Councillor HAMMOND, that the report of the
City Planning and Economic Development Committee
meeting, dated Tuesday 2 June 2020, be adopted.
Is there any debate?
The DEPUTY MAYOR.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. Last week
we had a very interesting presentation from
our Economic Development Manager around the
COVID-19 impact monitoring study that we’ve
done on community vulnerability, expenditure
analysis and city live data. Our City Analytics
team, through ED, have been working hard on
monitoring the impacts of COVID since the
early indicators of disruption, to better
understand how our city is changing and responding
through this time of crisis. This includes
monitoring pedestrian counts in core precincts,
analysing spending data and understanding
some of the broader social implications that
have resulted from the city-wide disruption.
The Federal Government has now confirmed that
based on recent data the economy is officially
in recession and the expectation for the next
quarter is expected to be worse than what
we’ve just seen. Our projections suggest
that by 30 June, the number of job losses
in Brisbane could equate to approximately
135,000 jobs. As you might expect, the largest
job losses are expected within hospitality,
tourism and the arts. The majority of job
losses are focussed around the inner-city
areas.
With fewer people employed and greater financial
implications for households, we estimate that,
on average, residents are spending between
$100 million to $120 million less, per month,
in our businesses and economy in Brisbane.
We are now gradually starting to see people
return to work and more businesses reopen.
Projections that Councillors draw from this
data will be critical to make sure that we
inform our responses for our strategy for
recovery to get this city back on its feet
as quickly and as safely as possible.
I know the Economic Recovery Taskforce, led
by Councillor ALLAN, is working feverishly
in line with the budget announcements just
in a week’s time. We know that the fast
tracking of infrastructure is vital to keep
people employed in our very important industry
of building and construction, too. But unfortunately,
as we have seen today, the Labor State Government
does not believe, nor the ALP on the other
side as well, that the inordinate job losses
in the State capital are anywhere near as
important as the rest of Queensland, unfortunately.
But I leave the few petitions that are here
as well to debate to the Chamber. Thank you.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY. Thanks. I’d just like
to speak, quite briefly, on Item F, the petition
that is requesting the Sandgate District Neighbourhood
Plan be approved with various buildings preserved,
while building a new future economy and living
solutions for all. Essentially this petition
was started in support of six-storey development
in the Sandgate Village area, as part of the
Sandgate and District Neighbourhood Plan.
There’s another petition coming to Council
that went through committee today, that will
be coming to Council next week, so I’ll
talk in more depth at that point. But I think
it is very fair to say, and I’ll put this
on record now, that the people of Sandgate
and surrounding suburbs, have spoken fairly
loudly and clearly on this issue.
This petition, which essentially is supporting
six-storey development in Sandgate, received
82 signatures and quite a bit of publicity
locally. The petition that was opposing six-storey
development as part of this neighbourhood
plan process received 2,714 signatures, which
is coming to Council next week. So, I’ll
speak a bit more about that. But what is very
interesting is the arguments that were made
in this petition and by people who were putting
this position out there in this community,
was that redevelopment of an area which had
retail down the bottom and units above it
would be good for local business, would create
more jobs.
There’s an article out just today in The
Courier-Mail, which talks about the Lutwyche
Road shops being vacant as over supply leaves
a ghost town feel. There’s even a local
real estate agent which says, and it sums
up I think the sentiment of the community,
we didn’t need it, no one asked for it,
it was just a town planning idea. So, while
I supported the recommendation here and that
this feedback will be taken on board in this
process, I think the feedback that we’ll
get next week will be very telling. Thanks,
Chair.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, just briefly on
Item E, the petition requesting Council refused
the development application at 9 Lahey Close,
Sherwood. This development proposal was for
two fast food restaurants, one of which was
identified as a McDonalds and the other one
was not identified as a particular fast food
restaurant. It’s a very small site. It’s
constrained by Sherwood Road and the bus depot.
It’s an extremely poor location. Council
allowed the bus depot to proceed, even though
it did not have proper sightlines for the
new intersection created to provide access
to Lahey Close for the buses.
It’s problematic now, because it’s created
developable land, that really has quite limited
uses. Fast food restaurant, without a footpath,
without any public transport, with limited
parking and with all of the safety issues
with 800 buses and then hundreds of workers
a day going in and out of a very small laneway,
did not make a lot of sense. So, it was good
news that Council did refuse to progress this
development, in terms of engaging with an
information request. I understand that public
notification was undertaken in April. I have
some serious concerns about that, because
I do drive past regularly and I certainly
did not see the signs up.
It’s quite set back from the road and there
are numerous frontages. I think it is very
disappointing that—and perhaps, I’m not
sure, but I would be concerned about whether
there’s been full compliance with public
notification with respect to this. But I have
put my concerns on the record to Council through
the DA process. I would encourage Council
to continue to refuse this development. It’s
much too intense for the site. It’s contrary
to the type of use that’s allowed under
the zoning. It is not supported by the necessary
road, pedestrian, cycling, or public transport
infrastructure needed to service fast food
in this location.
Picking up on a point that Councillor CASSIDY
just made, the continued out-of-centre development
that this Council is allowing is killing the
high streets in our city. It’s clearer than
it’s ever been in the last year or so, that
high streets all over Brisbane, it doesn’t
matter what ward you’re in, are struggling.
Part of that is the way in which the nature
of shopping has changed to a more online offering,
but part of that is the proliferation of out-of-centre
development. Council has allowed it over the
last few years and it is to the detriment
of areas such as high streets that are zoned
for commercial and retail offering.
But unfortunately, developers are finding
it cheaper to get a block of land in a residential,
or an industrial area and then try and change
the use of that land. That is not the way
we should be going about town planning in
this area. We’re seeing it with childcare
centres. It’s a huge problem. They shouldn’t
be springing up everywhere in low-density
residential areas. Likewise, we should not
be seeing retail in areas where it’s not
zoned for retail. Within a few hundred metres,
either to Rocklea in the east, or Sherwood
in the west, there are areas that are zoned
for this type of in-centre development.
It is critical that Council does not continue
to undermine high streets, which perform such
an important economic, social and practical
function for local neighbourhoods. So, I urge
Council to refuse this application. I know
that they’ve indicated that they will do
so. But the key is going to come with any
appeal. Unfortunately, Council has a history
of rolling over in the appeals process and
doing a deal with the developer to allow development,
once the matter goes to appeal. I’ve seen
that happen so many times in my ward. It’s
to the detriment of our local community.
We can now see in this city, in almost every
part of this city, the impact of the poor
planning of this LNP administration. It’s
critical that developments that do not meet
the codes, that do not meet the zoning, do
not meet the requirements of City Plan, are
not approved. So, I urge Council to respect
the wishes of residents here and to strongly
oppose this development.
Chair: Further speakers? I see no further
speakers.
Councillor ADAMS.
DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you
to the Councillors for their contribution.
Councillor CASSIDY, I think, as you’ve shown,
there is quite a diverse range of views around
Sandgate District Neighbourhood Plan. It is
under consideration and obviously several
petitions from both sides keep coming in around
that, as well. As for Councillor JOHNSTON’s
contribution, can I apologise to the hard-working
legal team that work hard to defend all of
the decisions that we make in Council. When
they are ordered by the Courts to mediate,
there should be no imputing motive in this
place, as she has clearly said many times
this evening. Thank you, Mr Chair.
Chair: Thank you. I will now put the resolution.
All those in favour say aye and raise your
hand.
Councillors say aye.
Chair: Please lower your hands. All those
against, say no and please raise your hands.
The ayes have it.
Councillors, the Public and Active Transport
Committee, please.
Councillor MURPHY: Mr Chair, I move that the
report of the Public and Active Transport
Committee meeting, held on Tuesday 2 June
2020, be adopted.
Councillor OWEN: Seconded.
Chair: It’s been moved by Councillor MURPHY,
seconded by Councillor OWEN, that the report
of the Public and Active Transport Committee
meeting, held on Tuesday 2 June 2020, be adopted.
Councillor MURPHY.
Councillor MURPHY: Yeah, thanks very much,
Chair. Last week’s committee presentation
was all about how Council embraces the Brisbane
River as an asset, when it comes to public
and active transport. I don’t propose to
go into detail about the committee presentation.
We also received two petitions, one requesting
Council paint the Kangaroo Point Bikeway,
between Veloway 1 and Hamilton Street. All
Councillors were supportive, except for Councillor
SRI. Council supports improvement to the river
walk here, which is recognised as a primary
cycle round, further widening and upgrade
of these paths is required. In the interim,
Council will investigate minor improvements
and repairs to pavement and signage treatments.
That was explained to the committee.
Then a second petition requesting Council
maintain navigable bridge height under any
new bridges on the Brisbane River. All members
of the committed voted in favour of the recommendation,
which recorded that Council will be delivering
the Kangaroo Point green bridge at no lower
height than the Captain Cook Bridge, which
is the current point of restriction in the
Brisbane River. I’m happy to leave the debate
to the Chamber.
Chair: Further speakers?
Councillor SRI. But before I call you, Councillor
TOOMEY will be chairing the meeting from this
point until my return.
Councillor SRI.
Councillor SRI: Thanks, Chair. Just really
briefly on the Kangaroo Point, the petition
relating to the Kangaroo Point riverside bikeway.
My concerns with the petition response, essentially
that it doesn’t commit to clear courses
of action within a well-defined timeframe.
Obviously, this is an ongoing issue along
the Kangaroo Point riverfront. We’re seeing
significant conflicts between pedestrians
and cyclists. There are higher and higher
volumes of active transport commuters using
that riverside corridor. Although it’s a
good start for the Council to be investigating
further changes to signs and lines, we’ve
been raising this as an issue for years now.
I worry that commitment to investigate further
changes simply isn’t strong enough. What
I would like to see from the Council is a
clearer strategy, in terms of how we’re
going to manage those rise in volumes along
that riverside pathway and some very clearly
defined projects and clear timelines. The
high volume of commuter cyclists, in particular,
along that riverside bikeway, arises, in part,
from the fact that we don’t have safe bike
lanes on other major roads through the precinct.
So, roads like Main Street, leading up through
Kangaroo Point, with the Terrace along the
top of the Kangaroo Point cliffs, even the
stretch of Vulture Street that runs through
the middle of South Brisbane and Woolloongabba,
none of these major corridors have safe, separated
bike lanes. So, as a result, there’s a much
higher volume of fast-moving, commuter cyclists
using those riverside bikeways.
The future Kangaroo Point footbridge will
go some way towards addressing these issues,
but it’s still quite a long while away.
In the meantime, I think making it safer for
cyclists to use some more direct routes through
the peninsula if they wish, would actually
take away quite a bit of that pressure along
those riverside pathways. So, for example,
cyclists who are coming over the Goodwill
Bridge and heading east, they’ll often ride
all the way around the riverside pathway,
the Kangaroo Point peninsula, when they would
probably prefer to head directly east along
a corridor like Vulture Street, if it was
safe to do so.
So, there’s a lot of additional value in
some of those on-road bike lane facilities
that I’ve been proposing in the past. In
a way, that’s probably one of the most practical
steps towards addressing the congestion and
conflict issues along those riverside pathways.
As I’ve said, there are quite a few problem
spots along that western side of the Kangaroo
Point peninsula, in particular around the
Thornton Street Ferry Terminal and also around
Riverlife. Some of those concerns around Riverlife
could be addressed with better management
of the Riverlife facility. I’ve raised those
concerns with Councillors, various teams in
the past and haven’t seen a lot of action.
But further north, around Thornton Street,
there needs to be a proper redesign of that
space. In the absence of any funding for a
dedicated redesign that creates more footpath
width and opens up better lines of sight,
I think we’re really going to have to urgently
invest in more funding for some of those cross-suburb
links, so that it’s easier for cyclists
to travel east-west through Kangaroo Point
and South Brisbane, rather than having to
travel all the way around the riverside path
of the peninsula. Thanks.
Deputy Chair: Thank you, Councillor SRI.
Is there any further debate? I see no hands.
Councillor MURPHY.
Councillor MURPHY: Yeah, thanks very much,
Deputy Chair. Just in responding very briefly
to Councillor SRI’s comments. We did have
a more-broader, wide-ranging discussion on
this petition outcome at the committee meeting,
where I did state and I’ll restate it now
for the record, that Council is committed
to upgrading this section of bikeway, prior
to the Kangaroo Point green bridge coming
online. It’s envisaged that that bridge
will be operational in this term of Council.
So, we’re certainly not talking about kicking
this into the long grass, or delaying this
one indefinitely.
We have acknowledged that the pedestrian conflict
issues that exist along that river walk section
of bikeway are significant. They are indeed
dangerous in some parts. So, we do want to
resolve those issues. We are committed to
resolving those issues. Until such a time
as we’ve finalised a detailed reference
design for the bridge, it will probably be
fruitless for us to go ahead and come up with
a detailed design of how we would address
those issues on the river walk that connects
right in with that bridge.
So, I think it’s prudent here for us to
just allow that bridge to progress a little
bit further along in its design phase. Then
for us to come out with the plan for, I guess,
what you would term the immediate tie-in bikeways
to that bridge. This would be one of them.
Deputy Chair: Thank you, Councillor MURPHY.
I’ll now put the resolution.
All those in favour, raise your hand and say
aye.
Councillors say aye.
Deputy Chair: Those against. The ayes have
it.
Councillor McLACHLAN, please.
Councillor McLACHLAN: I thank you, Mr Deputy
Chair. I move that the report of the Infrastructure
Committee meeting, held on Tuesday 2 June
2020, be adopted.
Councillor MATIC: Seconded.
Deputy Chair: So, that was Councillor MATIC.
Thank you. It’s been moved by Councillor
MCLACHLAN, seconded by Councillor MATIC, that
the report of the Infrastructure Committee
meeting, dated Tuesday 2 June 2020, be adopted.
Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Mr Deputy
Chair. In committee last week we had an interesting
presentation on what’s at the business end
of the infrastructure portfolio, that’s
dealing with contributed assets, which many
Councillors hear being talked about, but may
not be aware fully of the process that we
go through for accepting contributed assets,
either from developers, or from other government
entities. So, it would help if I could ask
the manager of Asset Management to come in
and to talk about that process. It’s probably
not the glory end of the work, but it’s
a very important work, to make sure that the
assets that come on to the Council books are
understood and have the potential to be properly
maintained.
So, Council does attend to those contributed
assets from whichever party provides them,
to make sure that they are of good quality,
that they’re achieving a required standard.
More importantly, that we have sufficient
information to register the assets and to
achieve management standards. So, that’s
the process for accepting contributed assets
and a great presentation. I recommend the
report to all Councillors who may be unfamiliar
with that process to read it and to understand
it.
But we also had, Mr Deputy Chair, three petitions,
relating in the main to traffic management
requests. I’ll leave that to any Councillors
who want to participate in the debate.
Deputy Chair: Thank you, Councillor McLACHLAN.
Is there any further debate? I see no hands
being raised.
Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN: No more.
Deputy Chair: We’ll put the resolution.
All those in favour say aye and raise your
hand, sorry.
Councillors say aye.
Deputy Chair: Those against? I believe the
ayes have it.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM, please.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Thank you, Mr Deputy
Chair. I move that the report of the Environment,
Parks and Sustainability Committee meeting,
held on Tuesday 2 June 2020, be adopted.
Councillor DAVIS: Seconded.
Deputy Chair: It’s been moved by Councillor
CUNNINGHAM, seconded by Councillor DAVIS,
that the report of the Environment, Parks
and Sustainability Committee meeting, dated
Tuesday 2 June 2020, be adopted.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Thanks, Mr Deputy Chair.
Before I move on to the presentation from
last week, I had two questions that I took
on notice during committee that I would like
to be able to answer now. Through you, Chair,
Councillor GRIFFITHS asked for the stats on
the fire pit trial. In the first week of June
2019, Council received 17 compliance cases
for backyard burning and excessive smoke.
This is compared to 15 compliance cases in
the first week of June this year. We’ve
had 49 pieces of correspondence, 48 against
and one in support. But there is also a live
e-petition with Council that has over 1,600
signatures in support of lifting the ban and
an e-petition with 26 signatures to ban fire
pits.
Councillor CASSIDY also asked about the dispute
process for fire pit compliance. If a person
receives a fine for backyard burning, they
can access Council’s three-stage appeal
process. Council’s prescribed infringement
notice dispute guidelines apply to all penalty
infringement notices issued, including those
issued during this trial for braziers. Detailed
information about the disputed infringement
notice process, including information about
how to lodge an appeal, is on our website.
Moving to the committee report, the presentation
last week was on the new Boondall Wetlands
Environment Centre. The other item in the
meeting for information was the Bushland Preservation
Levy report, for the period ending March 2020.
I’ll leave debate to the Chamber.
Deputy Chair: Thank you, Councillor CUNNINGHAM.
Is there further debate?
Councillor CASSIDY.
Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks very much, Deputy
Chair. I talk tonight on the Boondall Wetlands
Environment Centre. In the late 1980s all
of this could have been lost to the northside
of Brisbane. The Atkinson Liberal Council
administration wanted to turn what is now
the Boondall Wetlands into an Olympic Games
venue, athletes’ village and then ultimately
canal estates. Those plans were still very
much on the table right into the early 1990s,
right up until there were some very visionary
political leaders who took a stand and did
something that would change the northside
forever.
Jim Soorley, as Lord Mayor, Denise Herbert
as the Councillor for the Deagon Ward and
Wayne Swan as the Federal Member for Lilley,
brokered a deal for Council to purchase the
first 500 hectares of the Boondall Wetlands
for just $1. The decision was preceded, of
course, by a significant public campaign,
led by people like Laurie and Margaret Jeays,
Brian and Ros Hutchison and Ken McEwen. At
the opening of the new Boondall Wetlands Environment
Centre earlier this year, it brought those
achievements together.
It was wonderful to be there and attend that
ceremony with Brian and Ros, with Margaret
Jeays and with many other members of the community
who were there witness to that. We were also
joined by Turrbal elder, Uncle Des Sandy and
Derrick Sandy from Yerongpan Dancers, who
were able to provide a connection to the ancient
and to the modern, as well, with the new centre.
So, this was a thoroughly good project. I
just want to congratulate everyone involved.
Deputy Chair: Thank you, Councillor CASSIDY.
Is there any further debate?
Sorry, Councillor JOHNSTON, Councillor GRIFFITHS
beat you.
Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Okay. Thank you, Mr
Chair. I’d just like to speak in relation
to the Bushland Preservation Levy report,
March 2020. I was quite astounded to hear
earlier in the meeting a Councillor attack
the State Government with relation to how
they were spending money across the State.
It was more that the point was, or the reference
or inference was that they were misusing public
money to spend in ALP electorates. I find
this most astounding, because that’s the
very point that we have been making for some
time, in relation to this LNP administration
and the decisions they’ve been making in
relation to the bushland funding.
If you look at this quarter’s report, it
just reinforces that. So, in this report,
we see $7.5 million being spend on Rode Road
at Stafford Heights, an LNP electorate. There
was a good LNP campaign about this particular
bushland. Once again, $1.3 million at Wakerley,
another LNP electorate. $5.6 million for Pallara,
which was at that time in my electorate, but
it actually was going into an LNP electorate
when the announcement was made. $1.2 million
for Sunnybank Hills, which is an LNP electorate
for various properties. $1.4 million for Karawatha,
once again in an LNP electorate and $99,000
for Bracken Ridge.
So, all that expenditure was going into purchase
properties that were in LNP electorates, or
that would be in LNP electorates. I just know
from working with residents at Oxley and Tarragindi
and Nathan and right across the city, I know
I’ve worked with Councillor JOHNSTON with
the residents at Oxley. We have tried time
and again to get worthwhile bushland that
should be preserved, that should be added
to the city’s heritage, added in our electorates.
In ALP electorates, in Green or Independent
electorates.
I’m really concerned that we have here a
black and white report that shows this consistent
rorting of the system. It’s disappointing
that—it’s really disappointing that this
is seen as this is the way business is done.
Disappointingly it was Councillor ADAMS who
made these accusations and already she’s
had $6.2 million spent on land at Upper Mount
Gravatt where the land was totally cleared
of vegetation; that it was three house blocks
with a few houses on, tennis courts and Cocos
palms. Yet in this budget report we’re seeing
another $102,000 being spent on that plan.
There is land right across our city that needs
to be purchased. There is land at Tarragindi
and Nathan that actually has koalas on it
and has mature trees on it and that could
be a great asset for our city that this administration
is not doing anything about.
So I think and I believe and I will keep calling
for as long as I’m in opposition—calling
for better use of this public money, because
this is public money, not LNP money, and this
is money that should be benefiting all residents
of Brisbane. It is my firm belief that these
acquisitions and the decisions about which
properties should be bought should be done
independent of this Council administration
by a body that can make decisions independent
of the political process, so that it is fairly
distributed and that we are acquiring the
best bushland that we can with residents money.
Thank you, Mr Chair.
Deputy Chair: Thank you Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Further debate? There being no hands rising
we’ll put the resolution—oh sorry, Councillor
CUNNINGHAM, response.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Thank you, Mr Deputy
Chair. It seems like a long tradition in this
place to use bushland levy as a soapbox which
is a bit disappointing but look what can I
say in response to Councillor GRIFFITHS. We’ve
been over this a number of times. Bushland
is purchased using a criterion to assess.
They are value for money ecological corridors,
consolidating natural areas, threatened ecosystems,
threatened species, management issues and
habitat—
Councillor JOHNSTON: How’d the rat get there
then?
Councillor SRI: And it’s in LNP wards.
[Over speaking]
Deputy Chair: We’ve gone through this earlier
in the meeting—can we allow Councillor CUNNINGHAM
to continue uninterrupted please. That’s
the last time I’ll say please.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM please continue.
Councillor CUNNINGHAM: Thank you, Mr Deputy
Chair. Through you, Mr Deputy Chair, to Councillor
GRIFFITHS, I’m happy to work with you on
trying to convince your state Labor colleagues
to give us the land at Toohey Forest so that
that land can be protected for the future.
So I hope to get your support with that. I’ll
leave it at that. Thanks, Mr Deputy Chair.
Deputy Chair: Thank you Councillor CUNNINGHAM.
I will now put the resolution.
All those in favour raise your hand please.
Say aye.
Councillors say aye.
Deputy Chair: Those against. The ayes have
it.
We move on to Field Services—sorry, my mistake,
City Standards, Community Health and Safety
Committee.
Councillor MARX.
Councillor MARX: Yes, thank you, Mr Deputy
Chair. I move that the report of the City
Standards, Community Health and Safety Committee
meeting held on Tuesday 2 June 2020 be adopted.
Deputy Chair: Can I have a seconder please?
Councillor HOWARD thank you. It’s been moved
by Councillor MARX, seconded by Councillor
HOWARD that the report of the City Standards,
Community Health and Safety Committee meeting
dated Tuesday 2 June 2020 be adopted.
Councillor MARX.
Councillor MARX: Yes, thank you, Mr Deputy
Chair. Look as the chair we do have the capacity
to go around the world before we do our report.
Well I don’t intend to actually go around
the world. Just across the water. I just want
to say hello to some of my family who are
actually tuned in from New Zealand watching
tonight. They are officially COVID-free, New
Zealand, as the first country in the world,
and so therefore all restrictions have been
lifted and therefore some of my family are
now able to get together for the very first
time to see each other again. So in particular
say hello to my mother-in-law, Rita.
The committee presentation last week was at
Brisbane Botanic Gardens Wedding Lawn and
Sculpture Projects for 2020 and we had three
petitions, which I’m happy to leave debate
to the Chamber.
Deputy Chair: Thank you Councillor MARX.
Is there further debate?
Councillor JOHNSTON please.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, just briefly I’d
like to speak on Items C and D, and I’d
ask that Item C is taken in seriatim for voting
purposes.
Just briefly on Item D, certainly I support
the residents’ requests in Chelmer to remove
this tree that’s been butchered by Energex
in Richmond Street, Chelmer, but as I did
in committee I just want to put on the record
my concern about the inconsistent approach
that Council takes to tree removal.
For many years I’ve sat on this committee
and I’ve watched—significantly concerning—trees
that residents want to have removed that won’t
be removed by Council. In this case there’s
pruning that has allegedly damaged the structure
of the tree. The first three times that Council
assessed it it wasn’t damaged, but the fourth
time it was.
I just find that even though we changed the
rules around why trees could be removed to
include damage to people and property a few
years ago, Council remains reluctant to address
problem tree issues when residents raise them,
and the lack of consistency is a real issue
that I’ve observed. Over many years I’ve
observed tree issues in Councillor STRUNK’s
ward be ignored and tree issues in my own
ward that have been ignored.
So this is a good outcome for the Chelmer
Street residents and I just urge Council to
be proactive about how it undertakes assessment,
because there are numerous trees that reasonably
I think could be removed and replaced with
a more suitable species and Council’s just
refusing to do so.
Just with respect to Item C, this was a petition
response that was really interesting. We had
52 people sign a petition calling for smoking
to be banned through different areas in the
CBD. One of the really interesting things
about committee last week when this was considered
is that there were only two members of that
committee who had any idea about what’s
happened historically with respect to these
issues with smoking. That was Councillor CUMMING
and myself and that’s no disrespect to Councillor
MARX who has been here a few years or the
other Councillors who are brand, shiny and
new, but there was a feeling that Council
could not do anything with respect to smoking
in certain areas.
However, Council does have some power with
respect to banning smoking and we have done
so in certain areas of the Mall. It is extremely
disappointing that Council would not consider
any further changes in other key pedestrian
parts of the CBD. I think it’s quite disappointing
that again the Council’s trying to blame
the State Labor Government, when clearly we
have power to take action with respect to
smoking.
I’d just say to Council that this is a very
disappointing response. It absolutely does
not address the petitioners’ concerns. I
did not support it when it came to committee,
and I do not support it now. So I certainly
hope there’ll be a seconder. I think it
would be a good thing to ban smoking in very
busy pedestrian areas of the city. In certain
locations where people congregate it would
make the city a much better place for residents.
Deputy Chair: Thank you Councillor JOHNSTON.
Is there any further debate? No further debate?
Councillor MARX please.
Councillor MARX: Thank you, Mr Deputy Chair.
Yes, as Councillor JOHNSTON mentioned on Item
D regarding the remove and replacement of
the Cassia tree at 69 Richmond Street, Chelmer,
it was a tree that was pruned under the power
lines from the Energex scenario that was happening
that you actually yourself brought up, Deputy
Chair, some time ago—that there was an issue
that— an issue has since been addressed
with Energex, but unfortunately as a result
of that, this tree has had to be removed.
I think that the photo of the tree quite clearly
shows the damage that was done to it, but
basically every tree is assessed on its merit
by an arborist and that’s the opinion that
we take onboard as a Council officer. So thank
you everyone for the debate.
Deputy Chair: Thank you Councillor MARX.
We’ll now put Items A, B and D.
All those in favour raise your hand and say
aye.
Councillors say aye.
Deputy Chair: Against. The ayes have it.
We’ll now put Item C.
All those in favour raise your hand and say
aye.
Councillors say aye.
Deputy Chair: Those against.
Councillor says no.
Deputy Chair: The ayes have it.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Division.
Deputy Chair: There being no seconded we’ll
move on.
Councillor HOWARD please Community Arts and
Nighttime Economy Committee.
Councillor HOWARD: Thank you, Mr Deputy Chair.
I move that the report of the meeting of the
Community Arts and Nighttime Economy Committee
held on 2 June 2020 be adopted.
Councillor LANDERS: Seconded.
Deputy Chair: It’s been moved by Councillor
HOWARD and seconded by Councillor LANDERS
that the report of the Community Arts and
Nighttime Economy Committee dated Tuesday
2 June 2020 be adopted.
Councillor HOWARD.
Councillor HOWARD: Thank you, Mr Deputy Chair.
We had an interesting presentation about community
halls and hireable spaces, and we also had
one petition that was considered by the committee
last week and I will leave the debate to the
Chamber. Thank you.
Deputy Chair: Thank you, Councillor HOWARD.
Is there any further debate?
There being no hand; Councillor HOWARD?
Councillor HOWARD: No, all good.
Deputy Chair: All good. We’ll put the resolution.
All those in favour of the report raise your
hand and say aye.
Councillors say aye.
Deputy Chair: Those against. I believe the
ayes have it.
Right, we move onto Finance. Councillor ALLAN
please.
Councillor ALLAN: Mr Chair, I move that the
report of the Finance, Administration and
Small Business Committee meeting held on Tuesday
2 June 2020 be adopted.
Councillor HUANG: Seconded.
Deputy Chair: It’s been moved by Councillor
ALLAN and seconded by Councillor HUANG that
the report of the Finance, Administration
and Small Business Committee meeting dated
2 June 2020 be adopted.
Councillor ALLAN.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order.
Deputy Chair: Point of order Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you Mr Deputy
Chair, just a procedural matter. I’m just
wondering why a petition about a car park
in the Wynnum Community Centre is in the Finance
and Administration Committee. I’m not sure
why it wouldn’t either be in City Standards
under Asset Services or under the Lifestyle
Committee. I’m just seeking some clarity
about why it’s appeared in this committee.
Councillor ALLAN: Mr Chair, I think I can
potentially answer that for you.
Deputy Chair: Thank you Councillor ALLAN.
Councillor ALLAN: Councillor JOHNSTON the
car park is on Council land so it’s part
of the asset optimisation portfolio.
Deputy Chair: There you go. Thank you, Councillor
ALLAN.
Councillor ALLAN please continue.
Councillor ALLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. Just
quickly, we had a committee presentation on
the First Home Owner Remission Scheme. Very
popular scheme. In addition to that there
was the petition requesting Council not build
a bitumen car park in the grounds of the Wynnum
Community Centre. I’ll leave further debate
to the Chamber.
Deputy Chair: Thank you Councillor ALLAN.
Is there any further debate?
Councillor CUNNINGHAM—sorry, Councillor
CUMMING. My apologies.
Councillor CUMMING: Thank you. Yes, I’d
ask that Item B be dealt with seriatim for
voting purposes.
Deputy Chair: Item B, seriatim, yes.
Councillor CUMMING: In relation to Item B,
this is a matter that we’re—it’s of
considerable importance to me. Local residents
have said to me for many years that one of
the reasons they don’t shop in Wynnum Central
is there’s a shortage of parking. If I had
a dollar for every time that has been said
to me I’d be wealthy man.
Currently the only public car park directly
owned by the Brisbane City Council is the
Wynnum Community Centre car park, which is
mainly on the frontage of Charlotte Street,
Wynnum which is close to the Wynnum Central
CBD. I see this car park as a community resource
and would like to see it treated as a public
car park for the whole of Wynnum Central and
not just the Community Centre.
The problem is that Council is about to resurface
the car park. I have no problem with the bitumen,
but Council’s committed to a layout of the
car park which will slash the current capacity
which allows anything from 75 to 100 cars
to be parked in the area down to 31 cars.
This is an area of land which I measured actually.
It’s 37.6 metres in depth, 52.8 metres wide,
so it’s 1,985 square metres in area. If
you divide that by 31, they’re actually
allowing 64 square metres for every car park
and I think that’s excessive. The problem
with Wynnum Central is that it’s—it’s
not a problem—one of the benefits is that
it’s an area eight storeys under the Wynnum
Manly Neighbourhood Plan and parking is likely
to get more difficult and congested in Wynnum
Central as time goes on.
The amount of parking required by Council
of developers is usually not adequate enough
to stop a lot of unit occupiers parking on
the street. Also the soon to be completed
cinema in Wynnum is only a street away and
cinema patrons will be looking for a park
as well.
I have seen in other councils around South
East Queensland and Redcliffe there’s Council
car parks near most of their commercial and
retail suburbs along the Esplanade in Redcliffe,
and something like this would be great in
Wynnum Manly. So this is a chance for Council
to markedly improve the viability of Wynnum
Central, an area which continues to struggle
financially. There are around about 30 empty
shops before the coronavirus lockdown in Wynnum
Central.
So this could be retained as a car park with
a lot greater capacity and people encouraged
to park in the car park and use some of the
area—for property owners, business owners
and employees—walk a street or two to work.
Also that would leave other car parking nearer
the shops available for customers.
So I’d like to see Council change its view
in relation to this matter, and it wouldn’t
be any big backdown or anything like that,
but it would be of great benefit to the community.
I would be very complimentary of the Council
if they did that. Thank you.
Deputy Chair: Thank you Councillor CUMMING.
Is there any further debate?
There being no hands I’ll now put Item A.
All those in favour of Item A please raise
your hand and say aye.
Councillors say aye.
Deputy Chair: Those who say no. I believe
the ayes have it.
We’ll now do Item B.
All those in favour raise your hand and say
aye.
Councillors say aye.
Deputy Chair: Those against.
Councillor says no.
Deputy Chair: The ayes have it. Thank you.
[A division called by Councillor CUMMING and
seconded by Councillor GRIFFITHS].
Deputy Chair: All right we’ll now put Item
B.
All those in favour raise your hand and say
aye and hold it there please.
Councillors say aye.
Councillor CUMMING: Gee this must be a close
vote.
Deputy Chair: We only see the top of your
head Councillor CUMMING. You’ve got to move
closer to the camera. There we go.
Councillor CUMMING: Right.
Deputy Chair: We’re good. We’re good with
the ayes. Can we have the noes please.
Councillors say no.
Deputy Chair: I think Councillor GRIFFITHS
is definitely a no. Sorry, your fingers keep
disappearing Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Oh sorry.
Deputy Chair: Thank you. All right we’ll
move on to general business.
Councillor CUMMING: Petitions.
Deputy Chair: Oh sorry.
Unknown Male: Read the results there, Deputy
Chair.
Deputy Chair: Yes, I will, I will. I forgot,
my apologies. Clerks can you please read the
results.
Clerk: Mr Deputy Chair, the ayes have it,
the voting being 18 in favour and five against.
Deputy Chair: The ayes have it. We’ll now
move on to—I’ve lost my place now, my
apologies—move onto petitions.
Councillors are there any petitions?
Councillor MATIC.
Councillor MATIC: Thank you, Mr Deputy Chair.
I have two petitions, the first being a petition
of residents looking for an improvement at
Milton Park for light installation and basketball
hoop refurbishment. I have a second petition
from residents in regards to the intersection
of Gregory Street and Morley Street at Toowong.
Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Councillor CUMMING.
Councillor CUMMING: Yes, I have some petitions
I’m presenting on behalf of Peter Russo
MP which seeks—they seek traffic signage
be installed on McCullough Street and Troughton
Road asking heavy haulage vehicles to minimise
their noise when braking in this area.
Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Councillor CUMMING: Thank you.
Deputy Chair: Councillor MARX.
Councillor MARX: Yes, thank you, Mr Deputy
Chair. Bizarrely I have the same petition
which is to do with heavy haulage signs. Thank
you.
Deputy Chair: Thank you. Can I have a motion
please to accept the petitions?
Councillor LANDERS: Mr Deputy Chair, I move
that the petitions as presented be received
and referred to the committee concerned for
consideration and report.
Councillor GRIFFITHS: Seconded.
Deputy Chair: Thank you. It’s been moved
by Councillor LANDERS, seconded by Councillor
GRIFFITHS that all the petitions as presented
be received and referred to the committees
concerned for consideration and report.
All those in favour raise your hands.
Councillors say aye.
Deputy Chair: Those against. The ayes have
it.
Councillors are there any statements required
as a result of a Councillor Conduct Review
Panel order?
There being no hands raised, Councillors are
there any items of general business?
There being no hands raised, I declare the
meeting closed. Thank you.
