MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

The 4508 meeting of the Brisbane City Council, held at City Hall, Brisbane on Tuesday 25 October 2016 at 2pm

Prepared by: Council and Committee Liaison Office Chief Executive’s Office Office of the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

THE 4508 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL, HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE, ON TUESDAY 25 OCTOBER 2016 Dedicated to a better Brisbane AT 2PM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS______i PRESENT:______1 OPENING OF MEETING:______1 APOLOGY:______1 MINUTES:______1 QUESTION TIME:______2 CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE DURING RECESS:______15 ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Adoption report)______15 A REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING ON 1 SEPTEMBER 2016______40 B CONTRACTS AND TENDERING – REPORT TO COUNCIL OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR AUGUST 2016______40 C AMENDMENT OF CORPORATE RULEEM007 BUSHFIRE MANAGEMENT POLICY______45 D STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – LEASE AND OPERATION OF THE CAFÉ AND TAKEAWAY FOOD AND DRINK OUTLET AT THE ENGINE ROOM, LOCATED AT 71 MACQUARIE STREET, TENERIFFE______46 NOTATION OF DECISIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE AS DELEGATE OF COUNCIL:______49 ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Information report)______49 A COMMUNITY CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 2016-17______53 B ESTABLISHMENT OF A CEMETERIES RESTORATION TRUST______54 NOTATION OF DECISIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE AS DELEGATE OF COUNCIL:______54 INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE______55 A PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL INSTALL TRAFFIC CALMING IN ALGONA STREET, HOLLAND PARK WEST______58 B PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL UPGRADE THE INTERSECTION OF MAIN AVENUE, NEWMAN ROAD AND BEOR STREET, WAVELL HEIGHTS______60 C PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL IMPROVE THE TRAFFIC AND PARKING SITUATION IN TENERIFFE DRIVE, TENERIFFE______61 D PETITION – REQUESTING THE INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CALMING IN DAW ROAD, RUNCORN___63 CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE______65 A PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL UNDERTAKE A MASTER PLAN FOR SANDGATE AND SURROUNDING AREAS______67 B PETITIONS – REQUESTING THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF MACTAGGARTS PLACE WALKWAY IN TENERIFFE______69 C PETITION – OBJECTING TO A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR MULTIPLE DWELLINGS (50 UNITS) AND A RECONFIGURATION OF A LOT FOR AN ACCESS EASEMENT AT 11–15 QUERRIN STREET, YERONGA______71 ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE______72 A PETITION – REQUESTING A PLAYGROUND UPGRADE AND IMPROVEMENT OF FACILITIES AT MERRI MERRI PARK, CHAPEL HILL______73

[4508 (Post Recess) Meeting – 25 October 2016] MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

THE 4508 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL, HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE, ON TUESDAY 25 OCTOBER 2016 Dedicated to a better Brisbane AT 2PM

CONSIDERATION OF NOTIFIED MOTION – MELBOURNE CUP 2016:______75 PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:______75 GENERAL BUSINESS:______76 QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:______89 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:______90

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

THE 4508 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL, HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE, ON TUESDAY 25 OCTOBER 2016 Dedicated to a better Brisbane AT 2PM

PRESENT:

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

LNP Councillors (and Wards) ALP Councillors (and Wards) Krista ADAMS (Holland Park) Peter CUMMING (Wynnum Manly) (The Leader of Adam ALLAN (Northgate) the Opposition) Matthew BOURKE (Jamboree) Jared CASSIDY (Deagon) (Deputy Leader of the Amanda COOPER (Bracken Ridge) Opposition) Vicki HOWARD (Central) (Deputy Chairman of Steve GRIFFITHS (Moorooka) Council) Charles STRUNK (Forest Lake) Steven HUANG (Macgregor) Shayne SUTTON (Morningside) Fiona KING (Marchant) Peter MATIC (Paddington) Ian McKENZIE (Coorparoo) Queensland Greens Councillor (and Ward) Ryan MURPHY (Doboy) Jonathan SRI (The Gabba) Kate RICHARDS (Pullenvale) Adrian SCHRINNER (Chandler) (Deputy Mayor) Julian SIMMONDS (Walter Taylor) Steven TOOMEY (The Gap) Independent Councillor (and Ward) Andrew WINES (Enoggera) Nicole JOHNSTON (Tennyson) Norm WYNDHAM (McDowall)

OPENING OF MEETING:

The Chairman, Councillor Angela OWEN, opened the meeting with prayer, and then proceeded with the business set out in the Agenda.

APOLOGY: 153/2016-17 Apologies were submitted on behalf of Councillors David McLACHLAN and Kim MARX, and they were granted leave of absence from the meeting on the motion of Councillor Andrew WINES, seconded by Councillor Adam ALLAN.

MINUTES: 154/2016-17 The Minutes of the 4507(ordinary) meeting held on 6 September 2016, copies of which had been forwarded to each Councillor, were presented, taken as read and confirmed on the motion of Councillor Andrew WINES, seconded by Councillor Adam ALLAN.

QUESTION TIME:

[4508 (Post Recess) Meeting – 25 October 2016] - 2 -

Chairman: Are there any questions of the LORD MAYOR or a Chairman of any of the standing committees? Councillor ALLAN. Question 1 Councillor ALLAN: Madam Chairman, my question is to the LORD MAYOR. As part of the Brisbane 2022 New World City Action Plan, it was clear that technology-based jobs have a larger multiplier effect than jobs in other sectors, and are central to the new world city economies. Last week you officially opened an exciting new innovation hub called The Capital. Can you please give the Chamber an overview of this fantastic new facility and other innovations that we are considering? This Administration ensures that innovation will underpin jobs. Can you please give an overview of future endeavours? LORD MAYOR: Thank you very much indeed, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor Adam ALLAN for his question. Straight after the G20 world leaders summit here in Brisbane, I asked our economic development agency, Brisbane Marketing, to coordinate the establishment of an update of our economic development plan for Brisbane. Through that, there was around 1,000 people brought together, mainly businesses across industries, but also people from the educational institutions; we had people from the not-for-profit sector. So many aspects of Brisbane life came together to form what is now known as Brisbane 2022 New World City Action Plan. This is the summary version of that plan. The question that Councillor ALLAN has raised today pertains to page 11 of this summary document where it says under the start-up ecosystem that one of the recommendations was to co-create Brisbane’s start-up hub through a joint venture special purpose vehicle. That has now been realised. The Capital provides a city centre area of space whereby the start-up ecosystem can be nurtured and where it can hopefully—and we certainly expect—will create the jobs of the future for our city. So this co-working space will provide the opportunity for 200 start-ups. It is based at 155 Queen Street, with Zara on the ground floor in the Queen Street Mall, and there are three levels as well as a rooftop space that are now available for this start-up home. It is being coordinated by people who know what they are doing. I refer specifically to Fishburners, headed up by Murray Hurps, and also that of Little Tokyo Two, headed up by Jock Fairweather. These are very successful individuals, very successful organisations.

At that time, 2.05pm, the Chairman, Councillor Angela OWEN, assumed the Chair.

So from a Fishburners’ perspective, they will be taking in the new start-ups, the individuals, and nurturing them, given them the support mechanisms they need. That of Little Tokyo Two will be taking up those start-ups that have reached the point of maybe four employees through to about eight or nine employees, and then scaling them up, making sure that they can then reach significant additional heights in terms of reaching international markets and the like. So this is a facility which is very much about making sure that Brisbane stays competitive. It is about making sure that we are at the leading edge of opportunity, that we don’t see jobs in this city going offshore. We want to keep the ideas here; we want those jobs nurtured. We want the ideas expanded and developed up so that Brisbane becomes the beneficiary, but more specifically, young people in particular looking for work become the beneficiary of these bright ideas that are established and harnessed here in our city. So, Madam Chairman, as well as those two entities, Digital Brisbane will also now be housed at The Capital. It makes sense. They, as an organisation, as part of Brisbane Marketing, are also making sure that our city undertakes its digital

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 3 -

transformation, making sure that we continue to educate young people in the art of coding. In that Coderdojo program I have spoken about here before, we have been training about 600 young people aged between 7 and 17 years of age, and that has now doubled to 1,200 people, and I want to thank the nearly 300 mentors that we have had to make sure that we have the coding skills coming through into the future. We obviously utilise the libraries and other spaces to make sure that those young people are trained. So The Capital, I hope, and I certainly have a vision for it, that it will become a place where business will go, where government will go, even, to look for its business solutions through young people, not necessarily just young, but people with the start-up initiatives, creative people that have the capacity to set about working with each other to solve some of those business issues. I think the key now is to try to also find venture capitalists, making sure that those ideas can be generated into a lot of jobs for the future. Chairman: Thank you, LORD MAYOR. Further questions? Councillor CUMMING. Question 2 Councillor CUMMING: Yes, thanks, Madam Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. At the public information sessions for your so-called Metro, members of the public are being told that this Council is not investigating alternate routes, because your Administration insists the current route is set in stone. If you are serious about creating a new cross-city connectivity, why won’t you swallow your pride and allow the project team to investigate alternate routes that will service more commuters, such as connecting Newstead, the CBD, West End and out to the University of Queensland? LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman, I am happy to receive the question, obviously. I thank Councillor CUMMING for the question. I am a bit stunned by the last bit of the question which is just simply a replay of something that the people of Brisbane have already cast a vote on, which was their light rail plan. That was the route that he extended out there at the end of that question. So I am not even going to entertain that part of it. The Brisbane people have spoken in relation to that plan that was put forward by Rod Harding and Labor at the election. But I do say this; in terms of the Metro, I have always said that in terms of the development of the business case, we have to look at different options. We have set down where we believe the Metro ought to be. But the reality is that, when you are developing a business case, you have to look at different options, and we have done this with all of the projects that we have been undertaking. There is nothing new about this. We will do that. The State Government has already indicated, for example, that we cannot have the depot that is stabling the maintenance yard at GoPrint site. Okay. So, if we cannot do that, of course we have to look at some other aspects to ensure this project works. What I will say to you, though, Councillor CUMMING, and what will never be compromised on is the fact that we need bus infrastructure in this city. We are doing this— Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Order! LORD MAYOR: We are doing this because— Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Order! LORD MAYOR: Well, the people have spoken about that, too, Councillor SUTTON. You put that forward. You came in here; you said the people out there are demanding a busway along Wynnum Road, so we put that—

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 4 -

Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Order! Just a moment, please, LORD MAYOR. Councillor SUTTON— Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Councillor SUTTON! I remind you that your colleague has asked this question. Please do the courtesy of allowing the LORD MAYOR to be heard. LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. The people have already spoken on what Councillor SUTTON was interjecting on. In relation to the Metro, we are required in terms of the business case to be presented to Infrastructure Australia, for example, to be able to present options in relation to that. We have to, in the building of a business case, look at a range of options. This, as I say, is not peculiar to this project. This relates to any project. But we have put forward what we believe is a start and a finish point which are very, very important, and there are a number of reasons for that. The first reason is that it connects essentially with hospitals. It connects with two sports stadiums. It connects with a whole lot of education facilities and education accommodation that is being constructed along that corridor. It is a corridor where we are seeing a tremendous amount of mental research being undertaken, with the knowledge-based industries that are growing along those corridors. So all of these things give a very, very good reason and case why a two-minute frequency metro system ought to be constructed along there. Again I make the point; I have been asking and asking and asking the State Government what you are going to do about bus infrastructure from the time that the government dropped the bus and rail tunnel, and there has never been an answer. There is nothing on the table. If there was something on the table, we would not be having this discussion because we are only stepping up to the plate because we know we cannot keep pushing more and more buses on to the city’s streets in the CBD. Madam Chairman, I make this point the Regional Plan is out for public consultation. Some 223,000 more dwellings are projected in Brisbane under the Regional Plan going through to 2041. That will mean that there will be a doubling of the number of buses that will need to come into the CBD. We already know the congestion that applies on Victoria Bridge, in the cultural precinct, around those areas of the busway system right here and right now. So, something has to give. You can’t just keep saying more and more people on the one hand and not providing the infrastructure on the other. In the absence of any bus plan by the State Government, we are getting on and we are getting it done. Chairman: Further questions? Councillor HOWARD. Question 3 Councillor HOWARD: Thank you, Madam Chairman; my question is to the Chairman of City Planning, Councillor SIMMONDS. Recently we have seen occasions where private certifiers and property owners have sought to demolish character homes against Council’s wishes. Can you outline what this Administration is doing to ensure changes are made to relevant State legislation to ensure the protection of character and heritage in our city going forward? Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS. Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON! Order! Councillor SIMMONDS.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 5 -

Councillor SIMMONDS: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and I note that Labor Councillors on the other side of the Chamber think it is a laughing matter. It is not, and I am about to explain to the Chamber why. I thank Councillor HOWARD very much for the question. We know that this Administration has worked incredibly hard over a number of years to ensure that the character and heritage of our city is protected. Since Labor’s City Plan 2000, there has been more than 35,000 properties added to the traditional building character overlays, and of course the City Plan 2014 that this Administration brought in introduced even stricter protections, particularly for pre-1911 dwellings, with an additional 400 pre-1911 properties individually identified beyond the traditional building character overlay. Of course, we will continue to do that. We will continue to identify properties that need protection and put that in place. The most recent example is the Coorparoo and District strategy which we’re out there at the moment with an additional 2,200 properties that have been earmarked for character protection. These protections are incredibly important. They give residents of Brisbane the security that nominated properties must come to this Council for assessment if major works or demolition is proposed. That is why the recent incidents of a single private certifier in an unreferred fashion to Council approving the demolition of property is completely unacceptable to this— Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Order! Councillor SIMMONDS: —to this Council— Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Order! Order! Councillor SUTTON: Just for the record. Chairman: For the third time, I have called order in this place. Councillor SIMMONDS. Councillor SIMMONDS: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I take Councillor SUTTON’s interjection and remind her that it is her leader that demolished one of these properties himself. So when it comes to this issue, they do not have a— Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Madam Chairman. Councillor SIMMONDS: —leg to stand on. Chairman: Point of order against you, Councillor SIMMONDS. Councillor JOHNSTON. MOTION FOR SUSPENSION OF STANDING RULES: 155/2016-17 At that juncture, Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON moved, seconded by Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS, that the Standing Rules be suspended to allow the moving of the following motion

Calling on this Council to immediately identify all pre-1946 houses and ensure that they are mapped within the traditional character overlay.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, I am just going to take a minute to just double-check with the Clerks. I believe this urgency motion is almost identical to a previous motion that has been put before this Chamber in recent months. I will just take a moment to confer with the Clerks. Deputy Mayor, could we call a brief adjournment, please? I need to verify the specific wording of the previous motion that came before this place, because there is a restriction on Councillors being able to bring repetitive motions before it.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 6 -

ADJOURNMENT: 156/2016-17 At that time, 2.17pm, it was resolved on the motion of the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, seconded by Councillor Andrew WINES, that the meeting adjourn for a period of five minutes, to commence only when all Councillors had vacated the Chamber and the doors have been locked.

Council stood adjourned at 2.18pm.

UPON RESUMPTION:

Chairman: Councillors, I have sought confirmation, and on 10 May there was a motion put forward by Councillor JOHNSTON and seconded by Councillor GRIFFITHS— I believe that is his signature—‘I move that this Council urgently undertakes a comprehensive audit to ensure all of Brisbane’s character pre-1946 homes are identified and protected under the traditional building overlay code, and takes all steps necessary to amend the City Plan 2014 accordingly.’ Councillor JOHNSTON, your urgency motion today, and the words I have written down in respect of your motion, was calling on Council to immediately identify all pre-1946 houses and ensure that they are mapped on the City Plan overlay. This in essence is the same in intent as the motion of 10 May; therefore, under section 45(1)(3) of the Meetings Local Law, if the Notice of Motion is defeated, then it will not be possible for any Councillor to propose a motion with similar effect within a three-month period from the date of defeat. Given that we are now— Councillor CUMMING: More than three months. Chairman: Order! Councillor CUMMING, I remind you of section 51 of the Meetings Local Law. Do not start this session off wrongly. Further, under section 45(2) of the Meetings Local Law, it states, ‘No Notice of Motion proposed under subsection (1)(a) to rescind or alter any resolution passed during the previous six months shall be considered unless such Notice of Motion is supported by six Councillors.’ So, Councillor JOHNSTON, we only have a situation of you and Councillor GRIFFITHS supporting this at this stage. Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Madam Chairman. Section 45(2) does not apply in these circumstances, because it is referring to rescinding or altering a motion that has been passed during the previous six months, so that is irrelevant, because you defeated the motion back in May. Secondly, with respect to section 45(3), it is now late October, well in excess of three months since 10 May, and section 45 has no effect with respect to my urgency motion. Chairman: So, Councillor JOHNSTON, before you got up, I was giving the details of the relevant provisions. Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, if you would like to—the fact that I have said that—I have read the fact that it is a three-month period. It is quite easy to do the maths, and I have not said that the urgency motion is invalid, yet you are claiming that I am wrong. I was going to get you up to speak on urgency, but if you think I am wrong, I will not allow you speak to urgency if that is what you now choose. Do you want to speak to urgency or not? Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, if you are going to be petulant in this Chamber, then you will be treated accordingly in accordance with the Meetings Local Law. You have three minutes to speak on urgency.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 7 -

Councillor JOHNSTON: Thank you, Madam Chairman. The Planning Chairman has stood up today and is claiming that this Administration is one that protects character houses in this city. That is a disgraceful mistruth, and it is essential that the city understands that our character and traditional houses are being lost because they have not been identified and they have not been mapped within the traditional building character overlay code within City Plan. I have been at this all year. I see the destruction of our character houses every day in my ward because they have not been mapped. This is a Council responsibility to undertake it. We saw one just on Fairfield Road the other day. It was actually included under the traditional overlay scheme, but this Council still approved its demolition. This Council must take responsibility for protecting traditional and character houses. We have a South East Queensland Regional Plan now that is catastrophic for Brisbane backyards, and we have a Planning Chairman who seems to believe that this Council is undertaking protection of character houses when it is not. The only way to do this properly is to ensure that there is an audit. All pre-46 houses, including pre-11 houses are protected, and that they are mapped within the City Plan overlays to ensure they are protected. I would like to go further than that and see impact assessment brought back, or code notifiable as it was before, to ensure that the community then knows when these character houses are being proposed for demolition. These are two important steps that this city could take to make sure that character houses are protected. It is not good enough that the Planning Chairman stands up and tries to blame everybody else —the State Government, private certifiers. This Administration sets the tone, and every single day they are overseeing the demolition of pre-1946 houses in our city. They must be identified. They must be mapped. They should be included within the character overlay. This will be the second motion that I have moved this year about this matter. It is a serious one. It came to my attention particularly in Eversley Terrace when we lost a very significant—the first home on the street, built in the 30s, with a World War II bomb shelter underneath it. That house had not been mapped. We have now lost the middle house of half a street of character houses, and every single other one is at risk. They must be mapped. They must be identified, and they must be included within City Plan 2014. Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, your time has expired. I will now put the motion for urgency.

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

Councillor JOHNSTON: Division. Chairman: There being no seconder for the Division it is not upheld. Councillor SIMMONDS, we are back to your question, please. Councillor SIMMONDS: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. No wonder the Independent Councillor feels the need to defend the Labor Councillors, her fellow colleagues, because their failure on this topic is almost absolute. Not only do they sit on that side of the Chamber with a leader who demolishes his own character property and then claim innocence, or claim that they are actually protecting character when they don’t personally do it themselves, but they allow their Labor colleagues to continue to bury their head in the sand about this particular issue. Council is availing itself of every opportunity in order to take this matter further. We have made multiple complaints to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission. We have a number of court actions currently under way. We have written a number of times, and spoken personally with—the LORD MAYOR and myself—Minister de Brenni and Minister Trad under which this legislation falls.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 8 -

We have implored them since before July to act quickly to change the legislation so that Council has notice of impending demolitions, particularly by Mr Gerhardt, that we close these loopholes in the legislation that’s allowing him to feel that he can continue to proceed without Council approval, and to make further improvements to our enforcement and compliance that we can take against said individual. Just recently we have had yet another response from Minister de Brenni, despite the LORD MAYOR just earlier this month writing to him with 18 properties— 18 character properties that we have taken the time to protect, that are currently with Mr Gerhardt as their certifier that at the moment are in danger and could at any time be demolished, despite listing them out for him. The best that Labor could manage was these words from Minister de Brenni, ‘The Department of Housing and Public Works is working with the Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning to develop an appropriate response to this matter which takes into account the interests of all parties.’ Since July that is the best they’ve got, and quietly, State officers are telling us that that translates from poly speak into the fact that they are not going to take action until the New Year at the very least. It is unacceptable, but Labor, at both the Council level and the State level, can continue to bury their heads in the sand and not take appropriate action, the emergency and quick action that we have been calling for for sometime, and allow these properties to continue to be at risk, while at the same time claiming that they are somehow protectors of the character and heritage in this city. We will continue to hold the Labor State Government to account. We call on them again, before another one of these properties is demolished by this particular individual, without Council approval, despite the fact that Council has the protections in place that Councillor JOHNSTON was previously speaking to, to make sure that they take the appropriate action. Chairman: Further questions? Councillor JOHNSTON, you are due for a question. Question 4 Councillor JOHNSTON: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. In the November 2014 super cell storm, thousands of significant trees were lost in Council parks, including hundreds in Yeronga and Fairfield alone. This financial year I have been advised by Asset Services South that Council will be planting just five or six trees—that is five or six trees—as storm replacements in Tennyson Ward. This is woeful, LORD MAYOR. It is just appalling. LORD MAYOR, why, two years after this catastrophic storm, have you failed to provide the necessary funding to replace all storm damaged trees in Council parks to restore our local environment and amenity in our important neighbourhood parks? LORD MAYOR: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and I thank the Councillor for her question. I have, through history in this place, found Councillor JOHNSTON to be an unreliable source when it comes to these claims. Time and time again I have accepted these questions in good faith, only then to do my own research and to find that there was absolutely no substance to the question that has been put to me. I disrespect that. I don’t know whether there is substance to today’s question or not. I will give the Councillor this commitment; I will certainly follow up the claim that she is making here today, and will give a proper and afforded response to that once I have done my own research around it. What I will say also is that this Council is continuing to invest every year significant money on tree planting in this city. We have a commitment to it. Part of that commitment, of course, is also the purchase of 10 years’ worth of bushland into this four-year term.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 9 -

We have a considerable sum of money, millions of dollars, in excess of $10 million in fact, that we put towards tree planting, that we put towards the maintenance of our trees in our city, and some of that money— Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Madam Chairman. LORD MAYOR: —a small proportion of that— Chairman: Point of order against you, LORD MAYOR. Councillor JOHNSTON. Councillor JOHNSTON: Just to be clear about relevance, Madam Chairman; I am talking about the storm replacement in our Council parks. I am not talking about street trees, and I am not talking about bushland acquisition—simply replacement of lost trees in our Council parks. Chairman: Certainly, and I think the LORD MAYOR is— Councillor JOHNSTON: And I find the LORD MAYOR’s— Chairman: The LORD MAYOR was providing context in regards to the environmental replenishment in response to natural disasters. LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Yes, thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I certainly heard the Councillor’s question, and I am glad at least that she has clarified that the question was limited, and that the number of trees she spoke about in that question was limited to park trees and not trees that are on a broader scale, in streetscapes and the like. Councillor interjecting. LORD MAYOR: I hear that, Councillor; don’t panic. I heard your question. It will be recorded in Hansard. As I have committed already, I will do my own research around that and afford a proper response once I have done that research. I am just simply, for the sake of the Chamber, giving some elaboration around the whole question of trees and the importance of them to our city, not just to Tennyson Ward, but more broadly as well. We also provide some funds towards the removal of trees, where it is appropriate to do so. Every time I do talkback, I certainly get requests for the removal of trees, particularly if they happen to be Leopardwood trees, and in some cases gum trees that the people regard as either being of danger or of being infrastructure breaking in terms of the root impact of those trees. So, it’s a complex issue. That is why I want to investigate this further, because in those parks that Councillor JOHNSTON refers to, there may be some very, very sound and good reasons why officers don’t want to replace some of those trees. It could be the location of them. It could be for various reasons, and I don’t know the answer to that question here today. So I will research it, Madam Chairman, and provide an answer once that is fully researched. Chairman: Further questions? Councillor KING. Question 5 Councillor KING: Thank you, Madam Chair; my question is to the Chairman of Infrastructure, Councillor COOPER. You recently wrote to the Minister of Main Roads and suggested an Ombudsman be set up and dedicated to undertaking independent reviews of complaints of tolling infringement notices. Can you please update the Chamber on the progress of your suggestion to the Minister? Councillor COOPER: Thank you very much, Councillor KING, for your keen interest in this matter. I think it is an issue probably all Councillors have dealt with at some time in our ward, where a resident has come in and have questioned us about an

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 10 - infringement for an unpaid toll, and they want to know what the process is to query it. This is a very topical issue, I believe. There has been I think some interrogation conducted of the Minister during Estimates earlier this year from one of his colleagues about the issue of State responsibility with tolling and indeed to the community on this particular issue. I myself wrote to Minister Mark Bailey on 9 September, so more than six weeks ago, and sought his support for the appointment of a tolling ombudsman that is independent of the commercial toll operators and independent of government. Unfortunately, I did this because I think this is a genuine issue. We certainly have determined that the existing Tolling Customer Ombudsman who operates is actually paid for by Transurban, which may be perceived to be somewhat of a conflict of interest for them to be operating in this particular space. I suggested in my correspondence to the Minister that this role could be a role very similar to that of the Queensland Ombudsman. Unfortunately, six weeks later, he still has not responded to my letter to him. However, the Queensland Ombudsman has written to Council and advised that they consider that their role and responsibility with respect to tolling is that it is in their area, and that they are able to deal with such matters. That is something that Council has some differing opinion on, because I understand under State legislation tolling operators are not included in the Queensland Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, as they are not deemed to be an agency. The only person who has any authority over them indeed is the very person who they pay—the tolling operators, that is. They pay their own Tolling Customer Ombudsman. So it seems quite an odd situation. I also note that it was confirmed—and this was on 612 ABC Radio, so Steve Austin was pondering this question on 16 September, and the Tolling Customer Ombudsman was actually on that channel. He confirmed on radio that he is paid for by the tolling operators, and he also confirmed thousands and thousands of fines, or matters that he has reviewed, and he has not found, not once, not one single time has he found in favour of a person who has challenged their toll fine here in Queensland—not one single time. So that, to me, really is an interesting matter for the minister, that he feels that this is due process. Of course toll roads are an important way of how our city gets around. They play an important role in our wider regional network, taking around 120,000 vehicles off the surface roads each and every day. That is something that really makes a tremendous difference on our road network. So I believe it is entirely appropriate, and I think community confidence, community expectations, should be the foundation for government’s decisions. That is why I asked the minister to consider the appointment of an ombudsman in recognition of the concerns and the lack of community confidence in the current system for the independent review of a tolling fine. I note that this was also raised by the Minister’s own colleague, Jo-Ann Miller, when she was on ABC Radio, so there are a number of people who have asked questions in relation to this particular issue. So there are commercial entities involved in this transaction. There should be full transparency of the dealing with these matters, and an independent ombudsman to me, dealing with such a matter, with that frequency of users to the system, is entirely appropriate. I feel that it is an opportunity for people to feel confident that there is a fair review of cases, that there is an opportunity to resolve their concerns, and to allow the community to have full confidence that this is an open and transparent system. The State Government already has a tendency to absolve themselves of doing their job. Council time after time has delivered infrastructure that the State Government should deliver. This, I think, would be a real investment in the community, to make sure that they have a genuine opportunity to have their voices heard, and to have these matters reviewed in a way that is fair, that is open and transparent. I call on the State Government to reconsider their position

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 11 -

and to agree that this is something that they should absolutely as a matter of urgency establish. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chairman: Further questions? Councillor SUTTON. Question 6 Councillor SUTTON: Thank you, Madam Chair; my question is to the LORD MAYOR. When two homes were demolished in Power Street, Norman Park recently, you talked to the media about the protections afforded to character houses under the traditional building character overlay. My question to you today, given your reference to the traditional building character overlay as the primary overlay that protects character homes, how many properties are being removed from the traditional building character overlay in the Coorparoo and District Neighbourhood Plan in its draft form? LORD MAYOR: I thank Councillor SUTTON for the question. I just note that Councillor SUTTON has been making some references in recent times to that of the Coorparoo Neighbourhood Plan. Having said that, I do note that Councillor SUTTON, in those comments, has been condemning the fact that certain character addresses are being taken off the plan. I thought it might be of interest for Councillor SUTTON today to become aware of some of those character houses that are being taken off those listings. It was important for the Chamber to have a look at the state of some of those character houses. That is the first character house. This is in Rutland Street at Coorparoo. That is the character house right there. That probably would have been done during the Clem Jones era, I suspect. A nice six pack. So that is still listed on the character houses. There is another one, of course, at 26 Swayne Street. This would be another one of that list that she is referring to. There it is right there. That is quite an endearing character home. There are, of course, many more. Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON! LORD MAYOR: We’ve got 41 Amelia Street—that is looking pretty good. That is the 41 Amelia Street one at Coorparoo. So these are some of the houses. I have got plenty more of them here, Councillor, if you like. Here’s another one. Well, here’s a house, actually—I think this is a house, but this is a character house currently listed at 4 Stirrat Street, Coorparoo. Would you list that? Would you list that as a character house? Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Order! LORD MAYOR: So, a little knowledge can sometimes be dangerous, Councillor SUTTON. Councillor interjecting. LORD MAYOR: Yes, well, Madam Chairman, that is the very point. This is the very point, Councillor SUTTON. Until you drill down—it is a little bit like the last question I took. Until you drill down and find the facts, that is what is the key in terms of this. I should also say, Councillor SUTTON, that you and Administrations before— not every single pre-1946 home in this city is preserved. It never has been, and it probably never will be. We introduced in the City Plan tighter provisions particularly around homes taking the pre-1900 to now pre-1911, and we found quite a lot of homes that hadn’t been listed that were actually pre-1900 that had never been picked up during the years from the time when they were first introduced around 2000. The point being that these are some of the character houses, so called, that Councillor SUTTON has been condemning us for removing from those lists. Councillor SUTTON: Point of order, Madam Chair.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 12 -

LORD MAYOR: I just say, Madam Chair, that I am not going to stand here and give a number. Chairman: Point of order against you— Councillor SUTTON: Oh, why are you refusing? Well, sit down. Chairman: Order! Councillor SUTTON: Sit down if you’re not going to— Chairman: Councillor SUTTON, you do not tell other Councillors in this place to sit down. Need I remind you that, when you call a point of order, it is addressed through the Chairman, and the Chairman will deal with it. Now, you have been calling out incessantly, interrupting the LORD MAYOR, wanting a number. He has made it clear he is not going to provide a number because, if you had listened to what he was saying, he was explaining the inaccuracies that would actually make that number flawed. LORD MAYOR, would you like to continue with anything else for the remainder of your time? LORD MAYOR: Yes, thanks very much, Madam Chairman, I would. Councillor SUTTON does tend to get a bit excitable when she gets a little embarrassed about things, and I would be embarrassed too, claiming these as character houses in the Coorparoo District Neighbourhood Plan. Madam Chairman, we are out there doing the work on the ground. We are ground trooping the various aspects of the Coorparoo Neighbourhood Plan. I want to say this, though, that we are working with a representative group out there in the community. They have been helping Council in terms of the formulation of that neighbourhood plan. I thank them for their time and effort in doing so. But it is easy to be critical from the sideline, as Councillor SUTTON has been, from an adjoining ward, but I would just say to you this; the Neighbourhood Plan will be coming here. You will be able to examine all aspects of that plan. You will be able to re-examine some of these houses that you have been critical about being taken off the character list, and you will be able to do your own set of ground trooping at that time. But we are in the process of putting together that neighbourhood plan in conjunction with the community. I thank Councillor SIMMONDS for the work he is doing, and I thank Councillor Ian McKENZIE as the local Councillor for the work that he is doing. I think part of it also cuts across now into Holland Park Ward as well, and I thank Councillor ADAMS for her role. Indeed, I would thank Councillor COOPER who started the process prior to that. So, Madam Chairman, all will be revealed. There is no point in giving numbers, because these are contained. Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Order! Further questions— Councillor WINES: Yes, Madam— Chairman: Just a moment please, Councillor WINES. When the Opposition Councillors are quiet, we will continue Question Time. Councillor WINES. Question 7 Councillor WINES: Thank you, Madam Chairman; my question is to the Chairman of the Public and Active Transport Committee, Councillor SCHRINNER. DEPUTY MAYOR, recently Council proposed to the State Government a 10-point public transport plan as part of the delivery of the new bus contract for Brisbane. Can you update the Chamber on the State Government’s response to Council’s proposal, and how this will ensure the city’s new bus contract will focus on increasing customer satisfaction and patronage as well as reducing traffic congestion in our city?

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 13 -

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Councillor WINES, for the question. As we all know, Council was in the process of negotiating a new bus operations contract with TransLink. We are a provider of public transport services to the city, and we have been for more than 90 years. TransLink, through this negotiation process, was dealing with all of the different operators across South East Queensland, including private companies and Brisbane City Council, and as we know, that process went entirely off the rails. We saw a situation where all of the operators were up in arms, all of the operators were going to the State Government saying this process is not working, and to the Minister’s credit, Minister Hinchliffe asked for a review of that process. To be clear, Council’s concerns about that process were that TransLink’s focus seemed to be on cutting costs rather than on growing patronage—cutting costs rather than improving services. If you are focused only on cutting costs but not on growing patronage or improving services, then unfortunately we believe that you can have a no-frills bus service but no one will catch it. People will jump back in their cars, and nobody wins from that situation. So we want to see improved services and the focus being on getting more people on public transport. That is why we put together as part of this review our 10 Point Plan. Council and TransLink have disagreed in the past on certain policy matters, and this 10 Point Plan is very much us offering an olive branch to TransLink, saying we’re happy to work with you on all of these issues, some that we’ve disagreed on in the past, and others which we haven’t had any luck in progressing with TransLink. But ultimately we are putting all of these matters on the table because we’d like to see a better outcome for the commuters of Brisbane and a better outcome when it comes to congestion on our roads. Last week I met with Minister Hinchliffe, and I have to report that that was a very positive meeting. His approach in the meetings that we have had has been very cooperative and friendly, and he has agreed, I can say, to getting a working group together which will start working out how we can operate in an alliance partnership between the State Government and Council. If we can achieve that, and I am very confident that we can, this will be one of the biggest things to happen in public transport in our city in more than a decade. The creation of TransLink back in 2004 was obviously a big step forward in terms of integrating the network and bringing in integrated ticketing, but there are still so many more things we need to do, and I believe that this alliance model, and the 10 Point Plan, can take our city to the next level. We want to see that improvement in services through the initiatives in the 10 Point Plan; we want to see an increase in patronage, and ultimately we want to see fewer cars on the road and more people catching our buses and trains and CityCats. So, the minister confirmed also on ABC Radio last week that a working group would be set up between senior Council officers and senior TransLink officers to progress the alliance approach. I welcome this, and I am very positive about what we can achieve cooperatively together. I have to say there is a big difference in the approach that we have seen from Minister Hinchliffe compared with other ministers in the State Government who haven’t wanted to cooperate on various things. So I don’t take it for granted at all. Council will certainly be looking forward to working together to achieve what I said before, which is potentially the biggest improvement to public transport services in more than a decade in our city. I won’t go into more detail about the 10 Point Plan, because it has been put out there for quite some time, but certainly I can report that things are progressing well and I am confident that we will be able to create this new alliance for Brisbane Transport. Chairman: Further questions? Councillor GRIFFITHS.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 14 -

Question 8 Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, thanks, Madam Chair; my question is to the LORD MAYOR. A grand, historic and well-maintained 100-year-old Queenslander in Lyon Street at Moorooka was approved to be demolished under your City Plan so that more of the site can be used for unit development. Isn’t this proof that the protection that you claim your City Plan offers Brisbane’s historic homes protection is absolutely false? LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman, I thank Councillor GRIFFITHS for his question. Again, I just wish there was a sense of consistency by the Opposition. Councillor GRIFFITHS in the past has raised issues regarding character homes, but again he looks to no further than his leader to see that talking about things is one thing, but what you actually then do in practice is another. I want to make the point that, right through the Labor years in this place, there were times when character houses were removed— Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Point of order against you, LORD MAYOR. Councillor JOHNSTON. Councillor JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, I refer you to the Standing Orders that require the LORD MAYOR to answer the question, not debate it, not talk around it, not blame the Labor years from 1930 whatever— Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON— Councillor JOHNSTON: The question was about a house in Lyon Street. Chairman: I know what the question was about and— Councillor JOHNSTON: Draw him back. Chairman: I have determined that the LORD MAYOR is providing context. LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman, again I am just making the point that I don’t know this particular house. There are a lot of homes in this city. There are about 450,000 dwellings in this city, and I don’t know that particular one. But I just make the point again that you need to look no further than your own leader in terms of character houses. There is no bigger statement than when an individual actually undertakes the removal of a character home, so you can’t have it both ways. You can’t have a leader here in the Chamber removing a character home on their property and then in the same breath getting up and whinging about the loss of character housing. It just will not wash with me, Madam Chairman. I am just saying this; right through the history of this Council, from Clem Jones onwards, we have seen the loss of character houses at different times. Does that mean to say that we are a city devoid of character housing? No, we are not. The Queenslander is still a very predominant form of house in this city. As I have said in an earlier answer, the fact that character houses are listed of itself does not mean to say that under no circumstances ever can that house not be removed or in fact demolished. There are circumstances where it can be. But we list to make sure that there is a proper assessment in relation to those particular houses. Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Order! LORD MAYOR: Madam Chairman, if they want to pursue this, I will go in very, very hard in terms of why Councillor CUMMING demolished his character house. You just cannot stand up here and do this sort of stuff, say this sort of stuff, and at the same time have your leader in here as someone who has actually done it. It is just hypocritical to be in that position. Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 15 -

Chairman: Point of order against you, LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: There may have been some very good reasons— Chairman: Point of order against you, LORD MAYOR. Councillor JOHNSTON. Councillor JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, the question was about the demolition of an historic, well-maintained and grand house in Lyon Street, Moorooka. I would have thought that the LORD MAYOR should do the courtesy of responding to the question as per the Standing Orders. Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, the LORD MAYOR was quite specific in saying that he wasn’t aware of that particular individual property, and that he was providing general information in regards to character housing in context for the purpose of responding to the question. Councillor GRIFFITHS: Point of order, Madam Chair. Chairman: Point of order; Councillor GRIFFITHS. Councillor GRIFFITHS: Just to correct something, the LORD MAYOR sent me a memo about that house just last week with his signature on it. LORD MAYOR: Yes, I am still coming to it. Chairman: Councillor GRIFFITHS, the LORD MAYOR still has a little bit of time left, so if he is not further interrupted, he will possibly be able to give you further detail. LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Yes, thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Lyon Street, specifically to the question raised by Councillor GRIFFITHS, is an area which is listed for mixed housing types. It is proposed that there be some tin and timber, but also that there be some brick units in terms of that mix—townhouses, units and housing. The important point is that Lyon Street is made up already of a variety of housing types, and it is not included in the demolition control precinct under the City Plan 2000, Labor Administration City Plan, and therefore was not included in the traditional housing character overlay in the City Plan 2014. Councillors interjecting Chairman: Order! LORD MAYOR: The issue is simply this; because of the variety of housing choices anticipated in relation to that street, it is not in the Demolition Control Precinct (DCP). It is as long and as short as that. That is the reality. The house was not a part of a streetscape. It was not a pre-1911 property, and Council’s heritage team do not believe it has the values in respect of that streetscape and the mix of housing types that are already in that street. Chairman: Thank you, LORD MAYOR. That ends Question Time.

CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE DURING RECESS:

ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Adoption report)

The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Graham QUIRK), Chairman of the Establishment and Coordination Committee, moved, seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR (Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER), that the report setting out the recommendations of the Establishment and Coordination Committee during the Spring Recess 2016, on matters usually considered by that Committee, be adopted.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 16 -

Chairman: LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Yes, thanks very much, Madam Chairman. It was interesting during the Question Time period with the reference to the number of homes that will need to be looked at between now and 2041 that Councillor JOHNSTON made reference to the Regional Plan, stating it as catastrophic for South East Queensland. I just wonder whether that might be a view held by her running mate Councillor GRIFFITHS that it is going to be catastrophic for South East Queensland. The one thing that I would say to Councillor JOHNSTON is that it is based around a population prediction. So what do we do if you are not going to look at the number of dwellings? What happens then? Do we say, well, the likes of Councillor SRI, the likes of Councillor HUANG, the likes of Councillor MARX, sorry, you can’t come to this land anymore; refugees, you’re out—we’re certainly not going to take any of them. So Madam Chairman, the numbers— Councillor SRI: Point of order, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Point of order against you, LORD MAYOR. Councillor SRI. Councillor SRI: No, I am going to leave it, but I just want to note that that was a kind of insensitive comment to make. Chairman: Councillor SRI, that is not a correct point of order. LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman, but Councillor SRI, it is not insensitive because it is this, we are a welcoming city. We are a welcoming country, and we have taken waves of migration over many, many years. We have taken— Councillor SRI: Point of order, Madam Chair. LORD MAYOR: —our share of refugees. Chairman: Point of order against you, LORD MAYOR. Councillor SRI: Claim to be misrepresented. Chairman: Councillor SRI, you have not actually been misrepresented in that sense. LORD MAYOR: I am just making the point, Madam Chairman, that the housing numbers that have been presented by the State Government are based on a prediction of what they think the population is going to expand by over the period between now and 2041. To say that it is catastrophic is a nice throwaway line, but the problem is, and the position is, that we have to, as a city government, as do mayors in surrounding councils and their councillors and their populations, have to plan for this future. We can’t just sit in denial and say, oh, that’s catastrophic. People are being born here. People are coming here by invitation through immigration, by the goodwill on the basis that people need to be accommodated as our fair share of taking refugees— Councillor SRI: Point of order, Madam Chair. Chairman: Point of order against you, LORD MAYOR. Councillor SRI. Councillor SRI: I seek your ruling. I believe the LORD MAYOR may have violated the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act 1975. LORD MAYOR: No, no, no, no. Chairman: Councillor SRI— LORD MAYOR: That is nonsense.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 17 -

Chairman: —I don’t uphold your point of order. I think you are possibly misconstruing through your perception of what the LORD MAYOR has said. He was quite specific in how he was referring to it, and I don’t uphold that it was breaching the Racial Discrimination Act. LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Madam Chairman, I am not saying these things in any derogatory way. I made the point; we are a welcoming nation. We are a welcoming city. Just last night I did another citizenship ceremony where we welcomed another approximately 600 people into the Australian family. I said there, as I always say, this city is built on respect for one another, harmony within our community, and we welcome the enrichment that many cultures bring to our city, to our State and to our nation. That cannot be misinterpreted in any way. What I am saying is that you can’t just sit back and say things are catastrophic for its own sake. People are coming. People are also being born here. There is a natural growth rate in terms of our birth rate and population within Australia. So, these numbers are best estimates of what we are going to see in terms of the growth. Out of that there is then obviously an equation; how many extra dwellings do you need to accommodate that population? I am not going to say anything more about this than this today, but it is out for the public to have their say. If Councillors want to make submissions to the Regional Plan, then please do so, because we now have a period of time that the State is providing for public consultation and for submissions around the Regional Plan. But Councillors do need to be aware of one thing; of the 223,000 additional dwellings that are predicted, about five to six per cent of those will be greenfield sites, and the rest will be redevelopment. That means that we will have to take existing properties and create more residential properties within those properties. There is a debate which we can have at any time—and we do it with the City Plan debate—around how you achieve that. Professor Phil Hayward for many, many years would be advising me that, as a Councillor over many decades, we need urban consolidation, he would say, regularly. That is the only way you can prevent the areas of South East Queensland being completely riddled with housing. You need urban consolidation. So we have set down in our City Plan the basis to achieve what will be natural population growth, coupled with our welcoming approach to immigration and that of taking our fair share of refugees. The provisions of that are largely already contained within the City Plan 2014. We have spelt out that, around the inner-city area, around the regional business centres, along transportation corridors, creating nodes around the smaller shopping precincts. That is how we can do it, and that is how we can also maintain the fundamental backyard as a major character of our city. If you don’t do it that way, then you can forget the backyard. So we’ve got a very clear choice here. That is what we espoused during the bringing down of the 2014 City Plan. It continues to be our view. If we do it sensibly and properly, we will be able to achieve that into the future. But it is out for public consultation. Madam Chairman, a number of other things. I want to also acknowledge and congratulate Mayor Mark Jamieson on his elevation as the LGAQ President— the Local Government Association of Queensland President—elected last week. We wish him well in representing local government at a State level, and congratulate him. During the recess, I undertook a business mission that had been approved by this Council. That mission was to six cities, three countries in eight nights, and we had in excess of 30 businesses with us at each of those locations. It was a very successful mission. The numbers coming out of that won’t be known for some time. There are already some success stories we are hearing of. But with all of these missions, that takes some time to know the full results. I heard just the other day of a recent multi-million dollar deal that had been signed relating to a

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 18 -

trip, a business mission that we had done through this Council about three years ago, so that adds to the about $260 million in value that that trip had produced up to that point. We will be able to report on this trip further down the track, but it is looking as though it will be very significant in terms of the dollar value outcome of this particular one. During that mission, in Tokyo, I launched the Brisbane Global Tens with the Panasonic Wild Knights in attendance there. In Seoul, we announced that Lord David Puttnam would be in Brisbane next month. He is, of course, the Producer of The Killing Fields, Chariots of Fire, Bugsy Malone and many other blockbusters. He will be the head of jury for the 2016 Asia Pacific Screen Awards in Brisbane. We also recently opened SunPAC, the Sunnybank Performing Arts Complex, and I want to thank the Sunnybank Rugby Union Club, or Sunnybank Community and Sports Club as it is otherwise known, for their partnership in producing what is a terrific outcome for our city—a 300-seat purpose-built, terrific architecture. I congratulate all of those involved in it. I very much thank Councillor ADAMS and Councillor BOURKE for their roles in that also. Brisbane has its own Monopoly board. Recently we launched Brisbane Monopoly, so it is out there. It was a people’s choice in terms of the voting pattern. The Story Bridge came up number two; South Bank number one—no surprises there, I guess. But many of Brisbane’s landmarks are represented on that Monopoly board. Chairman: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired. 157/2016-17 At that point, the LORD MAYOR was granted an extension of time on the motion of the DEPUTY MAYOR, seconded by Councillor Andrew WINES.

LORD MAYOR: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and thank you, Council. This coming Friday night we will be presenting the Lord Mayor’s Business Awards. That is an annual event to acknowledge and celebrate achievements by Brisbane businesses. Last Saturday night we had the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Trust Gala Ball. I want to thank all of those involved—the Lady Mayoress and her team. More than $100,000 was raised, and that money will go to those most in need in our city, a lot of the organisations which you don’t hear about that are quietly doing very significant work in our city. That was a great success. It will be well over $100,000, we think, when the numbers finally come in. We had targeted about $100,000 for the night, and it is easily going to achieve that target. I also want to announce that we are going to undertake a new transport plan for the city. This will be under the guidance of Councillor Amanda COOPER. Essentially we last undertook the Transport Plan in 2008. There have been many significant pieces of infrastructure built since that time. So, eight years on, we think it is time to refresh that Plan. This new Plan will be 2017 to 2031. The majority of the projects in the current Transport Plan for Brisbane are either completed, as I say, or substantially under way. We have also now had the benefit of fresh population figures, so it will look at things like the Brisbane Vision 2031, Brisbane City Plan, the Brisbane Economic Development Plan, to incorporate the directions around those particular plans also into this. It is an opportunity for a new strategic Transport Plan to address new and emerging issues, major city shaping projects like the Metro. Obviously it will take into account Cross River Rail; it will look at Queens Wharf Brisbane and the like. I will say more on that at another time. I do have for you a timetable. The stakeholder engagement will go through to May of 2017. At the end of April 2017, a draft will be in place. It will then see formal public consultation in May. That will go for a 30-day period. Then we will hopefully have a final and published strategic Transport Plan around

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 19 -

August. Obviously that plan will be coming to this Chamber, open draft and final form, for discussion, debate and authorisation. There are a couple of other things I wanted to very quickly raise. Obviously in the recess we had an issue of fraud which has been dealt with. I indicated at the time that we were getting Deloitte in. That occurred, and in the process of that, we have undertaken certain actions internally in relation to that. Some of those are ongoing. Of course, we weren’t the only organisation. There were other government organisations and other councils, including Townsville, which has been well publicised, that also faced the brunt of this fraud. It was the same type of fraud. So we have been dealing with that. We have been able to recover some funds, but obviously not a lot of funds in the scheme of things. I might move now to the report itself. The first of the items contained in this particular report is that of the report of the Audit Committee meeting on 1 September 2016. In that Audit Report, Mr Patrick Fleming, Director of Queensland Audit Office, advised that Council’s 2015-16 Financial Statements were signed by the Auditor-General on 22 August 2016 with an unqualified and unmodified audit opinion. That, of course, is the Queensland Government Audit Office. Items 7 and 8 within that report make reference to the fraud issue. Particularly item 8 makes direct reference, but there are certain aspects of item 7 which also relate to that. In regards to the Contracts and Tendering, there is a significant number of contracts in the report. I will go through those as quickly as possible. Item 1 is the contract awarded to APA Group. This is associated with Kingsford Smith Drive. The purpose of this is stage 1A of the gas main relocation works of the Kingsford Smith Drive Upgrade. Again, a figure there of some $2.652 million. Number 2 is a contract given to Qmani Pty Ltd for $180,000. The purpose of that is the provision of ongoing support and maintenance for the current Parking Management and Fault Administrative System (PMFAS) until it is replaced by the integrated parking management solution. PMFAS provides complete life cycle management for parking meter fault management and monitoring and reporting of faults through the automated despatch and of maintenance staff, verification of fault resolution. The next one, contract 3, goes to Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd, $281,440; existing pipeline at Maryvale Street that has several cracks, scouring and generally in poor condition. The work will include a relining of a 900 millimetre diameter stormwater brick pipeline of approximately 175 metres in length, and also a 1,200 millimetre diameter stormwater drainage pipeline of approximately 95 metres in length. There is a third one that is 38 metres in length as well. The next one is Metso Minerals, $531,000. This one is a jaw crusher for Bracalba Quarry. That has been scheduled for replacement due to not having the capacity to crush the volumes of rock proposed to be processed in the future upgrade of the plant. The next one is Phillip Boyle & Associates Pty Ltd for $353,000. This is associated with the Brisbane Metro Subway System. It is the provision of bus network and services planning for the business case for the Brisbane Metro Subway project. The next one is Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd for $4,501,360. It is for the provision and design of engineering services for the business case for the Brisbane Metro Subway System. The next one is Dart Holdings Pty Limited, trading as A Dart and Co. It is the revitalisation of the former Engine Room heritage building located at Macquarie Street, Teneriffe. There is a report in today’s Council meeting around this. In that report, it states certain works that we are undertaking in relation to that site, and that is it. The next one is Amazon Web Services Inc., a $2 million tender here. This is Council’s strategy to transform from primarily on-premise, Council-owned infrastructure, to externally provided cloud-based infrastructure as a service by 30 June 2019. That is what that is in association with, going to the cloud.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 20 -

Number 9; PreviousNext Pty Ltd, $452,467. Local Government Knowledge Management System (LG Toolbox) is a web-based repository of data common to the local governments in South East Queensland. The LG Toolbox is used by the public and local government offices to assess consistent and accurate information on environmental health and management— Chairman: LORD MAYOR, unfortunately your time has expired. 158/2016-17 At that point, the LORD MAYOR was granted an extension of time on the motion of the DEPUTY MAYOR, seconded by Councillor Adam ALLAN.

LORD MAYOR: I thank the Council for its indulgence, Madam Chairman. The solution is also used as an online forum for local government offices. Number 10 is the contract awarded to SCS Trading (Qld) Pty Ltd, trading as Wine & Dine’M Catering, $190,782 for the provision of catering services including food and beverage, service tea point consumables and provision of vending machines in Brisbane Square, Green Square and other CBD locations as required. The next one is Intalock Technologies Pty Ltd, Rapid 7 Nexpose software is used to scan for vulnerabilities in Council’s corporate and Brisbane Infrastructure Congestion Reduction Unit, and ICT networks. Number 12 is a range of bus seat cleaning—there is a whole range of different aspects of that one. Alsco have been one of the awardees; Challenger Services Group; Eagle Farm Depot, Sandgate and Bracken Ridge Action Group Incorporated trading as SEED, so different aspects of that to do with cleaning. Number 14; First 5 Minutes Pty Ltd, $559,800; that is the provision of a range of fire safety services including fire safety management audits, evacuation documentation, training and fire safety advisory services for Council-occupied buildings. Transqual Pty Ltd is the last one, and it is an amount of $31,355. Council has an ongoing requirement for Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act (TORUM) training programs to address Council’s compliance with TORUM legislation. This includes design and development of training programs in collaboration with Council’s Learning and Development Services. In all of those cases, that was the best value for money that was afforded to those successful tenderers. I think in each and every case, they were the cheapest also from recollection. Councillor interjecting. LORD MAYOR: Not quite? Okay, well I am sure you will say more about that later, and hopefully I will be able to give you more information, Councillor CUMMING, where you have concerns. Continuing, item C is the Bushfire Management Policy. I think Councillor WYNDHAM actually is going to say a little bit more about this one, but essentially it is to change some terminology from Bushland Fire Management to Bushfire Management Policy. That better reflects the fact that it covers all types of bushfire risk on Council controlled land rather than just bushland areas. It looks at a more integrated bushfire risk management framework. It also looks at the contemporary bushfire management principles prepared by the Forest Fire Management Group for the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) set in 2014. The final item, item D, is the awarding of a contract—this is what I was referring to in the contracts—it is the Engine Room, located at 71 Macquarie Street, Teneriffe. It has a rich history dating back to 1917 or somewhere in that period. It was built between then and 1927—no one is quite sure. Nonetheless it is a part of our history. What we are doing today is recommending the awarding

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 21 -

of a contract to the Uniting Hands Foundation Australia Limited. It is a registered charity. It has again been afforded the highest value for money score in terms of the two tenders received. It has received a 75% rating as opposed to the other tendering entity, Footprints in Brisbane Incorporated, which received 46%. The offerings are set out there in the recommendation, and again, quite clear in terms of the better value for Council in terms of those two offerings. Madam Chairman, I am happy to move the report. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor CUMMING. Councillor CUMMING: Yes, thanks Madam Chair.

Seriatim - Clause A Councillor Peter CUMMING requested that Clause C, AMENDMENT OF CORPORATE RULE EM007 BUSHFIRE MANAGEMENT POLICY, be taken seriatim for voting purposes.

Councillor CUMMING: In relation to the report, item A is the Audit Committee. This comes regularly to this Council, and we have always said it is a secretive Audit Committee. It provides a report with no detail. Of course, the Audit Committee is the Committee that oversees things like fraud security measures. Of course, recently we saw Council taken for a ride to an extent of $450,000. I notice the LORD MAYOR said that some of it has been recovered. He didn’t mention how much. The Audit Committee membership and the attendance at meetings is always a source of—I don’t want to say amusement—but it is just of concern to me, the fact that there are three members there, one apology and nine observers. Obviously what goes on is given a lot of scrutiny, but when it came to the crunch in terms of stopping a fraud, the procedures adopted by the Brisbane City Council were quite inadequate. The Council had been warned about these types of things back in June last year, 2015. The State Government Auditor-General issued a report on fraud management in local government, and it stated, Council’s response to known and potential fraud risks are, by and large, inadequate and demonstrate a lack of leadership and a failure of governance. So that was a wakeup call if ever I heard one, but unfortunately the Brisbane City Council chose to ignore those warnings and the result was that when the fraudsters came around, we were one of only two Councils in Queensland that were caught. Protecting against fraud was not mentioned in any of the Minutes of the Audit Committee meetings until 1 September which was after the fraud had occurred. So rather than the LORD MAYOR or his lackadaisical Finance Chair, Councillor ADAMS, accepting responsibility for what had happened, the Chief Internal Auditor was made the scapegoat. We have concerns about that as well, obviously. The other thing in the Auditor General’s Report, and it is worthwhile quoting as well, is that Council over-relies on internal and external audits to detect fraud, and this tendency further demonstrates a lack of management, ownership and responsibility for fraud control within their own organisations.” Never a truer word spoken. Never a truer word spoken, Madam Chairman. Councillor interjecting. Councillor CUMMING: Yes, thank you. I will turn to item B, the Contracts and Tendering. I’ve got to say that, if anyone can provide a bit more of an explanation on item 2—I listened to what the LORD MAYOR said but this extension of support arrangements, it seems that the current system doesn’t operate very well and it has to be supported. That is what I read into it, but I am interested in some more information on that.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 22 -

On item 7, the reference to the Engine Room, there is a reference to $864,000 being spent on upgrading the Engine Room. When it comes to the discussion of who should get the lease in item D, it is countered against one of the tenderers because they have required extra capital to be spent. Council spent a lot of capital on this building to start off with, and when you look at item D, the requirement by one of the tenderers was a rangehood. I suspect that would have come in fairly cheap, and considering the amount Council is already spending, I think that is probably a pretty narrow view on that tenderer, and an unfair approach taken by Council on that particular aspect, given how much Council is already spending. The other thing is that I am told this was a matter of great controversy in the local community down there, and that the residents in the area were keen to see the building used for community uses. They were very concerned that a commercial use for a restaurant would be used. They took the matter to court, but they lost. The court found that the Council could set up a restaurant there, but the residents tell me that the court set out certain requirements that any work that should be done in relation to the property should fall within certain guidelines. They claim now the works being done by Council pursuant to this contract, Council is not actually complying with the guidelines. That is another matter, and I would like some response to that if that is possible. In relation to item 11, this is the one where one tenderer was a little bit lower than the tenderer that actually got the contract. Telstra, which is a fairly large organisation, I guess, tendered $210,597 whereas Intalock Technologies Pty Ltd was $214,842. It is not a big difference, but one would assume that Telstra has a lot of expertise in this area, and I would be interested to know why Intalock was considered superior in this case. In relation to item 12, it refers to a contract given to social enterprise groups for cleaning bus seats. We welcome this type of contract being given, and we wish Diverciti and the Sandgate and Bracken Ridge Action Group, SEED, as social enterprise groups who have won the contracts, all the best with those contracts. In relation to item C, we have had a look through the Bushfire Management Policy and we think it looks a good policy, and we are prepared to support that policy. In relation to item D, I have previously mentioned the concerns of the local residents, and if you look at the background, and we have looked at the file as well, the group that was given the lease is really a very commercial organisation. Their promise in relation to putting money back into the community is that they will pay 10% of profits back into the community. The other group was a group that was using the building for a less commercial basis. I think they were going to have a tea room on weekends, but during the week their proposal was to use it for community groups to have meetings and the like. They had a lot of letters of support from the local community there, the Teneriffe Progress Association and other residents living around that area, whereas the group that was given the lease are restaurateurs. I think they have five restaurants according to the information they supplied; two on the Sunshine Coast and three in Brisbane. As I said, they are a very commercial organisation. We are concerned about this. We think it goes against what local residents wanted and what the local residents continue to maintain; that was the whole idea when the units were first built in that area of Teneriffe, that the Engine Room was to be retained for community use and not for a commercial use. I guess they were upset at the time, and they continue to be upset about Council’s decision, and they are not happy at all with this decision that is being made now. We have grave concerns about that. We also think it is interesting that only two groups applied to lease the building. We think there are other groups around Brisbane that could have been possibilities; for example, Red Cross have a cafe here in City Hall. Perhaps they could have been approached about it. I think it is a pretty narrow range of people who applied for it as well. So we have grave concerns about it. We believe that

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 23 -

it is an overwhelmingly commercial use. Sure, Council is making more money out of it, but that should not have been the basis on which it was done. We also think that the local community is being very badly treated in relation to this matter. For all those reasons, we will be voting against this lease. Thank you. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor ADAMS. Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair; I rise to speak on item A of the report, which is the Audit Committee, and to address the issue in particular of the line in there around the scam, the fraud that we had in Council in particular, and for some of Councillor CUMMING’s questions that he mentioned before. Yes, he was right; in 2015, the Queensland Audit Office did recommend changes to the City of Brisbane Act Regulation around managing fraud risk, and Council provided input into those legislative amendments which came into effect in October 2015. Despite this, following the updated regulations, Brisbane City Council and, as the LORD MAYOR mentioned, Townsville City Council as well and a couple of other government agencies, were victims of quite a sophisticated fraud at this time a couple of months ago. Let’s make it very clear of the process here. Immediately after we had been made aware of this fraud, the LORD MAYOR instructed the CEO to advise the Queensland Police Service (QPS) and the Queensland Audit Office. This was not something that we were hiding behind closed doors. We wanted it be known very quickly and get sorted very quickly as well. The LORD MAYOR also instructed the CEO to commission an independent investigation which was undertaken, as we know, by the respected International Professional Services and the audit firm Deloitte. That report has been finalised and distributed, and we are now working on the recommendations from that report to make sure that we can prevent these types of things from happening again. The findings of this report, may I say in this place, and the LORD MAYOR would definitely agree with me, are absolutely unacceptable, and the CEO is working through with the managers within my portfolio to implement the recommended changes from Deloitte as well. Can I make it very, very clear from the evidence that was gathered by Deloitte that the finding there was no collusion by Council officers in this fraud. This case was much more, however, than just a result of simple human error. So Deloitte’s investigation found that Council’s internal audit team had actually identified the process loophole. It is known that people knew that there was a loophole around the changing of information. However, there was no evidence found by Deloitte or the CEO that any of the concerns that were made about this loophole were ever effectively escalated by the internal audit as a consequence to either managers above or to the Audit Committee that we have in this place as well. That is what led to the dismissal; it not being escalated in the satisfactory situation. We have done a comprehensive review into other supplier records, and it has been confirmed that there have been no other instances of fraud in this case as well. Already, as I said, we are working through some of those recommendations. We have seen an interim process to make sure our vendor bank account changes are validated very, very sufficiently with the vendor before any changes are made. We are also looking at the risk rating assigned to the current action item regarding changes to vendor bank accounts, making sure it is upgraded. It is based on increased likelihood in comparison with the environment, and the original times of the findings as well. So we are very, very conscious that the QPS is still undertaking an investigation into this fraud that occurred which had, as I said, successfully targeted several government agencies across Queensland as well. We did get an amount of money back from the bank, which was just over $42,000,

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 24 -

Councillor CUMMING, but we do consider it unlikely that we will unfortunately see any further funds coming back our way from this fraud. We are now making sure that at all levels across Council we are extremely vigilant about our fraud. We will be sharing our learnings with community. We have already incorporated into our Business Forums that we will be running through Brisbane Marketing that we are telling small and medium enterprises how they don’t fall into the traps that Council has fallen into, and make sure they are conscious of what they need to look for, and that they need to make sure they have set up the processes in their businesses to prevent this occurring to them as well, to make sure they are not susceptible to this type of fraud. We have had a very comprehensive brief, as was mentioned in item A today very clearly, to the Audit Committee around the status of the implementation with Deloitte’s review findings, and of course also the Ethical Standards Unit within Council as well, and obviously anything that then comes from the QPS investigations as we go further. As I said, this was not a matter of simple human error but unfortunately it was not escalated to the point where it could be dealt with effectively. I look forward to working with the managers, the CEO, on these recommendations and making sure we put in place the proper processes and procedures to make sure that we are not susceptible to this fraud in the future. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor CASSIDY. Councillor CASSIDY: Yes, thanks very much, Madam Chair. I will speak on Contracts and Tendering, item B, and specifically on contract 6, Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd for the so-called Brisbane Metro Subway System. I think it is pretty clear that we have serious concerns about the whole process in which this Metro is taking now and this money that is being spent on a business case that is shrouded in secrecy and has a whole heap of flaws. We know as revelation after revelation have come out over the last couple of months, and what we have learnt from attending a couple of those sessions that Council has been running with the project team on the Brisbane Metro, and after talking to engineers, both ones that are Council engineers and people from the project team, talking to them personally, I have discovered a lot of things, and also talking to residents who have spoken to those people as well. Some of the issues that they have raised cast real doubt about the viability of the so-called Brisbane Metro as we know it in its announced form. The LORD MAYOR announced all the details in the election campaign, and was quite clear about what they would be. There would be 75 carriages running on this specific route. This is the only way it can be done. Those engineers have said that to meet those expectations, what we are going to have to do is to have 100-metre trains on this Brisbane Metro, which is a huge engineering feat in the current busway setup to carry anywhere near the amount of passengers that the LORD MAYOR announced, which can’t be done with the 75 carriages that were announced. It will take a huge injection of cash over and above that to get those enormous trains making those right angle turns through this strange design, this strange route. The Metro will have to go at extremely low speeds which blows a hole in the claim that it will be a very fast Metro. The engineers have said that these enormous trains, to carry anywhere near the amount of passengers that is claimed, would have to crawl through there like a giant caterpillar. I raised the question of rubber tyres, because quite often these systems which use rubber tyres as well as the steel tracks is because they operate in and outside of areas, so they come into snow and frost and slurry as they are going in and out of subways, because they need that extra traction. I said, ‘Why is this the only option for Brisbane?’ I am not very old. I haven’t been in this place as long as some here, Madam Chair, but I don’t remember the last time it snowed in Brisbane, and they said, ‘No, it may not be a rubber-tyred Metro at all. It may

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 25 -

not be.’ He drew me a couple of diagrams. He said it could look like this, the one that the LNP threw out there, or it might look completely different with two sets of tracks, just like a train and a small rubber wheel, or in fact it could end up being light rail. He said it may end up being light rail. These are the engineers designing the Metro, doing this business case. He said it may end up being light rail, because that may be the only way that we can get it to work. I said, ‘What about the route? Do we have to have this route? Are there no alternatives?’ They said, ‘Well, we wish we could look at alternative routes, but unfortunately we were directed to only look at this one particular route, because the LORD MAYOR said during the heat of an election that this is what it is going to be, and we were told when we started this business case that the only route we could look at was the existing busway, and we couldn’t look at adding any additional public transport infrastructure for this city and adding any further cross-city connectivity.’ Councillor SRI: Point of order, Madam Chair. Chairman: Point of order, Councillor SRI. Councillor SRI: Will Councillor CASSIDY take a question? Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY? Councillor CASSIDY: Of course. Councillor SRI: If the current Administration has the good grace to admit that maybe they should have gone with a different route, will you have the good grace to not make a big deal about it and try and score political points out of it? Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Order! Order! Councillor CASSIDY: I will answer that question with glee, Madam Chair. Chairman: Order! We will continue when the Chamber is quiet. Councillor interjecting. Chairman: When the Chamber is quiet, we will continue. Councillor CASSIDY. Councillor CASSIDY: I will have the best graces and all the good graces in the world to sit down and work with the DEPUTY MAYOR and the LORD MAYOR and we will enter this new paradigm of consultation between all levels of government and across party lines, and we will set down how we can deliver a light rail system that Brisbane needs, that adds all the new connectivity from Newstead right through the CBD to West End and to UQ, Madam Chair. We would love to do that, Councillor SRI. Apart from other issues in the Contracts and Tendering that the Leader of the Opposition has outlined, this is a really serious one here. There are major flaws for this so-called Brisbane Metro. You know that things have got to be getting pretty desperate when the LORD MAYOR has got to drag the Prime Minister up to Brisbane and make him threaten the State Government to either allow this Metro to operate on the GoPrint site or nobody gets any money for anything. Things have got to be pretty desperate, and it is pretty clear that, although the LORD MAYOR said the project team will be looking at alternative stabling yard sites, clearly that is not the case, because what we see after a very long recess and all this time, all the LORD MAYOR can come up with is dragging the Prime Minister out to threaten another level of government into trying to allow them to use the GoPrint site for the Brisbane Metro, otherwise we don’t get any money for Cross River Rail, which is pretty poor. We cannot in all good conscience, on behalf of the ratepayers of Brisbane, support this very, very flawed project. Thank you.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 26 -

Chairman: Further debate? DEPUTY MAYOR. DEPUTY MAYOR: Yes, Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on the Contracts and Tendering report, item B, and specifically to respond to some of the outrageous claims that were just made by Councillor CASSIDY. We know that Councillor CASSIDY is always rehearsing in this place. He is rehearsing the lines, he has been to the ALP spin school, and he is like, “so-called Metro”; that is his favourite thing to say, the “so-called Metro.” Well, it is a metro, just like the London Underground is a metro, and the Tokyo Metro is a metro, and guess what; metro is usually light rail. Guess what; rubber-tyred metro is light rail. It is the same thing, whether it has rubber tyres or steel wheels, it is still light rail, as opposed to heavy rail. Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Order! DEPUTY MAYOR: Cross River Rail is heavy rail. We are talking about light rail here. I know that Councillor CASSIDY is trying to spin that there is somehow some kind of secrecy associated with this project. He mentioned this. It is shrouded in secrecy. Yet, he went on to say that he found out a whole heap of information at the community information sessions. He was able to talk to engineers working on the project, apparently; obviously misquoted them quite drastically, but it just goes to show that the claims he made are completely ridiculous. We are out there talking to the community about this project, actively engaging, seeking their feedback. I want to confirm one key point today, just to avoid any doubt. The LORD MAYOR will back me up on this. The whole point of this business case is actually to look at a whole range of options to deliver this Metro. So, any suggestion that we are fixed with one specific project that won’t change in any way is false. I have no doubt that there will be changes to the Metro project as a result of the business case process. That is the whole point of this process. Some politicians may like to come up with projects and say, ‘we have the ultimate solution to everyone’s problem, and this won’t change in any way, shape or form.’ Others actually go through a rigorous process— Councillor SRI: Point of order, Madam Chair. Chairman: Point of order against you, DEPUTY MAYOR. Councillor SRI. Councillor SRI: Will Councillor SCHRINNER take a straightforward question? DEPUTY MAYOR: Absolutely. Councillor SRI: Thanks, Councillor SCHRINNER. I will make sure I phrase it carefully. Will the people conducting the business case have the scope to explore other routes, and if the business case recommends that maybe we should adopt a different route for the Metro, will your Administration be open to that conversation? DEPUTY MAYOR: We are open to everything, but most importantly we are open to providing a high-capacity metro system that helps to deliver a better outcome for the people of Brisbane and deal with those bus congestion issues on the busway. Obviously the first place to start, if you are looking at dealing with congestion issues on the busway, is the busway. We didn’t say we are looking to deal with bus congestion issues at Newstead or in West End; we said we are looking to deal with them on the busway. So obviously that would be a good place to start. Having said that, we are doing work on looking at a whole range of options on how this project can be delivered to benefit the people of Brisbane, and that will include putting various assumptions to the test. That includes assumptions on the type of carriages and trains that might be used, the length of those trains, what is out there available in the market around the world. So yes, this is going to be a rigorous process, and yes, the project is likely to change in certain ways.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 27 -

As I said, if it didn’t, then you’d have to question whether this was a rigorous process. We want it to be a rigorous process. We have asked for it to be a rigorous process, and guess what; the State and the Federal Government will also go through a similar rigorous process when it comes to projects like Cross River Rail. We are seeing just today that the Federal Government is putting in money to help the State Government go through a more rigorous process when it comes to Cross River Rail. So these are things that should happen for big projects like this, and it is certainly something that we are doing. But most importantly, we are going out there talking to the people of Brisbane, consulting with them, hearing their feedback and views, and I can say that the feedback from the information sessions has been very positive. There is a lot of excitement out there in the community about this project, and the potential for this project to help improve transport in Brisbane. We, unlike certain others, are not saying it has to be one project or the other— Cross River Rail or Metro. These projects are both good for Brisbane. They can both be delivered. They both should be delivered, and the key issue now is to finesse both projects to make sure they deliver the best outcomes through the process at the Cross River Rail level and also the business case for the Metro. That is exactly what we are doing, and that is exactly why we have engaged a whole range of experts, including the two listed here in the contracts and tendering report, to assist us with that rigorous process. These engineering firms we are talking about are market leaders. They are the best in the business. All of the top engineering firms put in bids to assist us with this work, and that work is under way in earnest as we speak. So, Councillor CASSIDY can put all of the spin he likes on it. The reality is that we are going through a rigorous process. The point of the business case is to put this project to the test, and to work out the best way to deliver it. We are certainly open to changes to that project as a result of that business case process, because that is what it is for. Chairman: Councillor WINES.

ADJOURNMENT: 159/2016-17 At that time, 3.58pm, it was resolved on the motion of Councillor Andrew WINES seconded by Councillor Adam ALLAN, that the meeting adjourn for a period of 15 minutes, to commence only when all councillors had vacated the Chamber and the doors locked.

Council stood adjourned at 4pm.

UPON RESUMPTION:

Chairman: Councillors, further debate? Councillor JOHNSTON. Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on the E&C Report, items A, B, C and D.

Seriatim - Clauses A and B Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON requested that Clause A, REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING ON 1 SEPTEMBER 2016, and Clause B, CONTRACTS AND TENDERING – REPORT TO COUNCIL OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR AUGUST 2016, be taken seriatim en bloc for voting purposes.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. I will just start with some brief comments on the Audit Committee Report which I had expected perhaps to reflect a little more, unrealistically I guess, the issues related to the Deloitte’s investigation

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 28 - and the fraud perpetrated upon Council that the LORD MAYOR raised in this place a few months ago. I note that there is just basically one sentence about it in here, which is that the members have received a thorough briefing on the mandate fraud issue currently being addressed by Council on 24 August. I guess my concern with respect to the Audit Committee Report is, if all they are doing is being briefed on what we’re already doing, what is the point of the Audit Committee? If they are a check and balance and a safeguard, it is obviously essential that they have some power to look into these matters. So I question the issues attached with this, given the senior Council officers present and given the members of this Audit Committee Report, they are clearly not necessarily undertaking the task that they are needed to undertake. I just have some serious concerns that, given the significance of this fraud, given the implications of what has happened, given the fact we had to call in external auditors who basically say Council never implemented systems that they should have implemented. That is essentially the finding, that Council failed to implement basic fraud management systems, and somebody forgot to do it, and then nobody did it, and then all the people changed, and it hadn’t been done, and we were operating under some old-school type system. Well, we’ve got so many layers of bureaucracy here that are supposed to be checking that we are doing best practice with respect to this, all at the pinnacle of that is this Audit Committee, and I guess my concern is that they certainly are not doing a good job if there is no oversight with respect to these matters. I would like to know whether they have now reviewed all the procedures that are going to be put in place, or whether they will review all the new procedures that are going to be put in place. Is the Audit Committee going to ensure that these are best practice procedures that are being put in place? I guess I question whether or not all of these senior people in this Audit Committee Report, all they are doing is being told what Council wants them to hear, or whether they are going to do something substantive to improve our risk management systems. I would certainly like the LORD MAYOR to elaborate on what the role of the Audit Committee is going to be with respect to the outcome of the Deloitte report recommendations and procedural changes that are due to happen. I would certainly like to know when we are going to see those changes here, if they are going to come through full Council. I would like to know how we are going to address the issues that are in the Deloitte report. I know Council has said they will implement all the recommendations, but I would like to see the outcome of all of that, so we know that it actually happens. I would like to raise just a couple of quick issues with items C and D as well, and then I’ll come back to item B. As to the Bushfire Management Report, I note that the change in the Bushfire Management Report indicates that the new policy is going to cover vegetation that proposes a risk on all Council-controlled land rather than just bushland areas. That to me is a reasonably significant change to our policy, and it led me to think about the implications of that. So we are going from managing bushland areas, which are Pullenvale, Karawatha, those kinds of tracts of land, to all vegetation that poses a bushfire risk on Council-controlled land. The issue for me is how we are going to resource this change in the policy. There is nothing here about that. Are we putting on additional officers? Are we going to undertake more trials? What kind of practical management are we going to have to look at vegetation risks in more urbanised areas? I note that the policy itself says we will support the Queensland Fire Brigade, which is great, but from a Council point of view, you have a risk management policy, you must test it. So the issue for me is how many additional areas are covered under the new policy, and I would like to know if we’ve gone from 100 square kilometres to 250 square kilometres, what is the extent of the bushland area now that falls

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 29 -

within the policy’s administration, and what additional resources—funding, staff, management strategies, practical testing—are we putting in place to make sure this policy works. They are the questions I have about this. I think probably it is a good thing that we are now treating all bushland areas and park areas in the city the same, but I certainly think that the policy raises some questions about the practical implementation side of it, and I would like some explanation about that. With respect to item D, I did raise some concerns with this last year, and my concerns have not been abated by what is here before us today. Obviously I can see why Uniting Hands Foundation Australia is being recommended, because it is the better of the two bids, but to anybody looking at this, it is just too good to be true. This is an extraordinary commercial offer. I do not know how we can have a social enterprise that is promising to deliver these kinds of returns, both for their own business and to Council. Something is off here, and I just have some very strong concerns about what is being proposed. I certainly hope that, if the targets are not being met, that Council can withdraw from this contract, because the promise of the funding that is in here is phenomenal. It is just phenomenal. This is not a social enterprise. This is a commercial enterprise, based on my reading of this document. I appreciate the background to this organisation and who they are, but I can’t support this. It does not reflect the intent of a social enterprise, because I don’t know any social enterprise that is going to promise Council hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue. Most of our community clubs are struggling, yet suddenly this business is going to be providing hundreds of thousands of dollars back to Council over the lease term. It doesn’t seem right to me. Finally, Contracts and Tendering. There are a couple of issues in here I wanted to raise very briefly. We have had quite some discussion today about the Metro, and there are a couple of contracts I wanted to note. What concerns me is we have had briefings for business, yet we’ve only got one tenderer for the bus network and services planning. One. What has gone wrong here? All these businesses wanted to contribute; they wanted to participate, and we could only get one tenderer? I don’t know if something wasn’t advertised properly; I don’t know if there was a problem with respect to the tender itself. It is a bit of a worry when we are getting one tenderer for a $1.5 billion or $3 billion project, whichever way you look at it, to look at, probably in my view, the most important aspect of all of this which is how the rest of the bus network is going to be messed up because of this Metro, and I do not believe the LORD MAYOR or the DEPUTY MAYOR for a single minute. I heard the same promises when the Sherwood Bus Depot was built. Oh, you’ll get better bus services. Well, let’s see. Our bus services actually got cut—the 101 and the 102—and the local services through Yeronga never run on time and on schedule. So I do not believe them. I absolutely, fundamentally do not believe them, based on my experience with the last lot of lies they told about a major bus project. The interesting issue is the contract with respect to the design and engineering services. I note there has been some commentary today about the Prime Minister’s visit to Brisbane. I honestly had a bit of a laugh this morning listening to it all. I read it this way; the LORD MAYOR has gone to the Federal Government and said, ‘Oh, Prime Minister, the State Government is being mean to me. They won’t let me play with them.’ And the Prime Minister has gone, ‘Well, LORD MAYOR, I don’t know that there’s too much we can do.’ The LORD MAYOR has gone, ‘But we need your help, please, pretty please’, and the Prime Minister has come back and gone, ‘Rightyo, well, I am going to give the State Government $10 million for their Cross River Rail project, which I support’, he says. I heard him on the radio this morning. He wants rail solutions; that is because he has got good ones in his area. Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, your time has expired.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 30 -

Councillor JOHNSTON: Oh, what a shame; I’m still going. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor WYNDHAM. Councillor WYNDHAM: Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to speak in support of the amendment to Corporate Rule EM007, Council’s Bushfire Management Policy, item C. We are strongly committed to ensuring residents of Brisbane are prepared for bushfire season and that, as a Council, we have the appropriate plans and strategies to support this. The Bushfire Management Policy works alongside Council’s other bushfire related documents, specifically the Bushfire Risk Management Plan for Brisbane’s natural areas, bushfire management procedures, and bushfire management guidelines. What are the main amendments to this policy? The updated policy now incorporates, Councillor JOHNSTON, a shared responsibility, principles which bring together all landowners, the State Government, councils, individuals, household members and the broader community contributing to mitigate bushfire risk. Terminology and thinking around bushfire risk managed, from 2009, the Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission and key bushfire management information from the National Bushfire Management Policy Statement for Forests and Rangelands prepared by the Council of Australian Governments in 2014. I note that the shared responsibility approach which was a key recommendation from the 2009 Royal Commission doesn’t change Council’s fundamental roles and responsibilities associated with bushfire management on Council land. Rather, it will be used as an approach for bushfire risk, community engagement, in conjunction with Queensland Fire and Emergency Services, the primary provider of fire services in Queensland. In fact, community engagement is key to bushfire preparedness. Around 24,400 Brisbane residents identified as living in bushfire risk areas have already started receiving letters from the LORD MAYOR accompanied by a Prepared, Active, Survive brochure. Council realises not just the importance of community engagement but also in continuing to apply active bushfire management techniques. We are continuing to undertake active efforts on Council land in natural areas and parks, such as construction and maintenance of firebreaks and management of access tracks, planned burns to reduce wildfire risk, and maintain the health of bushland, wildfire response and management, bushfire monitoring and, of course, working closely with Queensland Fire and Emergency Services. We will continue to inform residents of when Council controlled burns occur on Council land which maintain the health of the forest and lessens the impact of wildfires. In terms of development assessment, the City Plan 2014 assesses development applications to ensure that they meet necessary bushfire risk management standards. It is important that Council policy remains current. As mentioned, the updated policy incorporates key principles of COAG National Bushfire Management Policy. Although Council already operates consistently within these principles, the updated policy now includes: learning to live with fire – bushfires are understood, accepted and respected; shared and individual responsibility; protection of lives as the highest consideration; consistency of purpose and unity of command; manage fire according to the landscape objectives; decisions within the risk management framework; integration of learning and knowledge, and monitoring performance. In summarising the amendments of this policy, also l would like to highlight that the title of the policy has changed from Bushfire Management. The reference to bushland has also been changed to vegetation. This acknowledges that the policy includes all types of fire-prone vegetation on Council managed land.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 31 -

In speaking to support Council’s amended Bushfire Management Policy, I would also like to use this opportunity to remind residents of how they can reduce their property’s fire risk by maintaining a fuel-free zone around their fence lines; ensuring fuel-free zones, fire breaks, fire access trails are kept free of garden waste and other flammable materials; having good access to water around your house; removing door mats made of flammable materials; pointing LPG safety valves away from the house; clearing firewood, other flammable materials and rubbish from around and under the house; cleaning decks, gutters and particularly roof valleys; and removing any vegetation overhanging your house. Residents can visit Council’s Be Prepared webpage for guidance or visit the QFES (Queensland Fire and Emergency Services) website to find information about protecting your property from bushfire. Thank you. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor STRUNK. Councillor STRUNK: Thank you, Madam Chair; I rise to speak on item B, and it is really by way of clarification in regards to Contracts and Tendering, specifically attachment A, contract 2, the Qmani Pty Ltd, which is actually an extension of the contract for $180,000, and it reads; to “support the arrangement for the provision of the parking, management and fault administration system.” I don’t really know what that means. There is the words, but if possibly during the summation it could be fleshed out for me as to what that actually specifically means, what that particular contract is for. Thank you. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor COOPER. Councillor COOPER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair; I rise to speak to items B and D of the report today. Just immediately in response to that query by Councillor STRUNK, item 2 in that report is the Parking Meter Fault Administration System. That is the system that is currently being used to manage and report on our parking meters when customers call the Contact Centre to report a fault. So it is an existing system where the progress is through the contact system and it goes through the online database, so it makes sure that those meters are logged as faulty, and it also allows the maintenance staff to then go and make sure that meters are returned to service. It is an existing system. The contract actually runs until October this year, and to extend it beyond, so this is an agreement that we have gone to a sole-source agreement to extend it while we are going through a wider process to seek a replacement through the Integrated Parking Management Project. I think that is pretty clear as to what that is in relation to item 2 in the report. Item 7 in the report, referring to the question that Councillor CUMMING had queried, that is actually the Engine Room. Surprise, surprise, Councillor; that is actually being constructed currently. We have building construction works being undertaken by A Dart to rejuvenate the site, so they are building a new toilet, and that will be a Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliant toilet. I think the nearest public toilet—correct me if I am wrong, through you, Madam Chair, to Councillor HOWARD—is about two kilometres away. I think the local community will be happy to see that they have that facility that will be able to be dealt with as part of the rejuvenation of that existing Engine Room. So that will have a DDA compliant toilet, a kitchen, flooring, deck, a ceiling, and it will also have—I know it is something that we all take for granted—but it doesn’t currently have access to power, gas or water. Perhaps for this building to be used for any future purpose, it would be critically important for all of these services to be connected to the Engine Room. It has been vacant for some time, and the LORD MAYOR and Councillor HOWARD and I were down there inspecting it. It is a beautiful building, but it is a building which has a lot of

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 32 - updating to be done, particularly relating to services that need to be connected to the building. This was actually part of the Brisbane Stevedoring and Wool Dumping Company’s wharf. It was built for the wool industry in the first half of the last century, so understandably it is a building that does need to be brought into the 21st century. It went through a process, and Councillor CUMMING said it was controversial. Well, it was an impact assessable application that went to Council, so it went through extreme scrutiny as part of that process. It also is a heritage listed building. There was a heritage report undertaken. There was extensive work undertaken as part of Council’s assessment of this particular proposal. It is of course in line with Council’s River’s Edge Strategy which I would think everyone in this Chamber would be a staunch advocate of, improving the access and activity along the inner-city reaches of our city. So we certainly want to capitalise on what is one of our greatest natural assets, which is of course the Brisbane River. So it went to the Planning and Environment Court and was then approved subject to a number of conditions. These conditions relate to specifically the hours of operation. That is 7am to 10pm only for the internal. The outdoor deck is limited from 7am to 6pm seven days a week. Hours of operation for the public toilet are from 7am to 6pm, and after 6pm the toilets are only accessed by cafe patrons. The internal building shall not exceed 82 square metres, so not a sizeable building by any means, with the external deck not exceeding 54 square metres. There must be suitable screening put in place to screen the back-of-house services. The materials have to be consistent with the materials used elsewhere on the site of the building. A whole range of things that Council has to comply with to make sure that any impacts on the surrounding residents are carefully managed. Council put this out for a seven-day operator and also for a builder, so that is A Dart which has been awarded, and is currently being conducted. There were two tenderers who came forward for this site, and it went through its normal process. I note Councillor CUMMING was asking all of these darkly sort of suggestive comments that this had not followed due process. Well, it absolutely did follow due process. Unfortunately, with those two tenders that were received by Council, only one complied with that requirement for it to be operated for seven days. The Council officers independently reviewed the tenders. They made their assessment, their recommendation, and there is a whole range of criteria that they used in relation to this proposal. If we look through in a very quick fashion, it was about tenderer’s competency, so the commercial terms offered. We want somebody who is actually going to be able to not only move into this important heritage listed building, but also maintain it over the longer term. I think it would be entirely appropriate for Council to find someone that had that ability, and we all know heritage listed buildings are expensive to maintain, and we want somebody who is up to that task and is willing to invest that kind of money. We also looked for experience and expertise, and the Uniting Hands Foundation have got proven previous experience in the restaurant industry; they have experience in business management in line with the restaurant. They put forward a proposal to Council; they had a full pack of design and fit-out plans. They also want to incorporate the heritage story of this particular facility in the design. They didn’t ask for any further funds from Council. This is something that I think is of course important and something for Council to carefully consider, that they are meeting the terms of the tender. Of course, that should be carefully considered by Council. They were also saying that they want to hire staff from the local community, and they want to ensure that they can offer traineeships for people within the

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 33 -

community who may not ordinarily have access to hospitality education. They are trying certainly to deliver something that I think is something that this full Chamber should support. They want to support the disadvantaged in our community, and they want to use this facility in order to give them some work experience so that they have other opportunities to go and take that training that they may receive at the Engine Room and continue to progress and develop their careers. That is something I think we should all be absolutely keen to support. Of course, there was another tenderer. Unfortunately they could not meet Council’s criteria, so they were not able to deliver fit-out plans; they weren’t able to meet our desired timeframes to actually commence the activation of this particular facility, and they were only proposing trade on Saturday and Sunday by demand only. I would consider that, if we are putting this building out there for activation, it is entirely appropriate that Council ask for it to be activated as much as it possibly could be. That is something that we on this side of the Chamber do not think is a bad outcome. I know Councillor HOWARD has been a staunch advocate for this community to have more access to services, and I know particularly they will be delighted when this is a coffee shop that they can pop into, where they’ve got public toilets that they can utilise, that will allow us to see even more activity and lively sort of conduct down there. It is, I think, a great outcome. I thank both of the tenderers for coming forward to Council. I know we will be working with the unsuccessful tenderer to see if we can offer them a different opportunity to suit them in the local area. I thank all of those people who have come forward and supported the outcomes that we will hopefully be seeing in the near distant future down at the Engine Room. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor SUTTON. Councillor SUTTON: Yes, Madam Chair, just briefly on item D, the Engine Room, and the lease and operation of the cafe and takeaway food outlet. This is a site at 71 Macquarie Street, Teneriffe. Obviously the site has a history. Councillor CUMMING has already raised the point that this was subject to a development application in 2014. It was approved by Council on 26 August 2014 initially, despite the fact that 402 local residents had put in submissions about it, with 399 of those objecting to the proposed development. I couldn’t help but notice Councillor QUIRK’s comments in Question Time about the people have spoken. Well, in the case of the Engine Room, the people very much did speak about their views on this particular development application, and out of 402 of them, 399 were opposed to what Council was proposing. They felt so strongly about this that, after Council approved it on 26 August 2014, eight of them lodged an appeal in the Planning and Environment Court which saw the matter go before the court, and it was not finalised until 20 July 2015. Then of course it was all too controversial to deal with before the election, because we had to make sure that Councillor HOWARD was okay, safely tucked back in there in Central Ward for the current term. So we had to just lay it in abeyance until such time that we thought that we could actually come back. Then the timings also get a little bit funny as well Madam Chair, because like Councillor CUMMING and Councillor JOHNSTON have said before me, the operator that we are being asked to select at this point today being Uniting Hands Foundation didn't actually become a registered charity until June this year. This Request for Proposal (RFP) was only opened in June this year. So I just really question the timing of that. I question the decision to give this contract, this nine year contract, which again I think is a long time to give a contract, to a charity that has only been operating since June this year, that has not had to provide any kind of annual report or any kind of disclosure about its charitable operations, that has no public record on how it manages its operations because that's who we're giving the charity to.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 34 -

That's who we're giving this contract to, to this unproven charity that has only been registered since 2 June this year. If you're going to go on your record—if Councillor COOPER then talked about the history of and the experience she's not talking about the history and the experience of the Uniting Hands Foundation. She's talking about the experience and history of a commercial entrepreneur, social entrepreneur as he describes himself, it is a commercial operation. They can dress it up and dress it down, you can shake your head as much as you want at me Councillor COOPER, this Council is being asked to approve a nine year contract to a charitable organisation that has only been registered since 2 June this year. All that other experience and expertise is all to do with the operations of other commercial ventures, entirely commercial ventures. This is a breach of trust to what Councillor HOWARD said to the community that this would be run by a social enterprise organisation. It's in writing in the submission for Footprints, the unsuccessful tenderer in this case that clearly had community support because they were able to put several letters of support in with the proposal that they went to Council with. I guess my question too is the process here about how the Request for Proposal was actually managed because if you're looking for a social enterprise to run it, if you're looking for a community based organisation, why wouldn’t you make sure that this Request for Proposal was advertised amongst Brisbane's community sector? When we asked the question, we found that the RFP was advertised through Council's supplier portal and Council's website. Website is fair enough, it's open to everyone but Council’s supplier portal which are predominantly commercial suppliers. So Madam Chair, we have got a broad, broad range of fabulous not-for-profit community groups and social enterprises that could have done an exceptional job that have got long histories, that have got established histories yet none of those either didn't know about it or didn't apply. I think about Red Cross Cafe here in City Hall in this very building. They have got a long established track record of running a successful cafe. I'm surprised that someone like the Red Cross Cafe wasn't interested in running a cafe at this fabulous site down at 71 Macquarie Street. So I guess my surprise is, given that Uniting Hands Foundation was only registered on 2 June, that they found out about this RFP so quickly. I wondered how that might have happened. Well then it was just coincidence— Deidre Chambers—what a coincidence, just happened to run into Councillor HOWARD at the official opening of their other Brisbane restaurant in The Valley on 30 June. Councillor COOPER: Point of order Madam Chair. Chairman: Point of order against you Councillor. Councillor SUTTON: All the photos are in the proposal. Chairman: Councillor SUTTON. Councillor COOPER, your point of order. Councillor COOPER: Councillor SUTTON is clearly imputing motive. It is disgraceful. She should withdraw those comments because she has no evidence. If she has evidence bring it forward. Stop insinuating that there was something that was not absolutely, this was conducted absolutely appropriately. Withdraw your comments. Chairman: Councillor SUTTON, will you withdraw please? Councillor SUTTON: No Madam Chair— Chairman: Or do you have some evidence that you can substantiate your claims with? Councillor SUTTON: No Madam Chair, I made no accusation. I speculated and I—

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 35 -

Chairman: Order. Councillor SUTTON: I am happy— Chairman: Order. Councillor SUTTON: I am happy Madam Chair, to table— Chairman: Order. Councillor SUTTON: I am happy Madam Chair, to table the photo of Councillor HOWARD at the official opening of 88 Forty Eight, here it is Madam Chair, tabled for the Chamber on 30 June officially opening 88 Forty Eight Bar and Restaurant. In her ward, yes in her ward eight days after the RFP opened. Chairman: Order. Councillor SUTTON: Happy to do that. Madam Chair, I guess you know I guess my point is how are — Chairman: Councillor SUTTON, I think where the line is blurring is in relation to your comments relating to how the organisation was allegedly aware of a Council process before it became public. Now if you have any evidence remember there is no parliamentary privilege in this place. So to speculate that there was something untoward occurring is not appropriate. Would you care to rephrase your remarks? Councillor SUTTON: Well Madam Chair. What I will say and I am happy to rephrase the comments that I've made but this is the reality, it became a registered charity—this is the timeline. It became a registered charity on 2 June. On 22 June the RFP opens. On 30 June Councillor HOWARD opens the restaurant and only two Brisbane organisations, only two Brisbane charities actually expressed an interest. One which is the locally based Footprints which obviously had awareness— Councillor KING: Point of order Madam Chair. Councillor SUTTON: —because it was locally based. Chairman: Point of order Councillor KING. Councillor KING: Just seeking clarification Madam Chair, if it's speculation, whether she's withdrawing the comment or if she's pointing out that Councillor Vicki HOWARD is an outstanding hardworking local Councillor? Councillor SUTTON: No I rephrased it and I focused in on the— Chairman: Order. Councillor SUTTON, I just do remind you that there is no parliamentary privilege. The fact that a charitable organisation was established three weeks prior to anything else occurring does not necessarily indicate anything untoward. Councillor SUTTON: I'm not saying that it does Madam Chair. Councillor SRI: Point of order Madam Chair. Chairman: Order. Councillor SUTTON: I'm just pointing out the timeline. Chairman: For the third time, order. Councillor SRI, do you have a point of order. Councillor SRI: Yes thank you Madam Chair, just seeking clarification on I guess the technical definition of imputing motive. Thank you. Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, my recollection is that you are the Councillor for Tennyson. You are not chairing this meeting— Councillor interjecting. Chairman: —and you do not need to interject. Councillor SRI imputing motive is detailed in the Meetings Local Law. I do remind Councillors that there is no

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 36 -

parliamentary privilege so you do have to ensure that your statements cannot be taken from a legal perspective. If there is conjecture about something I will make a ruling. Now Councillor SUTTON I have asked you to rephrase your comments to ensure that you understand that the fact that an organisation may have formed three weeks prior to a Council process occurring does not indicate anything untoward and you need to be cognisant of your obligations as an individual and as a Councillor in this place. Councillor SUTTON: Thank you Madam Chair. Councillor SRI: Point of order Madam Chair. Chairman: Point of order Councillor SRI. Councillor SRI: Sorry to interrupt, just seeking to understand, I understand you're referring to 21.1(c) is that correct for the Meetings Local Law and imputing motive? Just to learn. Thank you. Chairman: For the benefit of the Chamber 21.1(c) is the reference that you've made and you're seeking guidance on and it is where a Councillor commits an act of disorder at a meeting or of council or committee if the Councillor makes a statement reflecting adversely on the character of or motives of a Councillor, a Council officer, member of the public or any committee of the Council. Yes that is correct. Councillor SRI: Thank you. Chairman: Thank you. Councillor SUTTON. Councillor SUTTON: Madam Chair, let me just clarify the point I'm trying to make. I talked about the RFP process and how it was advertised. Now because I think if this Administration was truly trying to get a social enterprise organisation that had a proven track record of delivering these types of services they could have done a lot better in terms of getting an organisation that has a track record of delivery. Instead they only got two people respond to this, two organisations responding to this RFP. One, Footprints which is locally based and was clearly aware that this was coming up for RFP as a consequence of statements that had been made— Chairman: Councillor SUTTON your time has expired. Councillor SUTTON: —through the Teneriffe—well Madam Chair, we— Chairman: Councillor SUTTON your time has expired. Councillor SUTTON: —given the issues that you’re accusing me of I would— Chairman: I remind you of Section 51 Precedents of the Chair, you do not interject when the Chairman is speaking. 160/2016-17 At that point, Councillor Shayne SUTTON was granted an extension of time on the motion of Councillor Jared CASSIDY, seconded by Councillor Jonathan SRI.

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON. Councillor SUTTON: Thank you Madam Chair, and thank you to the Chamber for allowing me to explain the point that I'm trying to make. There were only two people that responded to this, two organisations that responded to the RFP. One was locally based that would have known about it because of all the conjecture around the development application in the first place and the fact that it has links through the Teneriffe Progress Association. The second was an organisation that has always predominantly been based at the Sunshine Coast that is almost entirely commercial in nature in terms of all of the past history that is proposal references. I don't know and I know

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 37 -

Councillor KING I know you're expressing some disdain over what I'm saying but I've actually read the submissions of both of them and the submission that the Uniting Hands Foundation makes almost entirely references its commercial background. It is not a true social enterprise organisation. It has never, never had to prove its worth as a charitable organisation because it was only established as a charitable organisation on 2 June. So as an organisation that was only, my question is, as an organisation that was only established on 2 June when the RFP opened on 22 June I speculated about how they even knew about it. Yes I did and yes I did raise the question about whether Councillor HOWARD mentioned it to them at the official opening. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with that Madam Chair— Councillor HOWARD: Madam Chair, excuse me Madam Chair. Councillor SUTTON: —I'm asking about it. Chairman: Point of order against you Councillor SUTTON. Councillor HOWARD: I know this might be breaking with some tradition but just so Council knows, I did not raise it with them at the opening, thank you. Chairman: Thank you for your clarification and I think that sets the tone. Councillor SUTTON I do remind you that it does say specifically— Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Order, order. I just remind you Councillor SUTTON that it does state specifically on page 7, item 25 on 22 June, interest was sought via RFP process from the market. So any conclusions that you're drawing, you need to be very conscious that you may be subject to imputing motive. Councillor SUTTON. Councillor SUTTON: Madam Chair, I'm not drawing any conclusions. You are trying to say that I am. My question is how is it that we did not have more not-for-profit charitable organisations expressing an interest when we know Brisbane is full of these types of organisations that would have jumped at the chance to run this facility. So it is a matter of process. We sought clarification today about where it went. It went to commercial operators. The RFP went to the Council's suppliers list which are predominantly commercial operators. I'm saying we looked in the wrong place. This Council has a comprehensive database of community not-for-profit organisations who would have done a tremendous job just as well as this entity that's winning this nine year contract today. We looked in the wrong place and we have given an unfair advantage to a — Chairman: Councillor SUTTON— Councillor SUTTON: No I'm not saying Councillor Vicki HOWARD— Chairman: Stop. Councillor SUTTON stop right now. Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Order, order. Councillor SUTTON I ask you now to withdraw the words Council gave an unfair advantage. That is clearly imputing motive. There was a process that went out to market. Council does not control who may or may not choose to submit a proposal for consideration. I have asked you to withdraw. Will you withdraw? Councillor SUTTON: I'm happy to withdraw that. Chairman: Thank you Councillor SUTTON. Councillor SUTTON: I'm happy to withdraw that. What I was trying to say and let me rephrase it because that was probably the wrong words to use I acknowledge that. What I am trying to say is this is the operation that is winning this contract today has used its history and its experience as an entirely commercial enterprise to make a case to win this contract against an organisation that could be considered a true

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 38 -

social enterprise organisation. In that way it is my belief that this Council through this RFP process has effectively compared apples to oranges because how can this Council give a nine year contract to a charitable organisation that has produced not one report, not one disclosure, not one, hasn't even had to, like it has not provided any evidence of its ability to run a facility like this as a charitable organisation. I think that Brisbane's charitable organisations, organisations like Red Cross who run the Red Cross Cafe I think if we had have promoted this better we would have had a broader range of applicants, we would have had a greater opportunity to perhaps select an organisation that has a longer history as a charitable organisation in this city doing good things for Brisbane residents is the case I'm trying to make. Chairman: Thank you. Further debate? No further debate? LORD MAYOR would you like to sum up. LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, I might just get to Councillor CUMMING initially if I may, he raised an issue regarding item number 11 in the contracts and tendering Madam Chairman, it was to do with Interlock Technologies Pty Ltd. They were the successful tenderer over Telstra which as he pointed out there was a small price differential. It was $214,000 versus $210,000. Madam Chairman, there was also the higher value for money index was awarded to Interlock Technologies which is why they received the tender over Telstra. The point he made is a fair one, Telstra are a bigger organisation. He is certainly deserving of an explanation. The story in this particular contract was that Telstra's offer was approximately $4,000 lower as I indicated but had a number of significant contractual departures. So that was the reason behind Interlock Technologies Pty Ltd being awarded the tender. Councillor STRUNK's enquiry has been handed by Councillor COOPER so I won't reiterate that, number two. Madam Chairman, there was a lot of debate around the audit committee well from Councillor JOHNSTON anyway and look they have the ability obviously to provide advice. They have an overview function within Council Madam Chairman, and it was appropriate that they be given a briefing in terms of the fraud. They would have also within that context simply provided some advice in relation to it from their experience as an audit committee Madam Chairman. They do overview a whole range of things as you can see from the minutes. That's the nature of that is to provide the advice of their experience around those things. Madam Chairman, I might just say though in relation to that fraud issue more broadly that this Council took far more action in relation to that fraud than any of the other entities either government or in the other case the Townsville City Council, far more action, made that public report available, the report from Deloitte publicly available Madam Chairman. So Councillors received a copy of that report. So Madam Chairman, they have an overview role Madam Chair, and that's what they will continue to do. Madam Chairman, the Metro came up in discussion. I might just say in relation to that there were how many different versions of Cross River Rail have we seen over the years. There have been all sorts of different changes to it, it's quite a significantly different Cross River Rail now to what we saw a few years' back just prior to bus and train tunnel being brought on board. It was an $8 billion project back then the Cross River Rail and a $5.4 billion project as it stands now. So Madam Chairman, there is nothing wrong with that but I do make one point

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 39 -

that this project whatever its final form may be is about addressing the issues of bus congestion in those inner-city areas. It's about coming to terms with how we're going to handle bus congestion in the CBD in the years ahead with the growth. So that is what's it about, it's about addressing those things. It was nice of the Labor Party to again suggest that old route which is the route of the Blue CityGlider which is performing just fine Madam Chairman. It is performing absolutely brilliantly and yet they want to Madam Chairman, remove that and replace that route with light rail which will do absolutely nothing in relation to the congestion that we're seeing in the cultural precinct of Victoria Bridge in the existing bus way infrastructure at capacity, Madam Chairman, in terms of the Queen Street Bus Mall and the like. So Madam Chairman, that's the issue and of course even with that route that light rail route that they were proposing they were only intending to put up 10 % of the money so that's really you haven't got a live project in this day and age Madam Chairman, with that level of amendment. Councillor SRI: Point of order Madam Chair. LORD MAYOR: Sure. Chairman: Point of order Councillor SRI. Councillor SRI: The LORD MAYOR may be misleading the Chamber in regards to his comments that the Blue CityGlider is performing just fine. It's frequently congested, it's frequently late. Many residents have come back to me that they can't access this service. Chairman: That's not an appropriate point of order and I don't uphold it Councillor SRI. LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Yes Madam Chairman, well certainly the Blue CityGlider takes the Victoria Bridge route and I accept that but under the provisions of the Metro what would happen is it would continue to take the Victoria Bridge route but of course it would be in a far less congested form than what it is today. So it actually has a strategic improvement in terms of the congestion that it is currently confronted with. What I can say about Blue CityGlider is that when it started had an expectation of carrying 600,000 passengers in the first year, and it took 1.5 million. So it has for all intents and purposes worked effectively as a CityGlider. Of course, the other one, the maroon Glider, we paid for in its entirety. The State takes all of the fares in relation to that. Our contribution is over $5 million to it. Madam Chairman, so in terms of Councillor SUTTON’s remarks, I was a bit of two minds as to whether to give you an extension frankly Councillor SUTTON, because I wasn’t hearing any clear prosecution of a case. Speculation was a word that was used. In the extreme would be my interpretation. The fact of the matter is that we don’t decide who is a charity and who is not a charity. They are determined by other levels of government, and Madam Chairman, if it is a charity, it is a charity. It’s passed the test that is set, and I’m just being handed a document here. The Australian Charities and Not for Profit Commission, within the Australian government, determine what is a charity. Here it is, Uniting Hands Foundation Australia Limited. The effective date, someone said four months earlier, it became a charity on 4 June 2015. Not 2016; 2015. So Madam Chairman, looks like there was a lot of homework done there. We waste a lot of time in this Chamber sometimes on what was highly speculative things. Madam Chairman, one thing I can say is that we don’t often get inundated with social enterprises around these venues. The reality is, they don’t all have the capacity, or they might have enough on their agenda or on their plate right now. We’ve indicated in terms of policy, that we want to double the amount of social enterprise work that we do as a Council. We want to take it from $2 million as it has been, to $4 million. So, Madam Chairman, it will be interesting to see if we

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 40 -

do get that take-up. I hope we do, but again, it’s no guarantees. We can put it out there, but then it’s a matter of those social enterprises also coming forward. So Madam Chairman, with those few words I’m happy to move the report. Chairman: Thank you LORD MAYOR. I will now put items A and B.

Clauses A and B put

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

Chairman: I will now put Item C.

Clause C put

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

Chairman: I will now put item D.

Clause D put

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

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

The voting was as follows:

AYES: 18 - The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.

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

ABSTENTIONS: 1 - Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON

The report read as follows

A REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING ON 1 SEPTEMBER 2016 109/695/586/6 161/2016-17 1. The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.

2. Section 201 of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 requires that as soon as practicable after a meeting of the Audit Committee (the Committee), Council must be given a written report about the matters reviewed at the meeting and the Committee’s recommendations about the matters.

3. The Chief Executive Officer is to present the report mentioned in section 201(1)(c) at the next meeting of Council.

4. The Chief Executive Officer recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 41 -

5. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING ON 1 SEPTEMBER 2016, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, submitted on file.

B CONTRACTS AND TENDERING – REPORT TO COUNCIL OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR AUGUST 2016 109/695/586/2-03 162/2016-17 6. The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.

7. Sections 238 and 239 of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 (the Act) provide that Council may delegate some of its powers. Those powers include the power to enter into contracts under section 242 of the Act.

8. Council has previously delegated some powers to make, vary or discharge contracts for the procurement of goods, services or works. Council made these delegations to the Establishment and Coordination Committee and Chief Executive Officer.

9. The City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 (the Regulation) was made pursuant to the Act. Chapter 6, Part 4, section 227 of the Regulation provides that: (1) Council must, as soon as practicable after entering into a contract under this chapter worth $200,000 or more (exclusive of GST), publish relevant details of the contract on Council’s website; (2) the relevant details must be published under subsection (1) for a period of at least 12 months; (3) also, if a person asks Council to give relevant details of a contract, Council must allow the person to inspect the relevant details at Council’s public office. ‘Relevant details’ is defined in Chapter 6, Part 4, section 227 as including: (a) the person with whom Council has entered into the contract; (b) the value of the contract; and (c) the purpose of the contract (e.g. the particular goods or services to be supplied under the contract).

10. The Chief Executive Officer recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.

11. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE REPORT OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR AUGUST 2016, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.

Attachment A City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 – Chapter 6 – Contracting Details of Contracts Accepted by Delegates of Council for August 2016 Contract/Quote No. and Delegate Nature of Contract/Quote Purpose Unsuccessful Tenders and Comparativ Approval, Successful Contractor/s Arrangement Quotes including VFM e Tender Start/End including Comparative Tender and Estimated achieved Prices Dates and Prices and Value for Money Maximum Term (VFM) Index achieved Expenditure BRISBANE INFRASTRUCTURE 1. Contract No: not applicable CEO Actual cost price Kingsford Smith Drive This contract was entered N/A Approved: (N/A) basis Upgrade Stage 1a Gas Main into under section 2.4 Sole or 16.08.2016 Relocation Select Sourcing of Council’s Start: APA Group – $2,652,065 $2,652,065 Contract Manual pursuant to 23.08.2016 the City of Brisbane Act 2010. Term: 18 months The marketplace in relation to these services is restricted by statement of licence or third party ownership of an asset. 2. Contract No: 120018 CPO Schedule of rates Extension of Support Contract exempt from N/A Approved: Arrangements for the seeking competitive tenders 16.08.2016 Qmani Pty Ltd – $180,000 $180,000 provision of the Parking or quotations from the market Start: Management and Fault in accordance with the 03.10.2016 Administration System exemption for extensions of Term: ICT support and maintenance One year

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 42 -

Contract/Quote No. and Delegate Nature of Contract/Quote Purpose Unsuccessful Tenders and Comparativ Approval, Successful Contractor/s Arrangement Quotes including VFM e Tender Start/End including Comparative Tender and Estimated achieved Prices Dates and Prices and Value for Money Maximum Term (VFM) Index achieved Expenditure from Council’s Contract with option Manual process under to extend Schedule A of Council’s for one Annual Procurement Policy additional and Contracting Plan. year 3. Contract No: 520214 CPO Lump sum Stormwater Pipe Relining Shortlisted offers not Approved: Works at Maryvale Street, recommended 09.08.2016 Monadelphous Engineering Pty $281,440 Toowong $330,945 Start: Ltd – $281,440 Insituform Pacific Pty Ltd 24.08.2016 Achieved highest VFM of 29.37 Achieved VFM of 21.20 Term: 10 weeks Offers not recommended $522,558 Interflow Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 15.18 $607,718 ITS PipeTech Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 13.38 $320,026 GCE Contractors Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 11.25 4. Contract No: 520241 CPO Lump sum Supply and Delivery of a Jaw Shortlisted offers not Approved: Crusher at Bracalba Quarry recommended 09.08.2016 Metso Minerals (Australia) $456,000 $599,999* Start: Limited – $531,000* Sandvik Mining and 09.08.2016 Achieved highest VFM of 16.10 Construction Pty Limited Term: Australia 16 weeks *Normalised Price represents the Achieved VFM of 11.58 lump sum tendered price and the estimated cost to accommodate Offers not recommended $772,500* the necessary installation modifications needed for the Terex Jaques Australia proposed jaw crusher by each Achieved VFM of 10.81 $697,500* tenderer. Astec Australia Achieved VFM of 8.66 $502,531*

Enco Mineral Achieved VFM of 6.17 $906,000*

REEL Alesa Achieved VFM of 3.54 5. Contract No: 530840 CPO Schedule of rates Brisbane Metro Subway Phillip Boyle & Associates Pty N/A Approved: System – Bus Network and Ltd was the only supplier to 04.08.2016 Phillip Boyle & Associates Pty $353,000 Services Planning respond to the Request for Start: Ltd – $353,000 Tender. 05.08.2016 Achieved VFM of 18.1 Term: 52 weeks 6. Contract No: 530841 CEO Schedule of rates Brisbane Metro Subway SMEC Australia Pty Ltd $4,659,698 Approved: System – Design and Achieved VFM of 13.1 09.08.16 Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty $4,501,360 Engineering Services Start: Ltd – $4,501,360 GHD Pty Ltd (GHD) $4,476,310 10.08.16 Achieved highest VFM of 14.7 Achieved VFM of 13.0 Term: 52 weeks Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia $4,882,206 Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 12.7 $5,470,170 Aecom Australia Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 11.2 $5,713,408 Arup Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 11.0 7. Contract No: 530883 CPO Lump sum Revitalisation of the Former Offers not recommended Approved: Engine Room heritage 04.08.16 Dart Holdings Pty Ltd trading $864,000 building located at Macquarie Kane Constructions Pty Ltd $914,536 Start: as A Dart and Co – $864,000 Street, Teneriffe Achieved VFM of 90.76 05.08.16 Achieved highest VFM of 98.67 Term: Hawley Construction Pty Ltd $920,455 16 weeks

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 43 -

Contract/Quote No. and Delegate Nature of Contract/Quote Purpose Unsuccessful Tenders and Comparativ Approval, Successful Contractor/s Arrangement Quotes including VFM e Tender Start/End including Comparative Tender and Estimated achieved Prices Dates and Prices and Value for Money Maximum Term (VFM) Index achieved Expenditure Achieved VFM of 80.94

Probuild Industries Australia $910,060 Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 62.63

Non-conforming offers N/A Dickinson Constructions Pty Ltd BRISBANE LIFESTYLE Nil BRISBANE TRANSPORT Nil CITY PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY Nil OFFICE OF THE LORD MAYOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Nil ORGANISATIONAL SERVICES 8. Contract No: 510467 CEO Corporate Provision of Cloud Services This contract was entered N/A Approved: Procurement into in accordance with 02.08.16 Amazon Web Services Inc. – Arrangement section 2.5 (Exemption from Start: $2,000,000 (CPA) Tendering) of the Contract 03.08.16 (Preferred Manual pursuant to the City Term: Supplier of Brisbane Act 2010. Three years Arrangement) with option to extend $2,000,000 for two additional years

9. Contract No: 510480 CPO CPA (Preferred Local Government Knowledge Shortlisted offers not Approved: Supplier Management System (LG recommended 30.08.16 PreviousNext Pty Ltd – Arrangement) Toolbox) $728,089* Start: $452,467* Lump sum and KINSHIP Digital Pty Ltd 01.09.16 Achieved highest VFM of 19.2 schedule of rates Achieved VFM of 10.5 Term: Three years *Normalised for whole of life cost $417,500 Offers not shortlisted with option $2,649,084* to extend HCL Australia Services Pty. for two Limited (SharePoint product) additional years $3,571,032* HCL Australia Services Pty. Limited (Liferay product)

Offers not recommended N/A

Empired Ltd VFM not applicable. Did not meet minimum quality requirements. 10. Contract No: 510541 CPO CPA (Preferred Catering Services for Spotless Facility Services Pty $193,865 Approved: Supplier Brisbane Square, Green Ltd 04.08.16 SCS Trading (QLD) Pty Ltd Arrangement) Square and Other CBD Achieved VFM of 39.90 Start: trading as Wine & Dine’M Schedule of rates Locations 09.10.16 Catering – $190,782 Term: Achieved highest VFM of 43.11 $1,000,000 Up to five years

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 44 -

Contract/Quote No. and Delegate Nature of Contract/Quote Purpose Unsuccessful Tenders and Comparativ Approval, Successful Contractor/s Arrangement Quotes including VFM e Tender Start/End including Comparative Tender and Estimated achieved Prices Dates and Prices and Value for Money Maximum Term (VFM) Index achieved Expenditure 11. Contract No: 510553 CPO CPA (Preferred Rapid 7 Nexpose Telstra Corporation Ltd $210,597 Approved: Supplier Vulnerability Scanning Achieved VFM of 35.2 16.08.16 Intalock Technologies Pty Ltd – Arrangement) Software Start: $214,842 Schedule of rates 23.08.16 Achieved highest VFM of 35.8 Term: $214,842 One year with option to extend for two additional years 12. Contract No: 520201 CPO CPA (Panel Bus Seat Cleaning, Workshop Approved: Arrangement) Cleaning Cloths and Floor 11.08.16 Category 1 – Bus Seat Cleaning Schedule of rates Mats Category 1 – Bus Seat Start: (social enterprise sites) Cleaning (social 01.09.16 $1,140,000 enterprise sites) Term: Eagle Farm Depot Two years Sandgate and Bracken Ridge Eagle Farm Depot $24,628 with option Action Group Incorporated Diverciti Enterprises Pty Ltd to extend trading as SEED PPM – $16,308 as Trustee for the Diverciti for three Achieved highest VFM of 36 Enterprises Trust trading as additional Diverciti Services years Willawong and Sherwood Achieved VFM of 22 Depots N/A Diverciti Enterprises Pty Ltd as Willawong and Sherwood Trustee for the Diverciti Depots Enterprises Trust trading as Nil Diverciti Services – $80,106 Achieved highest VFM of 69

Category 1 – Bus Seat Cleaning (open tender sites) Category 1 – Bus Seat Cleaning (open tender Challenger Services Group QLD sites) $124,682 Pty Ltd – $79,339 Achieved highest VFM of 95 Shortlisted offers not recommended

International Cleaning Services Australia Pty Ltd as $133,998 Trustee for the Tim Austin Family Trust trading as International Cleaning Services Achieved VFM of 57 $150,448

The Ouro Group Pty Ltd as Trustee for The Ouro Group $152,160 Family Trust trading as Jim's Cleaning Centenary Achieved VFM of 48 $162,415 Storm International Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 45

Allan Edward Griffiths trading as Gleaming Car & Bus Care Achieved VFM of 36 $107,446 Diverciti Enterprises Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Diverciti Enterprises Trust trading as $151,284 Diverciti Services Achieved VFM of 34 $277,821 Offers not shortlisted

Hudor Group (QLD) Pty Ltd $237,836 Achieved VFM of 40

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 45 -

Contract/Quote No. and Delegate Nature of Contract/Quote Purpose Unsuccessful Tenders and Comparativ Approval, Successful Contractor/s Arrangement Quotes including VFM e Tender Start/End including Comparative Tender and Estimated achieved Prices Dates and Prices and Value for Money Maximum Term (VFM) Index achieved Expenditure Prima Restoration Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 28 $339,710 Just1call Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 22

Dubbo Cleaning Services Pty Category 2 – Workshop Ltd trading as Jim’s Carpet Cleaning Cloths and Floor Mats Cleaning Jimboomba $83,850 Achieved VFM of 21 Alsco Pty Ltd – $56,298 Achieved highest VFM of 114 Austral Service Management Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 15 $141,258 Category 2 – Workshop Cleaning Cloths and Floor Mats

International Cleaning Services Australia Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Tim Austin Family Trust trading as International Cleaning Services Achieved VFM of 76

Dubbo Cleaning Services Pty Ltd trading as Jim’s Carpet Cleaning Jimboomba Achieved VFM of 35 13. Contract No: 520220 CPO CPA (Panel Traffic Signal Works Services J & P Richardson Industries $485,267 Approved: Arrangement) Pty Ltd 11.08.16 Mi Electric Pty Ltd as trustee Schedule of rates Achieved VFM of 18.23 Start: for the Morris Family Trust – $409,154 23.08.16 $316,174 $1,500,000 Intelligent Infrastructure Term: Achieved highest VFM of 24.22 Solutions Pty Ltd Three years Achieved VFM of 17.13 with option Public Lighting Solutions Pty $391,892 to extend Ltd as trustee for Olszanowski CV Energy Services Pty Ltd for two Trust trading as Integrated Achieved VFM of 16.80 additional Services – $378,391 $469,902 years Achieved VFM of 21.78 Downer EDI Engineering Electrical Pty Ltd Pensar Utilities Pty Ltd – Achieved VFM of 16.19 $412,740 Achieved VFM of 19.36 14. Contract No: 520225 CEO CPA (Preferred Fire Safety Services Prensa Evac Pty Ltd $656,650 Approved: Supplier Achieved VFM of 10.76 02.08.16 First 5 Minutes Pty Ltd trading Arrangement) Start: as First 5 Minutes Pty Ltd – Schedule of rates Concept Safety Systems $799,320 12.09.16 $559,800 (Holdings) Pty Ltd Term: Achieved highest VFM of 15.27 $2,820,000 Achieved VFM of 8.34 Three years with option to extend for two additional years 15. Contract No: 530870 CPO CPA (Preferred Transport Operations Road Ashtrail Pty Ltd trading as $36,960 Approved: Supplier Use Management (TORUM) Major Training Group 18.08.16 Transqual Pty Ltd – $31,355 Arrangement) Training Programs Achieved VFM of 13.80 Start: Achieved highest VFM of 24.24 Schedule of rates 01.11.16 Strategix Training Group Pty $57,300 Term: $160,000 Ltd Up to five Achieved VFM of 11.69 years

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 46 -

C AMENDMENT OF CORPORATE RULE EM007 BUSHFIRE MANAGEMENT POLICY 161/268/608/2 163/2016-17 12. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability provided the information below.

13. In February 1994, Council resolved to adopt corporate rule EM007 Bushland Fire Management Policy (EM007) to ensure that Council met its obligations under the Fire and Emergency Services Act 1990 (Qld).

14. EM007 was subsequently reviewed and amended in 2005 and has now been reviewed again.

15. Amendments proposed to EM007 include: - an update of the name of the policy to ‘Bushfire Management Policy’ - recognition that the policy covers all vegetation that poses a bushfire risk on Council- controlled land, rather than just bushland areas - adoption of a more integrated bushfire risk management framework that includes a shared responsibility principle - adoption of contemporary bushfire management principles from the National Bushfire Management Policy Statement for Forests and Rangelands prepared by the Forest Fire Management Group for the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) 2014.

16. The amended EM007 Bushfire Management Policy is set out in Attachment B, submitted on file. The current EM007 Bushland Fire Management Policy is set out in Attachment C, submitted on file.

17. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL ADOPT THE AMENDED CORPORATE RULE EM007 BUSHFIRE MANAGEMENT POLICY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT RESOLUTION, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.

Attachment A

DRAFT RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE AMENDED CORPORATE RULE EM007 BUSHFIRE MANAGEMENT POLICY

As:

(i) Council resolved to adopt the amended corporate rule EM007 Bushland Fire Management Policy in 2005

(ii) the policy has been reviewed and amended,

then Council:

(i) resolves to adopt the amended corporate rule EM007 Bushfire Management Policy set out in Attachment B, submitted on file.

D STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – LEASE AND OPERATION OF THE CAFÉ AND TAKEAWAY FOOD AND DRINK OUTLET AT THE ENGINE ROOM, LOCATED AT 71 MACQUARIE STREET, TENERIFFE 165/210/179/2112 164/2016-17 18. The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.

19. The Chief Executive Officer and the Stores Board considered the submission, as set out in Attachment A, submitted on file, on 11 October 2016.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 47 -

20. The submission is recommended to Council as it is considered the most advantageous leasing outcome. Further approval will be required from the Queensland Government for a trustee lease over the land. The process is consistent with Queensland Government requirements and approval can only be sought when a lease document is submitted.

Purpose

21. The Chief Executive Officer (through the Stores Board) recommends to Council that it approves entering into a lease with The Uniting Hands Foundation Australia Limited, in relation to the Lease and Operation of the Café and Takeaway Food and Drink Outlet at the Engine Room, located at 71 Macquarie Street, Teneriffe, subject to Queensland Government approval of a trustee lease over the land.

Background/operational impact

22. This brick engine shed known as the ‘Engine Room’ was built between 1917 and 1927 by the Brisbane Stevedoring and Wool Dumping Company, who acquired the riverside site in 1906. The engine shed was part of the company’s wharf built to service Brisbane’s wool industry which was centred on the Teneriffe/New Farm area in the first half of the twentieth century.

23. During World War II, the wharf was used to service Allied submarines and shipping. Some sheds on the wharf were taken over by the US Navy in 1942. Post-war, the wharf remained in the hands of Brisbane Stevedoring and Wool Dumping Company until 1968 when it was sold. It was acquired by the Commonwealth in 1982 for use by the Royal Australian Navy and became known as HMAS Moreton North. The other surviving wharf buildings have been demolished and the surrounding area redeveloped for housing in the early 2000s.

24. The Engine Room has been vacant for some time. The land is owned by the Queensland Government Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) and held in trust by Council. Around mid-2015, a Development Application (DA) approval was obtained to use the historic site as a café and takeaway food and drink outlet.

25. On 22 June 2016, interest was sought via a Request for Proposal (RFP) process from the market for potentially interested lessees to lease and operate a café and takeaway food and drink outlet at the property. Upon approval of the successful lessee by Council, consent will be sought from the Queensland Government for a trustee lease. The process is consistent with Queensland Government requirements and approval can only be sought when a lease document is submitted.

26. Council is currently undertaking building construction works to rejuvenate the site by building a new toilet, kitchen, flooring, deck, ceiling and commissioning services to the site (e.g. power, gas and water).

27. Name Address and Final Tendered Price* (ex GST) [after any Value ABN/ACN negotiations] for Money (VFM) Score** Recommended Offer The Uniting 9 The Parkway Base rent $35,000 per annum, plus Hands Aroona QLD 4551 percentage rent of gross turnover of 2% of Foundation ACN: 606 183 019 sales over $800,000 per annum, 3% of sales 75% Australia ABN: 71 606 183 019 over $1,000,000 per annum and 5% of sales Limited over $1,200,000 per annum with no capital contribution required from Council. Offer Not Recommended Footprints in PO Box 735 Base rent $1 per annum with no percentage Brisbane New Farm QLD 4000 of gross turnover per annum offered. 46% Incorporated ACN: not applicable Council is required to install a kitchen ABN: 15 100 277 492 exhaust hood.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 48 -

Evaluation criteria

28. Essential criteria: - Provide required RFP tender deliverable attachments. - Meets essential requirements stated in the specification and draft lease including: (i) terms of lease (ii) operational hours and duration (iii) minimum maintenance expectations (iv) accessibility for general public and key user groups (v) insurance requirements (vi) rental, percentage rental and direct charges.

29. Comparative criteria: Weighted Evaluation Criteria Total 100%

Criteria Group The Uniting Hands Foundation Footprints in Brisbane Australia Limited Incorporated

Tenderer’s competency Base rent of $35,000 per annum plus Base rent of $1 per annum (commercial terms offered) percentage rent of 2% of sales over with no percentage of gross Total 30% $800,000 per annum, 3% of sales over turnover per annum offered. $1,000,000 per annum and 5% of sales over $1,200,000 per annum. Experience and expertise Proven previous experience in the Offer requires a partnership Total 30% restaurant industry (incorporating a with a local coffee café and takeaway food/drink outlet), entrepreneur who will assist experience in business management in with fit-out, preparation of line with the restaurant (incorporating menus and the expertise a café and takeaway food/drink outlet required to run the day to operations). day operation. Value-adding Full pack of design and fit-out plans The lessee has asked for opportunities/improvements provided including incorporation of Council to carry out Total 20% heritage story in the designs. additional works (provision No contribution to the lessee’s fit-out of exhaust hood in kitchen). required by Council. No fit-out plans provided. Quality and nature of offer Provides offer of intended trading Proposed trading hours do Total 10% hours that meets DA requirements. not meet minimum requirements with lessee proposing to only open on Saturday and Sunday by demand. Differentiation and appeal Provided sample menu for café. Sample menu not provided. Total 10% Branding and marketing suggestions Marketing position focussed provided incorporating the history of solely on community use of the building and the local community. the building. Total 100% 75% 46%

Recommended tenderer (most advantageous outcome for Council)

30. The recommended tenderer is The Uniting Hands Foundation Australia Limited. The reasons being the tenderer: - achieved the highest VFM score - rental offer is of the highest return over the term of the lease - the lessee requires no capital expenditure contribution by Council - proposes trading seven days a week within DA permitted hours - will hire café staff from within the Teneriffe community - is able to offer traineeships for people within the community who may not ordinarily have access to hospitality education - fit-out design highlights the naval heritage of the building - confirmed readiness to meet project deadlines.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 49 -

Tenderers not recommended

31. The tenderer not recommended is Footprints in Brisbane Incorporated. The reasons being the tenderer: - achieved a lower VFM score - offer is subject to contribution by Council towards a part of the fit-out - did not provide fit-out plans - was not able to meet Council’s project desired deadlines for fit-out commencement and opening - proposed only opening for trade on Saturday and Sunday by demand only - rental offer is of a lower return over the term of the lease.

32. Environmental sustainability, quality assurance, access and equity, zero harm and support for locally produced and Australian products: - Met the requirements to the satisfaction of the panel.

33. Risks associated with this lease (including mitigation strategies): - Risks were assessed to the satisfaction of the evaluation panel.

Arrangement proposed

34. Lease type: Lease and Operation of the Café and Takeaway Food and Drink Outlet at the Engine Room, located at 71 Macquarie Street, Teneriffe All non-compliances with lease Yes conditions and specifications resolved? Term of lease: Nine years Price basis: Base rent of $35,000 per annum plus percentage rent of 2% of sales over $800,000 per annum, 3% of sales over $1,000,000 per annum and 5% of sales over $1,200,000 per annum with no capital contribution required from Council. Price variation: The revenue is not subject to variation other than annual rent reviews adjusted to Consumer Price Index (CPI) annually. Commencement date of Estimated 1 December 2016 Arrangement: Lease preparation: Prepared by Brisbane City Legal Practice TRIM reference number(s) for 165/210/179/2112 the finalised arrangement:

Revenue

35. Estimated revenue to be a base rent of $35,000 per annum, plus percentage rent of 2% of gross turnover in excess of $800,000 per annum, 3% of gross turnover in excess of $1 million per annum and 5% of gross turnover in excess of $1.2 million per annum.

36. The Chief Executive Officer recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.

37. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL APPROVES:

(1) ENTERING INTO A LEASE WITH THE UNITING HANDS FOUNDATION AUSTRALIA LIMITED, IN RELATION TO THE LEASE AND OPERATION OF THE CAFÉ AND TAKEAWAY FOOD AND DRINK OUTLET AT THE ENGINE ROOM, LOCATED AT 71 MACQUARIE STREET, TENERIFFE, SUBJECT TO QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT APPROVAL OF A TRUSTEE LEASE OVER THE LAND.

(2) THE REVENUE BASE RENT OF $35,000 PER ANNUM, PLUS PER CENTAGE RENT OF 2% OF GROSS TURNOVER IN EXCESS OF $800,000 PER ANNUM, 3%

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 50 -

OF GROSS TURNOVER IN EXCESS OF $1 MILLION PER ANNUM AND 5% OF GROSS TURNOVER IN EXCESS OF $1,200,000 PER ANNUM.

(3) A LEASE TERM OF NINE YEARS.

(4) THE ASSET PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT MANAGER, ASSET MANAGEMENT BRANCH, BRISBANE INFRASTRUCTURE, BE AUTHORISED TO BE COUNCIL’S REPRESENTATIVE AND EMPOWERED TO EXECUTE AND MANAGE THE LEASE ON COUNCIL’S BEHALF.

NOTATION OF DECISIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE AS DELEGATE OF COUNCIL:

ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Information report)

The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Graham QUIRK), Chairman of the Establishment and Coordination Committee, moved, seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR (Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER), that the report setting out the decisions of the Establishment and Coordination Committee as delegate of the Council during the Spring Recess 2016, on matters usually considered by that Committee, be noted.

Chairman: LORD MAYOR? LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Item A relates to Community Conservation Assistance Program and within this there is an attachment that sets out a range of organisations that will be receiving funding in relation to this program. It deals mainly with private landowners, but also deals with others that are actually participants in regards to Council-based land or public land. So paragraph 4 there talks about private landowners who have signed a Land for Wildlife agreement with Council and have demonstrated a commitment to the preservation and restoration of biodiversity of their land are eligible to apply. So in summary, 52 applications valued at a total of $494,264 are recommended and that is broken down—22 projects on Council land and 30 on private land. Item B, Madam Chairman, is the establishment of a Cemeteries Restoration Trust. Now this city has a number of historical cemeteries: South Brisbane, Toowong, Lutwyche, Nundah, Moggill, Brookfield, Bald Hills and Cedar Creek. This is essentially to set up a trust fund. It would mean that the monies going into this trust fund, which could come from a variety of sources—could come from commercially operated tours, it could come from various community groups, historical societies, bequeaths, Friends of Cemeteries groups, it could come directly from Council from time to time—but this trust fund essentially would be set up and dedicated for the ongoing restoration of historical cemeteries. Madam Chairman, as part of that we would obviously be very much reliant on the cemetery organisations, Friends of Cemeteries, to provide the guiding light in relation to that. So here for the consideration of Councillors. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor WYNDHAM? Councillor WYNDHAM: Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to speak in support of item A, Council's 2016-17 Community Conservation Assistance Program. We are clear—we are clean and green and sustainable city and it's important that we support our community volunteers and groups and individuals delivering important environmental projects on the ground. Since 2012 the Community Conservation Assistance Program has supported

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 51 -

over 260 projects across our city with over two million in funding, and we are proud to continue this support. As part of this year's Community Conservation Assistance Program a total of $495,000 has been allocated to 52 projects delivering restoration work, environmental weed management, erosion control and native tree planting. Funding is also allocated for materials for projects including local native plants and other materials designed to protect and assist plant growth, products for soil stabilisation, weed control, including large weed tree removal. The Community Conservation Assistance Program is Councils working in partnership with approved groups and individuals. Within Council's community conservation partnerships programs include Habitat Brisbane groups, creek catchment groups and private landholders who are members of the Wildlife Conservation Partnership Program or Land for Wildlife as it is commonly known. These programs in themselves have great histories. Habitat Brisbane has been running for 18 years with Council supporting 145 Habitat Brisbane groups citywide to restore natural habitat on public land. As a result, 4,244 volunteers are actively restoring 460 hectares of key waterways and bushland areas across our city. Council's Creek Catchment Program, supported by creek catchment officers, has been running for 11 years, with Council supporting catchment groups to protect and restore waterways across 10 of Brisbane's major catchments. Madam Chair, as many would be aware, the Wildlife Conservation Program has been running for 18 years, with more than half of Brisbane's natural habitat contained within private ownership. The Wildlife Conservation Partnership Program provides the city with an opportunity to actively involve over 650 landholders collectively to manage 2,000 hectares of land. Supporting projects with private landholders is important, as weed control and bush restoration compliments the protection of biodiversity on our public lands. Madam Chair, the 52 projects approved under this year's Community Conservation Assistance Program—as the LORD MAYOR was saying, there are 30 projects of private land and 22 on public land, and I look forward to getting out and seeing some of these projects in action throughout the year. Our Community Conservation Partnership community is located in approximately 60 sites across our city and provides Council with cost-efficient solutions not just to bushland and waterway management, but towards achieving our vision of a 40 per cent habitat cover. For more information, Madam, you can —about community conservation assistance, I urge those interested to get in touch with Council and check out our website. Thank you. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor GRIFFITHS? Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, thanks, Madam Chair, and I'd like to speak to item A and item B. In relation to item A the Community Conservation Assistance Program, we have some concerns that we're actually calling it a Community Conservation Assistance Program because of the amount of money going to private individuals. It seems that the amount of money going to private individuals, and in particular to the Pullenvale Ward, far outweighs the rest of the city. We think that this money should be going for land, for wildlife projects across the city and not just concentrated in the Pullenvale Ward, and for some reason there is an absolute bias towards that ward. So, Madam Chair— Chairman: Councillor GRIFFITHS would you care to withdraw the remarks that there is an absolute bias to the Pullenvale Ward. As you can appreciate there are only certain areas in the city that do have vacant bushland; whereas other wards are

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 52 -

largely developed. So could you please withdraw that remark. Councillor GRIFFITHS: Madam Chair, on your recommendation I'll withdraw the absolute bias, but just say that there are whole sways of areas across the city that do—such as Pullenvale which used to be in your ward—that do have wildlife on them— Chairman: Pullenvale is a long way— Councillor GRIFFITHS: Pallara, Pallara, thank you. Chairman: Thank you. Councillor GRIFFITHS: That was in your area that is suitable for this sort of project. Madam Chair, just to make my point but I will read the suburbs because I'm not allowed to read the people who receive this money, but just a few of them are for the public to note because they won't get to see this. Pullenvale, Chapel Hill, Bardon, Toowong. Once again we have Indooroopilly. We have Brookfield, Pullenvale, Mount Crosby. We have a whole range of suburbs there that are getting this money and this is Council money, this is ratepayer money. It should be spread across the city. Secondly, I just note that there are a couple of groups that missed out and one was the Glider Alliance down at Bracken Ridge—missed out for money—and I know that being in the Infrastructure Committee I've actually heard Councillor COOPER talk passionately about this group and how the State Government aren't assisting this group, or are helping to demolish bushland and yet Council is not coming on board and supporting this group in its activities. So I was a bit surprised with that—a little bit of a contradiction there from the LNP. Secondly, Madam Chair, I'd just like to call up the idea of the establishment of the Cemeteries Restoration Trust. Now we did try and ask some questions today and we didn't get any answers from the LNP. We actually opened this as an idea and think this is a good idea and certainly won't be voting against it. We just wanted some detail like how much could we expect to be raised from this. What is Council's expected revenue of this? Where and how much money do we expect to allocate? How we will allocate that money and can it be allocated across all the cemeteries if the money is raised say from Toowong Cemetery where a tour might be happening? Can it be spent in other historic cemeteries across Brisbane? We didn't think they were outstandingly difficult questions for the LNP to answer, but apparently they had great difficulty answering that. So, Madam Chair, they're just a few points in relation to this particularly important E&C report. Thank you. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor BOURKE? Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chair. I just rise to speak on Item B that we have before us today which is the Cemetery Restoration Trust, and this is a great day for the Council as we bring in to formal recognition a trust fund set up to help restore and preserve the history and heritage of our city across our nine historic cemeteries. So just for the indulgence of the Chamber, those nine cemeteries are South Brisbane, Toowong, Lutwyche, Nundah, Balmoral, Moggill, Brookfield, Bald Hills and Cedar Creek. I acknowledge Councillor RICHARDS as the Councillor who has the oldest cemetery in the City of Brisbane which is the Moggill Cemetery dating back to 1856 officially, but we will argue over whether it was 1851 Councillor RICHARDS. The work that will be undertaken will see a number of the significant grave sites and tombstones and monuments that have been built in these nine cemeteries restored and preserved into the future. They house the forefathers of our city. In those cemeteries there are pioneers.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 53 -

There are initial farmers, the people who helped build the city that we now inhabit. There are former premiers, former governors and a whole array of politicians I'm told, and the money that we have will not be allocated on the role that they may have had in the city, but indeed on a needs basis. To hear Councillor GRIFFITHS though just wax on about how no questions were answered, no one wanted to provide the information on simple questions, well Councillor GRIFFITHS didn't ask those questions in the right committee. Nor did he ask his colleague to ask those questions in the right committee. So he can stand up in here and pontificate and say how terrible it is that no answers were provided to his questions, but had he actually bothered to have those questions asked in the right committee he would have had answers to those questions. What's worse, Madam Chairman, is it's not like he didn't know which was the right committee because Councillor WYNDHAM told him which committee was the right committee when he asked those questions in the Parks Committee and Councillor WYNDHAM informed him that it was actually the Lifestyle Committee. I know this because I was sitting in the room. So Councillor GRIFFITHS only has himself to blame because he wasn't able to have that very simple conversation with Councillor CASSIDY who sits in my committee or Councillor SRI or any of the other Councillors who sit in my committee who might have asked those questions for him. As the LORD MAYOR outlined, we expect to get donations from bequests potentially, grants that may be able to be applied for by Friends of the Cemeteries groups. A lot of those Friends of the Cemeteries groups don't have incorporation but this will actually be a vehicle for them to apply for grants, and we will be able to acquire that money through the grants and hold it for them and disperse it against projects that the Friends of the Cemeteries may want to complete, Madam Chairman. We also, as I said, might get donations or bequests from time to time. We have been approached in the past about families that have lost a loved one that may want to contribute or donate, or even surviving families of some of the— descendants of some of the people who are buried in some of the cemeteries who may wish to also contribute to this particular fund. But more importantly, there is a range of tours and commercial operations that currently are undertaken in our cemeteries, and as I said this morning when I did radio, their annual fees are around $800. There was no formal mechanism of collecting that money and dedicating that money to the preservation and restoration of these cemeteries. Today we put in place that formal mechanism to do that. So instead of the money going into general revenue—and we spend about $10 million a year on our cemeteries as it is, but instead of that money going into general revenue, that money is now going to be put aside in this special fund to help restore and preserve those nine historical cemeteries across the city. It is a very good thing to be doing this today and I encourage everyone in the Council Chamber to wholeheartedly support this particular item. Chairman: Further debate? Nothing further? LORD MAYOR would you like to sum up? I will now put items A and B.

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion was declared carried on the voices.

The report read as follows

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 54 -

A COMMUNITY CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 2016-17 131/625/913/11 165/2016-17 1. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the information below.

2. The Community Conservation Assistance (CCA) Program is a Council program which provides assistance to groups and individuals within Council’s Community Conservation Partnerships program (CCPP). These groups and individuals undertake environmental restoration work which delivers habitat and weed management outcomes.

3. CCA is delivered through panel providers coordinated by Asset Services. Individuals and organisations do not receive cash.

4. Private landowners, who have signed a Land for Wildlife agreement with Council and have demonstrated a commitment to the preservation or restoration of biodiversity on their land, are eligible to apply for CCA.

5. Applications for CCA in 2016-17 opened on 4 July 2016 and closed on 1 August 2016. A total of 81 applications were received. Each application was assessed against criteria to rank the project’s biodiversity value, natural landscape linkage, weed priority significance, maintenance capacity of the applicant and CCPP officer support. Vegetation significance was also considered using information from Council’s contemporary vegetation mapping. Assessment recommendations, project scopes and funding amounts were reviewed by a Comparative Assessment Committee comprising senior staff from Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability.

6. As a result of this assessment, 52 applications valued at a total of $494,264 are recommended for full or partial funding (Attachment A, submitted on file). This consists of 22 projects on Council land (valued at $248,264) and 30 projects on private land (valued at $246,000).

7. Standby projects are also proposed to mitigate the risk of under expenditure. The seven standby projects (valued at $53,993) are listed in Attachment A, submitted on file. Standby projects will be implemented if savings are realised after successful projects are fully scoped and budgeted, or unforeseen cancellations occur.

8. Prioritisation of standby projects will be determined by the Consultative Assessment Committee in consultation with CCPP officers. Applications not recommended for funding are outlined in Attachment B, submitted on file.

9. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting of 4 October 2016.

10. DECISION:

THAT E&C, AS DELEGATE OF COUNCIL DURING RECESS, APPROVE THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR THE COMMUNITY CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 2016-17, AS OUTLINED IN ATTACHMENT A, as submitted on file.

B ESTABLISHMENT OF A CEMETERIES RESTORATION TRUST 106/800/148/15 166/2016-17 11. The Divisional Manager, Brisbane Lifestyle, provided the information below.

12. Commercially-operated tours in Council cemeteries have been permitted since 1998. These were formalised through licencing agreements in 2009, which required operators to pay an annual fee that contributed to monument restoration. No mechanism for this payment was ever formalised and the payments have always been sporadic.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 55 -

13. It is proposed to formalise this agreement, with annual fees contributing to the proposed Cemeteries Restoration Trust to be established in accordance with section 192 of the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012. If approved, funds deposited into the Cemeteries Restoration Trust will not be subject to any deductible gift recipient status and may only be used to support restoration and enhancement projects within Council’s historic cemeteries. These projects will be delivered by various community groups, historical societies and ‘friends of’ cemeteries groups.

14. Possible funding sources that will contribute to the Cemeteries Restoration Trust will include income from tours, bequests, donations from families, donations from ‘friends of’ cemeteries groups, grants and additional Council funding.

15. If the establishment of a Cemeteries Restoration Trust is approved, the release of funds would be made by the Manager Cemeteries and Crematoria, Community Facilities and Venues, Brisbane Lifestyle; with approval by the Branch Manager, Community Facilities and Venues, Brisbane Lifestyle.

16. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting of 10 October 2016.

17. DECISION:

THAT E&C, AS DELEGATE OF COUNCIL DURING RECESS, APPROVE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CEMETERIES RESTORATION TRUST.

NOTATION OF DECISIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE AS DELEGATE OF COUNCIL:

INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE

Councillor Amanda COOPER, Chairman of the Infrastructure Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Fiona KING, that the report setting out the decisions of the Establishment and Coordination Committee as delegate of the Council during the Spring Recess 2016, on matters usually considered by the Infrastructure Committee, be noted.

Chairman: Councillor COOPER? Councillor COOPER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Before I quickly move for petitions, I'd just like to point out we've had some debate about what's going on with the Engine Room. I'd just like to remind the Chamber that this Chamber actually on 24 November 2015 debated another similar situation where there was a proposal put out to the community which is a permit to occupy the Brunswick Street Mall. So that was Pod number one and it was recommended that we provide an opportunity for Uniting Hands Foundation Limited to be given a nine year permit to occupy and use the Pod. So this is the group, the same group that we've talked about earlier today, and indeed the Labor Party didn't even see fit to actually comment on this particular proposal. So when it was this proposal for the Pod in the Brunswick Street Mall, I would take their silence as full endorsement of Uniting Hands Foundation Australia. All of a sudden—all of a sudden—they have a completely contrary position when it is the Engine Room. So I suggest that perhaps there's something else going on here as to why they oppose it. I also would like to note that the Councillor for Tennyson debated this particular issue, and she says in her comments it was only registered as a charity in June this year—2015, let's be really, really clear. So it was pretty clear in the debate back then on 24 November 2015 this Chamber discussed it. The Australian Labor Party didn't seem to have any issue at that time and I think it is quite disgraceful the conduct of the Australian Labor Party in this Chamber

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 56 - today. I am extremely disappointed at their level of debate. It is appalling but unfortunately I am not surprised. Okay, in relation to the four petitions before us, the first is for Algona Street, Holland Park. Thank you Councillor CUMMING; I know you're fascinated by this particular issue. This is a request with 31 signatories for an investigation into the volume of traffic and speeding. Council officers undertook a traffic survey. They found there was an average of 370 vehicles per day with an average speed of 34.4 kilometres per hour. So most residents are law-abiding ones. We also have of course our portable speed warning sign initiative which has seen nearly a 10 kilometre reduction across the city in average speeds. So that's a fantastic success to the LORD MAYOR and the DEPUTY MAYOR when he was in charge of this portfolio. So instead of looking at this particular proposal, Council officers have actually come up with a recommendation to put some turn bans in peak periods, and they're working with the local Councillor, Councillor ADAMS, to look at a right-hand turn ban at Algona Street and Messines Ridge Road between 7am and 9am and a left turn ban at Gaza Road and Dakara Street between 3pm and 6pm. So Councillor ADAMS will be working with the officers to resolve this issue and I look forward to hearing from her, and she is always a very diligent local Councillor. The second petition relates to Main Avenue, Newman Road and Beor Street—I hope I'm saying that correctly Councillor. I'm doing my very best here—at Wavell Heights. This had 83 signatories with specific concerns about the safety of the existing intersection design. So the intersection's not signalised. There are both stop signs and stop bars on both of those roads requiring a complete stop. Of course under the State Government's road rules it prohibits motorists from parking within 10 metres of a non-signalised intersection, and Council has put in reminders to make sure that residents are aware of their obligations. Council officers' recommendation is to include the request in this petition as part of the investigation and design that's currently underway as a result of nearly a $350,000 commitment in the 2016-17 Budget to upgrading the intersection and specifically extending parking restrictions as part of the design. I also would like to thank Councillor Adam ALLAN for his support of the recommendation. I know that he will be working very closely with all of those affected property owners to make sure we get a good solution for everyone, and he's doing a fantastic job representing those local residents. The third petition is Teneriffe Drive at Teneriffe. One of my favourite Councillors, Councillor Vicki HOWARD, who does a fantastic job—we in this Chamber, those of us who are sensible, kind people, think she does an extraordinary job and we really want to thank her for all of the work that she does with her local community, because I know she's had a bit of a hard time this afternoon, undeservedly. Okay, in particular this petition for Teneriffe Drive at Teneriffe, there were eight signatories who have specific concerns about safety due to vehicles parking along both sides of Teneriffe Drive. The petition notes that Teneriffe Drive is in the inner five kilometres of the city so a high demand there and very close to the Teneriffe Ferry Terminal. I was down there the other night myself and saw how successful that terminal is and it's certainly got a lot of patrons utilising it. So we will continue to work with Councillor HOWARD. We will go through consultation with the local community to see how we can improve the street parking. This may include some new residential parking permit schemes to try and make sure that we

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 57 -

manage parking demand and alleviate the concerns of petitioners. Councillor HOWARD, a very passionate advocate for her local community, and knowing of course that it is difficult to come up with a solution that resolves all of the issues, but we will certainly negotiate and work hard to get an outcome that delivers the best possible situation in relation to this. The fourth petition is for Daw Road in Runcorn. There were three signatories concerned about travelling above the speed limit. Unfortunately Councillor MARX is unwell so I am being Councillor MARX this afternoon. Perhaps I haven't got such long beautiful fingernails as Councillor MARX, but unfortunately she couldn't be here today and I am taking the liberty of speaking on her behalf. She certainly supported the officers' recommendation. There has been a traffic survey undertaken by officers. Average vehicle speed limits have been recorded at 48.6 kilometres per hour. Unfortunately there are people who speed and I am very disappointed that people take such a risk with their safety and the safety of others in our community, but we have made sure that we are passing on the survey results to the local police to inform their enforcement. We have also suggested this might be an appropriate location for a portable speed warning sign. I think Councillor MARX is very keen to look at that option and support this potential location in future. Thank you to all of the Councillors for their feedback on behalf of their community, and I look forward to some more polite and considerate debate next week. Thank you. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor ADAMS? Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just rise to speak briefly on Item B which is the petition for Algona Street. This is a street in the Holland Park Ward that I inherited over the last six months, but it has had massive changes in that local area with a blackspot upgrade at the Messines Ridge and Gaza Road intersection as you go onto the freeway heading south just around the corner from Algona Street. So there was a feeling by local residents that the traffic had increased through Algona Street as a result of the new traffic lights that have been put in at the end of Messines Ridge Road, so there was a traffic count conducted. At this point of time, as Councillor COOPER mentioned, it did seem like there was very little increase between a traffic count that was taken not too long ago and the one done earlier this year. So at this point of time, it really doesn’t validate traffic calming to go in the street, but I have been working with the residents; we've already done a survey around some other options. We've noticed, as many of you probably do, that the rat running or the alternative use of that road seems to be increased around school peak hours rather than commuting peak hours. It's also very close to the Mt Gravatt campus of Griffith University as well. So we're looking at options in hours that wouldn't be usually considered peak hours to do some alternative—maybe bans on right turns et cetera—to reduce the amount of traffic that are using this as an alternative route to avoid the traffic lights as well. I thank the officers for the work that they've done in this area, and I continue to work with them in the near future to see if we can get an outcome for my local residents. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor ALLAN? Councillor ALLAN: Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise today to speak briefly in support of item B, a petition requesting Council upgrade the intersection of Main Avenue,

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 58 -

Newman Road and Beor Street, Wavell Heights. It is worth noting that the intersection in question is on the boundary between Northgate Ward and Marchant Ward. This intersection is a very busy intersection with population growth likely to increase the challenge in this location. The intersection has a number of challenges related to traffic volumes, visibility and safe vehicular and pedestrian access. A number of accidents have occurred at this location in recent years. I became aware of the shortcomings of this intersection prior to my election in March 2016, and after the election sought to have funding made available in the current budget for investigation and design work prior to the commencement of this petition. I was pleased that funding of $347,000 was made available in the budget. Once the design work has been completed and a preferred solution identified, funding will be sought and will be subject to normal Council project prioritisation across the wider Brisbane city. I strongly support the petition and its objectives and would like to acknowledge the efforts of the head petitioner, Evan Lloyd, in pursuing this matter. Thank you. Chairman: Further debate? Nothing further? Councillor COOPER nothing? I will now put the report.

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion was declared carried on the voices.

The report read as follows

A PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL INSTALL TRAFFIC CALMING IN ALGONA STREET, HOLLAND PARK WEST CA16/439690 167/2016-17 1. A petition from residents requesting the installation of traffic calming within Algona Street, Holland Park West, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 31 May 2016, by Councillor Krista Adams, and received.

2. The Branch Manager, Transport Planning and Strategy, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.

3. The petition contains 31 signatures from residents of Algona Street. The petitioners are concerned about the volume and speed of traffic using this street.

4. Algona Street is classified as a Local Access Road within the Road Hierarchy of Brisbane. Local Access Roads primarily provide access to residential properties and are anticipated to carry low volumes of traffic. A locality map is available on file.

5. Traffic calming involves the installation of devices such as speed humps/platforms and chicanes to provide a safe environment for pedestrians and cyclists, to discourage non-local traffic such as ‘rat running’ and to moderate vehicle speeds. There is a high demand for traffic calming across the city and Council must prioritise funding to those projects that deliver the greatest benefit in terms of safety and amenity. For this reason, Council does not generally install traffic calming where vehicle speeds are the predominant concern, instead instances of speeding are handled by enforcement of the Queensland Road Rules by the Queensland Police Service (Police).

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 59 -

6. To ascertain the volume and speed of traffic using Algona Street, Council conducted a traffic survey in May 2016. This survey indicated average daily traffic volumes of 370 vehicles per day. This volume does not indicate that vehicles are using Algona Street to avoid any delays along Messines Ridge Road and Gaza Road. The traffic survey also revealed the average speed of motorists was 35.4 km/h, under the legal speed limit of 50 km/h. That being said, the survey did reveal a very small number of motorists travelling at slightly above the 50 km/h speed limit.

7. Council considers speeding to be poor driver behaviour and best handled through enforcement by the Police. Council will contact the local Police station to share the results of the recent traffic survey to inform their enforcement activity.

8. To promote safety through driver awareness and minimise speeding on neighbourhood roads, Council has implemented the Portable Speed Warning Signs program. Portable speed warning signs are installed for a minimum of a month and increase motorist awareness of their travelling speed by acting as a reminder to adhere to the speed limit. To date the citywide program has seen a marked decrease in the number of motorists travelling over the speed limit when passing the signs, with an average speed reduction of 9.4 km/h across all sites since the program began in 2014.

9. While Council does not support the installation of traffic calming within Algona Street at this time, turn bans during peak periods may alleviate the traffic situation being experienced by the petitioners. As such, Council will work with Councillor Krista Adams, Councillor for Holland Park Ward, to consider the installation of a right turn ban at Algona Street and Messines Ridge Road between 7am and 9am and a left turn ban at Gaza Road and Dakara Street between 3pm and 6pm. It should be noted that these turn bans will apply to all motorists including local residents.

Consultation

10. Councillor Krista Adams, Councillor for Holland Park Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

11. The Branch Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting held on 19 September 2016.

12. DECISION:

THAT THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS OUTLINED IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER ADVISING THAT COUNCIL DOES NOT SUPPORT THE INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES WITHIN ALGONA STREET, HOLLAND PARK WEST. HOWEVER, COUNCIL WILL WORK WITH THE LOCAL COUNCILLOR TO CONSIDER THE INSTALLATION OF A PORTABLE SPEED WARNING SIGN AND TURN BANS TO PREVENT VEHICLES USING ALGONA STREET DURING PEAK PERIODS.

Attachment A Draft Response

Petition Reference: CA16/439690

Thank you for your petition requesting the installation of traffic calming in Algona Street, Holland Park West.

Your petition has been investigated and it was considered by the Establishment and Coordination Committee, as delegate of Council during recess, at its meeting held on 19 September 2016. It was decided that the petitioners be advised of the information below.

Traffic calming involves the installation of devices such as speed humps/platforms and chicanes to provide a safe environment for pedestrians and cyclists, to discourage non-local traffic such as ‘rat running’ and to moderate vehicle speeds. There is a high demand for traffic calming across the city and Council must prioritise funding to those projects that deliver the greatest benefit in terms of safety and amenity. For this reason, Council does not generally install traffic calming where vehicle speeds

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 60 -

are the predominant concern, instead instances of speeding are handled by enforcement of the Queensland Road Rules by the Queensland Police Service (Police).

To ascertain the volume and speed of traffic using Algona Street, Council conducted a traffic survey in May 2016. This survey indicated average daily traffic volumes of 370 vehicles per day. This volume does not indicate that vehicles are using Algona Street to avoid any delays along Messines Ridge Road and Gaza Road. The traffic survey also revealed the average speed of motorists was 35.4 km/h, under the legal speed limit of 50 km/h. That being said, the survey did reveal a very small number of motorists travelling at slightly above the 50 km/h speed limit.

Council considers speeding to be poor driver behaviour and best handled through enforcement of the Queensland Road Rules by the Police. Council will contact the local Police station to share the results of the recent traffic survey to inform their enforcement activity.

To promote safety through driver awareness and minimise speeding on neighbourhood roads, Council has implemented the Portable Speed Warning Signs program. Portable speed warning signs are installed for a minimum of a month and increase motorist awareness of their travelling speed by acting as a reminder to adhere to the speed limit. To date the citywide program has seen a marked decrease in the number of motorists travelling over the speed limit when passing the signs, with an average speed reduction of 9.4 km/h across all sites since the program began in 2014.

The location of a portable speed warning sign is chosen by the local Councillors. Council will work with Councillor Krista Adams, Councillor for Holland Park Ward, to consider this location for a future portable speed warning sign.

While Council does not support the installation of traffic calming within Algona Street at this time, turn bans during peak periods may alleviate the traffic situation being experienced by the petitioners. As such, Council will work with Councillor Adams to consider the installation of a right turn ban at Algona Street and Messines Ridge Road between 7am and 9am and a left turn ban at Gaza Road and Dakara Street between 3pm and 6pm. It should be noted that these turn bans will apply to all motorists including local residents.

Could you please let the other petitioners know of this information.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr David Clarke, Senior Transport Network Operations Officer, from Council’s Transport Planning and Strategy branch on (07) 3403 8888.

B PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL UPGRADE THE INTERSECTION OF MAIN AVENUE, NEWMAN ROAD AND BEOR STREET, WAVELL HEIGHTS CA16/535580 168/2016-17 13. A petition from residents requesting an upgrade of the intersection of Main Avenue, Newman Road and Beor Street, Wavell Heights was received during the Winter Recess 2016.

14. The Branch Manager, Transport Planning and Strategy, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.

15. The petition contains 83 signatures from residents across Brisbane.

16. The petitioners are concerned about the safety of the existing intersection design. The petitioners are requesting that Council install traffic signals at this location and install yellow ‘NO STOPPING’ lines along Newman Road between Abdale Street and Main Avenue.

17. Newman Road is classified as a Suburban Route within the Road Hierarchy of Brisbane. Suburban Routes carry traffic in and around suburbs. Given their importance to the road network, Suburban Routes are designed to safely carry large volumes at higher speeds. Newman Road has a posted speed limit of 60 km/h.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 61 -

18. The intersection of Main Avenue, Newman Road and Beor Street, Wavell Heights is a non-signalised intersection. Currently vehicles approaching Newman Road from both Main Avenue and Beor Street are controlled with ‘STOP’ signs and ‘STOP’ bars, requiring motorists to come to a complete stop before proceeding through the intersection. The Queensland Road Rules prohibit motorists from parking within 10 metres of a non-signalised intersection and Council has installed ‘NO STOPPING’ signs around the intersection to remind motorists of the Queensland Road Rules. A locality map is available on file.

19. Council’s 2016-17 budget allocates $347,000 for the investigation and design of an upgrade of the intersection of Main Avenue, Newman Road and Beor Street, Wavell Heights. There is a high demand for intersection upgrades across the city. Each June, all listed projects are prioritised and assessed against the overall needs of the city. Approved works have the highest priority in terms of public safety, convenience and the number of people directly benefiting in relation to the cost. The timing of any future upgrade of Main Avenue, Newman Road and Beor Street will be considered in line with similar projects across the city as future funding becomes available.

20. Parking restrictions in residential streets can be contentious with some residents relying on on-street parking for them and their visitors. Council will consider extending the existing parking restrictions as part of the current investigation and design of an upgrade of the intersection of Main Avenue, Newman Road and Beor Street, Wavell Heights.

Consultation

21. Councillor Adam Allan, Councillor for Northgate Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

22. The Branch Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting held on 10 October 2016.

23. DECISION:

THAT THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER ADVISING THAT COUNCIL HAS ALLOCATED $347,000 IN THE 2016-17 BUDGET FOR THE INVESTIGATION AND DESIGN OF AN UPGRADE OF THE INTERSECTION OF MAIN AVENUE, NEWMAN ROAD AND BEOR STREET, WAVELL HEIGHTS. COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER EXTENDING EXISTING PARKING RESTRICTIONS AS PART OF THE DESIGN OF THE INTERSECTION UPGRADE.

Attachment A Draft Response

Petition reference: CA16/535580

Thank you for your petition calling on Council to upgrade the intersection of Main Avenue, Newman Road and Beor Street, Wavell Heights.

Your petition has been investigated and it was considered by the Establishment and Coordination Committee, as delegate of Council during recess, at its meeting held on 10 October 2016. It was decided that the petitioners be advised of the information below.

Council’s 2016-17 budget allocates $347,000 for the investigation and design of an upgrade of the intersection of Main Avenue, Newman Road and Beor Street, Wavell Heights. There is a high demand for intersection upgrades across the city. Each June, all listed projects are prioritised and assessed against the overall needs of the city. Approved works have the highest priority in terms of public safety, convenience and the number of people directly benefiting in relation to the cost.

The timing of any future upgrade of Main Avenue, Newman Road and Beor Street will be considered in line with similar projects across the city as future funding becomes available.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 62 -

Council will consider extending the existing parking restrictions as part of the current investigation and design of an upgrade of the intersection of Main Avenue, Newman Road and Beor Street, Wavell Heights.

Please let the other petitioners know of this information.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr Kiran Sreedharan from Council’s Transport Planning and Strategy branch on (07) 3403 8888.

C PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL IMPROVE THE TRAFFIC AND PARKING SITUATION IN TENERIFFE DRIVE, TENERIFFE CA16/266778 169/2016-17 24. A petition from residents requesting that Council improve the traffic and parking situation in Teneriffe Drive, Teneriffe was presented to the Council meeting of 26 April 2016 by Councillor Vicki Howard, and received.

25. The Branch Manager, Transport Planning and Strategy, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.

26. The petition contains eight signatures from residents within Teneriffe Drive. The petitioners are concerned about access and safety when vehicles are parked along both sides of Teneriffe Drive.

27. Teneriffe Drive is located close to the city and within walking distance to a number of bus stops and the Teneriffe Ferry Terminal, which provides regular services into the city. As such, Council recognises there would be a high demand for parking at this location. A locality map is available on file.

28. The section of Teneriffe Drive of concern to the petitioners measures over seven metres wide, this width means that vehicles can legally park on both sides of the road and still maintain the minimum three metres of clear roadway for through traffic. As long as vehicles are parked legally, three metres should be sufficient for even larger vehicles such as emergency vehicles or waste trucks. While it is appreciated that this may restrict traffic to a single lane, this is not considered undesirable in residential streets as it helps to promote a lower speed environment.

29. Parking along sections of Teneriffe Drive is currently regulated as ‘4P, 8am to 4pm, Monday to Friday’. Other sections of Teneriffe Drive are unrestricted, allowing longer term parking opportunities for residents and their visitors. Parking restrictions in residential streets can be contentious as it can have the unwanted effect of displacing on street parking and inconveniencing residents. Council does not generally install parking restrictions in residential streets unless there is a safety issue or demonstrated support from the local community.

30. If residents are experiencing vehicles parking in a manner that does not provide three metres of clear roadway for through traffic or parking longer than the four hour parking restrictions, they are encouraged to contact Council’s Contact Centre on 3403 8888 and request parking enforcement.

31. Council acknowledges that there is a high demand for on-street parking across New Farm and Teneriffe, which falls outside of the Brisbane Central Traffic Area. Council is working with Councillor Vicki Howard, Councillor for Central Ward to consider options to improve on-street parking across the area. As part of these investigations, Council is consulting with residents about the potential for a new residential parking permit scheme, which if implemented, would help address the petitioners’ concerns. Residential parking permit schemes help manage parking demand by implementing time-limited parking restrictions, while providing exemptions for residents and their visitors who display a valid resident or visitor parking permit.

Consultation

32. Councillor Vicki Howard, Councillor for Central Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 63 -

33. The Branch Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting held on 10 October 2016.

34. DECISION:

THAT THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER, ADVISING THAT COUNCIL IS WORKING WITH COUNCILLOR VICKI HOWARD, COUNCILLOR FOR CENTRAL WARD TO CONSIDER OPTIONS TO IMPROVE ON-STREET PARKING ACROSS THE AREA. AS PART OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS, COUNCIL IS CONSULTING WITH RESIDENTS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR A NEW RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT SCHEME, WHICH IF IMPLEMENTED, WOULD HELP ADDRESS THE PETITIONER’S CONCERNS.

Attachment A Draft Response

Petition Reference: CA16/266778

Thank you for your petition requesting Council improve the traffic and parking situation in Teneriffe Drive, Teneriffe.

Your petition has been investigated and it was considered by the Establishment and Coordination Committee, as delegate of Council during recess, at its meeting held on 10 October 2016. It was decided that the petitioners be advised of the information below.

The section of Teneriffe Drive of concern measures over seven metres wide, this width means that vehicles can legally park on both sides of the road and still maintain the minimum three metres of clear roadway for through traffic. As long as vehicles are parked legally, three metres should be sufficient for even larger vehicles such as emergency vehicles or waste trucks. While it is appreciated that this may restrict traffic to a single lane, this is not considered undesirable in residential streets as it helps to promote a lower speed environment.

Parking along sections of Teneriffe Drive is currently regulated as ‘4P, 8am to 4pm, Monday to Friday’. Other sections of Teneriffe Drive are unrestricted, allowing longer term parking opportunities for residents and their visitors. Parking restrictions in residential streets can be contentious as it can have the unwanted effect of displacing on-street parking and inconveniencing residents. Council does not generally install parking restrictions in residential streets unless there is a safety issue or demonstrated support from the local community.

If residents are experiencing vehicles parking in a manner that does not provide three metres of clear roadway for through traffic or parking longer than the four hour parking restrictions, they are encouraged to contact Council’s Contact Centre on 3403 8888 and request parking enforcement.

Council acknowledges that there is a high demand for on-street parking across New Farm and Teneriffe, which falls outside of the Brisbane Central Traffic Area. Council is working with Councillor Vicki Howard, Councillor for Central Ward to consider options to improve on-street parking across the area. As part of these investigations, Council is consulting with residents about the potential for a new residential parking permit scheme.

Residential parking permit schemes help manage parking demand by implementing time-limited parking restrictions, while providing exemptions for residents and their visitors who display a valid resident or visitor parking permit.

Please let the other petitioners know of this information.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr Chris Hennessy from Council’s Transport Planning and Strategy branch on 3403 8888.

Thank you for raising this matter.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 64 -

D PETITION – REQUESTING THE INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CALMING IN DAW ROAD, RUNCORN CA16/609266 170/2016-17 35. A petition from residents requesting the installation of traffic calming in Daw Road, Runcorn, was received in the Winter Recess 2016.

36. The Branch Manager, Transport Planning and Strategy, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.

37. The petition contains three signatures, with all three signatories residing within Daw Road. The petitioners are concerned that motorists are travelling above the posted speed limit of 60 km/h. The petitioners propose speed humps be installed along Daw Road to improve safety for all users.

38. Traffic calming involves the installation of devices such as speed humps/platforms and chicanes to provide a safe environment for pedestrians and cyclists and to discourage non-local traffic such as ‘rat running’. While traffic calming devices are suitable on lower order roads such as neighbourhood access and local access roads, traffic calming is not considered suitable on higher order roads that have been designed to carry volumes of through traffic. As speeding is considered poor driver behaviour and a breach of the Queensland Road Rules, Council does not generally install traffic calming where vehicle speeds are the predominant concern.

39. Daw Road is classified as a district access road within the Road Hierarchy of Brisbane. District access roads play an important role in the road network by providing access to neighbourhood roads and allow for the movement of people and goods within and through suburbs. A locality map is available on file.

40. Daw Road is a relatively wide road, measuring around 14 metres wide. With that in mind, the road has been designed to carry traffic between Warrigal Road and Beenleigh Road and as such, is expected to carry a volume of through traffic. A traffic survey conducted in November 2015 indicated that Daw Road receives an average of 8,400 vehicles per day. As a higher order road, Daw Road is not considered suitable for traffic calming and as such, Council is unable to install speed humps at this time.

41. The traffic survey conducted in November 2015, showed average vehicle speeds of 48.6 km/h. While this indicates that most motorists are travelling below the posted speed limit of 60 km/h, Council acknowledges that there may be instances of some motorists that choose to speed.

42. Speeding is considered poor driver behaviour and is best handled by enforcement of the Queensland Road Rules by the Queensland Police Service. Residents can assist Police in their enforcement activity by identifying when speeding is more prevalent. While Council will share the results of this traffic survey with the Police to inform enforcement activity, petitioners are also encouraged to raise their concerns about speeding with the local Police station via the Policelink service on 131 444.

43. Council has identified Daw Road as a potential location for a Portable Speed Warning Sign. Council has introduced the Portable Speed Warning Sign program to promote safety through driver awareness and minimise speeding on neighbourhood roads. Signs are installed for a minimum of a month and increase motorist awareness of their travelling speed by acting as a reminder to adhere to the speed limit. To date the citywide program has seen a marked decrease in the number of motorists travelling over the speed limit when passing the signs, with an average speed reduction of 9.4 km/h across all sites since the program began in 2014.

44. While traffic calming is not supported, Council proposes to mark a shoulder lane along Daw Road, similar to the line markings installed along Warrigal Road. This line marking would visually narrow the width of Daw Road and encourage a lower speed environment.

Funding

45. Funding for these improvements would be available through Program 2 – Moving Brisbane.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 65 -

Consultation

46. Councillor Kim Marx, Councillor for Runcorn Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

47. The Branch Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting held on 17 October 2016.

48. DECISION:

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER ADVISING THAT COUNCIL IS UNABLE TO INSTALL TRAFFIC CALMING ALONG DAW ROAD, RUNCORN. HOWEVER, COUNCIL HAS IDENTIFIED DAW ROAD AS A POTENTIAL LOCATION FOR A PORTABLE SPEED WARNING SIGN AND WILL INSTALL A SHOULDER LANE TO PROVIDE A VISUAL PROMPT FOR MOTORISTS TO LOWER THEIR SPEED.

Attachment A Draft Response

Petition Reference: CA16/609266

Thank you for your petition calling on Council to install traffic calming in Daw Road, Runcorn.

Your petition has been investigated and it was considered by Council at its meeting held on (DATE). It was decided that the petitioners be advised of the information below.

Traffic calming involves the installation of devices such as speed humps/platforms and chicanes to provide a safe environment for pedestrians and cyclists and to discourage non-local traffic such as ‘rat running’. While traffic calming devices are suitable on lower order roads such as neighbourhood access and local access roads, traffic calming is not considered suitable on higher order roads that have been designed to carry volumes of through traffic. As speeding is considered poor driver behaviour and a breach of the Queensland Road Rules, Council does not generally install traffic calming where vehicle speeds are the predominant concern.

Daw Road is classified as a District Access Road within the Road Hierarchy of Brisbane. District Access Roads play an important role in the road network by providing access to neighbourhood roads and allow for the movement of people and goods within and through suburbs. As a higher order road, Daw Road is not considered suitable for traffic calming and as such, Council is unable to install speed humps at this time.

The traffic survey conducted in November 2015, showed average vehicle speeds of 48.6 km/h. While this indicates that most motorists are travelling below the posted speed limit of 60 km/h, Council acknowledges that there may be instances of some motorists that choose to speed.

Speeding is considered poor driver behaviour and is best handled by enforcement of the Queensland Road Rules by the Queensland Police Service. Residents can assist Police in their enforcement activity by identifying when this activity is more prevalent. While Council will share the results of the recent traffic survey with the Police to inform enforcement activity, petitioners are also encouraged to raise their concerns about speeding with the local police station via the Policelink service on 131 444.

Council has identified Daw Road as a potential location for a Portable Speed Warning Sign. Council has introduced the Portable Speed Warning Sign program to promote safety through driver awareness and minimise speeding on neighbourhood roads. Signs are installed for a minimum of a month and increase motorist awareness of their travelling speed by acting as a reminder to adhere to the speed limit. To date the citywide program has seen a marked decrease in the number of motorists travelling over the speed limit when passing the signs, with an average speed reduction of 9.4 km/h across all sites since the program began in 2014.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 66 -

While traffic calming is not supported, Council proposes to mark a shoulder lane along Daw Road, similar to the line markings installed along Warrigal Road. This line marking would visually narrow the width of Daw Road and encourage a lower speed environment.

Please let the other petitioners know of this information.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr Simon McDermott from Council’s Transport Planning and Strategy branch on (07) 3403 8888.

Thank you for raising this matter

CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE

Councillor Julian SIMMONDS, Chairman of the City Planning Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Vicki HOWARD, that the report setting out the decisions of the Establishment and Coordination Committee as delegate of the Council during the Spring Recess 2016, on matters usually considered by the City Planning Committee, be noted.

Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS? Councillor SIMMONDS: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Just for expediency, today I'll deal with the three petitions that were agreed in recess and leave a fuller report until next week. The three that are on the agenda item today are a petition to undertake a master plan for Sandgate. It was the first one it related to, the petition requesting funds and support for the preparation of a community master plan for Sandgate and the surrounding areas—was received during the election recess. Councillors may be aware that Sandgate is covered by an existing neighbourhood plan which aims to retain the bayside identity and character homes in the area. It's our belief and hence the response that the current neighbourhood plan is appropriate for the area and therefore the master plan isn't required. In addition, the petition responsible also notes the number of ongoing commitments to invest in the Sandgate area that this Administration is making. I note Councillor CASSIDY’s, as local Councillor, support on the recommendation and supported the response. The second petition related to the public walkway at Mactaggarts in Teneriffe. So two petitions were received from residents requesting that Council re-establish the public walkway in Teneriffe. This followed the Mactaggarts body corporate, Woolstore body corporate, erecting a fence which prevented public access which was previously enjoyed by local residents through to the river—prevented that access. Councillor HOWARD I know, well before the petitions were even received, you were investigating this issue for your local community and trying to find a solution. The primary problem here of course is that the original development approval approved by the previous Labor Administration in 1994 was completely silent on the matter of public access to the river. It is a great shame Councillor COOPER. Of course it didn't have a fence there but of course it didn't preserve the right for public access either. So when the Mactaggarts body corporate made what they thought was their own decision, as they are entitled to make by the body corporate, Council was left with no ability to step in based on a lack of DA conditions in order to retain public access. Well look I'll take Councillor CUMMING's interjection because here is just like —very much like he's parroting his Labor colleagues in the State, who first thing they do whenever they've got an issue, a public issue, throw up their hands and say oh it's Council's fault; Council did it; I can't do anything; sorry, not sorry, the local Councillor will fix it.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 67 -

Well the case here is that we were badly let down by the previous Labor Administration who didn't condition it, but it gets a little bit worse, because then of course—no, no, Councillor HOWARD taking the—it's coming Councillor CUMMING don't worry—Councillor HOWARD then taking the initiative, along with this Administration, we write to the Department of Environment and Heritage about this particular thing. It is a State heritage place after all. You'd think the local State Member would have that interest. She didn't Grace Grace but we did. So we wrote to them and in fact, yes, they confirmed it is not able—they are not able to put up a fence without approval from the Queensland Heritage Department right. But unfortunately—so you'd think given that Grace Grace was supporting the residents, supporting them saying they had to go talk to the local Council to fix it, it was a disgrace, you'd think that department, the State Government, would be hesitant to then approve said fence. Not the case, unfortunately, not the case, because the letter here from the department quite clearly says that they now need to apply, the body corporate now needs to apply for an exemption certificate under the Queensland Heritage Act and the department believe, quote unquote, it’s likely that an application for an exemption certificate would be supported. Wow, wow, so it's not just that it's not a council issue, it's not just at the State Member, rather than talking a bit, again should have actually done something about it herself, but in fact the State Member is now through the State Government and the State Government Department is going to facilitate the very outcome that the residents don't want. Well there you go, Madam Chairman, just another example of how the Labor Councillors down here defend their State colleagues and how Labor in general say one thing in public and do completely the opposite. They say they protect heritage and character and then demolish homes themselves. They say they don't want a fence when they approve a fence. Councillor SRI: Point of order, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Point of order against you, Councillor SIMMONDS. Councillor SRI has point of order. Councillor SRI: I draw to your attention a possible act of disorder under section 21(1) subsection (c). I believe Councillor SIMMONDS made a statement reflecting adversely on the character of someone else. Chairman: Sorry, can you speak a little bit more clearly; it was just a little bit difficult. Councillor SRI: Sure. So subsection 21(1)(c), Councillor SIMMONDS' previous comment adversely reflected on the character of another person. Chairman: Sorry, adversely reflected on whom? Councillor SRI: On the character of Grace Grace, I believe also on the character of the other Labor Councillors here in this Chamber. Chairman: Well, Councillor SIMMONDS, would you care to reconsider your statement? Councillor SIMMONDS: No, Madam Chairman, truth is its own defence and everything I've said is entirely true, so there you go. Chairman: Thank you. Councillor SIMMONDS: Madam Chairman, the final, the final petition is for 11-15 Querrin Street, Yeronga. Petition was received regarding a DA for multiple dwelling units on part of the current Yeronga Bowls Club. Now this DA is currently under assessment, so would be inappropriate for me to comment on the outcome of this application, except to say as highlighted in the petition response, that the concerns of the petitioners will be taken into account as part of the assessment process and that Councillor JOHNSTON, as the local Councillor, was advised and supported the recommendation that was approved in the recess as well. There you go, Madam Chairman, those are the three petitions; I'll leave the debate to the Chamber.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 68 -

Chairman: Further debate? Nothing further? Councillor SIMMONDS?

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion was declared carried on the voices.

The report read as follows

A PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL UNDERTAKE A MASTER PLAN FOR SANDGATE AND SURROUNDING AREAS CA16/208993 171/2016-17 1. A petition requesting that Council consider providing funds and support for the preparation of a community Master Plan for Sandgate and the surrounding area was received during the Election Recess 2016.

2. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, supplied the following information.

3. The petition contains 19 signatures. The petition suggests that there is no clear vision or theme for the region. The petition requests funding and support for the creation of a Master Plan to explore the highest and best possible use for key areas and sites in Sandgate and to set the tone and framework for priorities for the local area.

4. Sandgate and the surrounding suburbs are currently covered by the Sandgate District Neighbourhood Plan (the neighbourhood plan). The overall outcomes for the neighbourhood plan are to retain the bayside identity and ‘timber and tin’ character areas. The Sandgate town centre is intended to continue to be the focus for retail and personal services in a compact centre that reinforces local landmarks. It is considered that the neighbourhood plan and other associated provisions in Brisbane City Plan 2014 continue to provide appropriate guidance for these aims and for development in the area.

5. Council has active commitments in the Sandgate district concerning foreshore recreation, tourism and for investigating the renewal of the Sandgate district centre.

6. The renewed Shorncliffe Pier was opened on 26 March 2016, in conjunction with the Bluewater Festival, which marks the start of Australia’s second biggest sailing race, the Brisbane to Gladstone. The Pier was closed in 2012 due to safety concerns and has since undergone extensive reconstruction. Council has invested $20 million in this project and the reopened Shorncliffe Pier provides a focal point for the community.

7. In 1997, Council and local businesses completed a Suburban Centre Improvement Project at the Sandgate town centre along Brighton Road, which subsequently supported new investment in shops and facilities in the Sandgate district centre. Council has also committed to install free Wi-Fi to Sandgate Village within the next four years.

Consultation

8. Councillor Jared Cassidy, Councillor for the Ward of Deagon, has been consulted on 30 August 2016 and supports the recommendation

9. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting held on 19 September 2016.

10. DECISION:

THAT THE HEAD PETITIONER BE ADVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT RESPONSE AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 69 -

Attachment A Draft Response

Petition Reference: CA16/208993

Thank you for your petition requesting that Council undertake a Master Plan for Sandgate.

Your petition was considered by the Establishment and Coordination Committee, as delegate of Council during recess, at the meeting of 19 September 2016 and I can now respond to you with the following information.

Sandgate and surrounding suburbs are currently covered by the Sandgate District Neighbourhood Plan (the neighbourhood plan). The overall outcomes for the neighbourhood plan are to retain the bayside identity and ‘timber and tin’ character areas. The Sandgate town centre is intended to continue to be the focus for retail and personal services in a compact centre that reinforces local landmarks. It is considered that the neighbourhood plan and other associated provisions in Brisbane City Plan 2014 continue to provide appropriate guidance for development in the area.

As you may be aware, the renewed Shorncliffe Pier was opened on 26 March 2016, in conjunction with the Bluewater Festival, which marks the start of Australia’s second biggest sailing race, the Brisbane to Gladstone. The Pier was closed in 2012 due to safety concerns and has since undergone extensive reconstruction. Council invested $20 million in this project, and the reopened Shorncliffe Pier provides a focal point for the community.

Council has also committed to install free Wi-Fi to Sandgate Village within the next four years. A community survey undertaken by Council in late 2015 provides valuable guidance on community priorities to be considered for planning for future projects in the Sandgate community.

In 1997, Council and local businesses completed a Suburban Centre Improvement Project at the Sandgate town centre along Brighton Road, which subsequently supported new investment in shops and facilities in the Sandgate district centre.

The current neighbourhood plan and Council’s investment in major projects such as the Shorncliffe Pier and free Wi-Fi in Sandgate Village, demonstrate Council’s commitment to Sandgate’s future as an attractive bayside location that suitably reflects the character and heritage of the area.

For the reasons set out above, I must advise that Council cannot support undertaking a master planning exercise for Sandgate at this time.

I trust this information is of assistance. Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Mark Leary, Senior Urban Planner, in Council’s City Planning and Sustainability Division, on (07) 3403 8888.

It would be appreciated if you would please advise your fellow petitioners accordingly.

Thank you for taking the time to raise this matter with Council.

B PETITIONS – REQUESTING THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF MACTAGGARTS PLACE WALKWAY IN TENERIFFE CA16/616399 and CA16/626729 172/2016-17 11. Two petitions from residents requesting that Council re-establish the Mactaggarts Place walkway in Teneriffe were presented to Council on 2 August 2016, by Councillor Vicki Howard, and received.

12. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, supplied the following information.

13. The two petitions comprised 460 and 668 signatures respectively. The petitions request Council use its statutory powers and best endeavours to re-establish or to create and maintain a public pedestrian

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 70 -

walkway between Vernon Terrace and the river walkway that passes through Mactaggarts Place, 53 Vernon Terrace, Teneriffe.

14. Prior to the petitions being presented, Council had already commenced investigation into the matter following representations from the local Councillor, Councillor Vicki Howard.

15. The principal petitioner emailed the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor, Councillor Graham Quirk, on 30 June 2016, expressing his concerns about the installation of a fence that blocked access to Mactaggarts Place, Vernon Terrace and the river walkway. The Lord Mayor responded to Mr Pritchard’s concerns on 1 August 2016.

16. Officers from Compliance and Regulatory Services (CARS), Environmental Management Team (EMT), Development Assessment (DA) and City Planning and Economic Development (CPED) have investigated the matter and the outcomes are as summarised below:

- Council remains committed to encouraging access and activity along the river as outlined in the River's Edge Strategy. This strategy identifies a vision, principles and potential projects for the inner-city reaches of the river. Pedestrian connections along the river are an important element of the River's Edge Strategy.

- The constructed fence was placed on private land owned by the Mactaggarts Place Body Corporate, to prevent public access through the private property. Although this may be inconvenient for pedestrians and certainly is not an action that Council encourages or supports, this is an action which is permitted on private property.

- The development approval issued in 1994 for the Mactaggarts building did not require public access to be provided from Vernon Terrace to the river walkway through the area in question and there is no requirement for public access to be maintained by way of an easement conditioned as part of the approval. The approval only required the developer to dedicate land adjacent to the river to Council as parkland, as well as to construct the section of river walkway adjacent to the site.

- Alterations such as the installation of an internal fence in the manner undertaken do not require development approval by Council despite the site being a Heritage Place. However, in an attempt to explore all avenues, Council has approached the Queensland Government Department of Environment and Heritage requesting it to investigate whether it has any powers to intervene in this matter, as the Mactaggarts building is on the State Heritage Register. Officers from that Department have since visited the site, and Council has not yet been advised the outcome of that inspection.

17. Prior to the Teneriffe Festival, the Lord Mayor wrote to the Body Corporate for Mactaggarts Place, requesting it to reconsider its decision to erect the fence in this location. The Lord Mayor recently received a response which indicated that the Body Corporate would not do so.

Consultation

18. Councillor Vicki Howard, Councillor for Central Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

19. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting held on 10 October 2016.

20. DECISION:

THAT THE PRINCIPAL PETITIONER BE ADVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT RESPONSE AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.

Attachment A Draft Response

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 71 -

Petition Reference: CA16/616399 and CA16/626729

Thank you for your petitions requesting Council use its statutory powers and best endeavours to re- establish or to create and maintain a public pedestrian walkway between Vernon Terrace and the river walkway that passes through Mactaggarts Place, 53 Vernon Terrace, Teneriffe.

Prior to the petitions being received Council had already commenced an investigation into the matter, following representations from the local Councillor, Councillor Vicki Howard.

Council remains committed to encouraging access and activity along the river as outlined in the River's Edge Strategy. This strategy identifies a vision, principles and potential projects for the inner-city reaches of the river. I can assure you that pedestrian connections along the river are an important element of the River's Edge Strategy.

The recently-constructed fence was placed on the private land owned by the Mactaggarts Place Body Corporate to prevent public access through the private property. Although I appreciate that this may be inconvenient for pedestrians and certainly is not an action that Council encourages or supports, this is nonetheless an action which is permitted on private property.

Council officers have reviewed the development approval issued in 1994 for the Mactaggarts building and advise that the approval did not require public access to be provided from Vernon Terrace to the river walkway through the area in question, and there is no requirement for public access to be maintained by way of an easement conditioned as part of the approval. The approval only required the developer to dedicate land adjacent to the river to Council as parkland, as well as to construct the section of river walkway adjacent to the site.

The installation of an internal fence in the manner undertaken does not require development approval by Council, despite the site being a Heritage Place. However, in an attempt to explore all avenues, Council has approached the Queensland Government Department of Environment and Heritage requesting it to investigate whether it has any powers to intervene in this matter, as Mactaggarts building is on the State Heritage Register. I have been advised that officers from the Department of Environment and Heritage have conducted a site visit, however Council has not yet been advised of the outcome of the inspection. You may wish to make representation to the local Member of State Parliament in relation to following up the outcome of that inspection.

I am aware that the Lord Mayor wrote to the Body Corporate for Mactaggarts prior to the Teneriffe Festival, asking the Body Corporate to reconsider its decision to erect the fence in this location. The Body Corporate has since replied, advising that it will not reconsider the decision.

While I understand and appreciate that this is not the outcome you were hoping for, I trust that the above information has outlined Council's pursuit of the matter on behalf of the community.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Andrew Taylor, Urban Planner, City Planning and Economic Development, City Planning and Sustainability on (07) 3178 5190.

Thank you for raising this matter.

C PETITION – OBJECTING TO A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR MULTIPLE DWELLINGS (50 UNITS) AND A RECONFIGURATION OF A LOT FOR AN ACCESS EASEMENT AT 11–15 QUERRIN STREET, YERONGA CA16/657604 173/2016-17 21. A petition from residents objecting to a development application on Querrin Street, Yeronga was presented to Council on 9 August 2016, by Councillor Nicole Johnston, and received.

22. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, supplied the following information.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 72 -

23. The petition contained 14 names and objected to the proposed development at 11–15 Querrin Street, Yeronga. The petitioners’ concerns include the following: - inconsistent with current zoning - built form and design - visitor spaces provided - privacy and amenity - overdevelopment - drainage from stormwater runoff - town planning assessment report - buffering to Yeronga Bowls Club clubhouse.

24. The subject site contains a Local Heritage Place and is within the sport and recreation zone, and located in the Moorooka-Stephens district neighbourhood plan of the Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan).

25. The Council citation for the Local Heritage Place indicates the Yeronga Bowls Club was formed in 1912 and opened in 1913. The heritage citation identifies the club house, memorial drinking fountain (1942) and the Querrin Street commemorative gates and decorative fencing (1969) to be of local heritage significance.

26. An application for multiple dwellings (50 units), reconfiguration of a lot for an access easement and a Preliminary Approval to carry out building works on part of the Yeronga Bowls Club was received by Council on 24 May 2016. The application is currently being assessed against the requirements of the City Plan and in accordance with the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.

27. An Information Request was issued by Council on 12 July 2016 requesting the applicant justify the proposed development against the strategic framework and sport and recreation zone code in City Plan.

28. Other matters within the Information Request included building height, local heritage impacts, built form in terms of setbacks, site cover, open space, deep landscape planting, stormwater, traffic, refuse collection, unit type and how the proposal addresses Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles. The width of the access easement along the western boundary and conflicts with infrastructure were also identified.

29. The applicant has until 12 December 2016 to provide a full response to the Information Request. As the application is subject to impact assessment, public notification will be carried out for 15 business days once the Information Request response is received by Council.

30. A change to the development application was received by Council on 15 September 2016 under section 351 of Sustainable Planning Act 2009. This change was to amend the proposal to include the balance area of the Yeronga Bowl Club fronting School Road. As a result of this change, a new Acknowledgement Notice and Information Request is to be reissued for any new matters arising from the changed application.

Consultation

31. Councillor Nicole Johnston, Councillor for Tennyson Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

32. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting held on 17 October 2016.

33. DECISION:

THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT RESPONSE AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.

Attachment A Draft Response

Petition Reference: CA16/657604

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 73 -

Thank you for your petition, presented to Council at the meeting of 9 August 2016, objecting to the proposed development at 11–15 Querrin Street, Yeronga (application reference A004393354).

Your petition was considered by the Establishment and Coordination Committee, as delegate of Council during recess, at the meeting of 17 October 2016 and Council can respond to you as follows.

The applicant amended the application under section 351 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 on 15 September 2016 to include the balance area of the Yeronga Bowls Club site. The application is currently being assessed against the requirements of the Brisbane City Plan 2014 and in accordance with the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.

The concerns raised in the petition will be taken into consideration during the assessment of the development application. Public notification for 15 business days will be carried out once a full response to the Information Request is received.

Details of the development application can be viewed online by visiting Council’s website at www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/pdonline and searching the application reference number A004393354.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Rory Kelly, Team Manager, Development Assessment Planning Services South, on (07) 3403 8888.

Thank you for raising this matter.

ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE

Councillor Norm WYNDHAM, Chairman of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Andrew WINES , that the report setting out the decisions of the Establishment and Coordination Committee as delegate of Council during the Spring Recess 2016, on matters usually considered by the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, be noted.

Chairman: Councillor WYNDHAM. Councillor WYNDHAM: Madam Chair, I rise just to speak mainly on the Boondall Wetlands Environment Centre 20th anniversary. It's been a longstanding and successful environment centre for our city and I guess the wetlands is 1,100 hectares of tidal flats, native melaleucas, mangroves, saltmarsh and of course it is our largest environmental wetland area in the southeast corner of the State. Boondall Wetlands has been managed quite successfully over those years; in fact it's seen not a lot of change, which is a great thing. We also of course, during our day of recognition of the 20th anniversary at Boondall Wetlands, we had a little celebration. We had Maroochy, who we all know here, did the welcome to country, but we also had the Guruman Dance Group which were really quite fabulous because they had a couple of little young fellas there dancing with them and the crowd really enjoyed that and I, too, enjoyed it. But what really was the highlight of the day was the visit by the seven people from the Narashino City's wetlands where we have the Ramsar agreement, which is coming up to its resigning early in February next year and that resigning of the Yatsu Higata wetlands agreement with Australia and the Ramsar agreement, will be done with the LORD MAYOR and the Mayor of Narashino. The Mayor of Narashino sent a letter to our LORD MAYOR but also, on top of that, one of the ladies who came with the visitors, Ui San, she was quite a lovely lady and she presented myself with a gift for the LORD MAYOR for the city and its two birds but they're felted out of cotton and she makes these bird dolls and these are to scale and to weight. There's also a little crab in there that's made out of bamboo, I expect that came from Japan too. But it was wonderful to see them and to talk to them and particularly if you look at the workmanship here of what she's done with this felting, because I'm sure if you understand how felting is done, it's pretty unique because basically you make the product and then by

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 74 -

washing it, et cetera, it shrinks and tightens up. So that is how felt is made, so she's made a large one of course, washed it carefully and as it shrinks, it then makes these little shore birds, the little tattlers. So, LORD MAYOR, there's a gift on behalf of the Lord Mayor of Narashino for our city, but it was a truly unique experience, particularly talking to this person. She was just so full of passion about her little dollmaking, she calls it. But it was a very successful day and I note also that Councillor CASSIDY was there, along with myself and Councillor ALLAN, we all enjoyed a few sausages, some dim sims and a cup of coffee and it was a great day. I think that's what environment is really about, it's about bringing together cities, bringing together people and educating others. So thank you. Chairman: Any further debate? Have you concluded yet, Councillor WYNDHAM? Any further debate? I will now put the report.

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion was declared carried on the voices.

The report read as follows

A PETITION – REQUESTING A PLAYGROUND UPGRADE AND IMPROVEMENT OF FACILITIES AT MERRI MERRI PARK, CHAPEL HILL CA16/585304 174/2016-17 1. A petition from residents, requesting a playground upgrade and improvement of facilities at Merri Merri Park, Chapel Hill, was received during the Winter Recess 2016.

2. The Executive Manager, Field Services Group, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.

3. Council has received a petition requesting that playground equipment be upgraded and that Council adds seating and a new toilet block in Merri Merri Park, Chapel Hill. The petition contains 27 signatures.

4. Merri Merri Park is a local area park situated in Chapel Hill. The park currently has the following facilities: - dog off-leash area - picnic node including electric barbeque, shelter, tap and seating - play equipment including basketball half-court - pathways.

5. The park currently has four picnic settings and five seats which are spaced around the facilities of the park. Asset Services West Region considers this sufficient for the park’s current and future use.

6. The play equipment is in good condition and caters for a range of users from toddlers to pre-teens. The condition of the equipment is reasonable, but a future upgrade should be considered. The play area has a climbing structure, swings, spring-toys, spinners and a shopfront-style imaginary play item. Maps and photographs of the subject site are available on file.

7. As Merri Merri Park is classified as a local park, Asset Services West Region does not support the installation of a toilet block.

8. The existing electric barbeque has been scheduled for an upgrade and it is anticipated this will be completed by the end of June 2017. Asset Services West Region has agreed to list the playground in a future capital listing.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 75 -

Funding

9. The playground upgrade will be listed in Schedule 246 Play Safe Upgrades under Program 1 – Clean, Green and WaterSmart City.

Consultation

10. Councillor Kate Richards, Councillor for Pullenvale Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

11. The Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its meeting held on 10 October 2016.

12. DECISION:

THAT THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER.

Attachment A Draft Response

Petition Reference: CA16/585304

Thank you for your petition requesting a playground upgrade and improvement of facilities at Merri Merri Park, Chapel Hill.

Council has completed an on-site investigation of Merri Merri Park and considered your proposed improvements.

With regards to the play equipment, it is considered to be in reasonably good condition. However, an upgrade of the play equipment has been listed for future consideration. As funds need to be specifically set aside in a future budget for this work, Council is unable to provide a construction date at this time. Each June, all listed projects are prioritised and assessed against the overall needs of the city. Approved works have the highest priority in terms of public safety, convenience and the number of people directly benefiting in relation to the cost.

Currently the park has four picnic settings and five seats which are spaced around the facilities in the park which is considered to be sufficient for the park’s current and future use.

Council provides amenities in a park based on the intended usage of the park. Merri Merri Park is a local park intended for use by the immediate community and as such, the installation of a toilet block would not be justified.

Council has agreed to upgrade the existing electric barbeque by the end of June 2017.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Shane Klepper, Regional Coordinator Parks, West Region, Asset Services on (07) 3403 8888.

Thank you for raising this matter.

CONSIDERATION OF NOTIFIED MOTION – MELBOURNE CUP 2016: (Notified motions are printed as supplied and are not edited) 175/2016-17 The Chairman of Council (Councillor Angela OWEN) then drew the Councillors’ attention to the notified motion listed on the agenda, and called on Coucillor Andrew WINES to move the motion. Accordingly, Coucillor Andrew WINES moved, seconded by Councillor Fiona KING—

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 76 -

That Council alter the commencement time of the Ordinary Council Meeting to be held on Tuesday, 1 November 2016 from 2pm to 2.30pm.

Chairman: Councillor WINES. Councillor WINES: Thank you, Madam Chairman. As I was saying, this is an ordinary motion that we do every year to press the meeting back half an hour and this has occurred every year that I've been here and is a longstanding tradition and it's very uncontroversial. Chairman: Any further debate? Councillor SRI. Councillor SRI: Thanks. Just at the risk of being killjoy, I would just note my opposition to this motion because I consider horse racing a cruel and inhumane act. While I know that the Melbourne Cup is a very, very important cultural institution and I understand a lot of people enjoy it and celebrate it, I think it's really cruel what we do to those horses and I don’t think horse racing is something that this Chamber should endorse. Thank you. Chairman: Any further debate? Nothing further? Councillor WINES in right of reply?

Upon being submitted to the Chamber by the Chairman, the motion was declared carried on the voices.

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:

Chairman: So Councillors, please note that in your diary for next Tuesday, that we will commence Council meeting at 2:30pm. Councillors, are there any petitions? Councillor BOURKE. Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, I have just got a petition about changing a speed limit on Sumners Roads in River Hills. Chairman: Councillor CUMMING. Councillor CUMMING: Madam Chair, I've got a petition from residents complaining about traffic conditions in Fortitude Valley. Chairman: Councillor SUTTON. Councillor SUTTON: Yes, Madam Chair, every so often you have to present one you don’t support, this is mine: petition seeking to change the local planning zone in Brock, Aeroplane and Barina Streets and a second one, which I do support, is the call for the upgrade of Lytton Road. Chairman: Councillor STRUNK. Councillor STRUNK: Madam Chair, I've got two petitions, one in regards to residents who want the parking in and around the Centennial Way addressed and a second one in regards to a petition from ratepayers in regards to the increase in rates. Thank you. Chairman: Councillor WINES. Councillor WINES: I have a petition here from cricket enthusiasts hoping to name a location in Woolloongabba for an iconic cricketing figure. Chairman: No further petitions? Councillor WINES, could I have a motion for receipt of the petitions please?

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 77 -

176/2016-17 It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Andrew WINES, seconded by Councillor Jared CASSIDY, that the petitions as presented be received and referred to the Committee concerned for consideration and report.

The petitions were summarised as follows:

File No. Councillor Topic CA16/878586 Matthew Bourke Requesting Council that the reduced speed limit on Sumners Road, Riverhills (from Horizon Drive), be upgraded to the previous speed limit of 60 km/h CA16/878709 Peter Cumming Requesting that Council install safer crossing facilities and signage at the intersection of Martin and Brunswick Streets, Fortitude Valley CA16/878718 Shayne Sutton Seeking change to Local Planning Zone and removal of Character Zone 1 DCP overlay CA16/867087 Shayne Sutton Requesting Council for an upgrade to Lytton Road CA16/878781 Charles Strunk Requesting Council for a solution to relieve congestion, stop illegal parking and create a safe, easy access on Centennial Way (east end), Forest Lake CA16/878950 Charles Strunk Requesting Council for a review of rates increase in the Forest Lake Ward CA16/878991 Andrew Wines Requesting Council to name the new park type area at the end of Hampton Street, Woolloongabba, as Wally Grout Place or Park.

GENERAL BUSINESS:

Chairman: Councillors, are there any statements required as a result of a Councillor Conduct Review Panel Order? There being no Councillors rising to their feet, Councillors, are there any matters of general business? Councillor SUTTON, you were on your feet first. Councillor SUTTON: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to cover four things tonight. I just want to touch on the Engine Room debate that we had earlier on today. I want to talk about the 10-year anniversary of Shakespeare on Oxford on 4MBS, Coorparoo and District Neighbourhood Plan, and if I get time, Halloween. Look, just I'm revisiting the engine room debate because I really feel that and I want to start by giving an apology to Councillor HOWARD, for what happened in that debate, because I think that the reaction to my initial comment that I made about her probably wasn't what I expected. I actually expected there not to be any reaction to it and then I didn't handle it very well. So I wanted to publicly apologise to Councillor HOWARD. I did go to try to apologise to her after the debate and I can understand why she's very angry with me at the moment. I guess my point in that debate was trying to say I felt that we targeted the RFP to the wrong sector and then to seek to explain why we only had two respondents. I want to really say and I know that Councillor HOWARD called point of order to say she didn't mention the RFP at the event on 30 June, I really also want to say that even if she had of, I don't think there would have been anything inappropriate about that because the RFP was out and it was open, it was being advertised. It was advertised on the 22nd and this event was on the 30th. So I really do, you know, sometimes in this place with all the interjections that happen and everything and I wanted to stand up and say, I didn't handle it well, I didn't explain myself well and I just wanted to apologise to Councillor HOWARD for any embarrassment or stress or concern that that caused her because it was not intentional. It was a by-product of the actual argument I was trying to make.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 78 -

The second thing, just about that debate and I acknowledge the information that the LORD MAYOR brought in about the date of the registration of Uniting Hands. Madam Chair, I went up on Friday and checked the file, like I'm always told to do and this is the Uniting Hands submission to run the Engine Room. In that submission, this is what it actually says, “Key points about the Uniting Hands Foundation, it was in operation since 2010 with branches in Australia and Nepal, but it became a registered an Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission registered organisation within Australia in June 2016” and it then quotes the charity Australian Business Number. So when I got up and I said, June 2016, it was because of information contained in the Uniting Hands proposal that they submitted to Council for consideration. So again, I apologise for that mistake and I just think it's important to put that kind of thing on the public record when that happens. The second thing I wanted to talk about, on a happy note, is the 4MBS, the fabulous classic music station that is based at Coorparoo. They have actually never been in my ward, but I love them and I have had the privilege of working with them for many, many years on a whole range of initiatives. In September we celebrated Shakespeare on Oxford, 10 years of that event and there was a big dinner in Oxford Street, Bulimba, and there were lots of Shakespearean performances, hard Shakespeare trivia and it was a great culmination of the 10-year anniversary with the live public performance in Bulimba Memorial Park on the Sunday. On the Sunday I actually wore two hats, one which was as the local Councillor of Morningside supporting 10 years of the event, the second was as a Bulimba Girl Guide's mum, having baked and made sandwiches for the entire morning and then cursing myself in the afternoon, having encouraged the establishment of the relationship before 4MBS and the Bulimba Girl Guides at the time when they first, because Bulimba Girl Guides have been providing the catering for that event for longer than my daughter has been a Girl Guide. So I'm now reaping the fruits of that relationship in a very, very personal way. So I just wanted to congratulate Gary Thorpe and his team at 4MBS. They are a community radio station that punches above their weight in terms of the delivery not just of community radio, but so many other wonderful initiatives and festivals around Brisbane. I just wish I could support them in any other way; I would love to do so. I don't think they're supported by government enough across all levels. I think there really is a role for a classical music station and I know they struggle because of the lack of funding they get organisationally. So I just wanted to give them a big shout out because they do an amazing job and congratulate them on 10 years of the Shakespeare festival.

At that time, 6.05pm, the Deputy Chairman, Councillor Vicki HOWARD, assumed the Chair.

In terms of the Coorparoo and District Neighbourhood Plan, I really don’t understand what Councillor SIMMONDS and the LORD MAYOR are afraid of when it comes to the contents of the Coorparoo and District Neighbourhood Plan and why they are so reluctant to provide the number of dwellings that are being removed from the traditional building character overlay. They've produced the draft Coorparoo and District Neighbourhood Plan strategy, it clearly has a map in it that shows a number of properties will be removed from that building character overlay, traditional building character overlay. The community wants to know about this, that is the question that they are asking. I'll now ask Councillor SIMMONDS and the LORD MAYOR, if you're going to have a neighbourhood plan, own it. I don't understand if Councillor SIMMONDS is to be believed and there is a net gain of houses to be proposed, more houses to be protected, I don't understand why he's not prepared to come out and give us the number of homes that are being removed; there are some being added. I would like to know how many are being removed and how many are being added, as with the community. I think that if they want to be

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 79 -

proud of this neighbourhood plan and they are proud of what they put to paper, they shouldn’t be afraid to actually release that number. For the life of me, I can't understand why they are so afraid of that. Finally on Halloween, obviously that's coming up and there are a range of Halloween events happening around the place. I know I've got my Halloween costume for Hocus Pocus next Monday all sorted out and I just really wanted to make sure that the LNP have made all the necessary precautions to check to make sure that Councillor WINES' costume is all sorted out, because I think that is the question on everybody's lips across Brisbane, how can Councillor WINES excel himself this time round for his Halloween costume. I know I will be glued to Twitter on Saturday night to watching for the tweet to see what costume that is. I promise, I make the solemn vow and commitment and promise here to everyone tonight that I promise not to wear Lycra on the Monday. I just call and tell Councillor WINES to do the same thing here tonight. Deputy Chairman: Thank you. Further general business? Councillor OWEN. Councillor OWEN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Chairman, I rise to speak tonight to reflect on the police funeral today of Acting Chief Superintendent Paul Ziebarth. For many of the Councillors in this place, they would have had interaction with Chief Superintendent Ziebarth through professional networks but also through the many different multicultural networks that exist in this city. I would like to take this opportunity to express and extend sincere personal condolences on the passing of Chief Superintendent Ziebarth who I had the privilege of knowing for a number of years through our professional working relationship. Like many of the Councillors here in this place who have had interactions with him, we have always been impressed by his dedication to serving the community through policing, which he has always done with exemplary professionalism. For many of us, we know his focus was about partnerships. He had partnerships with us as local Brisbane City Councillors, he had partnerships as the Queensland Police Service representative on the Local Disaster Management Group and he had partnerships with many different multicultural communities, not only here in Brisbane but also across the Southern and South Eastern Policing Region. Paul had predominantly worked most of his time in the City of Brisbane and also in the South East Region which extends all the way down to the Gold Coast and it was prior to me being elected when he was based down the Gold Coast that I had interactions with him in the first instance. Then over the years, we have met up at many different multicultural events. He was a great supporter of our citizenship ceremonies here in City Hall, but also he was very dedicated to the local community. Today, as part of his service, he was awarded posthumously the Queensland Police Service Meritorious Service Award; an award which I believe is truly deserved. There have been a number of times where I had worked with him very closely towards a resolution and these included very difficult community situations, one of which I reflect on was the very distressing murder of a child in January this year in Parkinson. This extremely difficult situation impacted on the local community, impacted on our local police officers and when the community was requesting a candlelight vigil, Chief Superintendent Ziebarth and I worked closely together to coordinate that candlelight vigil in a respectful community manner that would not only support the family, but also support the community and the Police who were first responders. I do recall sitting in that park with him that morning that we held the candlelight vigil and him saying that the officers from Calamvale Police Station had been dealing with it on the front line and he wanted to bring in officers from other stations to support their colleagues and to support the community so those officers who had dealt with it first and foremost knew that they were supported. This was the kind of man that Chief Superintendent Paul Ziebarth was. He had,

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 80 -

as a primary focus, the care and wellbeing of those around him as an utmost priority. He is a man that I have such respect for and I hold in the highest regard. He demonstrated dedication in many ways and most importantly, he was a man of integrity, common sense and a genuine family man. To his wife, Tina, his children, Sarah, Amy, Matthew, his grandson Kane and the two grandchildren that he unfortunately will not get to meet, it was an honour and a privilege to attend his funeral service today, on behalf of the City of Brisbane. At that funeral service today, it was quite evident that there were many people there from many different multicultural communities; many different faiths and they were there because of the relationship they had with him as a man, as a friend and as a Police Officer. He had this capacity to transcend from a professional relationship to making people feel like he was their friend. He was held in very high esteem by not just the leaders of those multicultural and multi- faith communities, but also by the wider community. This is testimony to his caring and compassionate approach to, his understanding of, and his willingness to engage with people of diverse backgrounds. Many years ago, Paul commenced his police service as a motorcycle officer and spent a lot of time in Road Policing Command and he also followed the footsteps of his father who was also a serving police officer. He headed up the Public Safety Response Team and one of his key focuses was the words, let's look after the young folk. He had a dedication to Police Citizens Youth Clubs, he strongly believed in its ideals and strongly supported all that it upheld. The respect that Paul was held in by his colleagues was clearly demonstrated at his service today. I've had numerous discussions with not only commissioned officers, but also officers in the rank and file who worked under Paul's command was regarded as a true leader and it is his compassionate nature that really comes through. Some of the words that I've heard in the last week to describe him include dignified, calm, measured, reliable, strategic, genuine, a family man, but most repeatedly, caring. He certainly was this. He was very much a family man and I know that he was very dedicated to his wife and his children and his grandson. Certainly we had conversations from time to time about teenage boys because our sons were both born in 2001 and it is testimony to the upbringing that Paul has ensured, that his son had the strength to be a pallbearer at his funeral today. In that regard, I know that Matthew is going to grow up to be a very, very dignified man of the future. One thing that many people might not know is that Chief Superintendent Ziebarth was an avid recycler and whether it was cars or anything else, he did choose to really go out and make sure there was no waste and that was certainly something that came through in his eulogy today. Our community, the Queensland Police Service and his family, have lost a very decent, loving and caring man and to his family, and his colleagues, I know the times ahead will be difficult, but on behalf of the City of Brisbane, we appreciate the time that he served the Queensland Police, our city and our community. We will remember him, hasten the dawn. With honour he served. Deputy Chairman: Thank you, Councillor OWEN. Further general business? Councillor SRI. Councillor SRI: Thank you, Madam Deputy Chair and I just briefly, in that I seek your clarification. I understand I'm allowed to speak on multiple items of general business for 10 minutes each, is that correct? Deputy Chairman: Councillor SRI, yes, you just announce what items you'll be speaking on and then you speak to those items.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 81 -

Councillor SRI: Okay, so I rise— Deputy Chairman: Not 10 minutes each, one 10 minute, sorry, I couldn't hear— Councillor SRI: No, that's fine. Deputy Chairman: You might just need to speak a little slower. Councillor SRI: Happily. Deputy Chairman: That's better. Councillor SRI: I'll speak slower and enunciate and I rise first to acknowledge the very sad news that's just come through today that four people were killed at Dreamworld on a ride on the Gold Coast and I express my condolences to the friends and families of those people. It's very shocking news and I'm sure we'll all be saddened to hear that. It's still breaking as we speak, but it really sounds awful and I'm so sorry for those families. I rise to speak on the issues of homelessness, of late night construction noise and if there is time, on transparency and accountable democracy here in this Chamber. On Thursday, as I'm sure many people are aware, Council officers moved on a number of homeless people who were sleeping rough under the Go-Between Bridge in my electorate. I have expressed to Councillor BOURKE my frustrations that as the Local Councillor I wasn't kept in the loop and informed in advance of Council's concerns about that issue and that no one bothered to ask me my opinion or consult with me before those move-on orders were issued and he has very kindly given me that commitment that in future, for similar issues, I will be kept in the loop and I really appreciate that, Councillor BOURKE. But I do want to make the comment that responding to homelessness by moving people on is not actually just sweeping the mess under the rug, it's better described as adding more crap to the mess, smearing it around with your foot, spitting in it and then hiding it under multiple rugs in different parts of the house. Last Thursday, people not only lost a lot of possessions and a dry place to sleep, they lost access to a community meeting space where they could share resources and information, they lost access to a dry, well-lit space where they could get out of the rain, they lost access to a place where they could socialise with visiting friends and find relative safety in numbers. The stated justification for the mass move-on order was public safety and hygiene concerns. A cynic might say that that's code for wealthy developers, and investors complained that the rough sleepers were devaluing their new apartments. Before we get carried away with media reports of urinating, swearing and drinking in public, we should remember that rough sleepers are not degenerate vagrants. They are human beings just like the rest of us who happen to be on the wrong end of a ruthless and economically unsustainable housing bubble. Homelessness is complex, particularly under the bridges along the Kurilpa Peninsula where people have sought refuge and shelter for decades. Every so often, Brisbane City Council forcibly breaks up these makeshift camps, but does very little to address the underlying problems. Most rough sleepers have significant physical and mental health issues which they do not receive sufficient support and treatment. Many homeless people struggle to access welfare payments because they don't have a fixed address or a reliable phone, let alone the skills and education to navigate a prohibitively bureaucratic application process. When you're homeless, almost everything costs more. Your bedding and clothing wears out quicker because you don't have a safe, dry place to store it. You don’t have anywhere to cook food, so with the exception of a couple of food vans, you're eating out for pretty much every meal. If you're lucky enough to have a working mobile and somewhere to charge it, you're probably on the

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 82 -

most expensive pre-paid plan rather than a better value monthly plan and you're far more likely to get robbed or physically assaulted than members of the general public and you're also more likely to cop a heavy fine for comparatively harmless offences like swearing in public.

At that time, 6.15pm, the Chairman, Councillor Angela OWEN, resumed the Chair.

Right now in Queensland, housing is extremely expensive and there are far more job seekers than jobs. Crisis accommodation is full, public housing waiting lists run into the thousands and the few private boarding houses remaining in the inner-city are generally overpriced, decrepit, dangerous and socially toxic. So to suggest that the majority of these rough sleepers have freely chosen homelessness is simplistic (Comment removed at the request of the CEO, in accordance with the AP068 Policy for Editing of Council Minutes approved by Council on 8 August 2012, as it has been deemed to breach the Meetings Local Law 2001). Moving people on when they've got nowhere else to go is lazy, ineffective and cruel. Yes, there were occasional instances of low-level alcohol fuelled violence along the riverbank and yes, the presence of people living in the park did make some residents nervous. It even makes me nervous that we have a State Government that's callous enough to leave people sleeping under a bridge while new apartments sit empty. But the solution to antisocial behaviour in public spaces is to send in more social workers and public space liaison officers, not enforcement officers. We definitely shouldn't be confiscating their possessions and threatening them with arrest. Based on my conversations with some of the people who were moved on, I believe it is factually incorrect to state that secure housing was found for everyone sleeping rough along the river before the move-on order was issued. There is an extreme shortage of affordable housing in Brisbane. If underfunded Non-Government Organisations were able to find temporary beds for most of these rough sleepers, it may well have meant that other individuals and families were pushed further down the waiting lists. This is not a story about one group of rough sleepers in one riverside park. It is the story of ongoing systemic failures at all levels of government that makes stable housing unaffordable for the people who need it most. The solutions are already out there. It's not that we lack the detailed knowledge of how to solve homelessness in Brisbane; it's that we lack the political will. Once, not so long ago, Brisbane City Council provided lockers for homeless people to store their possessions, provided well-funded and strategically targeted outreach services, public showers and toilets that were open late at night and even free tents and bedding. Most importantly, though, the Council used part of its massive budget to build or acquire hundreds of properties which could be rented out on a means tested basis at below market rates. Today it seems that most of what Council does is move people on and pass the buck. I'll now turn to the issue of late night construction noise and hopefully Councillor SIMMONDS will pick up on these comments, but I think maybe also relates to Councillor COOPER's portfolio. Specifically, I've received complaints related to Melbourne Street in South Brisbane. There's been a series of developments along Melbourne Street, particularly at 109 Melbourne Street where they've had long construction times and construction has gone from 6.30 in the morning to 6.30pm, then they've been granted permission to construct further late into the night. Then, at the same time, we've authorised Urban Utilities to conduct night works on underground services in that area. So for several weeks now, for several weeks, residents have had 24-hour construction noise right outside their apartments, right next to their own homes. So from the daytime construction noise, then we granted the construction crews permission for night works and then just as the night works are finishing, Urban Utilities starts its late night works on that same infrastructure. So it's

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 83 -

basically a case of Council's various departments not talking properly to each other and poor lines of communication between Urban Utilities and Brisbane City Council. So I would request that Councillor COOPER and Councillor SIMMONDS work together with Urban Utilities to ensure that in future we don't schedule all those different types of construction at the same time and that if companies are requesting overnight construction permits, that we look at what construction work Urban Utilities might also be doing so that we don't find a situation like this where literally dozens of residents have had 25 hour construction noise for multiple days in a row, right through Monday to Saturday. So they get a few hours of sleep on Sunday and that's it for the whole week, they have construction noise and I don't think that's good enough. I think if we were better organised as a Council, we'd be able to address that more effectively. Lastly, I'll just speak really quickly on the fact that I still think it's quite problematic that we don’t allow cameras to film Council proceedings here in Brisbane City Council. I invite other Councillors to engage with me in discussion and debate on this topic. So far the only arguments I've heard presented against cameras being allowed to film proceedings in this Chamber are one, that people might find it boring and uninteresting, two that it might lead to Councillors behaving more flamboyantly and showing-off for the media and three, that we're concerned about the publication of defamatory or potentially defamatory material. Now I note that we're already in a public chamber, we already have a public gallery that any member of the public is able to access and listen to, so any matter which might be defamatory would already constitute defamation as it is being made available to the public who are attending through the public gallery. So any argument that prohibiting cameras from filming in this area lessens or mitigates against the risk of defamation, seems to me rather spurious. In fact, if we're allowing the public to watch this live, there is no sound justification for also not allowing members of the public to watch it via live streaming camera. I implore other Councillors here, if you're genuinely committed to transparency and accountability and letting the residents of Brisbane understand what's discussed in these halls, then I think it's very, very important that we do allow cameras to film inside Council Chambers. I can help set up a webcam, if cost is somehow prohibitive, it doesn't take much. I'll pay the 50 bucks for the webcam, I'll hook it up to streaming and then residents of Brisbane will be able to understand what we're talking about here. I would be very interested to know if members of the Labor Party would support live streaming of recording or filming of Council proceedings. I'd also be open to a discussion that at least the audio be made online, because I have residents telling me, hey, we want to know what's going on in Council, we don't have time to read through the minutes. I have poorer residents who say they're not good at reading long chunks of text, but they still want to know what their politicians are talking about. These are the people who vote for us. They want to know how we talk, they want to know what we're talking about, they want to see us in action and I see no sound justification for denying cameras access to this place. I think it's better that we organise it and allow our Council officers to make it happen in the same way that the minutes are published online, whether we live stream it or we record it and publish it online later. I don't think it matters too much, but what's important is that people have access to that service. It's the 21st century, I don’t know why we can't allow a few cameras into a public meeting. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor KING. Councillor KING: Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to speak on a couple of issues in Marchant Ward; first of all, John Wesley Gardens and then Somerset Hills State School.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 84 -

John Wesley Gardens have just done a new development for aged care and this is certainly ageing with dignity. They have done a superb job in this redevelopment where there are of course are coffee shops, people know that I enjoy coffee, so I'll be visiting there quite a bit, but it's about how they've developed this site for people suffering from different elements of ageing, which unfortunately most of us will actually go through. So they've got four or five different gardens, all different styles. There's the citrus garden, there's the native garden, overlooks Seventh Brigade Park, but what is so unique about this development is if you're in one section of John Wesley, you can walk to the other side of the development through these beautiful flowing gardens that the residents can all enjoy. Of course there's barbecue facilities and playgrounds for the grandchildren or families to come and visit. I did say to one of the nurses, are we going to lose a few residents here with dementia? She said, absolutely we are, but they're all contained in this beautiful setting where they can walk through and feel as though they are walking through one of our beautiful parks across our city. I will congratulate John Wesley for thinking outside the square and giving their new residents somewhere to feel like they are respected and ageing with dignity. Unfortunately one of my friends is in there, she's only 60 years old and she's just moved in. I think she was the third resident and she has only got approximately four months left to live. So for this particular friend of mine, I won’t mention her name, she is of course saddened and frightened about her future, but also grateful that she can live in a beautiful aged care facility that truly does—if you go and visit her, you are invited around lunchtime, you are invited as a family or friend, to have dinner and they supply it for you, the lunch, in their beautiful, magnificent kitchen. So again, congratulations John Wesley, it's certainly a welcomed addition to Marchant Ward and the Geebung community. If any of you are interested, I would suggest going down and having a look at what aged care is hopefully moving into the future. Somerset Hills celebrated their 50th birthday on the weekend and I would like to thank Adam McNiven, the president of the Parents and Citizens (P&C), the principal and everybody who pulled this 50th anniversary together. What's so special about Somerset Hills? In its heyday, there were about 1,700 kids at this school. Now they have 120 children and they are the most proactive school that I have in my area for such a small school. They are exceptional at Active School Travel. When they were asked to put in a traffic plan, they were the first school in Marchant Ward to do it, even though they've got a massive carpark and 120 students. Madam Chair, this school, as most of my community know, I do hold a soft spot for this school and certainly they are the most passionate P&C, proactive P&C that I have seen for many, many years. Madam Chair, we all had, hopefully, a relaxing, well not so much in Marchant Ward, but a relaxing break. It is great to be back here in the Council Chamber, thank you. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor STRUNK. Councillor STRUNK: Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to speak on a couple of events that's happened in my ward during the recess. The Hosanna Church opened the Lighthouse Events Centre on 10 September in Ellen Grove. It was launched by Joshua and Helen Avia who are visionary leaders and are passionate about family and community. Joshua and Helen are also founders of the Hosanna Network Australia and Hosanna International Network. Federal Member for Oxley, Milton Dick and myself, were honoured to take part in the opening of the great resource for our local community. Now this event centre is quite spectacular, quite large, it will seat well over 1,000 people and it's certainly something to behold. The Lighthouse Centre will also be a crossroad of cultural, religion and artistic expression, a place of joy and optimism. It won't be long before this new landmark becomes the pulsating

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 85 -

heart of our local community. Variety Old Style Dance Company has relocated to the centre and especially designed specifically for them which will allow them to grow to their full potential. Our local dragon boat club is in talks with them so that they may be able to house their boats and trailer as they have been sort of nomadic in where they store their equipment over some number of years. I’ve held talks with also Joshua and Helen and to explore other ways that the centre could assist the community. I look forward to many other events and activities that the centre will make possible for the Forest Lake Ward. Now, on the same day that the Lighthouse Centre opened, Forest Lake State School held their school fete. As Councillor OWEN will attest that as former Councillor for the area, this is a very large, well run event. I was concerned that both events taking place next to one another would cause traffic concerns but with the advice of Council officers and the great assistance by the Queensland Police, the two events went off without a hitch. Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk opened the event this year which is always a treat for the school community. Rain threatened most of the afternoon and about 2pm the rain started to fall but the crowds just seemed to ignore it. I was working on the Lion’s barbeque stall alongside Milton Dick and we were amazed that the line-up didn’t diminish. The crowd wasn’t going anywhere. The entertainment was non-stop featuring the talents of many students and when the rain was falling and they couldn’t perform outside, they just simply moved it into the hall. As Councillors, we know the funding of fete is costly and I congratulate coordinator Sandy Turton and her band of volunteers who attracted over 60 sponsors this year, which is a testament to their ability to network with business and other organisations. Finally, I’d just like to highlight another event which is happening on 31 October which is a light party which is an alternative to the Halloween parties that my colleague, Shane SUTTON, was talking about and I haven’t been to a light party before but I was quite interested in what Elevate Church have been doing over the number of years at the Grand Avenue State School and my staff happily volunteered their spare time in order to help them out with the event as well. So I’ll find out what this is all about and maybe at the next sitting I’ll have more to say about that. Thank you. Chairman: Further general business? Councillor WYNDHAM. Councillor WYNDHAM: Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I rise to speak on the memorial service of King Bhumibol Adulyadej, the Thai King. I was honoured last Sunday to represent our LORD MAYOR, Graham QUIRK, because, as many of you know, I have many friends within the Thai community both here and abroad. Madam Chair, I guess you’ve got to understand a little of Thai culture and to how this is affecting their community, when you consider that the King took up the throne before I was even born. So they have known, many of them have not known, any other king. He was the longest serving king on the globe, serving for 70 years. He was 88 years of age. Madam Chair, the King’s parents, his father was educated in the United States and married in the United States. They had two children, Bhumibol and an older brother. The older brother passed away at an early age and Bhumibol became the King who was educated in Switzerland. But to show the strength of the man, most of us here—well, maybe some of us—would remember an uprising in 1992 where Bhumibol himself intervened and was able to bring the warring parties together and all hostilities ceased with the work of just that one man.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 86 -

Recently I was down in Hua Hin Province where there’s monuments to the seven previous kings so I guess the next thing will be a monument to King Bhumibol. But what is sad about this, I guess, is just that this country was loved so much by him. When he was first made King, he didn’t just sit around and give orders. He served the people. He went out into the farms, went out with the poor people and made them feel like part of his family. He was their father, their grandfather, their brother, their sister. I remember seeing a video once of an older woman meeting him and all she wanted was her photo taken with him and she wanted to see it in the newspaper. He made that happen. Thailand is a land of smiles. Well, they’ve been called the land of smiles but that smile has diminished quite a bit at the moment. They’re a nation that are mourning, they’re a nation that is suffering. We don’t know what their grief is really like but their whole world revolved around this King. You could be catching a train on a train platform at 8 o’clock in the morning, the national anthem plays, all the workers on that platform line up, stand to attention and salute the King. The King has made that country what it is. It was a country of about 20 million when he took the throne; now it’s 67 million. Yes, he’s changed that country. All Thai nationals can travel by train for free if they go third class by decree of the King. So therefore they have a public transport system that is virtually paid for by the government or by the King’s wealth. They have a history of, I guess, unrest and upheaval and women of Thailand can also be very proud. In the province of Korat they have a statue of Yamo. She was a woman who stopped an uprising by banding together with a group of women and invading army’s tents in the middle of the night, totally unexpected. So they have a strong history of both their women and their kings in history of making their country great. They say they have the greatest king but not the best country. Being a land of smiles, that smile will come back as they get through the grieving process. But I’d also like to say at the moment that I’d like to invite you all to the Thai Festival in Roma Street parklands this coming 13 November. That festival fortunately falls one day outside of their mourning period. So it will be a festival, it will have solemn overtones but we as a city can put some smiles back on those Thai faces and help that healing process. So please, if you can, come along, spend a bit of time, maybe even have a Singha beer. It’ll be a good day to help a mourning nation. Thank you. Chairman: Thank you, Councillor WYNDHAM. Councillor CUMMING. Councillor CUMMING: Thanks, Madam Chair. I wish to talk about Wynnum, about Manly and about the leaked report on the fraud that happened within the Brisbane City Council if I get time. In relation to Wynnum, last Saturday was Wynnum’s first seafood festival in Edith Street. It was on from 11am till 6pm. It attracted thousands of people who came along. It was sponsored by a local developer who is building a block of units. I thought it was very good of them to do that. As far as I know, they haven’t sold a unit yet. Nick and Lin Cave; Nick grew up in the local area. Niclin Constructions they’re called, and they’re building a five-storey unit block in Chestnut Street, Wynnum, entirely in accordance with the Neighbourhood Plan which is great to see. There were thousands of people turned up to the day. There were various little novelty events like the prawn peeling competition, which I entered and unfortunately—yes, well, I didn’t win but there was compensation but anyhow —but also crab races and if you’ve ever seen crab races, they’re very interesting. Very large mud crabs taken out of a container and put in a group and the first one to the edge of the circle wins the race. Sometimes it lacks a bit of action. They’re a bit slow to move but a bit of a spray every now and then and they can keep moving.

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 87 -

There was also excellent entertainment on the day. There were some tuneful bands, some real good singers. There were two stages, there was a couple of bars running and there were numerous seafood vendors, some of whom sadly didn’t anticipate the numbers that would turn up and a number of them ran out of food after about two or three hours. So it was a very good day and from my estimate, I’d say that at least half the people came from outside Wynnum Manly and about half from Wynnum Manly. So it was really good in getting other people into the area as well. So I’d like to thank Nick and Lin for sponsoring the event and hope that it continues as is intended for many years to come. Now, this Saturday is the big Manly Halloween Festival and that’s the biggest Halloween festival in southeast Queensland, I still maintain. I think it was one of the first ones to get underway and it’s been going now 15-plus years, I’d say. It’s on from 11am till 9pm but the really busy time, if you haven’t got that much time, is to come down about 5.30. The march takes place at dusk and then after that, it’s finished by within half-an-hour to an hour. But there’s lots of rides, lots of stalls and everything but it’s a great, simple day. If you want to go in the march, you just dress up, put on your best Halloween gear, come down and walk down the hill, a 15 minute march, you’re part of the celebrations and that’s it, you can go home then if you want to. It’s a very popular day. It’s a great credit to the Manly Chamber of Commerce who organise it every year. It’s a bit of a shame that the donation that the Council gives towards the program is reducing each year because it’s one of those events that a lot of people arrive at the last moment. There’s not massive crowds between 11 and 9. The big crowds are after about an hour, an hour and a half. So the amount of money that the organisers can raise is somewhat limited. I also want to mention that the Manly Chamber of Commerce is a very good Chamber of Commerce. I think the only one left in Brisbane that has a levy on the commercial area of Manly which raises $50,000 per annum. They’ve had it over a decade now, I believe, and it’s stayed at $50,000. They’re happy with that. They also get some money from the markets in Manly and they put on monthly movies in the Park. They put it on. No need for Council to fund it. They do very well. Manly itself, the Manly village area is a great little area, plenty of restaurants, plenty of bars and a very well run little area and congratulations to those involved with it. We like to see a big Halloween again this week. I’m sure it’ll be as big as ever. The other thing I wanted to mention briefly is the Deloitte’s report on the Brisbane City Council. There are a few things in here that I think need to be stated. Just briefly, when the fraud occurred, the payments started being made— but on 26 July, the fraud occurred between 14 July and the last payment was on 5 August. On 26 July, the Queensland Government Chief Information Office had alerted Council to a clever, targeted invoice fraud scam. On 27 July, this alert was forwarded from one part of Council to another and then on 5 August, a representative in that second area then requested an update on the remittance email address, etcetera. Now, that’s a really bad situation there where someone had to actually be alerted that there was a fraud happening in other parts of Queensland and it took some—that’s nine days, they took nine days to do anything about it. Anyhow, that was not good. The other thing that was of some concern was the fact that there were some inconsistencies in the supporting documentation. The fraudster sent in a letterhead with an email on it and the letter address was an office in Melbourne but that hadn’t been the office that the Council had been dealing with. They’d been dealing with a Queensland office and the address recorded on the invoice included the nine payments was a New South Wales address. So I guess if anyone had been a bit more alert, they might have picked up those inconsistencies. Also the telephone number on the fraudster’s email was a

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 88 -

different number to the number that the Council had on their records. Again, the telephone numbers and fax numbers on the invoices paid, the fraudulent payments, were New South Wales numbers. So there were those little things as well. The email domain was a different domain to what the supplier had been using previously. The deposit slip that they sent in as part of their documentation for the fraud was issued by the NAB. However, the small print underneath the logo included a reference to Westpac, which would be a bit bizarre, I would have thought. Also as the branches of the bank in Victoria on the deposit slip was a different branch to what the Council had been using. In fact, the report says approximately 340 kilometres from the other branch the Council had some dealings with. But anyhow, they were all things that needed to be looked at. One of the other things that I found concerning was that, I guess—obviously, it’s fairly commonplace, vendor value changes. So 263,908 vendor value changes were identified, 82,213 related to a change to a vendor after it was created. These are the details that Council has for a supplier that they’re dealing with. Within these 82,213 there were 3,752, or 4.6%, changes to the vendor bank account field alone. So I suppose it’s not a rarity that that occurs but I still suppose it’s not uncommon. But then there were 507 changes associated with 143 vendors where a bank account was changed from the original bank account to a different bank account before reverting back to the original account. Of these, 63 were changed for a period of less than 31 days. So I guess that might raise some issues. Then another 52 vendors were changed to a bank account located in a different city than the original bank account. Deloitte selected a sample of high risk transactions and reviewed the documentation to evidence that supported bank account changes. I guess they didn’t find anything directly. They did find other little things happening like 281 changes to vendor bank accounts were identified outside of normal working hours. So I don’t know, I suppose that needs some explaining as well. Of course, the Council itself obviously when they started making the payments to the fraudsters’ bank account didn’t independently confirm the bank account charge with the supplier and Deloitte say we have identified a number of changes to vendor bank accounts that warrant further investigation. So overall, part of the recommendation, the main recommendation made by Deloitte was that, as a result of the analytics work, they identified a number of instances where the vendor bank account was changed and then changed back again. These warrant further investigation. While they performed analysis of this supporting documentation or sample thereof, Brisbane City Council should consider an independent review of all these instances with references to the supporting documentation supplied to support the bank down changes as well as the invoices paid. As part of this process, obviously Deloitte recommended BCC confirm the bank account changes with the respective vendors. I’m hopeful that will all occur and I look forward to assurance from the administration in the near future that has been taken. The other thing is that Deloitte said there were some inherent limitations in their report because in some cases they requested documentation and data in the course of their engagement— Chairman: Councillor CUMMING, your time has expired. Councillor BOURKE. Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, I just want to speak on the Local Government association of Queensland (LGAQ) conference that I attended last week. I’m not going to read the whole agenda into the minutes like the previous speaker but once again, it

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 89 -

was the 120th conference for the LGAQ. It was held on the Gold Coast with record numbers of attendees. There were over 600 delegates as part of the conference, Madam Chairman, which is great to see. Of course, significant changes after the Local Government elections earlier this year, where 40 of the 76 councils had new mayors and there were about 50% of the councils that had new Councillors. So of the total number of councils in Queensland, 50% of those had new Councillors. As always, a range of fantastic speakers put on by the LGAQ, Madam Chairman. In particular, there was an address by Dr Parag Khanna who talked about new economy and new politics around globalisation, around energy, transport and economies, Madam Chairman, and highlighted the urbanisation and the rate of urbanisation that’s happening in the world. It’s the fastest it’s ever been, as we all know. There’s 50 megacities in the world at the moment and by 2030, 10% of the global population will be housed in those 50 cities, which, when you think about it, is a scary statistic, Madam Chairman. He also spoke about the growing power of China and their economic base and also their rising middle class and the opportunities that are there, Madam Chairman. Another speaker of note was Jim Minifie who spoke about the rise of the sharing economy, something that I think everyone in this Chamber is already probably well aware of. He spoke about, of course, Uber but also other forms of sharing economy, so Airbnb and how some governments are responding to that and how they can, and also Airtasker which is an online forum for exchanging—or putting out a job that you need done but basically labour—and the DEPUTY MAYOR has said he is highlighting that app. But 5 per cent of Australian population have engaged in doing work on Airtasker and it’s 18% in the USA. That’s going to lead to a lot of changes in how local government does business. It was one of the things I took out of that. Service delivery, procurement, community engagement and operational workforce expectations will be some of the changes and disruptions that we’re going to see as part of some of these new technologies, Madam Chairman. It was a jam packed agenda as always. There were 80 motions which were debated. It wasn’t as much fun as previous years. A few of the personalities are no longer with us due to retirements or changes in their councils, Madam Chairman. But we certainly go through the debate with some fun moments, Madam Chairman, and it was great to see the election of Mark Jamieson as the president of the LGAQ and I want to put on the record my congratulations to Mark. I think he’ll do an outstanding job representing the needs and desires of local government for the whole of Queensland from the Tweed to Cape York and out to the west. So thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Further general business? Councillor RICHARDS. Councillor RICHARDS: Madam Chairman, I rise today to applaud and acknowledge the residents of the Pullenvale Ward. Just in case others in the Chamber aren’t sure of the ward’s location, it is in the western suburbs and contains 18 suburbs, 16 of which are habitable. It’s bordered by the Brisbane River, it’s not quite close to Pallara and has a suburb that’s named after it. It is 318 square kilometres compared to the other 25 wards, which each are approximately 38.2 square kilometres. So that’s almost—10 other wards can fit into Pullenvale just by itself. So, Madam Chair, I stand to discuss the level of significance of the green space within the Pullenvale Ward and whereby residents of this ward who, on their own land, are working to conserve and restore wildlife habitat. It is through Council’s Community Conservation Assistance Program that the collaborative work of addressing evasive species can be addressed and where these Pullenvale Ward residents undertake environmental restoration or rehabilitation works targeting weeds whereby these projects within priority biodiversity areas

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 90 -

would otherwise be difficult for groups or individuals to undertake. These private landowners in the Pullenvale Ward have a signed land for life wildlife agreement with Council and have demonstrated commitment to the preservation or restoration of biodiversity on their land and do have signage saying such. As the Pullenvale Ward is where city living meets country lifestyle, this ward is ecologically important to the residents of the Pullenvale Ward and that of the City of Brisbane. So, Madam Chairman, it is a disgrace that members on the other side of this Chamber stoop to a level so low in today’s debate to challenge and disparage the tireless efforts many in the Pullenvale Ward community do to protect our natural habitat. So I stand and I thank those private landowners in Pullenvale, Chapel Hill, Kenmore, Brookfield, Mount Crosby, Upper Brookfield and Anstead. So I and the members on this side of the Chamber, including Councillor HOWARD and Councillor OWEN, appreciate all that they do to preserve our land for wildlife. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Further general business? There being nothing further, I declare the meeting closed. Thank you, Councillors. Just a reminder, next week we will commence the meeting at 2.30pm.

QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: (Questions of which due notice has been given are printed as supplied and are not edited)

Submitted by Councillor Steve Griffiths on 20 October 2016

Q1. In the 2015/16 financial year, how much did Brisbane City Council pay to SPER for the recovery of unpaid tolls and fines

Q2. In the 2014/15 financial year, how much did Brisbane City Council pay to SPER for the recovery of unpaid tolls and fines.

Q3. In the 2013/14 financial year, how much did Brisbane City Council pay to SPER for the recovery of unpaid tolls and fines.

Q4. Exactly how many properties does the current Draft Coorparoo & District Neighbourhood Plan Strategy propose to remove from the Traditional Building Character overlay?

Q5. Exactly how many properties does the current Draft Coorparoo & District Neighbourhood Plan Strategy propose to be added to the Traditional Building Character overlay?

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: (Answers to questions of which due notice has been given are printed as supplied and are not edited)

Submitted by Councillor Jonathan Sri (from meeting on 6 September 2016)

Q1. Was a feasibility study conducted for stage 1 of the Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade project or for the entire Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade project?

A1. A feasibility study was undertaken – titled ‘Lytton Road – Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade Feasibility Study’ - in August 2009.

Q2. Where can a copy of the feasibility study for Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade project be accessed?

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 91 -

A2. Councillors can request a copy of the relevant Council file by submitting the relevant information request form.

Q3. Was a business case conducted for stage 1 of the Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade project or for the entire Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade project?

A3. Yes.

Q4. Where can a copy of the business case for stage 1 of the Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade project be accessed?

A4. Councillors can request a copy of the relevant Council file by submitting the relevant information request form.

Q5. Where can members of the public access the results of traffic flow studies undertaken in relation to the Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade project?

A5. Through the consultation process, Council has outlined the future traffic volumes and provided a summary of the issues on the corridor with regard to traffic.

Brisbane City Council operates under the Queensland Government’s Right to Information Act 2009 (RTI Act 2009) and the Information Privacy Act 2009 (IP Act 2009). An application may be made under the RTI Act 2009 or IP Act 2009 by a member of the public for access to information to the full document.

Q6. How many properties have been acquired by council so far for stage 1 of the Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade project?

A6. 21

Q7. How many properties have been acquired by council so far for stage 2 of the Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade project?

Q8. How many properties have been acquired by council so far for stage 3 of the Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade project?

A7 and A8. No properties have been acquired for future stages of the Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade.

Q9. How many more properties does council intend to acquire for stage 1 of the Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade project?.

A9. 27

Q10. Can you please list the street addresses and price paid for each property that has already been acquired by council as part of stage 1 of the Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade project?

A10. The matters of the properties acquired are a matter of public record but the amount of compensation paid to the owner may be a matter of a confidentiality obligation owed to them.

The purchase price information has been provided to Councillors separately due to its Commercial-in- Confidence nature.

Address 2/84 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 4/84 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 6/84 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 7/84 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 8/64 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 10/84 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 12/84 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 13/84 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 14/84 Lytton Road, East Brisbane

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 92 -

3/132 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 144 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 148 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 150 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 175 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 26 Laidlaw Parade, East Brisbane 24 Laidlaw Parade, East Brisbane 160 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 18 Laidlaw Parade, East Brisbane 14 Laidlaw Parade, East Brisbane 16 Laidlaw Parade, East Brisbane 8 Laidlaw Parade, East Brisbane

Q11. Can you please list the street addresses for each property that council intends to acquire as part of stage 1 of the Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade project?

A11. 80 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 1/84 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 3/84 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 5/84 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 9/84 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 11/84 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 86 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 96 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 112 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 114 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 116 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 9/124 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 10/124 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 11/124 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 124 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 126-128 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 1/132 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 2/132 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 138 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 140 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 142 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 152 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 154 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 162 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 172 Lytton Road, East Brisbane 5 Laidlaw Parade, East Brisbane 11 Eskgrove Street, East Brisbane

Q12. Are any properties that council has acquired or intends to acquire as part of the Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade pre-1911 homes?

A12. No

RISING OF COUNCIL: 6.57pm.

PRESENTED: and CONFIRMED

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016] - 93 -

CHAIRMAN

Council officers in attendance:

James Withers (Senior Council and Committee Officer) Robert Southwood (Council and Committee Officer) Billy Peers (Personal Support Officer to the Lord Mayor and Council Orderly)

[4508 (Post Recess) meeting – 25 October 2016]