Table of Contents s226

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

THE ?? MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL, HELD AT ROY HARVEY HOUSE, 157 ANN STREET, BRISBANE, Dedicated to a better Brisbane ON TUESDAY ?? AT 2PM

The 4403 meeting of the Brisbane City Council, held at City Hall, Brisbane on Tuesday 14 May 2013 at 2pm

Prepared by: Council and Committees Support Chief Executive’s Office Office of the Lord Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer

THE 4403 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL, HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE, ON TUESDAY 14 MAY 2013 Dedicated to a better Brisbane AT 2PM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MINUTES:...... 1

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:...... 1

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:...... 3

QUESTION TIME:...... 6

CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS:...... 17 ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE...... 17 INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE...... 34 PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE...... 45 NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE...... 64 ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE...... 68 FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE...... 70 BRISBANE LIFESTYLE COMMITTEE...... 72 FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE...... 74 PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:...... 78

GENERAL BUSINESS:...... 79

QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:...... 89

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:...... 90

[4403 (Ordinary) Meeting – 14 May 2013] MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

THE 4403 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL, HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE, ON TUESDAY 14 MAY 2013 Dedicated to a better Brisbane AT 2PM

PRESENT:

The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Graham QUIRK) – LNP The Chairman of Council, Councillor Margaret de WIT (Pullenvale Ward) – LNP

LNP Councillors (and Wards) ALP Councillors (and Wards) Krista ADAMS (Wishart) Milton DICK (Richlands) (The Leader of the Matthew BOURKE (Jamboree) Opposition) Amanda COOPER (Bracken Ridge) Helen ABRAHAMS (The Gabba) (Deputy Leader of Vicki HOWARD (Central) the Opposition) Steven HUANG (Macgregor) Peter CUMMING (Wynnum Manly) Fiona KING (Marchant) Kim FLESSER (Northgate) Geraldine KNAPP (The Gap) Steve GRIFFITHS (Moorooka) Kim MARX (Karawatha) Victoria NEWTON (Deagon) Peter MATIC (Toowong) Shayne SUTTON (Morningside) Ian McKENZIE (Holland Park) Independent Councillor (and Ward) David McLACHLAN (Hamilton) Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON (Tennyson) Ryan MURPHY (Doboy) Angela OWEN-TAYLOR (Parkinson) (Deputy Chairman of Council) Adrian SCHRINNER (Chandler) (Deputy Mayor) Julian SIMMONDS (Walter Taylor) Norm WYNDHAM (McDowall) Andrew WINES (Enoggera)

OPENING OF MEETING:

The Chairman, Councillor Margaret de WIT, opened the meeting with prayer, and then proceeded with the business set out in the Agenda.

MINUTES: 598/2012-13 The Minutes of the 4402 meeting of Council held on 7 May 2013, copies of which had been forwarded to each councillor, were presented, taken as read and confirmed on the motion of Councillor Ryan MURPHY, seconded by Councillor Kim MARX.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

Miss Amber Moran File number: 137/220/701/150

Chairman: I would like to call on Miss Amber Moran who will address the Chamber on the development application at 11 to 21 Buchanan Street, West End. Orderly, would you please show Miss Moran in? You have five minutes, Miss Moran, please proceed.

[4403 (Ordinary) Meeting – 14 May 2013] - 2 -

Miss Amber Moran: Madam Chairman, LORD MAYOR and councillors. I am here today seeking your urgent intervention to block the proposed development at 11 to 21 Buchanan Street until the fair and reasonable concerns raised by local residents have been addressed. We, the residents of Leftbank are not opposed to development, we adore living on the Brisbane River and want to enhance and protect Brisbane's greatest asset for future generations. However, we are outraged by the excessive development planned for our neighbouring lot which is only the size of 2.1 Olympic swimming pools. On this prime riverfront land in West End, the developer intends to build two 12-storey towers that would dominate the streetscape, existing developments, Riverside Drive and its public green spaces. The development is to include 150 apartments and is similar in size and scale to Galileo's development, Arena on Edmondstone Street on almost half the lot size. To squeeze 150 apartments into this narrow river lot, the development is based on a poor internal design reliant upon deeply recessed windows for the provision of light and air to the interior bedrooms and long corridors to provide access to dwellings, balconies and windows. The floor plan is symptomatic of an overdevelopment of the site, raises concerns about the proposed standard of living in the residential units and should not be considered acceptable in a new world city. Furthermore, the reduced floor plan does not encourage long term occupancy or the development of our riverside community. The proposed development is not even remotely consistent with the character of existing premium developments along Riverside Drive and will present an impressively large, bulky and visually overwhelming facade to residents within the Leftbank apartments, visitors to Buchanan Street and Brisbane River foreshore. Little or no effort has been made to transition or integrate the 12 storey towers and the two storey river homes and five storey apartment complex of Leftbank. Residents are deeply concerned about overshadowing created by the imposing twin towers, built on the boundary of Leftbank apartments. The significant height difference and lack of setback from the north western boundary will create shadows from dawn until after midday, every single day of the year, also blocking view lines, breezes and privacy. The development also proposes to locate 46 air conditioning units on the property boundary in close proximity to windows, balconies and bedrooms which raises concerns about noise and heat issues. Furthermore, the gross loss of amenity from the proposed development will have a negative impact on riverfront property values. There are also serious concerns regarding the proposed development of a three level sub-basement car park on the banks of the Brisbane River, on a site that was severely impacted in the 2011 floods. The developer's engineers are still trying to determine how to minimise the ground disturbance on our neighbouring property as they will be digging on the boundary wall of Leftbank's car park and below. As a resident of Leftbank whose apartment adjoins the boundary wall, I want independent assurances that this excessive development will not damage my home. The oversized development also means that planting is to be kept to a minimum which is not in keeping with the leafy, green local area and trees on council land will be cut down including two 60 year old grey gum trees that were previously protected under Pradella's development of Leftbank in 2004. The proposed development is currently in the approval phase. As the Brisbane City Council considers this development code assessable, we have no right of appeal. Therefore, I implore you to review the submissions of local residents, including the [Hillock] report which addresses the specific non-compliance of this development against the city plan. I strongly urge councillors to review the proposed development and assess its value against the city's planned vision for a new world city. 11-21 Buchanan Street is a prime piece of real estate on the Brisbane River and— Chairman: Thank you Miss Moran.

[4403 (Ordinary) meeting – 14 May 2013] - 3 -

Miss Amber Moran: Thank you. Chairman: If you'd like to just wait and Councillor COOPER, would you like to respond? Thank you.

Response by Councillor Amanda COOPER, Chairman of the Neighbourhood Planning and Development Assessment Committee

Councillor COOPER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I'd like to thank Miss Moran for coming in this afternoon, certainly very brave of you to come in to address us all and I do appreciate the time that you have given to us. This application actually was lodged with Council, I think, on 24 December 2002 for a material change of use for multi-unit dwellings and a shop, so this is proposed to be developed over two stages. I understand it's for two 12-storey buildings, each with 75 units, with approximately 27 square metres of retail on the ground floor. It's actually being assessed as we speak, so assessed under the requirements of City Plan and of course the State Government's Sustainable Planning Act. It is— as you said, a code assessable application and doesn't require mandatory public notification, but that doesn't mean that we don't take on board the comments of people in relation to this proposal. So I understand that you have made a submission, I think there are two other people that have also put in submissions and we are having a look at those issues that you've raised and carefully considering all of those. So I think you make some very fair points; that you want to seek clarification that Council has carefully considered that, but at this point in time there has not been a decision made in relation to this particular application. I just think it's important to note, this is a large site, its 2681 square metres, I've been told, it's in a high-density residential precinct so it's always been forecast for significant height, it is a substantial site so Council is obviously considering it carefully. At this point in time there has been no decision made but it is likely there will be a substantial building at some point, whether it's this building or any other building on that site. I believe that there's lots of information you can get through Council’s PDOnline, I don't know if you've been having a look, keeping an eye on that, so good on you. I think that gives you a lot of information about what Council's queries are. So we've been going back and asking for them to clarify some of these issues, so you can see the process underway. It isn't just a fait accompli. There is a lot of process that underpins any decision that we would make. So I can't say to you what the decision is at this point in time other than to convey very clearly, we are considering all of the comments that have been made to us and will make sure that those are satisfied before Council would make any decision on this application. So thank you for coming in today, really appreciate it and we look forward to getting you a good outcome. Thank you very much.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

Mrs Jan Paff File number: 137/220/701/153

Chairman: I would now like to call on Mrs Jan Paff who will address the Chamber on the proposed development application for two 11-storey buildings at 115 Cavendish Road, Coorparoo. Orderly, please escort Mrs Paff in, thank you. Mrs Paff, you have five minutes, please proceed. Mrs Jan Paff: Madam Chairman, LORD MAYOR and councillors. My name is Jan Paff of Wakefield Street corner Cavendish Road, Coorparoo. A few years ago I was told of the community consultation group for the Eastern Corridor Neighbourhood Plan at Coorparoo. Council has recently approved the construction of two

11-storey towers accommodating 186 units across the road from us, at 115 Cavendish Road. To do this, Council has gone against our neighbourhood plan by allowing the reduction of visitor car parks from 47 to 19 and allowing the building dimensions to be much larger than recommended, leaving less area for gardens. It is supposed to be mixed-used but is only residential. The building development application did not show a true representation of how the development would affect the local area. Local residents are unhappy that the term, spirit and intent of the neighbourhood plan are not being adhered to. For example, the amended traffic study was conducted nearly two years ago at midday on 28 June 2011. From this one moment in time, the author said their findings could suggest that there is sufficient on street parking capacity for the proposed development. But the study made no mention of the Coorparoo Bowls Club on Wakefield Street which has many popular events, both at the weekend and on most evenings of the week. We have no problem with the Bowls Club as it caters to the local community which the new development will not do. Apart from the building size, our main issue is with the traffic study which did not bother to ascertain that many local residents, visitors and commuters park in Wakefield Street which already has over 100 units. There is barely room for two cars to pass each other when the narrow road is full of parked vehicles, which it often is now. Many of these new 186 units will have more than one vehicle that look to park in the street as there is insufficient off-street parking. But there is no room on the street either. We have had an inappropriate building approval foisted on us, foisted meaning that these buildings have been surreptitiously imposed on us with no notice given as to the change in height from five storeys in the previous proposal to 11 storeys and our submissions have been ignored. We should have been given notice when the application was changed. The Council website, packed with unidentified documents, is insufficient and the neighbourhood plan should be adhered to. Our neighbourhood plan was produced in consultation with local residents acting in good faith. This plan promised us high quality urban design. We were told that in return for increased housing density we would have a link to the Eastern Busway and a redevelopment of the old Myer Centre at Coorparoo Junction, which would support a vibrant community. We were told that the new high rise would contain mixed-use to add to the amenity of the area as well as local employment. Consultation officers said that increases to building heights would come in gradually over time, that large high rises would not be straight away, and agreed that high rise could be set back away from the footpath and the higher levels could be stepped back so as to maximise solar access and lessen winds, and this is in the plan. Development was supposed to provide a transition to surrounding residential areas and was not to create an overbearing appearance or significantly impact on the privacy and amenity of adjoining residences. Yet, these two towers will be 11 storeys tall in an area where four storeys is now the highest and two storeys the norm. We were told not to worry that community consultation meant we would have a neighbourhood plan and a neighbourhood to be proud of, where we could enjoy the benefits of modern world living. Instead, we can look forward to two large monstrosities that add nothing to the amenity of the area. The winter sun will be blocked from us and a large amount of extra people will all be trying to park in the narrow, short streets around us. Once this development is built, developers will expect Council to approve many more with the same plan relaxations. It is just not on. People live in these areas and we expect Council to protect our lifestyles. What is the point of having a neighbourhood plan when it can be ignored? What is the point of having community consultation just to tick and flick or to actually take notice of what residents want? Finally, next time you walk outside your own front door and survey the scene in front of you, just imagine you are living on a narrow road and right in front of you is 11 storeys of concrete; no sun, no trees but an 11 storey concrete wall.

Chairman: Thank you, Mrs Paff. Mrs Jan Paff: Thanks very much for the opportunity. Chairman: Order. Councillor COOPER, would you like to respond?

Response by Councillor Amanda COOPER, Chairman of the Neighbourhood Planning and Development Assessment Committee

Councillor COOPER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I think Mrs Paff for coming in here this afternoon. You did a very good job at conveying your point so thank you for that, appreciate it. I just wanted to explain the process so everyone was aware. This is an application that was lodged with Council on 4 November 2011, it was actually lodged by Multiple Sclerosis, they were trying to do something which I think is actually a really good opportunity for a community group to essentially try and put some development on a site that they own. They were trying to put some respite, some facilities on the site for those sufferers of multiple sclerosis and also some development to actually provide some support, some ongoing funding to the society itself. So that was an application which Council was considering, obviously trying to really support Multiple Sclerosis in their objectives and that was initially, yes, eight units I think they had proposed initially. They later on—so that process was underway, they later on advised Council that they would be withdrawing that Multiple Sclerosis component of the application and they were actually seeking to find a different site because I don't think they could resolve some of the issues that they needed to. So they basically have said that they are trying now to obviously take that component out. So Council had sort of been down the track to a certain point with that very clear understanding and then had to start dealing with that application without that Multiple Sclerosis component in the application. So it was converted to an application for 186 units, it was code assessable, as you put forward, and it was considered against the local plan, the Eastern Corridor Neighbourhood Plan, City Plan and the Sustainable Planning Act as is appropriate. So the application has sort of changed and it has evolved over time. In particular, the developer had to provide 158 car spaces, so they have been conditioned to provide 186 spaces. So that's more than one space per unit and they are also proposing to provide spaces for bikes in addition to some visitor car parking. I believe that they are proposing to put bike racks in all of their car facilities as well. So they've done a range of different things to try and accommodate that. Obviously their location is important to note, they've got high frequency public transport just, basically—I think it's—having a look at the distance there—it's about 300 metres to the railway station and 225 metres to the proposed Coorparoo Bus Station. So you would think that public transport certainly is a good opportunity for them in terms of development on the site. We listened to the community feedback, considered that very carefully and tried to make sure that there was a range of different transport choices that would be available on-site for that particular application. So we issued and information request on 14 December 2011 and the applicant took 12 months to review their design and they had to come back to us with lots of information about their traffic engineering, the access, the parking, all of those things, which we then reviewed. So the Council officers reviewed that information and felt that it satisfied Council's requirement. I understand that you might not be happy with it but these are traffic engineers, this is their professional responsibility to basically ensure it is satisfied to Council's requirements and they felt that it was able to satisfy that. I also think it's important to note, this site actually has the potential to go to 12 storeys and what they proposed on the site was 11 storeys. I note that you yourself, I think, made a submission and your submission was carefully considered by officers but they felt that the issues had been addressed and

therefore they actually decided the application on 28 March and have supported it. So I understand that you may not be happy with the outcome but this is a site that's always been forecast for density, high density in this particular case, and certainly we've tried to make sure that all of the issues that have been raised have been dealt with and council officers are satisfied that they have met our requirements. So thank you for coming in here today, I understand that you may not be feeling happy with the outcome, but officers assess it under the planning tools that they have to hand. Thank you very much.

QUESTION TIME:

Chairman: Are there any questions of the LORD MAYOR or a chairman of any of the standing committees? Councillor MARX. Question 1 Councillor MARX: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My question is for the LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR, the Prime Minister has announced that a referendum will be held on 14 September relating to constitutional recognition for local government, can you please detail the benefits for residents of Brisbane if we—if the ‘Vote Yes’ campaign is successful, particularly with regard to infrastructure delivery? Chairman: LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Yes, thanks very much, Madam Chairman, I thank Councillor MARX for the question. Madam Chairman, at the outset I want to convey my thanks to the Prime Minister and Minister Albanese for coming to Brisbane last week and joining with yourself as President of LGAQ (Local Government Association of Queensland) and also that of Felicity Ann Lewis—Councillor Felicity Ann Lewis, the President of ALGA (Australian Local Government Association), for a joint announcement of a referendum to proceed on the Federal election date of 14 September. Of course, that referendum is about the recognition of local government as part of section 96 of the Constitution. Madam Chairman, I am aware that this Chamber has collectively, in the past acknowledged and supported the proposition of constitutional recognition of local government. It is something that has been debated for many, many years. This year will be the first occasion when this question is put to the Australian people without being caught up with other referenda questions. It's a question with clear space. The answer to that question, Madam Chairman, in my view and I know in the view of overwhelmingly people in local government, is that it should be yes for recognition of local government. Madam Chairman, it is a fact of life that within Australia we have three clear tiers of government and local government has always been recognised as that sphere of government closest to the people. It's a sphere of government that delivers services on a day to day basis—immediate services, services that have an impact on people on a daily basis. Whether it's the surface of roads, whether it's the collection of garbage, whether it's, Madam Chairman, those important quality of life issues such as provision of libraries and the many other services that we provide. But importantly, Madam Chairman, this recognition of local government in the constitution does two things. It provides a clear legal mechanism for funding to local government. So it's something that, if you like, has always been the case. We know, because the Federal Government have kindly provided $500 million of provision towards the Legacy Way project, direct to this Council. They were also kind enough to provide $10 million for the restoration of City Hall towards our fundraising efforts in that regard, and I remain thankful to the Federal Government for these provisions. There are others; there was, during the Howard years, of course the Roads to Recovery program, direct grants to local authorities by way of those provisions.

There have been times in the past, also through financial assistance grants and the like, where local government has been a beneficiary. So, Madam Chairman, this is a recognition which, again, is an enshrining of what life is like in Australia and what governments and their responsibilities are within the Australian context. It is a provision, however—and I want to emphasise this—where state governments have nothing to fear. There is no removal of powers of the states in any way, shape or form and those who are suggesting that it does in some way diminish the powers of the states clearly do not understand the provision that is being put forward—the question that is being put forward. I hope that with clarity and the fullness of time we will see those who are negative towards this proposal have a change of heart. Now, Madam Chairman, the reality is that the state government will always have a legislative and a regulatory control of local authorities. They will have the power to sack a council that is not performing. Local government will remain responsible and answerable to the state governments as that holder of legislation under which local authorities are set up. So again I say, to our state governments, wherever they might be around Australia, if they have any fears they need to think again because their powers will remain clearly intact. The way in which this referendum is being drafted, again on the back of what was a very, very comprehensive, expert panel, consisting of a cross-party committee, Madam Chairman, it makes very clear that the outcome and terms of that wording will leave the states with no diminished responsibility of powers. So I know that I speak on behalf of everybody here, Madam Chairman, in answering your question, Councillor MARX, because it is a matter that we have determined previously and I was very happy on that occasion to join with Councillor DICK and the opposition to say, yes, we stand as one to support this proposition. Chairman: Thank you. Thank you, LORD MAYOR. Councillor DICK. Question 2 Councillor DICK: Thank you, Madam Chairman, my question is to LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR, how can you justify paying your top 70 well paid bureaucrats over $4 million just in executive bonuses over the last two years? Isn't it true that you're cutting back on Council services and jobs to pay for these fat cat bonuses? Chairman: LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, of course these are bonuses that were set up under the Soorley administration. Chairman: Order. LORD MAYOR: Madam Chairman, these were bonuses. Chairman: Order. LORD MAYOR: These were bonuses. Chairman: Just a moment, LORD MAYOR. Thank you. LORD MAYOR: Madam Chairman, the position of executive bonuses in this place has been in place since 1993. They were set up during a time when Lord Mayor Jim Soorley held office in this place. He came, of course, from a background in human resource management, he was of course a director of a human resources company, Madam Chairman, and worked for other human resource companies during his working career prior to becoming Lord Mayor of Brisbane. But, Madam Chairman, it also ought to be remember that there are councillors on this side of the Chamber right here today who, when they sat with me in a joint Labor/Liberal cabinet, Labor dominated during the Campbell Newman Lord Mayoralty, that they too signed off on bonuses. Chairman: Order. LORD MAYOR: Councillor FLESSER—

Chairman: Just a moment, LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Councillor FLESSER, seeing as you interject, your signature's there too. Your signature— Chairman: Order, Councillor FLESSER. LORD MAYOR: —is there too. You can talk all you like, because your signature is there, the signature of Councillor NEWTON is there, Madam Chairman, the signatures— Chairman: Order. LORD MAYOR: All of those Labor cabinet members that were there at this time that are no longer with us in many cases—no longer with us in many cases, Madam Chairman, they were all there and they supported the provision. So what has changed today that suddenly Councillor DICK, in an attempt at class warfare, which the Labor Party, Madam Chairman, are more and more engaging in, Madam Chairman, it is a case of an attempt at class warfare— Chairman: Order. LORD MAYOR: —politics. That's all it is. Now, Madam Chairman, I'm seeing it at the federal level and now it's being brought to this Chamber. Madam Chairman, let me just say this with regards to executive salaries. We have continued something that has been the case for many years where we go through a process, through a private consultancy—in this case I think it was Mercer—where they provide to this Council an assessment of what the executive salaries ought to be— Chairman: Councillor FLESSER. LORD MAYOR: They provide a—Councillor FLESSER, you've carried on about this, but when the time came, when you could have said, I will not stand for it, you put your signature on the paper. I remember, Madam Chairman, I remember. Chairman: Order. Councillor NEWTON. Just a minute LORD MAYOR. You've asked a question. Be quiet while the answer is given. Thank you LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Madam Chairman, those executive bonuses during the joint Labor/Liberal cabinet years of 2004-2008 would not have been approved if Labor councillors had not put their signatures on the document. They had the numbers in that cabinet to the tune of six to two, the Lord Mayor Campbell Newman of the day and myself and six Labor councillors. Year after year after year after year, they put their signatures to executive bonuses, Madam Chairman, in this place. Councillors interjecting. LORD MAYOR: Well if I am disgraceful Councillor DICK, if I am disgraceful, you are declaring some of your own frontbenchers disgraceful, including Councillor NEWTON here in the front row with her head down, Madam Chairman, they clearly must also be disgraceful individuals as well in your words. Madam Chairman, this is a long and established practice, not only with this Council but I daresay with other government authorities around this country and the private sector. It is an established practice at the executive level. It is a practice, Madam Chairman, which is defined by the outside advice that we receive through independent advice based on the market value of executives at this level, based on level of responsibility, Madam Chairman and what the market rates are. Now if you want to see a diminution of the level of executives that we have in this place, then Labor are clearly going the right way about it, Madam Chairman, they are clearly going the right way about it. If you want to get up here and play the class warfare thing today Councillor DICK and take a citywide perspective, declare that Labor will not provide for this in the future. Let's hear those words from you, Madam Chairman— Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Order. Thanks LORD MAYOR your time has expired. Councillor DICK: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Yes what's the point of order, Councillor DICK? Councillor DICK: I'm happy to make that declaration today. Chairman: No Councillor DICK—order. Councillor DICK that is not a point of order. Further questions? Councillor KING. Question 3 Councillor KING: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to the chairman of the Public and Active Transport Committee, Councillor MATIC. Councillor MATIC would you outline the improvements this Administration is proposing for this city's bus network in the northern suburbs as part of the bus network review and detail feedback that has been received from the public on this proposal to date. Is the chairman aware of any alternative proposals? Chairman: Councillor MATIC. Councillor MATIC: Thank you, Madam Chairman, I thank Councillor KING for the question and the opportunity to discuss with the Chamber these important changes that we're undertaking in this proposal for the bus network review. Madam Chairman, in answering this question—a thought came to my mind in respect of listening to Councillor DICK before and his question and his responses to it, Madam Chairman, and those responses of those opposite. I just thought to myself, Madam Chairman, there must be another criteria for joining the ALP. Last week I said that common sense is left at the door when you become a— Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Just a minute Councillor MATIC. Yes Councillor JOHNSTON. Councillor JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, this is simply not relevant to the question that Councillor KING asked and as it's a Dorothy Dix I would have thought Councillor MATIC could address it properly. Chairman: Councillor MATIC to the question please. Councillor MATIC: I will, Madam Chairman. Once again, Madam Chairman, we see Councillor JOHNSTON get up to run to the saving of the ALP, Madam Chairman, instead of a big S on the— Chairman: Back to the question, Councillor MATIC. Councillor MATIC: There should be a big L, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, I am getting to the question because part of the question deals with the fact of am I aware of any alternative proposals. Madam Chairman, in being able to answer the question I need to go into a little bit of history and looking at the ALP and the fact that they do leave common sense at the door. But also, Madam Chairman, importantly there must be a theme song that they all have. I was just thinking, what is that theme song, Madam Chairman, and it came to me immediately. It came to me, Madam Chairman, listening to Councillor DICK, it must be that Midnight Oil song, Short Memory. Short Memory—must have a short memory because that's, Madam Chairman, what we get from those opposite. Councillor DICK asked a question in respect of something that was undertaken by his own side while they had control of this Chamber. Now, Madam Chairman, the ALP also in their short memory, Madam Chairman, also had control of this bus network through the state government and TransLink of which Councillor DICK was an inimitable part when he was state director. Madam Chairman, what did they do when they were undertaking a bus review? Well they didn't have one, Madam Chairman. What did they do? They raised fares. That was their solution to addressing the growing need of public transport of the growing population of our city, Madam Chairman. It was about raising taxes. Thank you Councillor BOURKE, it was about raising taxes. Madam Chairman, it was not about undertaking a proper thorough review of the network, looking for those opportunities to provide better services, to reduce costs and to provide more efficiencies, Madam Chairman.

No they didn't have that in mind at all. What we're left with now, Madam Chairman, is once again the legacy of Labor's mismanagement, not only in public transport but across the State, Madam Chairman, in the level of debt that they accrued which is now directly impacting on this State Government and its ability to deal with public transport, and directly now on this Council, Madam Chairman. Short memory, Madam Chairman, from those opposite in their failures to address those public transport needs. So when we undertook this task, Madam Chairman, we did it in a way that we wanted to find those efficiencies, those savings and those opportunities, Madam Chairman, to improve public transport across our city. The northern suburbs is a perfect example of what we wanted to try to achieve across the board. Now, Madam Chairman, we looked at the various routes within this area and then there are, Madam Chairman, easily 50 routes with no changes, only two with removals, Madam Chairman, and 25 that included timetable changes. Why? Because an important criteria of what we wanted to achieve was to look at patronage numbers in the peak and off-peak, particularly in the off-peak periods, to look at duplication of routes, genuine duplications, Madam Chairman, and to look also at those efficiencies where we could find those timetable changes. By looking at those simple measures we have undertaken a process that has provided change that minimised the impact to users. Now, Madam Chairman, in those two routes that are proposed for removal one of them is the 328 which is a rocket service from Boondall to Carseldine, which unlike other rocket services has genuinely low patronage count to it, also the P356 McDowell to city, Madam Chairman. It's interesting to look at that Boondall to Carseldine local route, Madam Chairman, because that was actually a rail connection service. That's something the previous State Government and TransLink held highly, Madam Chairman, in respect of being able to implement them. But, Madam Chairman, implement them to the state of not even looking to remove them irrespective of the patronage numbers. Now on that particular route, Madam Chairman, this side of the Chamber will be surprised to know that there were extremely low patronage with an average of only one to four passengers, Madam Chairman, taking that service and yet the service cost an enormous amount of money. Yet the previous government refused to look at altering or amending that service in any way because for them the priority was rail. It was not the priority of residents, it was not the priority of being able to provide an efficient service but just making sure they got passengers to the rail network. Even in that fact, Madam Chairman, they failed miserably with only one to four passengers. But what we've attempted to do, Madam Chairman, through our review is to find those opportunities to provide better services such as re-linking the 335 to the Taigum shopping centre, the 199 through Ivory Street, the P341, Madam Chairman, that access to the Royal Brisbane Women's Hospital. These are the kind of improvements that we have undertaken in our review which those opposite have failed to address. Chairman: Thank you, Councillor MATIC your time has expired. Thank you. Councillor DICK. Question 4 Councillor DICK: Thank you, Madam Chair, my question is to the LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR you've just confirmed that you believe that your fat cats deserve a whopping 10— Chairman: Councillor DICK I think that is a highly unacceptable term to be using for the managers in this Council. Councillor DICK: Which one, Madam Chair? Chairman: You just referred to the fat cats. Councillor DICK: Madam Chair, do you take offence at that?

Chairman: I think it's a very inappropriate way to refer to the very senior managers in this organisation. Councillor DICK: Sure. Madam Chair, I'll rephrase the question in your direction. Chairman: Thank you. Councillor DICK: LORD MAYOR you've just confirmed that you believe your top bureaucrats deserves a whopping 10.1 per cent increase in their bonuses in just the last financial year alone. Why then are you only offering a measly two per cent wage increase to Council's hard working, frontline employees which is even less than the rate of inflation? LORD MAYOR haven't you got your priorities wrong yet again? Chairman: LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, I'm interested to hear Councillor DICK's question and I just want to say this firstly that the bonuses that he refers to were for the 2011-12 financial year. They are not to do with the 2012-13 financial year. Indeed they are not related to any future EBA outcomes in terms of salary of staff and employees within this organisation. But can I say that also Councillor DICK you seem to have a very short memory. I can remember the outcome of the contracts of Mr Greg Withers, for example, in the dying days of the Labor State Government provided another few years of contract. Councillor DICK: Point of order, Madam Chair. Chairman: Point of order against you LORD MAYOR. Order. Councillor DICK: Madam Chair, the contract of Mr Greg Withers or people like Michael Caltabiano are not mentioned in today's question. Chairman: Order. LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Yes, Madam Chairman, now let me just say with regards to the contracts again and in relation to bonuses. During the period of Jim Soorley as Lord Mayor in this place there was a bonus system provided to executives. Madam Chairman, the difference today compared to then is this; the bonuses are tied to outcomes, to performance outcomes relative to those employees, Madam Chairman, to those executives. So, Madam Chairman that is the reality, Councillor DICK raises this question as if we are somehow out there alone as the only people that provide executive bonuses. Madam Chairman, it is a fact, it is a fact that other levels of government provide these executive bonuses. It is a fact that companies throughout this nation, Madam Chairman, provide these bonuses. So let's not carry on as if, Madam Chairman, there is something that is peculiar, something that is singularly different about this Council. There is not. There is not. Now, Madam Chairman, the reality is we are in tighter times. We are in a situation, Madam Chairman— Chairman: Order. LORD MAYOR: Madam Chairman, again I reiterate they are talking about 2011-2012, they are talking about that period of time. That's what the question relates to in the first part. The second part of the question relates to 2013 and beyond. So let's make that absolutely clear. The leader of the Opposition is trying to combine these two things and sounding as if it's in the same time zone. It is not. It is not and we need to make that clear. Madam Chairman, the reality is that we have as an organisation been an outstanding payer over many years. That is a fact of life. We are in more difficult circumstances; there is no question about that. Things have got tighter within our budgetary arrangements, no doubt about that. So, Madam Chairman, that is the stark reality and we will however be continuing to be an employer of choice, Madam Chairman, that is also a reality. This is a good place to work. I move around among staff, Madam Chairman, on a very, very regular basis. I understand implicitly that they do a great job for the people of Brisbane. I also understand implicitly that we have been an employer who has consistently been in a position where we have not had forced redundancies.

We have always maintained a policy of voluntary redundancy where a change in size or certain sections within the organisation needs to occur. Now there are not many organisations, government or otherwise, Madam Chairman, that provide that provision. There must be in this day and age a value associated with that. So, Madam Chairman, the leader of the Opposition will I'm sure continue down this track but I will say this that we are making judgements appropriate to our times. We will make calls, Madam Chairman, in what we believe are fair and reasonable outcomes and we will always do so, Madam Chairman, with the interests of the ratepayers of this city at heart. Question 5 Chairman: Further questions? Councillor HUANG. Councillor HUANG: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My question is to the Chairman of the Public and Active Transport Committee Councillor MATIC. Councillor MATIC would you outline the improvements this Administration is proposing for the city's bus network in the southern suburbs as part of the bus network review and detail feedback that has been received from the public on those proposals to date. Is the chairman aware of any alternative proposals? Chairman: Councillor MATIC. Councillor MATIC: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I thank Councillor HUANG for the question and the opportunity to outline to the Chamber the significant improvements that we're proposing on the south side of Brisbane in respect to this review. Madam Chairman, there are as councillors would know as part of our undertaking of the review, it was important that irrespective of what changes were made that there was no area that was left without some form of service or connectivity in public transport. In looking at the different aspects of the south side, Madam Chairman, there are a number of routes that have functioned quite efficiently and functioned with significant numbers. There were, Madam Chairman, 66 routes for example that had no changes proposed to them because of how well they performed. There are of course five particular routes that were proposed for removal but in looking at those, Madam Chairman, they were for very specific reasons in respect of their patronage numbers. There were 37, Madam Chairman, that were looking at both timetable and route changes, 20 of them particularly route changes, Madam Chairman. A number of route changes of significant benefit to the residents in Councillor DICK's ward, Madam Chairman, although if you listen to the comments made by Councillor DICK you would think that that was the exact opposite. What he has failed to do, Madam Chairman, is to properly advise his residents of these particular changes and the purpose behind them, Madam Chairman, focusing rather on the politics of it and working in conjunction, Madam Chairman, with the previous Transport Minister Anastasia Palaszczuk, obviously, Madam Chairman, to protect his factional colleague. In fact, Madam Chairman, I'm surprised that the flavours of questions from Councillor DICK today have not been of a Federal smear, Madam Chairman, given that the Federal budget is on today. I thought that in his quest for the federal seat of Oxley, Madam Chairman, he would have continued to maintain a focus— Chairman: Back to the question Councillor MATIC. Councillor MATIC: I return back to the question, Madam Chairman. Now, Madam Chairman, there are four routes in particular that are proposed for removal which I'd like to note. That is the 462 Darra station to Heathwood, the 465 Richland station to Heathwood and the 466 Richland station to Willawong, Madam Chairman. Now what's interesting, Madam Chairman, when we were reviewing these routes on the South-side and looking at these particular ones once again these were TransLink related routes, as the ones I mentioned before in Councillor NEWTON's ward, focus primarily on carrier services between railway lines to capture people towards the railway services.

You would think, Madam Chairman, with the insistence that TransLink has placed on the services throughout time, particularly during the time that Anastasia Palaszczuk was the Transport Minister, that they would look at those services and think there must be something going wrong or something we must do to improve them. Why is that, Madam Chairman, because on their TransLink counts, Madam Chairman, the average patronage on those services is between one in three, one in three passengers on that service, Madam Chairman. That means at those particular times, Madam Chairman, there's the driver and if we're lucky two more passengers on the bus. In some instances, Madam Chairman, based on the figures provided, it was just the driver. So we have these important public transport services, expensive services that come at the cost of the ratepayer with literally no one on it. So the important thing to do, Madam Chairman, is well what can we do to improve that service? How can we look at the other existing routes to make sure that we can provide far more effective service? That's what we did, Madam Chairman, in respect of looking at the 101 and the 102 for example. Two particular routes, Madam Chairman, that through the amendment in this process, now will go into areas of Councillor DICK's ward that previously had no public transport service at all. Had no connectivity to a bus, Madam Chairman, whatsoever and still, Madam Chairman, continue to go through those key areas of Councillor DICK's ward where people need to get to. These are the kind of improvements that we are undertaking through this process, that we are proposing to residents in Councillor DICK's ward as well, Madam Chairman. But these are the kind of things, these are the kind of challenges, Madam Chairman, that we face with the kind of political pushback that we're getting from Councillor DICK, who obviously does not understand or chooses not to understand, Madam Chairman. Because as I said earlier common sense, Madam Chairman, and short memory are two essential elements of being a councillor in the ALP. But, Madam Chairman, irrespective of those challenges we will continue to make sure that we liaise directly with residents so that they better understand what we're wanting to achieve, so that they can see that these services are not diminished in any way, shape or form. There are areas in Councillor DICK's ward that will continue to get services. Now, Madam Chairman, as we go through this process you will see that there are a number of different routes as well that are looking at improvements The 153 for example extending out to Drewvale, the 138, Madam Chairman, extending in the Calamvale Algester area. But importantly also looking at the other particular services out there such as the 101 as I mentioned before and the improvements that are proposed into that, the 118 and the 138, Madam Chairman. All of these services on the south side looking at the end of the day to provide better efficiencies but a more effective service for all ratepayers. Chairman: Thank you Councillor MATIC. Councillor DICK. Question 6 Councillor DICK: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR will you commit to today putting a freeze on executive bonuses at the end of the 2012-13 financial year to show restraint as you say, given the Council is in tough time?. Chairman: LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Yes thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Well, Madam Chairman, I don't propose to be putting a freeze on anything, either employee's wages or indeed that of executive bonuses, Madam Chairman, and I'm certainly not going to be pushed into any of that type of action by the leader of the Opposition. I will be making the proper calls, the proper judgements as we go. But I think it behoves the Opposition also, Madam Chairman, to acknowledge that this organisation is one of the best paying organisations around. Certainly that is the case if you look across the spread of local government.

Let's take, for example, the bottom of the range, a band 1.1 level, Madam Chairman. Here $46,133. If you go to the Gold Coast it's $44,127, Ipswich $44,706, the Lockyer $45,706, you go to Logan City it's $44,578. So you can see, Madam Chairman, we're around $2000 above the range. I can go on, I can take you through Morton, Redlands, Scenic Rim right through. So Redlands $43,890 against our $46,133. Madam Chairman, I take you onto the Sunshine Coast, it's $42,910 against our $46,133. I am saying to you that this organisation has long been an extremely good payer and employer. We do not see people leaving this organisation in droves because people know we are a good employer. Madam Chairman, if you want to go up the scale, let's go up to a 6.1 for example. Again we're paying $78,802. If you go to the Gold Coast it's $69,282. If you go to Ipswich it's $73,691, $65,855 in Lockyer and so on right through, $70,000 in Redlands, $74,100 in Logan City. Madam Chairman, I make this point because it is important that people understand that we are well above the average as it stands at the moment and we are an employer which provides certainty through no forced redundancies. Now in this day and age in a climate where we have now been in a domestic—in a down turn economically and internationally, that is strong position to be in as an employee. That is a message that I give very clearly. But having said, that there is always the provision for employees to accept or reject. There are the opportunities for employee organisations to go to the Industrial Commission if they feel it is not in line with community standards. Madam Chairman, that is the reality. So, Madam Chairman, I'm not going to be making any commitments of any freezes on anything, on anything, Madam Chairman. I will do what I believe is the right thing to do in the circumstances in the climate, Madam Chairman, and that's what I will always do. Chairman: Councillor McKENZIE. Question 7 Councillor McKENZIE: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, my question is to the chairman of the Infrastructure Committee Councillor SCHRINNER. DEPUTY MAYOR I understand the first of Legacy Way tunnel boring machines Joyce recently made a breakthrough at the eastern portal. Can you please provide an update on the Legacy Way project? Is the chairman aware of any alternative proposals to reduce traffic congestion in our city? Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR. DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you for the question Councillor McKENZIE. Look I was very excited to be with the LORD MAYOR and also Minister Albanese at the eastern worksite on 24 April to witness the breakthrough of the tunnel boring machine Joyce. Now this is actually a world record beating run by a tunnel boring machine and it's happened here in Brisbane with a Brisbane City Council project. We should all be proud, putting aside party politics that this has been achieved in our city. The interesting thing is that record breaking run that I referred to was achieved with second-hand tunnel boring machines believe it, second-hand tunnel boring machines. They're actually the same tunnel boring machines that were used in the CLEM7 tunnel. They've since been refurbished and reconditioned and we've set them off running again in this project. To give councillors an idea of the significance of what was achieved on 24 April, the Joyce tunnel boring machine only started drilling in October last year. So in six and a half months this machine has travelled 4.2 kilometres under our city, under around 200 properties to deliver this world record beating drill. Now to give you an idea the record was not just for the entire length of the tunnel. We achieved the record in one single day of drilling of 49.7 metres. Now the average you would expect per day is around 20 metres a day, that's what we generally would expect to see from a tunnel boring machine. Twenty metres a day was the average that you would expect to see. In one day we got almost 50 metres in a single day, 49.7 metres. In one week the tunnel boring machine

achieved 253 metres and that's another record in itself. In one month 858 metres, all of those figures are world records, Madam Chairman. Now we've seen so far more than three million work hours delivered on the Legacy Way project and there's been around 5000 jobs for our city created. As we know once the project is finished it will deliver $10.5 billion in economic benefits for our city. Part of that economic benefit is the travel time savings and congestion improvements that it will deliver for our city. We are passionate about this project. We're keen to see it continue to progress at this rate that it's been delivered to date. We'll soon see the second tunnel boring machine Annabelle breakthrough in a month or two's time and we look forward to that milestone as well. But Councillor McKENZIE you asked if there was any alternative approaches to reducing traffic congestion in our city. I'd have to say Anthony Albanese was very proud of this project, as was his Labor Government. He had his Nation Building orange vest on and his Nation Building hard hat and he was saying this is part of our Nation Building program. So the Labor Federal Government knows the importance of this project but unfortunately their colleagues in this Chamber are all over the place. We've seen it time and time again. If we did what Labor wanted us to do on this project we would have signed up to a PPP (Public Private Partnership) arrangement with only one tenderer. No competition, one tenderer bids, we would have given them the job. That's what Labor wanted. That's what other councillors in this Chamber wanted and we would have seen an outcome that would have cost our city dearly, Madam Chairman. Now this is the same PPP model which Labor has criticised for the CLEM7 tunnel. They wanted us to go down that path with Legacy Way. We've taken a different approach, Madam Chairman. We're not against PPPs by any stretch of the imagination but Labor on the other hand are all over the place. One minute they're for PPPs the next minute they're against them. They're quite happy to criticise CLEM7 despite voting for it and they continue to criticise Legacy Way. Madam Chairman, we should be proud of this project. It is a great project for our city. It is a project that down the track in 20 years' time, maybe sooner, people will look back and say I'm glad that project was built. Council did the right thing and it's delivering results for our city, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Further questions? Councillor DICK. Question 8 Councillor DICK: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR you've just given a lecture about how well Council pays its employees but can you provide any advice that any other Council in Australia pays such an obscene figure like $4 million in executive bonus salaries? Chairman: LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Madam Chairman, there is no Council in Australia that is anywhere near the size of Brisbane City Council. End of story. Question 9 Chairman: Further questions? Councillor HOWARD. Councillor HOWARD: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, my question is to the Chairman of the Neighbourhood Planning and Development Assessment Committee. Councillor COOPER can you please update this Chamber about how you have consulted the Brisbane community for their input into the City Centre Master Plan to ensure they have an opportunity to be active participants in this process. Chairman: Councillor COOPER. Chairman COOPER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, I thank Councillor HOWARD for the question. So, Madam Chair, the CityCentre Master Plan kicked off last year in August with a number of workshops, forums and meetings with industry and internal stakeholders. The next stage in our consultation was the Ideas Fiesta

which is really about generating ideas for the new the City Centre Master Plan in a fun and interactive way and it's been a fabulous success. So in collaboration with our industry and education partners, there was a program of free events and activities designed to stimulate ideas and conversation. The Fiesta ran from 11 April to 3 May with approximately 16,400 people attending 27 events over 23 days. The Fiesta generated many great new ideas. It showcased some design concepts and transformed city spaces. We had workshops, forums, we had street picnics— thank you very much LORD MAYOR—we had laneway and we had park events. We had guided walking trails, we were down there picnicking in Albert Street for three days. The Howard Smith Wharves open day was a great success and we were also looking at opportunities to review the City Botanic Gardens, and of course hosted the Ideas Gallery in King George Square, just to name a few of the activities. As part of provoking conversation and gathering ideas we also challenged leading design consultants and students to come up with ideas on how 16 inner city spaces could be transformed. Those aspirational concepts were showcased at some of the events and online. So, Madam Chair, we had the community, we invited them to really tell us what they thought of each idea. We also encouraged young people; we had over 1200 high school students and university students who were involved in the events. They came up with some fantastic ideas which were showcased in King George Square. We also launched a social hub where people posted and tweeted their ideas. We utilised Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to encourage people to give comment on these transformative ideas. In particular, Madam Chair, social media was a huge success. We saw more than 57,000 web hits on Council's website and the social hub. We had 566,453 Twitter views including views by followers. We had 324 Twitter mentions. We had 466,690 Facebook views and we had more than 4300 Facebook likes. So lots and lots of involvement from the community so it meant that everyone, whether they could come to an event or not they were able to provide their feedback. I think, Madam Chair, it's been a really very much transformation of the way we engage with people in our city. We also of course encouraged people if they couldn't take up that opportunity to provide feedback through phone, email or post, the old snail mail. So the consultation is still ongoing until 17 May and we'll be seeing what the results are once that is finalised and those will be fed into the City Centre Master Plan. Madam Chair, we were also able to partner with other Council events so were able to leverage up on those and make sure when there was consultation on other things we are actually able to share those opportunities to keep costs down. For example the Botanic Gardens event was actually funded by Council’s NEWS (Natural Environment Water and Sustainability)—thank you Councillor BOURKE for his support—group, and we were able to join and make that event something greater in terms of our consultation. So, Madam Chair, with growth in our city centre expected to increase rapidly over the next 20 years, it's important this kind of feedback actually shapes the future of our city and it has certainly been a crucial step in getting the development of this document underway. Vibrant city centres are at the economic and social heart of successful cities. As our economy grows, we need to make sure we have an attractive and accessible city centre that encourages people to come here to live, work, trade, visit and mingle, Madam Chair. I think that the City Centre Master Plan work has been a clear testament to achieving that with this city. So I'd like to thank everyone for their involvement. I think it's been a great outcome and thank officers for all of their hard work and effort. Thank you. Chairman: Councillors that ends Question Time. LORD MAYOR— Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Yes Councillor JOHNSTON? Just a moment LORD MAYOR. Yes Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, I refer you to the Meetings Subordinate Local Law Section 11, number 4 which states that questions allocated to Opposition councillors will be allocated pro rata to each represented party, other than the majority party and each non-aligned councillor. For the past two weeks, Madam Chairman, you've refused to give me the call to allow me to answer a question in accordance with these rules. Why are you failing to obey the rules of procedure which allow me to ask a question? Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON I don't fail to let you ask a question. However if we look at proportionally the number of people in the Opposition team, that being the seven Labor Councillors as one part of the Opposition and yourself as another part of the Opposition, it is quite clear that the vast majority of questions go to the Labor Opposition. Thank you. Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Yes Councillor JOHNSTON? Councillor JOHNSTON: I appreciate your answer thank you very much but my point, Madam Chairman, is you've not allowed me to ask any questions last week or this week. Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON I answered your question. Councillor JOHNSTON: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and as you've just said, the vast majority of questions should go to the ALP but not all questions, Madam Chairman. So, Madam Chairman, I'm just asking you to clarify why it is that you refuse two weeks in a row to give me the call for a question. Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON I just answered that. You may not like the answer but the answer is that it's seven to one when it comes to questions from the Opposition side of this Chamber. Chairman: LORD MAYOR, Establishment and Coordination Committee.

CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS:

ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE

The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Graham QUIRK), Chairman of the Establishment and Coordination Committee, moved, seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR (Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER), that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 6 May 2013, be adopted.

Chairman: Is there any debate? LORD MAYOR: Madam Chairman, I just want to acknowledge a few events that have occurred over the past week. Firstly, on 8 May we saw World Red Cross Day celebrated, Madam Chairman, established back in the 1800s, Madam Chairman. It was great to see the work of Red Cross and their associated movement Red Crescent celebrated on that event. Madam Chairman, also today we saw the launch of National Volunteer Week. We have I think, particularly during periods of national disasters, seen in this State over the last couple of years grown to appreciate just how important and significant volunteering work is in our community. Now valued at some $13.4 billion, some 299,000 full-time jobs is what the volunteering effort throughout Queensland equates to in the last year. So I thank all volunteers in whatever form that might take right throughout our community from Red Cross through to Meals on Wheels, school P&Cs, whatever it might be, Madam Chairman, we thank them for their efforts. Madam Chairman, also I just want to acknowledge and recommend to councillors to take note of the large tent in King George Square at the moment. This is a part of the Mental Illness Fellowship of Queensland or MIFQ as its otherwise known, this is their annual fundraiser. There are some tremendous

[4403 (Ordinary) meeting – 14 May 2013] - 18 - pieces on display there. The artists all are mental illness sufferers, Madam Chairman, receive 90 per cent of the proceeds but also it raises important funds for MIFQ itself. So I just want to commend that to all Councillors. It will be there until Thursday and I recommend you go and have a look. Madam Chairman, whilst we're dealing with issues of that sort, Madam Chairman, I wanted to acknowledge the part of the grants that we are providing for opportunities to make greater access available to our many organisations in Brisbane. I had over the last week an opportunity to go out and visit the Mount Petrie Bowmen Club, Madam Chairman. This is an area where we have provided funds to make it easier for people with a disability to access and enjoy the sport of archery. I had the chance to meet up with Miss Wenda Sherity out there, Madam Chairman. She is a Multiple Sclerosis sufferer but is still able to enjoy her archery. The provision of pathways will make it much easier for her to access that particular facility along with opening up opportunities for other people with disabilities to participate. Madam Chairman, we have been out there continuing to advise people about the draft New City Plan and its provisions. We've now seen some 40,000 people enter the websites, have a look, Madam Chairman, at what it means to them and to the city of Brisbane over the next 20 year horizon. Again, Madam Chairman, we see a continued level of interest out there as we take planners around all of the suburbs of this city, different opportunities for people to come and engage and meet the planner sessions and the various other opportunities that people have. So I again commend that to the Chamber. Madam Chairman, I noted this morning that we saw at committee the 1 William Street development proposal pass. It will now come to this Chamber next Tuesday for debate. I was disappointed to see that Labor councillors did not support that at committee stage. They may rethink it next week, who knows? But, Madam Chairman, it is very much an opportunity to create further jobs in our city, more construction jobs in that industry, Madam Chairman. Again it just seems to display that anti-economic growth that Labor continue to portray, Madam Chairman, in this city. Madam Chairman, the actual item before us today, Contracts and Tendering, there are a number of contract items within a particular item. There is, firstly we see the Kedron and Sunnybank halls upgrade, Madam Chairman, this is part of our ongoing program of hall upgrades around the city. We have a joint project with QUT (Queensland University of Technology) in street furniture. This is part of the contract, part of the bigger program of a joint QUT and Council public land section down there, Madam Chairman, at Garden's Point. Madam Chairman, there is a provision there for $3 million as an estimated expenditure, private bus operators and special events. This is an ongoing program, Madam Chairman, where on occasion private bus operators are required to assist in terms of major venues and special events that are held in our city, particularly where there are occasions of double up events. It could be Broncos, Lions matches, they're coinciding, or crossing over, in terms of the necessity to have public transport requirements. So it is there as a contingency fall back, Madam Chairman, and that is part and parcel of that provision. I note also that the report contains a decision around the selection of a conference organiser, a professional conference organiser for the Asia Pacific Cities Summit to be held in Brisbane again in 2015. That's gone to Carillon Conference Management Proprietary Limited. We also in this report have provision for professional building certification services. So, Madam Chairman, it is the case that we too as a Council when we are undertaking activities, need to comply with provisions of the acts, and as such we need to engage our own professional building certification services as part and parcel of our activities. Page 6 is the supply and delivery of shelf ready library materials. Madam Chairman, we are often and I don't know why but we are criticised on occasions

by the Opposition for our commitment to provision for books at our various libraries. Well here is a provision for $33 million, Madam Chairman, $33.2 million to be precise, over the next period of time for the provision of books. So, Madam Chairman, this is for an initial period of two years but it has the provision for an extension of up to five years within that contract, Madam Chairman, so that is presented. That runs of course for several pages there where we have the provision on specialist materials and a whole range of provisions for our library services. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor DICK. Councillor DICK: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I rise to speak on this one and lonely item out of the E&C because we don't know what else happened at E&C because that's all a secret. Madam Chair, looking at the items before us today, look the LORD MAYOR touched on a couple of items that I was going to ask additional questions on. But I will start with the one that provides me with the greatest concerns. That is the $531,000 for professional conference, for a professional conference organiser for the Asia Pacific City Summit. Now I've got a couple of questions that the LORD MAYOR can come back and answer. In the budget for 2012-13 the Asia Pacific Cities Biennial Summit we have listed $518,000 in expenses for this financial year. I note we're over that. My question is, is that the full expenditure for the expenses for the summit or is that just the expenses for a wiz bang state of the art conference organiser? Not a bad gig if you can get it. So I would like to know a cost breakdown of that, what is that for? Is it just for the organiser for the event? Is that in addition to the cost and perhaps the LORD MAYOR can round out exactly how much we're spending in total? If it's above, we've blown out the budget already on $518,000 to $531,000, there might be some reasons for that. So if we could get a little bit of information on that or even a lot of information would even be better. Look moving right along, there are a couple of Items in here which the LORD MAYOR can provide additional information on. I don't think he touched on this one which of course was the $322,000 for the expenditure for the Breakfast Creek moorings and the bank mooring removal. I note, looking at the history of this back in The Courier- Mail last year on 13 August 2012, Council sinks boaties tenancy, which was an article written by Sarah Vogler at the time. Look I have some concerns regarding the impacts of closing down this location. I know it's a pet of Councillor McLACHLAN's, he's quoted in the article about demolishing and turning these people out onto the street. I think it's disappointing. Obviously this is a very historical location for the city. Maybe the LORD MAYOR can explain and if any work has been done with some of those tenancies, and some of those people who call that location their home. I note that at the time the local boaties claimed that Council had intentionally let the moorings run into a state of despair. That was in the article. I certainly hope that wasn't the case and that Council had worked with those individuals and those families that were there as well. Madam Chair, the big ticket Item today is the $33 million long overdue for our library injection. I'm not surprised that we have to deal with this, considering the negative publicity the Administration has about the collapsing of library patronage across our city. There were a series of articles over the last couple of weeks condemning the administration for voters going elsewhere and not supporting our libraries, and the relevant chair saying that it was a good thing that people weren't coming into the libraries anymore. Somehow spending all the money means that people don't actually use the services. Anyway I don't understand that logic at all. So it is good to see that we are playing catch-up that we are actually finally trying to address the shortage and the collapse in numbers across the majority of our libraries across the city. I know in my own area that's gone backwards. I know in a whole range of libraries across the city and particularly our big libraries have gone backwards at a rate of knots. That's a dangerous trend, a dangerous trend.

If I was the chair I'd be putting in strategies to arrest that. I'd be putting in strategies to arrest that, not sitting on the hands and ignoring the problems that we're clearly seeing with ratepayers in our city not getting value for money from libraries and voting with their feet. So I certainly hope that's a wake-up call to the LNP Council. We don't want to see services reduced even further. Certainly I know in my own area where people cannot come to the library and use the customer service centre anymore due to the frontline service being closed by the LORD MAYOR and Councillor ADAMS. Moving on, Madam Chair, to the other items today. We're also, something that caught my eye, was half a million dollars for that, the issue of our new coffee shop down at the terminal at New Farm. I note after a long absence we saw the new coffee location inside New Farm Park and I see that we're allocating $426,649 for the Brunswick Street coffee venue. I understand the tender has gone out for the new site at the ferry terminal, which I was certainly happy to provide, to get some more information about that, about when the timelines are expected to come on board with that. So, Madam Chair, disappointed that we aren't seeing enough information as part of these reports and I certainly hope the chairs and the relevant chairpersons will address those concerns today. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor HUANG. Councillor HUANG: Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on Item A of the E&C report—the upgrade of Sunnybank Community Hall. Madam Chair, Sunnybank Community Hall is currently undergoing a facility upgrade as listed in this E&C report. The upgrade includes a disability ramp for wheelchair access and a new kitchen to cater for community events. As the Chamber is well aware Sunnybank is the major hub for multicultural events in our city and home to a number of charitable organisations. It is important for us as local government to provide the best we can offer to our multicultural communities and charitable organisations. Madam Chairman, within the proximity of Sunnybank area besides Council's community hall, there is only a handful of venues that are available for hire at a concessional rate for community organisations. These venues include Sunnybank Lions Community Hall, Pinelands Lions Hall, Sunnybank RSL Soldier Memorial Hall and Macgregor State School hall. These venues have to cater for the needs of a large number of community organisations including Multicap, Happy Seniors Club, United Muslims of Brisbane, Queensland Chinese United Council, Taiwan Friendship Association, Kyabra Community Association, Sunnybank/Acacia Ridge Parish Friendship Group, just to name a few. With such a high demand for community spaces, Sunnybank Community Hall has played a vital role in serving our community's needs. This community hall can hold up to 150 people in the main hall for various types of event’s including parties, weddings and community gatherings and some churches do hire the hall for their choir practice. It is conveniently located in the centre of Sunnybank on Lister Street right beside Macgregor ward office with ample parking available. The upgrade included in this report will provide Sunnybank Community Hall with (1) two new PWD—that is person with disability toilets, (2) upgrade of kitchen to meet access standards, (3) new ramp access from the carpark to the kitchen and to the new meeting room and new ramp from the childcare side to the childcare playground, (4) upgrade to the existing storeroom at back of the stage to be converted to a meeting room. This room will be able to be booked separately to the other rooms, (5) adjustments to a door between the childcare facility and hall to meet access standards, (6) upgrade works to the childcare facility including new fence, shed and bike path for kids. The works are planned for completion at the end of this week that is May 17, and with practical completion next week. The community hall team will reopen bookings from 27 May. Madam Chairman, anyone who has been to Macgregor ward for community events before, would have known how popular these venues are to cater to the needs of the vibrant community we have here in the

Sunnybank area. The upgrade of this community hall will provide additional support to this diverse community. On behalf of the local community I'd like to express our sincere appreciation to the LORD MAYOR and chairman for Infrastructure and Brisbane Lifestyle, for delivering projects that provides real support to the people in need. I commend this report to the Chamber. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor WINES. Councillor WINES: Thank you, Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on Item A of this report, specifically the Upper Kedron Hall upgrade. The Upper Kedron Hall is a remnant of when Upper Kedron and Ferny Grove were in fact dairy farms. It was the centre of social life for the farmers and their families, the famous families, the Pickerings and the McGinns, would often meet and marry up in this hall. Over the last couple of years we've done a lot to bring it up to a modern standard. There are new lights and new projection facilities, an upgraded stage. Private theatre companies come and use it and put on shows for the local community. But there was one final piece of the puzzle that had to be complete and that was upgrading the accessibility of this building to bring it up to DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) compliance and bring it in line with this Council's vision for making an accessible and inclusive city, a city for all. So much like for Sunnybank, a lot of the works are around that access and inclusion work. So the toilets have been expanded and revamped so that people can, people in wheelchairs and with other mobility issues can use either the men's or the women's. There will also be baby's change tables and other uses inside the toilets. There's an upgrade to the kitchen and a revamping of the community spaces so that they can be separated and used by a number of groups simultaneously. The ramps will be improved and so will the access and pathways around the building itself. So these will make it an even more attractive place to come and to use and to say fantastic asset. It always has been a fantastic asset to the community, it is only getting better. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR. Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, I rise to speak to Item A on this report. Madam Chairman, could I say how very important the Asia Pacific Cities Summit (APCS) is to this city and to our positioning on a global scale. Madam Chairman, it is important that we do have this event projected as a very professionally run event, because we've got so many people coming from all over the world to attend this event, not only in Kaohsiung this year but also in 2015 when it returns to Brisbane. Madam Chairman, I can recall two years ago when the event was in Brisbane and seeing behind the scenes the extent of the work that was put in to deliver a world standard event. Now through the contracts and tendering process, Madam Chairman, the successful tenderer that is listed today achieved the highest value for money index. This is a very competitive industry. It is one where they have to perform on the world stage and we do not look at these things lightly. It is very important that when we do associate ourselves with these major events where we've got over 1000 delegates coming from all across the globe, at the highest levels of government, that we do project the best image that we can for Brisbane. Madam Chairman, this contract is not for an individual. It is for a company and it is for a wide range of services. Anyone who has any experience with APCS in 2011 or in the years prior when it was in Brisbane, through that experience it is very important to note that it is not just one or two people working on these events. There are a multitude of people that come together working as a team behind the scenes. There are many different aspects to it. There are the marketing components. There are the registration components. There are all of the planning components, the traffic management, the coordination of the delegations going from one place

to another ensuring appropriate means are put in place to allow for their safe movement around the city. This APCS this year is very important to our city and so will be 2015. Brisbane is certainly rising in a global perspective and it is very important that we get behind this event and not make petty politics out of some of the issues that have been raised today. Madam Chairman, those on the other side may scoff and laugh but over the past number of years that this event has been held, it has grown in strength and reputation and across the globe, we as a city are now known as being one of the leading cities. We are the driving economic force in the southern hemisphere and this is what we work with— Chairman: Councillor GRIFFITHS. Chairman OWEN-TAYLOR: Still they laugh and scoff on the other side. We are working very hard to make the world understand how Brisbane is focused on an economic perspective in looking after our businesses that are based here, and ensuring those connections are made across the globe. Also working with our Asia Pacific neighbours and ensuring that if they want to do trade, if they want to undertake trade with Brisbane businesses that they have ample opportunity to make those connections. That's why these events are very important to our city. Madam Chairman, I think that what we need to really explain to a lot of people on the other side of this Chamber is to get behind this and not to create political point scoring out of this. It is very important— Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Order, order. Councillor NEWTON. Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: It is very important that when we are presenting this city which will be the G20 city, that we have the best possible outcomes that we can possibly provide for those attending our city from all over the globe. Madam Chairman, I commend this report to the Chamber. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor JOHNSTON. Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on Item A and there a couple of issues I'll raise now. I wasn't going to but I've been encouraged to by the insightful comments of Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR. But firstly, Madam Chairman, Item A requires that as soon practicable after entering into a contract that those details are published. Now, Madam Chairman, most of the Items, and I did read this at least because it is the only matter on the agenda, so in preparing I did have a good look at it. Interestingly enough there is a small contract, $330,000 for street furniture at Garden's Point. It was approved on 31 January 2013. All the others that are listed in here are either late February or March. It doesn't strike me that bringing that matter forward today is as soon as practicable. I would think that given that this is the only matter that E&C has had to consider in the past week, that perhaps they could be more timely in meeting their requirements under the City of Brisbane Act, Madam Chairman. But secondly now with respect to the $531,000 in expenditure, for Carillon Conference Management for a professional conference organiser for the Asia Pacific Cities Summit. Now I listened at great length to Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR and, Madam Chairman, there are a number of things that struck me as she was talking. She said that this needs to be a professional event and it needs to be a world class event. Now I don't think there's anybody in this Chamber who would disagree with those statements and with the intent of those statements. But in listening to the debate that we've had today, we have heard the LORD MAYOR go on at length about the quality of our public servants at Council, the quality of our Council officers. I know we have award-winning Brisbane Marketing teams. I know that we have award winning community consultation teams in Council. So the question that comes to mind is why are we outsourcing something that this Council constantly is telling us it wins awards for. That's what I'd like to know. I don't understand

why we need to outsource this at all. If this $531,000 is what we need to get a professional event organiser in to do, why is that our Council officers who are expert marketers, I read the articles in the newspapers talking about the award winning Brisbane Marketing experts. Councillor COOPER never stops talking about the award-winning consultation officers. Now remember these are the things that Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR has clarified this $531,000 is for. Marketing, well we all know the LORD MAYOR knows how to do that and he's very good at getting his picture onto things. Yes. He's got lots of outlets through which this Council could do marketing directly to residents that wouldn't be at any additional cost. So marketing number one. Number two, registration, that's people to turn up and sign people in. Now I would have thought, Madam Chairman, that with some 9000 staff members in Brisbane City Council, we could find staff already employed by Council to actually undertake those logistics. Thirdly, traffic management. Well, Madam Chairman, we do have a lot of Council officers focused in that area and we have excellent—we've had presentations today—excellent software, five different sets of software, Councillor MURPHY knows, SCATS and all these other great technological devices to actually assist us in managing traffic around the city. So that's another issue that we could be doing in-house. Finally we need people to help coordinate delegates. Now, Madam Chairman, again, with 9000 in this organisation, I would have thought that we could from our community consultation teams, find very highly-qualified and professional Council officers to undertake this work. Think of the professional development opportunity for them to engage directly in the preparation of a conference of this type. Now I don't understand why we have to outsource over budget which is the other issue that Councillor DICK obviously picked up, over budget, we have to outsource simply so in the words of Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR, and external consultant can put on a professional event. I think that underestimates the resources that we have in- house. We've heard today that they are excellent Council officers that we look after them that they want to be here. If that's the case why are we not providing them with opportunities to deliver on important events for this city? This $531,000 is going off to some private consultant when it could be better spent or assumed within the existing budget and our Council officers who are as we know, well qualified to undertake this task could do it. So thank you Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR but that's my view. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor ADAMS. Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair, I rise to speak to Item A on the agenda for E&C and, in particular, I'd like to speak about the shelf-ready library materials contract that has been mentioned by the LORD MAYOR and those opposite. Obviously, our libraries are very vibrant and interesting and creative spaces, and we do have an enormous amount of programs being conducted across the city at the moment. We are actively encouraging all of our residents to come into our libraries and I'm very happy to say that we are well and truly going to exceed the six million mark people mark again this year, in fact showing quite a growth within our numbers of people visiting our libraries, compared to 2011-12 where we had a few libraries out of action from floods and different refurbishments that we were doing. So I'm glad to say that we're hardly seeing a decline Councillor DICK in our libraries, we're in fact seeing much growth. It's very interesting, Madam Chair, through you, the selective interpretation of our statistics we hear from Councillor DICK—numbers dropping in Toowong and Indooroopilly—amazingly, because we opened a library just near you Councillor de WIT in Kenmore. So imagine where people are not driving to when they've got a library nice and close by. Chairman: Order. Councillor ADAMS: So it's interesting. Thank you. I read the Quest papers Councillor DICK and we still don't believe your hyperbole. But anyway the Library Services correction that is before us today is not something that is a catch up. It is something that we

do as a matter of business. It is a contract that will see us, possibly in five years, able to make sure that we can continue providing a wide variety of formats including books, magazines, newspapers, DVDs, audio books, CDs, LOTE (Languages other than English) materials, and also our large print that we saw a presentation on last sitting with our DAISY readers. Of our 1.38 million items, we average a turnover of nearly seven times a year, so you can imagine some of them are much higher than that. This makes us a very high performance library when you come to national benchmarks. So it's quite important that we are looking at making sure that we have these types of procurement models to ensure that we have the information and the formats that we need in our libraries to keep them so popular. So in this contract we'll see library materials that are specifically for our library collection. It also includes the management system to make sure we can search and lend them as well. It also involves processing and covering the materials to make sure that they do last for a long time and for multiple uses as well. Can I mention though that this does actually exclude electronic and digital online content and e-books, as that is another contract altogether. So this is a huge commitment that we continue in our libraries to make sure that we are enabling our libraries to be up-to-date with the latest programs. We will be seeing a huge saving to Council through this contract mainly through the savings over the cataloguing and processing rates. It will be done through this contract rather than having to do them ourselves on the library floor. So it reflects a specialisation in the market. Not everybody can provide the formats that we need to Council. There are some very specialist areas from books and lending to adult literacy to serials, which are magazines, which are a little bit harder to source, to large print and audio books. What we will see is that we have got 10 existing suppliers and two new suppliers. It's great to see some new providers on the books as well. We are making sure that we don't commit into these orders until we actually have secured them for Council. So there is some security taken in there as well because we do rely on external grants for a lot of our purchasing of our library materials as well. So I'm very happy to stand here today, Madam Chair, and say that what we are seeing here is Council looking for efficiency in the way that we organise our libraries, the way we are confident our tender process makes sure that we maintain our library collections, and meets the demand not only for printed materials but also for our specialist audio books, large print and LOTE materials. We are confident that we are giving Brisbane the best value for money in our libraries. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chairman: Further debate, Councillor ABRAHAMS. Councillor ABRAHAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish too to talk about Item A. I wish to talk about the contract of professional conference organiser for the Australian Pacific Cities Summit. For half a million dollars, that is the only information this E&C provides us. The role of Opposition is to ask questions. That is simply what Labor councillors did when we saw this item on the agenda. That one question and we were seeking additional information; we were seeking a breakdown; we were seeking a scope of this half a million dollars, and definitely wished to know the full cost of the Asia Pacific conference. The one question we didn’t ask was is it appropriate for this to be outsourced. But can I say clearly—and this applies to today on this matter and today on any matter where the Opposition ask questions—asking a question is not opposition to the item. It is simply looking for more information. Councillors interjecting. Councillor ABRAHAMS: So Labor councillors do not oppose the Asia Pacific conference. In fact, Jim Soorley and Labor brought it to this city.

Councillor interjecting. Councillor ABRAHAMS: And we have seen it grow, as is appropriate for this conference, in this region of the world, with our support and without it ever being opposed by Labor councillors. But I am trying to remember whether or not the Liberal councillors, when Jim Soorley brought it to the council meeting for approval, opposed it because I certainly know at that time— Councillor interjecting. Councillor ABRAHAMS: —that was well before there was bipartisan support for a strong relationship to the Asia Pacific. So the Chairperson would remember that and I will put money on it that they did not support it. So let’s be quite clear, our role is to ask questions. Your role would be to assist us with some of those answers. Councillors interjecting. Councillor ABRAHAMS: But I accept that I shall never get an answer but, more importantly, and a question does not equal opposition and it is totally inappropriate for anyone to repeatedly say that is the case. Chairman: Further debate. LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Well, I’ve learned something today that the role of the Opposition is to ask questions. I certainly don’t deny that right whatsoever. I think that’s a very important part of Opposition and an even more important part of Opposition is to provide a genuine alternative to the people of Brisbane. Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Order. LORD MAYOR: I’m very happy. Chairman: Councillor DICK. LORD MAYOR: I’m very happy—well, we’ve just heard about Soorley initiatives and the Asia Pacific Cities Summit (APCS). The executive bonuses were another Soorley initiative, Councillor DICK. Madam Chairman, the questions that have been asked around the APCS, I can give some answers to at the moment. I’m very happy to provide more information when I can obtain that. But let me just say this, that the tenders are provisions that are made in terms of this are not payments that are going to be made in the 2012-13 year. So Councillor DICK has said, oh well, this tender has come in at I think it was $531,000, from memory—it was—$531,000. In the budget documents it says that we have got provision of APCS of $518,000. That would be fine if the payment for that tender was being made in 2012-13 financial year but, of course, it is not. It will be very much spread out and if you have a look at the provisions, Madam Chairman, within the budget we have made provisions for the 2013-14 year—this is in last year’s budget—of some $616,000. So easily provided for within those provisions. Madam Chairman, can I say that this is however the cost associated with professional services of running the conference. It is not the only cost associated with that conference; there are other internal staffing costs that we will have in relation to that event, as we do in terms of the assistance that we provide to Kaohsiung in their running of the event this year. In relation to Kaohsiung’s bid, for example, there was also a cash injection that they put forward to this Council as a part of their bid, a significant cash injection. Most of the actual running of the Asia Pacific Cities Summit is drawn from registration fees and indeed they are from sponsorships. So Madam Chairman, I’m quite happy to provide Councillor DICK with the results of the Asia Pacific Cities Summit that was held here in 2011. It was a very successful summit. It saw—as an outcome—many, many millions of dollars in business undertaken

between businesses in this city and some of the other 100 cities that participated in that summit. I’m hopeful also we will see in Kaohsiung that same strong business partnership program as part of that summit. I know it is happening because I’ve been directly in contact with the organisers of APCS in Kaohsiung and we’ve been continuing to discuss the importance of that business partnership program. Can I say with regards to APCS, frankly I can’t recall and I’ll trust your judgement and recollection in terms of the history, Councillor ABRAHAMS, but what I do recall, even if the Opposition didn’t support it in the first instance, is that we did come onboard. I recall Councillor Cashman, for example, attending the Asia Pacific Cities Summit in Seattle on the invitation of the Mayor at the time, and that was a standing invitation. We have always sought a joint support of the APCS, Madam Chairman, given that it is something that crosses political boundaries. I thank you again today, Councillor ABRAHAMS, for your acknowledgement, that the fact that you’re asking questions does not mean that you do not support the concept and I suppose the pluses that it does bring to our city by way of the staging of this biannual event. So I’m happy, as I say, in that context certainly to provide more detail as it becomes available to me. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

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

Thereupon, Councillors Milton DICK and Helen ABRAHAMS immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the motion being declared carried.

The voting was as follows:

AYES: 19 - The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Margaret de WIT, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Nicole JOHNSTON, Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN-TAYLOR, Julian SIMMONDS, Andrew WINES, and Norm WYNDHAM.

NOES: 8 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Milton DICK, and Councillors Helen ABRAHAMS, Shayne SUTTON, Peter CUMMING, Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS, and Victoria NEWTON.

The report read as follows

ATTENDANCE:

The Right Honourable the Lord Mayor (Councillor Graham Quirk) (Chairman), Deputy Mayor (Councillor Adrian Schrinner) (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Krista Adams, Matthew Bourke, Amanda Cooper, Peter Matic, David McLachlan and Julian Simmonds.

A CONTRACTS AND TENDERING – REPORT TO COUNCIL OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR MARCH 2013 109/695/586/2 599/2012-13 1. The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.

2. The report of contracts accepted by delegates for March 2013 is submitted for the information of Council.

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

4. 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, Chief Executive Officer and permanent heads of the units of administration.

5. The City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 (the Regulation) was made pursuant to the City of Brisbane Act. Section 227 in Chapter 6 of the Regulation provides, among other things, that “The Council must, as soon as practicable after entering into a contract under this chapter worth $200,000 or more, publish relevant details of the contract on the council’s website.” ‘Relevant details’ is defined in section 227 as including (a) the person with whom the Council has entered into the contract, (b) the worth of the contract, and (c) the purpose of the contract (for example, the particular goods or services to be supplied).

6. It is therefore recommended that Council note the report of contracts accepted by delegates for February 2013.

Financial impact

7. Funding for the accepted contracts has been provided in divisional budgets.

8. It is therefore recommended that Council note the report of contracts accepted by delegates for February 2013.

9. Accordingly, the Chief Executive Officer submitted the following recommendation with which the Committee agreed at its meeting of 2 April 2013.

10. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE REPORT TO COUNCIL OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR MARCH 2013, AS DETAILED IN THE SCHEDULE SUBMITTED HEREUNDER, BE NOTED.

City of Brisbane Act 2010 – Chapter 6 - Contracts & Tendering Details of Contracts Accepted by Delegates of Council for March 2013

Contract/Quote No. & Delegate Price Contract/Quote Unsuccessful Tenders Prices Approval, Successful Contractor/s Accepted & Purpose & Quoters Tendered Start/End Type of Dates & Arrangemen Term t BRISBANE INFRASTRUCTURE BIQ130116-12/13. CPO. $505,000. Upper Kedron & Hutchinson Builders Pty Ltd. $553,540. Approved: (estimated Sunnybank Halls Achieved Value for Money Index 21.02.13. Dickinson Constructions Pty Ltd – expenditure Upgrade. {VFM} of 14.45. Start: $505,000. under 25.02.13. Achieved Highest Value for Money maximum Watpac Speciality Services Pty $813,200. End: Index {VFM} of 16.44. term of the Ltd. 10.06.13. contract). Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 1.23. E100332-09/10-08. CPO. $322,867. Breakfast Creek Moggill Constructions Pty Ltd. $358,966. Approved: (estimated Moorings – Bank Achieved Value for Money Index 07.03.13. Abergeldie Constructions Pty Ltd expenditure Mooring Removal. {VFM} of 21.71. Start: - $322,867. under 18.03.13. Achieved Highest Value for Money maximum End: Index {VFM} of 25.44. term of the 10.05.13. contract). FSG130071-12/13. CPO. $330,200. Street Furniture – Decoscape Pty Ltd. $372,200. Approved: (estimated Gardens Point QUT. Achieved Value for Money Index 31.01.13. Precast Concrete Products Pty expenditure {VFM} of 31.6. Start: Ltd – $330,200. under 04.02.13.

Contract/Quote No. & Delegate Price Contract/Quote Unsuccessful Tenders Prices Approval, Successful Contractor/s Accepted & Purpose & Quoters Tendered Start/End Type of Dates & Arrangemen Term t Achieved Highest Value for Money maximum Arc Technology Systems Pty Ltd. $416,109. End: Index {VFM} of 37.9. term of the Achieved Value for Money Index 03.07.13. contract). {VFM} of 25.8. FSG130082-12/13. CPO. $396,437. Landfill Remediation Landfill Gas Industries Pty Ltd. $402,230. Approved: (estimated Gas Infrastructure Achieved Value for Money Index 07.03.13. Run Energy (Holdings) Pty Ltd - expenditure Upgrades. {VFM} of 17.65. Start: $396,437. under 01.04.13. Achieved Highest Value for Money maximum End: Index {VFM} of 23.42. term of the 05.08.13. contract). FSG130108-12/13. CPO. $474,009. Drainage Works at Doval Constructions (QLD) Pty $565,500. Approved: (estimated Manning Street Ltd. 21.03.13. Moggill Constructions Pty Ltd – expenditure Milton, “Stage 2”. Achieved Value for Money Index Start: $474,009. under {VFM} of 153.85. 09.04.13. Achieved Highest Value for Money maximum $666,212. End: Index {VFM} of 177.21. term of the Rec Group Pty Ltd. 29.11.13. contract). Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 115.58. $684,225. Shamrock Civil Engineering Pty Ltd. Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 115.46. $681,572.

MCQ Group Pty Ltd. Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 105.58. $724,928.

Brittwood Constructions Pty Ltd. Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 103.46. $916,552.

Pensar Civil Pty Ltd. Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 91.65. $601,755.

Denari Earthmovers Pty Ltd. Tender incomplete. Value for Money Index {VFM} not calculated. FSG130149-12/13. CPO. $264,457. Landscaping Works at Landscape Solutions Qld Pty Ltd $285,986. Approved: (estimated Downey Park Achieved Value for Money Index 07.03.13. Tinamba Turf Co Pty - $264,457. expenditure Windsor. {VFM} of 25.76. Start: Achieved Highest Value for Money under 13.03.13. Index {VFM} of 31.26. maximum Scape Shapes Landscaping Pty $352,859. End: term of the Ltd. 08.05.13. contract). Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 23.24. $311,974. Dig-It Landscapes Pty Ltd. Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 21.80. RPQ017-10-25. CPO. $426,649. Brunswick Street Box & Co. $431,277. Approved: (estimated Coffee Venue. Achieved Value for Money Index 21.02.13. Probuild Industries Australia Pty expenditure {VFM} of 19.01. Start: Ltd - $426,649. under 25.02.13. Achieved Highest Value for Money maximum End: Index {VFM} of 19.22. term of the 20.05.13. contract). V110211-10/11-37. CPO. $1,489,292. Cabbage Tree Creek Shortlisted Tenderers: Approved: (estimated Bikeway – Stage 3. 21.02.13. Moggill Constructions Pty Ltd - expenditure Davbridge Constructions Pty Ltd. $1,479,550. Start: $1,489,292. under Achieved Value for Money Index 22.02.13. Achieved Highest Value for Money maximum {VFM} of 3420. End: Index {VFM} of 3962. term of the 25.07.13. contract). ARK Constructions Pty Ltd. $1,507,131. Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 3165.

Pensar Civil Pty Ltd. $1,521,314. Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 3405.

Contract/Quote No. & Delegate Price Contract/Quote Unsuccessful Tenders Prices Approval, Successful Contractor/s Accepted & Purpose & Quoters Tendered Start/End Type of Dates & Arrangemen Term t

Doval Constructions (QLD) Pty $1,541,571. Ltd. Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 3886. $1,565,001. Civil Mining & Construction Pty Ltd. Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 3923.

Tenderers not Shortlisted: (Due to uncompetitive price. Value for Money Index {VFM} $1,736,633. was not calculated). $1,826,584.

BMD Constructions Pty Ltd. McIllwain Civil Engineering Pty Ltd. BRISBANE LIFESTYLE Nil. BRISBANE TRANSPORT BT130045-12/13. CEO. $3,000,000. Private Bus Operators Hornibrook Bus Lines. $165.* Approved: (estimated for Special Events. Achieved Value for Money Index 26.03.13. Veolia Transport - $100.* expenditure {VFM} of 39.39. Start: Achieved Highest Value for Money under 02.04.13. Index {VFM} of 74.00. maximum Coach Australia. N/A. End: term of the (Non-conforming). Final (initial term) Thomsons Bus Services - $120.* Panel Tendered Price and Value for 01.04.16. Achieved Value for Money Index Arrangement) Money Index {VFM} not Max. Term {VFM} of 70.00. . calculated. (5) years.

Bus Queensland - $120.* Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 68.33.

Kangaroo Bus Lines - $120.* Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 60.42.

Caboolture Bus Lines - $120.* Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 51.67.

*Price is the tendered all inclusive hourly rate for Inner City Services. CITY PLANNING & SUSTAINABILITY Nil. DISASTER RESPONSE & RECOVERY Nil. OFFICE OF THE LORD MAYOR & CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Nil. ORGANISATIONAL SERVICES OS130102-12/13. CPO. $152,900. Supply and Delivery Dynatest New Zealand $161,065. Approved: (estimated of a Falling Weight Achieved Value for Money Index 28.03.13. ARRB Group Pty Ltd - $152,900 expenditure Deflectometer Trailer. {VFM} of 6.0. Start: Achieved Highest Value for Money under 01.04.13. Index {VFM} of 7.8. maximum GEOTRAN. N/A. End: term of the (Non-conforming). Final 31.03.14. contract). Tendered Price and Value for Money Index {VFM} not calculated. SPO130007-12/13. CPO. $531,000. Professional MCI Australia PTY Limited. $653,000. Approved: (Endorsed (estimated Conference Organiser Achieved Value for Money Index 28.02.13. Carillon Conference Management by CEO). expenditure for the Asia Pacific {VFM} of 126. Start: Pty Ltd - $531,000. under Cities Summit. 01.10.13. Achieved Highest Value for Money maximum Arinex Pty Limited. $815,000. End:

Contract/Quote No. & Delegate Price Contract/Quote Unsuccessful Tenders Prices Approval, Successful Contractor/s Accepted & Purpose & Quoters Tendered Start/End Type of Dates & Arrangemen Term t Index {VFM} of 173. term of the Achieved Value for Money Index 31.12.15. Preferred {VFM} of 91. Supplier Arrangement) ICMS Australasia Pty Ltd. N/A. . (Not Shortlisted). Did not meet minimum quality requirements. Final Tendered Price and Value for Money Index {VFM} not calculated.

Gay Properties Pty Ltd t/a Ozacom Conference Services. (Not Shortlisted). Did not meet minimum quality requirements. N/A. Final Tendered Price and Value for Money Index {VFM} not calculated.

ICMS Pty Ltd. (Not Shortlisted). Did not meet minimum quality requirements. N/A. Final Tendered Price and Value for Money Index {VFM} not calculated.

Rothesay and Durali International t/a RDI Marketing. N/A. (Non-conforming). Final Tendered Price and Value for Money Index {VFM} not calculated. SPO130010-12/13. CEO. $2,500,000. Provision of Portable Approved: (estimated and Fixed Fire 05.03.13. Category 1 – Portable Fire expenditure Maintenance Services Category 1 – Portable Fire Start: Protection Equipment: under and Rectification Protection Equipment: 17.03.13. maximum Work. End: Fire Services Queensland Pty Ltd term of the Firevac Services Pty Ltd. $65,106.* (initial term) - $53,893.* Preferred Achieved Value for Money Index 16.03.15. Achieved Highest Value for Money Supplier {VFM} of 87.16. Max. Term Index {VFM} of 88.32. Arrangement) (5) years. . Eversafe Fire And Safety. $81,021.* Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 60.32.

CVSG Trade Services Pty Ltd. $88,617.* Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 49.83.

Tyco Australia T/A Wormald $101,999.* Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 43.31.

Endfire Engineering Pty Ltd $79,574.* Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 38.82.

Advance Fire Technology. $122,255.* Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 36.08.

Johnson Controls Australia Pty 131,659.* Limited. Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 31.72.

Category 2 – Fixed Fire Category 2 – Fixed Fire Equipment: Equipment: $81,342.*

Fire Services Queensland Pty Ltd Firevac Services Pty Ltd. - $58,002.* Achieved Value for Money Index Achieved Highest Value for Money {VFM} of 70.40. $77,335.* Index {VFM} of 79.35.

Contract/Quote No. & Delegate Price Contract/Quote Unsuccessful Tenders Prices Approval, Successful Contractor/s Accepted & Purpose & Quoters Tendered Start/End Type of Dates & Arrangemen Term t CVSG Trade Services Pty Ltd. Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 56.99. $137,405.* *Price is a representative basket of goods consisting of the tendered Eversafe Fire And Safety. service rates multiplied by estimated Achieved Value for Money Index total yearly quantities. {VFM} of 33.91. $142,655.*

Tyco Australia T/A Wormald. Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 30.85. $169,013.*

Johnson Controls Australia Pty Limited. Achieved Value for Money Index $205,666.* {VFM} of 25.38.

Advance Fire Technology. Achieved Value for Money Index $196,795.* {VFM} of 22.98.

Endfire Engineering Pty Ltd. Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 16.63.

SPO130021-12/13. CEO. $2,700,000. Professional Building Approved: Certification Services. Category 1: Private 19.03.13. Category 1: Private Certification Certification Services Council Start: Services Council is Acquiring for is Acquiring for Itself: 01.04.13 Itself: End: Building Surveying Professionals N/A. (initial term) Certis Pty Ltd - $73,350.* Pty Ltd. 31.03.16. Achieved Highest Value for Money (Non-conforming). Final Max. Term Index {VFM} of 185. Tendered Price and Value for (5) years. Money Index {VFM} not Hendry Group Pty Ltd - calculated. $108,540.* Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 126.

Building Code Approval Group Pty Ltd - $107,400.* Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 121.

Knisco Development Solutions Pty Ltd - $108,300.* Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 107.

BCA Certifiers Australia Pty Ltd – $93,420.* Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 96.

Philip Chun & Associates Pty Ltd ATF Philip Chun & Associates (NSW) Unit Trust - $111,300.* Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 91. Category 2: Council Certification Services Brywell Pty Ltd. t/a – Brisbane Acquired on Behalf of the Certification Group - $110,700.* Public: Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 90. N/A. All tenderers who priced this Category 2: Council Certification category have been included in Services Acquired on Behalf of the Corporate Procurement the Public: Arrangement.

Hendry Group Pty Ltd – $65,950.*

Contract/Quote No. & Delegate Price Contract/Quote Unsuccessful Tenders Prices Approval, Successful Contractor/s Accepted & Purpose & Quoters Tendered Start/End Type of Dates & Arrangemen Term t Achieved Highest Value for Money Index {VFM} of 127.

BCA Certifiers Australia Pty Ltd - $65,120.* Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 89.

Building Code Approval Group Pty Ltd - $91,225.* Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 85.

*Price is a basket of goods reflecting projected use. SPO130023-12/13. CEO. $4,000,000. Supply and Delivery N/A. N/A. Approved: (estimated of General Plumbing Both tenderers who provided a 19.03.13. Crane Distribution Limited t/a expenditure Supplies. response have been included in Start: Tradelink Plumbing Centres - under the Panel Arrangement. 14.04.13 $270,046.* maximum End: Achieved Value for Money Index term of the (initial term) {VFM} of 0.29. Panel 13.04.16. Arrangement) Max. Term Reece Pty Ltd - $288,208.* . (5) years. Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 0.29.

* Price is based on the latest annual purchase volume of commonly purchased goods and stock items. SPO130079-12/13. CEO. $33,200,000. Supply and Delivery Approved: (estimated of Shelf Ready Library 19.03.13. Category 1: Books Lending and expenditure Materials. Category 1: Books Lending Start: Reference under and Reference 15.04.13 maximum End: General Material: term of the General Material: (initial term) Panel 14.04.15. Peter Pal - $2,532,525.* Arrangement) The Book House. $2,624,300. Max. Term Achieved Highest Value for Money . Achieved Value for Money Index * (5) years. Index {VFM} of 31.24. {VFM} of 28.37.

James Bennett. Achieved Value for Money Index $2,429,705. {VFM} of 27.42. *

Specialist Children’s Specialist Children’s Material: Material:

ALS - $2,698,940.* STM. Achieved Highest Value for Money Achieved Value for Money Index $2,710,890. Index {VFM} of 27.86. {VFM} of 26.86. *

Booktopia. (Not shortlisted). Value for Money Index {VFM} not $3,226,795. calculated. *

Bertram. (Non-conforming). Final Tendered Price and Value for N/A. Money Index {VFM} not Category 2: Audio Visual calculated.

General Material: Category 2: Audio Visual

Peter Pal - $493,000.* General Material: Achieved Highest Value for Money Index {VFM} of 96.19. James Bennett. Achieved Value for Money Index Specialist Material: {VFM} of 90.46. $433,900.*

Contract/Quote No. & Delegate Price Contract/Quote Unsuccessful Tenders Prices Approval, Successful Contractor/s Accepted & Purpose & Quoters Tendered Start/End Type of Dates & Arrangemen Term t DES - $513,000.* Specialist Material: Achieved Highest Value for Money Index {VFM} of 89.60. Marcom. (Not shortlisted). Value for STM - $526,300.* Money Index {VFM} not $548,000.* Achieved Value for Money Index calculated. {VFM} of 81.30. Bertram. (Non-conforming). Final Category 3: Serials (Specialist Tendered Price and Value for Material) Money Index {VFM} not (Highly specialised field which calculated. general Tenderers do not supply). Category 3: Serials Ebsco - $692,244.* (Specialist Material) Achieved Highest Value for Money Index {VFM} of 89.48. LOTE Libraries Direct. (Not shortlisted). Did not meet N/A. minimum quality requirements. Final Tendered Price and Value for Money Index {VFM} not calculated. N/A. iSubscribe. Category 4: Adult Literacy (Non-conforming). Final Tendered Price and Value for General Material: Money Index {VFM} not calculated. Peter Pal - $34,150.* Achieved Highest Value for Money Category 4: Adult Literacy Index {VFM} of 92.58. General Material: $34,435.*

The Book House. Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 85.25. $43,225.*

DES. Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 68.18. $33,428.*

James Bennett. (Not shortlisted). Value for Money Index {VFM} not $48,238.* calculated.

CAVAL. (Not shortlisted). Value for N/A. Money Index {VFM} not calculated. Specialised Material: Bertram. STM - $36,720.* (Non-conforming). Final Achieved Highest Value for Money Tendered Price and Value for Index {VFM} of 81.84. Money Index {VFM} not calculated. Category 5: Graphic Novels Specialist Material: General Material: N/A – STM were the only Specialist Tenderer to price this Peter Pal - $80,500.* category. Achieved Highest Value for Money Index {VFM} of 98.51. $77,820.*

Category 5: Graphic Novels

General Material: $83,685.* James Bennett. (Not shortlisted). Value for Money Index {VFM} not calculated.

Contract/Quote No. & Delegate Price Contract/Quote Unsuccessful Tenders Prices Approval, Successful Contractor/s Accepted & Purpose & Quoters Tendered Start/End Type of Dates & Arrangemen Term t $86,240.*

The Book House. (Not shortlisted). Value for $103,740.* Money Index {VFM} not calculated.

STM. N/A. (Not shortlisted). Value for Specialised Material: Money Index {VFM} not calculated. ALS - $85,420.* Achieved Highest Value for Money Booktopia. Index {VFM} of 90.64. (Not shortlisted). Value for Money Index {VFM} not $102,450.* Category 6: Languages Other calculated. than English Bertram. (Not shortlisted past pre- General Material: screening). Final Tendered Price and Value for Money Index DES - $248,290.* {VFM} not calculated. N/A. Achieved Highest Value for Money Index {VFM} of 67.37. Specialised Material:

Specialised Material: DES. Achieved Value for Money Index Books Asia - $196,752.* {VFM} of 73.84. Achieved Highest Value for Money $253,500.* Index {VFM} of 94.35. Category 6: Languages Other than English Multilingual - $241,120.* Achieved Value for Money Index General Material: $298,833.* {VFM} of 75.70. N/A - DES were the only Tenderer to price this category. CAVAL - $276,355.* Achieved Value for Money Index N/A. {VFM} of 65.45. Specialised Material:

Aussie Global Books. Category 7: Large Print (Not shortlisted). Value for Money Index {VFM} not General Material: calculated. No General Tenderers were recommended for inclusion on the LOTE Libraries Direct. Panel Arrangement for this category. (Not shortlisted). Value for $268,500.* Money Index {VFM} not calculated.

Bertram. $214,650.* (Non-conforming). Final Tendered Price and Value for Money Index {VFM} not calculated. $313,260.*

Category 7: Large Print Specialised Material: General Material: Wavesound - $256,000.* Achieved Highest Value for Money ALS. Index {VFM} of 90.84. Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 82.47. Southern Scene - $278,710.* Achieved Value for Money Index James Bennett. {VFM} of 85.90. (Not shortlisted). Value for Money Index {VFM} not Bolinda - $298,800.* calculated. Achieved Value for Money Index {VFM} of 80.65. Booktopia. (Not shortlisted). Value for Ulverscroft - $304,400.* Money Index {VFM} not Achieved Value for Money Index calculated.

Contract/Quote No. & Delegate Price Contract/Quote Unsuccessful Tenders Prices Approval, Successful Contractor/s Accepted & Purpose & Quoters Tendered Start/End Type of Dates & Arrangemen Term t {VFM} of 74.66. Specialised Material: All Specialist Tenderers who submitted a price were included in the Panel Arrangement. Category 8: Audio Books

General Tenderers: No General Tenderers were recommended for inclusion on the Panel Arrangement for this category. $353,418.*

$300,570.*

$345,163.*

Category 8: Audio Books

General Tenderers: $364,460.*

Specialist Tenderers: ALS. Achieved Value for Money Index Wavesound - $351,000.* {VFM} of 83.74. Achieved Highest Value for Money Index {VFM} of 88.64. James Bennett. (Not shortlisted). Value for Southern Scene - $381,161.* Money Index {VFM} not Achieved Value for Money Index calculated. {VFM} of 83.38.

Bolinda Publishing - $377,496.* Booktopia. Achieved Value for Money Index (Not shortlisted). Value for {VFM} of 84.82. Money Index {VFM} not calculated. Ulvercroft - $377,190.* Achieved Value for Money Index STM. {VFM} of 80.34. (Not shortlisted). Value for Money Index {VFM} not * Price is a representative basket of calculated. goods. Specialist Tenderers: All Specialist Tenderers who submitted a price were included in the Panel Arrangement.

ADOPTED

Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR, Infrastructure Committee.

INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE

DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, Chairman of the Infrastructure Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Norm WYNDHAM, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 7 May 2013, be adopted.

Chairman: Is there any debate? DEPUTY MAYOR: Yes, briefly Madam Chairman, we had a presentation last week on the spoil management arrangements that have been put in place for the Legacy Way

project. This is another good news story from Legacy Way. We heard in the presentation about how a separate tunnel had been drilled from the worksite directly through to the Mount Coot-tha quarry so that the fill from the tunnel, the spoil from the tunnel, could be transported on a moving sort of a conveyor belt system, right the way from the end of the tunnel into the Mount Coot-tha quarry. This alleviates the need for 96,000 truck movements on roads associated with this project and it’s a good outcome for the local area and all the residents living around the tunnel. We know that, for example, projects such as Airport Link had significant challenges with removing the spoil from the tunnel and we saw ongoing complaints regarding trucks on local streets and trucks that are causing damage to roads associated with the Airport Link project. This is a problem that we don’t have with Legacy Way as a result of this innovative approach to removing the spoil. So I think it’s a great outcome, another example of this project partnering with our private sector operators, Transcity, to get innovative outcomes, innovative approaches and a quality project for our city, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Further debate. Councillor ABRAHAMS. Councillor ABRAHAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wish to make a very quick comment on Item D which was to convert land from road reserve to public open space at Sankey Street and Fraser Terrace, Highgate Hill. I accept the advice given in response to the petitioners who were just those residents directly affected. But I wish to put on the record very clearly what the final comment on the report states, and that is Council will continue to support the work of the local Bushcare Group to undertake revegetation activity of the existing access provisions for the road reserve where it is safe to do so. That is the outcome the residents were looking for so that they could have that road reserve for a Bushcare site. I am happy that even though the closure doesn’t secure it, Council has given support for that activity. Chairman: Further debate. Councillor McKENZIE. Councillor McKENZIE: Thanks, Madam Chairman. I’d like to speak to Item A to reiterate and expand on the report regarding the movement of earth from Legacy Way tunnel, or as it’s termed spoil management. Madam Chairman, in 2011, Council submitted an application for a project change for the means of conveying the spoil from Legacy Way tunnel to the Mount Coot-tha quarry to alter from an overland conveyor belt system that also included the use of trucks, to a smaller underground tunnel through which a conveyor belt runs straight to the quarry. This was done with local residents and commuters in mind to reduce the large or the heavy truck congestion, noise and the destruction of surface vegetation and roadway deterioration caused by heavy trucks. Legacy Way is a massive job, Madam Chairman. Its construction involves removing of 1.35 million cubic metres of spoil. An appreciation of this is to imagine 400 Olympic-sized swimming pools full of dirt. In 2007, the initial design for spoil management, as I said, proposed an overland spoil conveyor, which would travel approximately 1.5 kilometres from Toowong work site through an unused section of the Botanic Gardens. The tunnel which has been constructed minimises the impact on the environment and community. It’s a conveyor of 870 metres in length, of which 530 is underground in the tunnel and runs from the worksite to the quarry. The conveyor with excavator uses traditional control drill and blast methods. In the construction each explosion used 250 kilograms of explosives for each blast with 30 tonnes of explosive used in total to evacuate the conveyor tunnel. The project team excavated approximately seven metres of the tunnel each day, working from both ends. It took around five months for a team of approximately 30 workers to excavate this tunnel. The spoil is being used to fill an unused part

of the Mount Coot-tha quarry, and during this time the quarry remained operational. When Legacy Way construction is complete, spoil in the quarry will rise to 75 metres from the quarry’s base and cover a surface area of over two hectares. The spoil conveyor tunnel’s innovative design provides significant benefits, including reduction of 96,000 haulage truck movements on local roads, decrease in dust and noise impact on the surrounding community and the spoil is fully enclosed when travelling on the conveyor, removing the need to clear up to a hectare of vegetation that would have been required for the overland option. It also helps reduce the project’s impact on local community motorists and visitors to the Botanic Gardens. Spoil management is an excellent result for the efficiency of this project and the reduced impact and the local benefits to the environment and the commuters are self-evident. It’s indicative of what can be achieved by this administration, which is willing to go an extra mile for the community, as well as building a visionary project, which will be invaluable to Brisbane for many years in the future. Thank you. Chairman: Further debate. Councillor JOHNSTON. Councillor JOHNSTON: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Voting purposes only

Seriatim - Clause B Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON requested that Clause B, PETITION – REQUESTING ANGLED PARKING ON MCCULLA STREET, SHERWOOD, be taken seriatim for voting purposes.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yet again, we’re here talking about the needs of Sherwood residents, particularly those who send their children to Sherwood State School. As this Council is aware, I’ve been attempting—with the school for some years now—to have a parking solution installed in McCulla Street that reflects the needs of the school community. The school community sought engineering advice, town planning advice, arboreal advice to ensure that they could implement a solution that would meet their long-term planning needs. The school is growing very strongly and it is bounded on two sides by main roads, which makes it quite unsafe and there’s no parking on one of those main roads. Over the course of the last two years I think the only outcome has been heartbreak for this school community. It is just really disappointing that this Council couldn’t even be bothered to consider this petition prior to the terrible decision being made a few months ago here in the council chamber in February. We all remember that debate. Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR led the debate for the LNP explaining why and, Madam Chairman, I was very happy to send her speech out to I think it was about 1500 residents of Sherwood and I can tell you some of the feedback was not flattering for Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR. But Madam Chairman, you will recall that her main reason for refusing this angled parking was that (1) I had no idea about safety because I didn’t have children and, (2) that everybody knows that there are child-proof locks in cars and parents should be not letting their children out of one side of the car because there are child-proof locks. Now, in my considerable expertise, those reasons are rubbish and what I would say is that this Council has shown time-after-time that it is unwilling to consider the views of residents and the school community at Sherwood State School. There is no question that Council made a decision that was based on convenience, cost, and their preferences. There was nothing in the uniform traffic manual to prevent this type of parking solution; the rear angled parking solution that the school was seeking. The interesting part, and the feedback to me has been very funny, as this actual solution’s been installed over the last few

[4403 (Ordinary) meeting – 14 May 2013] - 38 - weeks, one of the big arguments from Council was we couldn’t possibly do rear angled parking because we’d have to cut into the tree roots and we’d had to remove the footpath. Well, exactly that has happened. Council cut into the roots of all the trees they said couldn’t be touched to the school and they had to cut up a footpath that should never have been built in the first place and reinstall it, wasting massive amounts of money. This has been a debacle. It reflects poorly on the LORD MAYOR who, when he was the Deputy Mayor and Chairman of Infrastructure, promised this school that he would work with them to deliver their solution and he did not. All he has done with this LNP administration is to oppose this school’s needs. It’s not good enough. We’ve got 274 signatures from parents around this school and their views are being ignored—ignored—only for the reasons of preference by this Council, cost and convenience. Not because of the needs of the school itself, not because the solution will be safer and certainly not because of any rational debate by the LNP when trying to justify it here in the chamber. That is very disappointing and we will certainly remember that, I think, the first time—certainly that I can recall—the LNP then dished out an ultimatum to the school to accept this money or else. They did have a debate about it and the school did accept the funding. It was very interesting that I heard in another committee meeting that that funding was not going to fund a new project but it was to provide extra funding for the Cannon Hill State School. So extra funding could be found for the Cannon Hill State School but, Madam Chairman, it couldn’t possibly be even considered for Sherwood State School. That was quite an interesting insight from Councillor SCHRINNER in committee last week and certainly not lost on my residents that there seems to be a double standard. But what I will say is when we debated this matter in February; there was no rational debate in the Council chamber. The school had asked for technical reason—technical reasons I guess is the best word—to say why this solution was not supported under the uniform traffic manual. Those technical reasons never eventuated. We got a two-page memo which basically said it was cost, convenience and preference. Well, I think it’s appalling that this Council has stopped listening to the residents of Sherwood. It is very clear that that is the case when it comes to this issue; five storeys, bus depots, cycling; whatever you name it’s very clear that residents have got the message very loud and clear from the LNP. I say keep doing it. It’s not good policy in my view. It’s not good practice in my view. It doesn’t reflect well on the LORD MAYOR; let me tell you, because they voted for him as well as me. I think it is appalling that residents’ views can be so easily dismissed for the reasons of cost, convenience and preference. This Council should be better than that and these residents who pay their rates deserve to have a say in how they’re spent in their local community. So I’m very disappointed that again this Council is going to say to them, no, despite your considered submissions, despite the clear engineering support, despite the clear town planning support for what you’ve proposed this Council isn’t listening. That is the message that is being sent by the LNP to Sherwood residents and I don’t think that that’s good enough. I support Sherwood State School’s views and have for the past five years. I don’t understand why this Council sends out people who refused to talk to the P&C (Parents and Citizens Association) president and the principal, who refused to give them—they produced a map and then refused to give them the map. Let me tell you, for people who don’t know Council when it happens to them like that they are gobsmacked at how rude and inconsiderate that is. I’m used to it because I see it almost every week in my office but I can tell you that when members of the community who are going about their business in good faith are

treated in that way by council’s representatives it is a appalling and it’s not lost on them that this Council is doing it deliberately and that they were always unwilling to consider anything. Now not only did the school get back to Council after February, they asked for a few basic things. They asked for some bike deflection rails to be installed where they’re putting in the new centre crossing at the corner of Hall Street and McCulla Street. Councillor SCHRINNER refused. These are the yellow bike deflection rails. He even refused to put in a simple safety measure like that. They were the types of very simple things that the school asked for in their response to this Council. Even those simple safety measures were knocked back. It’s not good enough. It is not good enough. Their views about the safety of their children should be respected in this place, not smashed down simply for political purposes. The fact that this Council wouldn’t even put in the bike rails in is just staggering to the parents out my way. They cannot understand why Council has refused at every single turn to do anything the school has asked. Not one single bit of this project reflects the views of the school, even something as simple as bike deflection rails at a new intersection where there is a pedestrian crossing and now all the kids will cross. That’s just appalling in my view. It is shameful, shameful that this Council cannot find a little bit of money in the project budget to put those in. It can find the extra money to send over to another school to increase the size of their project but it can’t even find a little bit of funding to respond to Sherwood State School. I think that reflects poorly on Councillor SCHRINNER. He is the one that responded. I think it reflects poorly on this administration and I think it reflects poorly on this Council that they have been so unwilling to work with the genuine issues raised by Sherwood State School. I just think this whole episode has been appalling and I say watch out to other schools around Brisbane. Just like the residents we’ve heard here today, we know their planning issues are being ignored. We now know that their concerns about safety around their schools will be ignored as well. Chairman: Further debate. Councillor MURPHY.

ADJOURNMENT: 600/2012-13 At that time, 4.07pm, it was resolved on the motion of Councillor Ryan MURPHY, seconded by Councillor Kim MARX, that the meeting adjourn for a period of 15 minutes, to commence only when all councillors hade vacated the chamber and the doors locked.

Council stood adjourned at 4.09pm.

UPON RESUMPTION: Chairman: Further debate on the Infrastructure report? Councillor NEWTON. Councillor NEWTON: Yes thanks very much, Madam Chair, I rise to speak on Item C of this report, which is a response to a petition started by Paul Street residents in Brighton. About 100 people have signed the petition as well. As the response notes, it's not just of interest or an issue for people who live in that street, but people who are further afield. These petitioners are concerned about the behaviour of some of the motorists driving down Paul Street at Brighton. Paul Street is an important east west connecting road from Baskerville Street to Gladstone Street but it is of a lower end of that part of the hierarchy as a 50 kilometre an hour street. So it's not a major 60 kilometres an hour road. It does have some long straight stretches but there are some significantly sharp bends in the road. This is where the issues have arisen for the residents finding that some motorists are taking those bends just way too fast. Added to this, Madam Chair, Paul Street also backs onto part of Masonic Care which is a major aged care and independent living facility, which is currently undergoing significant redevelopment, as I witness from my kitchen window when I'm cooking.

I get to look out over this major redevelopment of this aged care facility which has my wholehearted support, Madam Chair. But of course this has also added to some issues in Paul Street with parking with some of the people working on that site contributing to some of the stress on Paul Street. So according to the report we've got before us today, we've got some official crash data. Unfortunately the last—well it's dated from 2004 to 2009 and I know with dealing with other issues it can be difficult for Council to get accurate up-to-date records from Queensland Police Service. We can find sometimes this crash data can be up to 18 months out of date. So if you've got a change in conditions sometimes that crash data may or may not reflect the particular issues in that neighbourhood. But the residents are not necessarily so worried about crashes that have happened, as crashes that may happen as a result of driver behaviour. That's a really valid concern where they're worried about people taking those corners too quickly and finding themselves having a potential head on collision, Madam Chair. We all know that this is driver behaviour but there are some things that Council can do and proposes to do as part of this response to the petition. I'm supportive of this as a step towards addressing these concerns and the key things that are proposed in this petition response is to first of all change the status of this road on the road hierarchy, Madam Chair. Currently it's a district access road and as such, district access roads are generally not permitted to have traffic calming and other kinds of devices on. So the proposal is as part of the City Plan amendments to change it from a district access to a neighbourhood access which may mean that in the future, traffic calming could be considered, should that be something that is required on that stretch of road. So at least changing that particular status of the road leaves that option open if these measures proposed in this petition response don't go far enough in addressing these driver behaviour problems. Secondly some traffic survey work will be done which will determine just how many vehicles are exceeding the 50 kilometre per hour speed limit. That will provide valuable feedback to Queensland Police Service about the driver behaviour problems and in particular, hopefully times of day and the numbers that are exceeding those speed limits. That can help with targeting enforcement. The third proposal as part of this response to the petition from residents is to install some broken centre lines through the bends in the street, Madam Chair. I've had some success in other streets across Deagon ward where this has been another problem, where there's been a bend in the road and there's been problems with some motorists taking that bend a little bit too quickly. By putting a centre line in has helped people understand where they're supposed to be sitting on the road. The feedback from residents in those streets has significantly helped to reduce concerns and problems with respect to driver behaviour. So, Madam Chair, I'm supportive of these measures and I'll continue to work with the residents to monitor to see whether they are effective, in terms of tackling the driver behaviour concerns, Madam Chair, and I'm pleased to support this item today. Chairman: Further debate on the Infrastructure report? DEPUTY MAYOR. No further comment?

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

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

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

AYES: 23 - The DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Margaret de WIT, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN-TAYLOR, Julian SIMMONDS, Andrew WINES, and Norm WYNDHAM, and the Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Milton DICK, and Councillors Shayne SUTTON, Peter CUMMING, Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS, and Victoria NEWTON.

NOES: 1 - Nicole JOHNSTON.

ATTENDANCE:

Deputy Mayor, Councillor Adrian Schrinner (Chairman), Councillor Ian McKenzie (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Margaret de Wit, Milton Dick, Victoria Newton, Norm Wyndham.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – LEGACY WAY SPOIL MANAGEMENT 601/2012-13 1. Jim Hefferan, Deputy Project Director, Legacy Way, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure Division, attended the meeting to provide a presentation on spoil management for the Legacy Way project. He provided the information below.

2. A brief overview of the Legacy Way project, which involves the construction of a road tunnel to connect the Western Freeway at Toowong with the Inner City Bypass at Kelvin Grove, was provided. The following information was supplied: - Construction of Legacy Way involves removing 1.35 million cubic metres of spoil, enough to fill 400 Olympic-sized swimming pools. - The initial design proposed an overland spoil conveyor that would travel approximately 1.5 kilometres from the Toowong worksite, through an unused section of the Botanic Gardens, to the Mt Coot-tha Quarry. - Tunnel contractor Transcity proposed a spoil conveyor tunnel to minimise impacts on the environment and community, and improve reliability in conveyor operations. Overhead plans showing the routes of the proposed overland conveyor and the tunnel that was actually constructed were displayed. The tunnel route is more direct than the conveyor would have been.

3. The spoil conveyor built by Transcity runs 870-metres from the Toowong worksite to the Mount Coot-tha Quarry, with 530 metres being underground. The conveyor tunnel was excavated using traditional controlled drill and blast methods. A total of 250 kilograms of explosives was used for each controlled blast, with 30 tonnes of explosives used to excavate the entire conveyor tunnel. The project team excavated, on average, seven metres of the tunnel each day, working from both ends. It took around five months for the team of approximately 30 workers to complete the tunnel.

4. A video showing various stages of the construction process of the spoil tunnel was displayed, along with a photograph of the worksite’s statue of St Barbara, the patron saint of tunnellers. Photographs of the inside of the tunnel, the conveyor when it was new and aerial views of quarry site were also displayed, as well as time-lapse footage showing Legacy Way spoil management at the quarry.

5. The spoil is being used to fill an unused part of the quarry, while the quarry remains operational. When Legacy Way construction is complete spoil in the quarry will rise to 75 metres from the quarry’s base and cover a surface area of over two hectares.

6. The spoil conveyor tunnel’s innovative design provides significant benefits, including:

- reducing the need for 96,000 haulage truck movements on roads - decreasing dust impacts on the surrounding community as spoil is fully enclosed when on the conveyor - eliminating the need to clear up to a hectare of vegetation required for an overland conveyor - decreasing noise impacts during operation - helping to reduce the project’s impacts on motorists and visitors to the Botanic Gardens as well as the local community.

7. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Hefferan for his presentation.

8. RECOMMENDATION:

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

B PETITION – REQUESTING ANGLE PARKING ON MCCULLA STREET, SHERWOOD CA12/608960 602/2012-13 9. A petition from residents of Brisbane, requesting that Council approve installation of angled parking on McCulla Street, Sherwood, and that allocated Safe School Travel program (SafeST) funding be preserved to implement this solution in the future, was received during the Summer Recess 2012-13.

10. The Manager, Transport Planning and Strategy Branch, Brisbane Infrastructure Division, provided the information below.

11. The petition contains 274 signatures from residents, businesses and the Sherwood State School community.

12. The petitioners have requested Council approve angle parking on McCulla Street, Sherwood and that the allocated SafeST funding be preserved to implement angle parking in the future.

13. As a result of a petition received in 2011-12, the matter of parking around Sherwood State School was previously considered by Council’s Infrastructure Committee on 22 February 2011. The Committee made a recommendation that was confirmed by full Council on 1 March 2011. The Committee’s recommendation was endorsed by Council unanimously.

14. The Council resolution of 1 March 2011 was as follows:

It is the preferred option that Council include Sherwood State School in the next available funding submission to seek approval from the State Government to include the construction of a combination of indented parallel parking and two-minute passenger loading zone on the western side of McCulla Street. The configuration would take the location of the existing children’s crossing into account. Council will also: - encourage Sherwood State School to apply to participate in the Active School Travel program in 2012 - review signs and lines to rationalise on-street parking - recommend that the school participate in the Department of Transport and Main Road’s ‘Look Out’ program to encourage the correct use of the existing two-minute passenger loading zone (2MPLZ) in Hall Street and a proposed 2MPLZ in McCulla Street.

15. Following consideration of this first petition, funding of $110,000 was provided in the 2012-13 Council budget and joint funding was sought from the Department of Transport and Main Roads.

16. The matter was further considered at the Council Meeting of 5 February 2013, where it was resolved:

That Council advise the Sherwood State School that based on the advice of Council’s engineers that the proposal for rear angled parking is not supported.

Further, that if the school wishes to proceed with the project which is funded in this financial year that a decision is required by the end of February.

Further, that should the school not wish to proceed with the SafeST project, that the funding is redirected to changes to the Cannon Hill State School SafeST project, which is also funded in Council’s budget this financial year.

17. Given that this matter has now twice been considered by Council, there is limited further information to be provided.

18. It should be noted, however, that the funding for SafeST projects cannot be ‘preserved’ as the petitioners are requesting, due to the funding arrangements of the SafeST program.

19. It is therefore recommended the petitioners be advised this matter has previously been considered by Council and that the petitioners’ proposal for angle parking is not supported.

Funding

20. SafeST funding of $110,000 is available in the 2012-13 budget for the construction of a combination of indented parallel parking and a two-minute passenger loading zone on the western side of McCulla Street.

Consultation

21. The Councillor for Tennyson Ward, Councillor Nicole Johnston, was consulted and declined to have her views recorded as part of this petition submission.

Preferred option

22. It is the preferred option that the petitioners be advised that Council passed a motion on 5 February 2013 stating Sherwood State School’s proposal for rear angle parking in McCulla Street, Sherwood, is not supported.

23. The Manager therefore submitted the following recommendation with which the Committee agrees.

24. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT AND THAT COUNCIL ENDORSES THE PREFERRED OPTION ABOVE. ADOPTED

C PETITION – REQUESTING TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES IN PAUL STREET, BRIGHTON CA13/126644 603/2012-13 25. A petition from residents of the Brighton area, requesting Council to implement traffic control measures to improve safety for pedestrians in Paul Street, Brighton, between Gladstone and Ward Streets, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 26 February 2013 by Councillor Victoria Newton, and received.

26. The Acting Manager, Transport Planning and Strategy Branch, Brisbane Infrastructure Division, provided the information below.

27. The petition contains 100 signatures representing residents of Brighton, Sandgate, Shorncliffe and other nearby suburbs. A number of the signatories live in Paul Street.

28. The petitioners are concerned about the speed of vehicles and would like the speed limit reduced to less than 50km/h at bends along the street.

29. Paul Street provides a north-south connection between Baskerville Street and Gladstone Street/Brighton Terrace. The street is approximately one kilometre in length, between 10 and 12-metres wide and operates under the default 50km/h urban speed limit.

30. As part of the road hierarchy review undertaken for the recent City Plan update, Paul Street was downgraded from a District Access route to a Neighbourhood Access route. It is expected that traffic volumes in the street would be far less than could be expected in a street that performs the function of a District Access. However, because of its connectivity it is expected that it will continue to be used as a popular link between Brighton Terrace and Baskerville Street.

31. Current traffic data is not available and, as such, traffic surveys will be undertaken along Paul Street at various locations to record the number of vehicles using the street, and the speed at which these vehicles are travelling. Should the surveys show that a large number of motorists are travelling above the 50km/h speed limit this information will be forwarded to the Queensland Police Service with a request to undertake enforcement of the speed limit.

32. There are a number of bends along the route and providing motorists are not speeding all of the bends should be easily recognised by approaching motorists. A search of official crash records shows four recorded crashes in Paul Street between May 2004 and September 2009. All of the crashes were attributed to motorists driving without the appropriate level of due care and attention. The geometry of the road was not cited as a contributing factor in any of the crashes.

33. However, to provide additional guidance for approaching motorists a broken centre line will be marked through the bends as shown on the locality plan at Appendix A submitted on file. While bend warning and advisory speed signs may be installed to warn motorists of tight or substandard curves, it is considered that the centre line marking will provide adequate guidance and as such the additional signage is not required.

Funding

34. Funding to undertake traffic surveys and to install centrelines at a number of locations along Paul Street is available from the current budget under Program 3 – Moving Brisbane.

Consultation

35. The Councillor for Deagon Ward, Councillor Victoria Newton, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

Preferred option

36. It is the preferred option that Council advise the petitioners that traffic surveys will be undertaken along Paul Street at various locations to record the number of vehicles using the street and the speed at which these vehicles are travelling. Should the surveys show a large number of motorists are travelling above the 50km/h speed limit this information will be forwarded to the Queensland Police Service with a request to undertake enforcement of the speed limit. Also, to provide additional guidance for motorists travelling along Paul Street, broken centre lines will be marked through a number of the bends along the street.

37. The Acting Manager therefore submitted the following recommendation with which the Committee agrees.

38. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT AND THAT COUNCIL ENDORSES THE PREFERRED OPTION ABOVE. ADOPTED

D PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL TO CONVERT LAND AT SANKEY STREET AND FRASER TERRACE, HIGHGATE HILL, FROM ROAD RESERVE TO PUBLIC OPEN SPACE CA12/414435 604/2012-13 39. A petition from residents of West End, requesting Council to convert land parcels in Highgate Hill at Sankey Street and Fraser Terrace from road reserve to public open space, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 4 September 2013 by Councillor Helen Abrahams, and received.

40. The Manager, Transport Planning and Strategy Branch, Brisbane Infrastructure Division, provided the information below.

41. The petition contained 11 signatures. The areas of road reserve described in the petition are shown outlined in red on Attachment A submitted on file.

42. The petitioners have requested that these parcels of land be designated ‘public open space’, and consider that these sites provide great value as wild vegetation and habitat areas, as well as having potential for future public walkways. A brief assessment of the sites confirms the petitioners’ view that these areas support native vegetation and wildlife; however, the suggested potential for future public walkways could only be realised by constructing expensive boardwalk structures, given the topographic constraints.

43. The requested change in designation to public open space would require a road closure application to be lodged with the Queensland Government (through the Department of Natural Resources and Mines). However, under the Land Act 1994, the responsible Minister must consider any objections to the road closure proposals from adjoining residents before making a final determination, and from Council’s experience this generally results in such objections being upheld.

44. Sankey Street (shown at Area 1 on Attachment A submitted on file) is a formed road to a point approximately 15 metres south of the intersection with Fraser Terrace. The property at 1 Fraser Terrace has an existing development approval that allows for property access from

Sankey Street; therefore a closure of this formed section of Sankey Street would not be possible. Beyond this point there is an active bushcare group, and the topography is steeper. However, it is desirable to keep the current designation in place to allow for the option of potential road or pathway access to the Brisbane River

45. An application for the closure of the section of Fraser Terrace between Dauphin Terrace and Derby Street, Highgate Hill (shown as Area 2 on Attachment A), would also be subject to potential objections from adjoining property owners. Part of the driveway enabling access to 43 Fraser Terrace from Dauphin Terrace sits on the western end of this area. At the eastern end ‘lower’ Derby Street occupies a portion of the Fraser Terrace road reserve, providing access to 53 and 55 Fraser Terrace, and potential future access to 49 Fraser Terrace. It is therefore not appropriate for Council to seek a closure of this section of Fraser Terrace.

46. For the above reasons, it is recommended that the petitioners be advised that Council will not make application for the closure of part of Sankey Street south of Fraser Terrace or part of Fraser Terrace between Dauphin Terrace and Derby Street. However, Council will continue to support the work of local bushcare groups to undertake revegetation activities in these locations under the existing access provisions for road reserve, where it is safe to do so.

Consultation

47. Councillor Helen Abrahams, Councillor for The Gabba Ward, has been consulted and advised that she supports the recommendation below.

Preferred option

48. It is the preferred option that the petitioners be advised of the information contained in this report and that the requested road closures will not be sought.

49. The Manager therefore recommended as follows and the Committee agrees.

51. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PREFERRED OPTION ABOVE AND OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT. ADOPTED

Chairman: Councillor MATIC, Public and Active Transport Committee.

PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE

Councillor Peter MATIC, Chairman of the Public and Active Transport Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Steve Huang that the report of that Committee held on 7 May 2013, be adopted. Chairman: Is there any debate? Councillor MATIC: Thank you, Madam Chairman. There were two items in the report, the first one being the community presentation bus network review. I'd like to thank the officers for their presentation to the committee, in setting out what our objectives were, and then providing examples throughout all north, south, east, west regions as to the proposed changes, and setting out some detail around those. I also want to acknowledge, Madam Chairman, all of the officers in Brisbane Transport, not only in Brisbane Square, but out in the depots as well, for the enormous amount of work they've put into this bus network review. Also, thanks to the officers for their dedicated work throughout this process. We did have short timeframes in order to provide the review for public consultation and all

the officers involved in this process have done impeccable work in being able to present that for all Brisbane residents. We will now, of course, wait to see what the review brings after the closing date of 20 May. Then once all that has been collated together we will then present that proposal to the Minister on 1 June. Madam Chairman, the second item is a petition requesting that job seekers be given concession cards for use in public transport. It was an e-petition, Madam Chairman, presented to myself as Chairman, on behalf of residents outside of Brisbane City Council but certainly what they're seeking is relevant to public transport generally. Unfortunately, in respect to the go card and issues around that, that is, of course, the responsibility of TransLink. So the petitioners will be advised of that outcome and the appropriate steps that will be taken by BCC to forward their issues to TransLink for their consideration. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor DICK. Councillor DICK: Thanks, Madam Chair, I rise to speak on the bus network review and I would like to say, Madam Chair— Chairman: Sorry? Councillor DICK: I'll say that again, Madam Chair, I rise to speak on Item A the bus network review and all I can say about this review is that it delivers bad news for the people of the south west of Brisbane. It is a disgrace that the chair of the Public Transport—sorry, the Public and Active Transport Committee chair doesn't acknowledge the impacts in his report today about what this will mean, giving glib comments and vague responses that somehow this is going to be good news for commuters in our city. Why are we doing this review? This wasn't something called for by Council officers. It wasn't even called for by Councillor MATIC. It certainly wasn't called for by the LORD MAYOR. It certainly wasn't called for by the thousands of commuters that are going to lose out across the south west of Brisbane. The last couple of weeks Councillor MATIC has wanted to attack me, say that I'm grandstanding; say that I'm playing politics. Madam Chair, I don't care what Councillor MATIC through you says to me. I don't care what he says about me. I care about the commuters that he is leaving behind. Listening to and reading the local coverage of this, last week's paper, “axe falls on buses”. Front page of the South-West News. As many as 10 bus services in the Richlands Ward will be cut or changed as part of a citywide review. Inala residents are rallying against the changes but time is running out to have their voices heard. It goes on, “rally against bus changes”, residents have been furious about the way they've been treated by this Council. The Satellite newspaper last week; “commuters stranded, bus cuts to leave vulnerable groups in helpless situation”. Now that's the sort of coverage that Councillor MATIC is getting, through you, Madam Chair, as a result of his bus review. He's ignoring the thousands of residents that have already signed petitions opposing these changes. He's ignoring the public transport experts that have voiced their concerns against this. He's ignoring the local councillor who has voiced their concerns. He's ignoring the Labor Opposition views. He's ignoring the local media views. So let's be clear on this, everyone is wrong. The thousands of commuters who are going to be impacted by this, me as the local councillor, the local editors, the local newspapers, the local residents, the local businesses, the local community groups are all wrong, but Councillor MATIC is right. Councillor MATIC is correct because he knows best. He's got the hide, through you, Madam Chair, as part of this network review to criticise the local State member and I'll come back to that later today in my comments. It only takes him about five minutes and he starts bagging out Anastasia Palaszczuk. I'll come back to that. But I want to go through in detail why we are doing this; why the Council's hand is being forced on this. This wasn't something that the Brisbane City Council wanted to do. This wasn't something that we asked to do. We were forced to do

it by the LNP State Government. We were forced to conduct our own review, set by the timelines and the timeframes by the LNP State Government. The whole thing has been a sham from day one. I note from reading the LORD MAYOR's comments, and Councillor MATIC's comments, about why the reason we are doing this review and why we received the report of the committee last week, was somehow because we were going to make the network more efficient. Remember those words? We were going to make the network more efficient. But unfortunately Councillor MATIC's own colleagues are saying something different on that side of the chamber. I was having a look at Councillor KNAPP's Facebook site and her own words were on her Facebook site were, whilst BCC was handed the review from TransLink who fund all the services, the criteria was we had to find cuts or risk cuts to our peak services. That's it, black and white. That's not what the LORD MAYOR's been saying. So this is brand new evidence. Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Councillor KNAPP, Councillor KNAPP. Councillor DICK: Madam Chair— Chairman: Councillor KNAPP. Thank you. Councillor DICK: Thank you, Madam Chair, and on that interjection with Councillor KNAPP, Geraldine KNAPP the Councillor for the Gap ward who says get over it, that is the LNP attitude to the people of Inala. Get over it. Nice quote there I'll be sending out to the local community that Councillor Geraldine KNAPP from the Gap ward just made about this bus review. Yes Councillor MATIC, yes Councillor MATIC. Madam Chair, this is how the LNP treat the people of Inala. This is how the LNP — let's be clear, Labor in Council, Labor in state government provide the bus services, provide the improved services. When in government the LNP and the state government cut the services, cut the services. LNP cut the services. Labor State Government and Labor Council invest in public transport. Let's remember there were no buses rolling into Inala under the Liberal administration or the Liberal State Government. Turning to some of the actual cuts through Councillor MATIC, let's talk about the 460. If you are a pensioner in Inala if you want to catch the 460, you can no longer do that. If you want to catch the 101 or the 102, you want to travel from Inala to Corinda you can no longer do that. Don't think for a second that local residents are happy about these cuts. Do not think for a second that I will not be reminding them day in, day out exactly what the LNP as an administration has done. Who can remember this? We're going to get Queensland back on track, vote for us, we're getting on with the job, planning for the future, delivering more than you know. That was the LNP councillors at the last election. No one said anything to the people of Inala. Vote for us and we'll cut your bus service. Absolutely no one at all. I want to read to the Council chamber today exactly what local residents think about this. You only need to look at what was in the local newspaper. This is the coverage of Councillor MATIC's own review of which he has gone and said, where local residents talk about bus use, let's talk about the review. It's going to particularly affect the elderly and disabled people in Inala. Eighty-nine year old pensioners are going out door-to-door to collect signatures against these cuts. Madam Chair, when you look up the South-West News coverage of this and you read some of the comments about this and you talk to people like Christine Drought who says; ‘If they must do something about those buses, then at least accommodate the workers, especially at night time and the people who rely on the 460…’. Charmaine Thompson, Inala; ‘I use the buses a lot as a voluntary Justice of the Peace, to get to people's homes, the disabled, elderly or have conditions which means they can't leave the house. If they take the buses I will be forced to use cabs, which is very expensive.’

It just goes on and on and on; “Wheelchair-bound Marque Baker uses the bus service 460 Forest Lake to City and was part of the rally… He said he already struggled with catching a bus to major shopping centres. Mr Baker said under the review to travel to Inala Plaza from his house in the same suburb he may have to catch a bus to Richlands train station, then catch another bus back to the plaza, ‘I don't think they should be considering any cuts whatsoever until we have full wheelchair-accessible train stations and that the buses are able to run through the Brisbane area are wheelchair friendly.’” Madam Chair, the local residents have made it clear they do not support this. I will continue to stand up for my local community. Councillor MATIC, in today's comments, I'll make a prediction; he will talk about me, he will talk about the State member, he will talk about Jim Soorley, he will talk about everyone else, he'll talk about a federal member, he will talk about people's political careers, but I'll come back to that in a little while. Madam Chair, what we're talking about today are cruel and unnecessary cuts to the local residents of south-west Brisbane. It is no accident that 75 per cent of the cutbacks are all in my ward and the State leader of the Opposition, Anastasia Palaszczuk's, electorate. They have done this for political reasons because the LNP do not get the support of voters out there. That is my opinion and that is what the local community is seeing. They condemn their own actions and their rejection of public transport for those local residents by cutting back so severely. Madam Chair, this review is unacceptable to my local residents. This review is unacceptable to me. I will keep fighting for public transport services in my local community and Councillor MATIC should be ashamed of himself for delivering one of the worst reviews in our city's history. Chairman: Further debate. Councillor MARX. Councillor MARX: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise today to speak about the proposal that Brisbane City Council has put forward with regards to route 153. It’s a bus service that they’re asking to be rerouted to service Macquarie Way and Trinity Way in Drewvale. Drewvale is a suburb of my ward. It’s actually the very last suburb of Brisbane City Council, before you hit Logan City Council. They often refer to themselves as the forgotten suburb which I think is a real concern. My very first listening post out there way back when, in 2010, I had many, many residents turning up there and it was all about the one issue, that they had on buses there servicing their residents; residents having to walk to Browns Plains shopping plaza to catch a bus, which is in this day and age is not acceptable. So I’m pleased to say that Brisbane City Council has looked at the proposals and the comments that the residents put forward to them and they are proposing that a bus service is put through there. We’re looking at just the peak times, morning and afternoon. It’s not something that they don’t really necessarily need nor want to want a bus there every 15 minutes. It’s just peak times to get them to work or school and back home again to save a lot of the families having to have double cars and stuff like that. So I’m continuing to encourage the residents to have their say on this proposal and I’m very happy to commend this to the chamber. Thank you. Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Further debate. Councillor JOHNSTON. Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on Item A the bus network review. Madam Chair, it’s about time that’s how I will start this afternoon’s debate on this issue. I think for the past seven or eight months now every week I’ve been asking Councillor MATIC for a briefing on the impact of the TransLink bus review, and then obviously on Council’s review when that was announced. Finally, last week, he did a report, which was a fairly straight-forward summary of all the changes that are proposed under the Council review. The interesting part came when we got to the discussion portion of the meeting. That’s where I

think the duplicity of Councillor MATIC’s comments were most exposed, because I asked a number of questions about what the cost would be of cutting these services, what sorts of costs impacts there would be, had they delivered any savings targets by the State Government, all financial questions to which Councillor MATIC clearly said, no, we don’t know, no I can't tell you, no we haven’t and just basically dissembled his way through attempting to answer those questions. Yet clearly behind closed doors and in secret he’s telling his LNP colleagues that this is a cost-cutting initiative. I’m not on Facebook so I didn’t see Councillor KNAPP’s comments but clearly they’ve been read out correctly here. She was quite vocal in response to them and basically— Councillor interjecting. Councillor JOHNSTON: —yes, she denied them. Madam Chairman, so now we know, the truth is out. The truth is out there that this is a cost cutting exercise. This is the LORD MAYOR who stood up with the new Premier and said it will be good for everybody to have an LNP Council and at a State level. Oh, it will good for Brisbane and good for the State. Let me tell you, Madam Chairman, that’s proving to be categorically-untrue and here it is, yet another example of the way in which this collusion between the two levels of government in Queensland is not providing any benefits to the residents of Brisbane. You know, having a viable and a good public transport system is one of the central businesses of this Council. We’re not talking about making improvements to it, we’re talking about cuts. We’re talking about cuts that are going to hurt real people, real people who pay their rates, who try and get to work. If you work in any kind of shift work in this city and suburb you are going to struggle to get public transport if you have to rely on a bus. They seem to be the vast majority of changes from what I can see that they affect non-peak services. I know that the LNP’s specifically voted down my motion a few weeks ago to protect non-peak services. It’s clear now that they had the intent of actually taking them away. I find it staggering that this LNP administration cannot come clean about the real intentions of this bus review. What targets have been given; what financial cuts is this Council going to impose; why are we even talking about cuts? This is what I don’t understand. I mean, this Council is meant to provide public transport services to our residents and here we are saying, no, just because Cam told us we have to cut it, we have to cut it. I don’t think that’s good enough. This is one of those times where you’ve got to stand up and say, no, the Brisbane residents come first, not the 150th behind Campbell Newman’s cost-cutting measures. That’s not good enough. That’s not what the residents of this city expect and, Madam Chairman, whilst we’re cutting money out of public transport, we’ve heard today we’re putting plenty on the extra bonuses for executives. That’s not a good allocation of resources, Madam Chairman. The fact that Councillor MATIC couldn’t come clean and give those figures when asked last week, certainly indicates to me that he’s got something to hide. He doesn’t want those figures out there. He doesn’t want those numbers out there. At least have the guts to own a decision that you made. Be upfront with the community and tell them what’s going on. Don’t hide behind, oh, it’s all the State Government and I don’t know how much it’s going to cost and how much the cuts will cost our community. Clearly, they do know. I mean, Councillor KNAPP has let the cat out of the bag so clearly they do know. This is a cost cutting measure. Well, that’s not good enough, Madam Chairman. I’m particularly concerned about the cuts in the south-western suburbs, part of my ward, which relate to the 101 and the 102. Now this review, and Councillor MATIC said it again here today, has said that residents in a corridor will not be left without a service. Now if the 101 and the 102 are cut off at Oxley and they do not continue to Corinda, residents who live in Councillor DICK’s ward, Councillor BOURKE’s ward and

my ward off Oxley Road will be left then with no bus service at all. The only other service, the 106, runs through the back streets and is some significant distance away from where the 102 and the 101 route go. A lot of elderly residents cannot walk the up to a kilometre—a kilometre or more —to either Corinda rail station or Oxley rail station to get a train. Many of them just want to get to their local services, either at Corinda or Mount Ommaney and that’s not good enough to have their only bus service cut. It is not good enough. The promise has been repeatedly made that no resident will be left without a bus option on their corridor. That is what is going to happen to the residents of the southern end of Corinda and the northern end of Oxley if this proposal is brought forward. All I‘m asking is that this Council means what it says when it makes that statement. Don’t cut those bus services because you have promised, and at the end of the day you promised, not to cut services where there’ll be no bus left on particular corridors. That’s it. That’s not good enough in my view and I certainly will be putting in a submission with respect to that. Now, I know Councillor MATIC will get up and attack me and say, oh, but it’s low patronage. It’s low patronage. I gave you those figures today. Let me say this: on every single bus, 101 and 102, that runs between Oxley and Corinda they’re impacted at least one, at least one. Now that’s not good enough. I see Councillor MURPHY clapping. Alright, that’s excellent. We know that he’s got the real views of the residents of Brisbane in mind here when he makes a joke— Councillor interjecting. Councillor JOHNSTON: —of elderly people losing their bus services and having no other option to get to their doctor or to the bank or to the shops. It’s not good enough. It’s not like they’ve got another option. They’ve got no option— Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Order. Councillor JOHNSTON: —whatsoever. If he finds that— Chairman: Order. Councillor JOHNSTON: —an acceptable level service, he should have his buses cut out of his area but it’s not good enough. Chairman: Back to the report, Councillor JOHNSTON. Councillor JOHNSTON: Not good enough, in my area. Now I don’t want to see any resident left without a bus option altogether and that’s what will happen if these cuts to the 101 and the 102 go ahead. It will mean, for example—this is the interesting bit—that the residents of Aveo Durack, which is a very large retirement village, won’t have a bus service—they won’t have a bus service. I know that residents, they belong to the bowls club in my area; they belong to the Senior Citizens in my area. They come by bus to get up to their services and their community activity and the RSL Club and all the other things, they will not be able to because there will be no bus service running along their corridor, none. So we’re chopping off the bus service that services a very large retirement village. It’s not good enough. It’s not good enough. Clearly— Councillor interjecting. Councillor JOHNSTON: If the principle is, as Councillor MATIC said, that no corridor will be left without a bus service, he has to mean it. There’s no point in standing up there and saying, well, this is what we’re intending to do when in reality these services are being cut. It’s not good enough. I don’t think it is good enough. If Councillor MURPHY had agreed with that level of service, well, I think his residents would be very interested to know and I don’t think it is good enough. I

don’t think they’d support it and certainly the residents out my way are still very concerned about these cuts and in particular I am concerned about the 101 and the 102 and the impact particularly on the elderly residents who rely on that bus to take them into Corinda to the shops, the doctors and the other services that they rely on. Cutting those buses is not good enough and Council must reverse this decision if it is to give practical effect to what it is saying, that is that no residents will be left on a corridor without a bus service. Chairman: Further debate. Councillor GRIFFITHS—oh, Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR. Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak to this report and to place some very important facts on the record. Before I commence speaking about many of the changes, I would just like to acknowledge the bus network planners, who over a very short period of time went through and reviewed a very significant amount of bus routes—235 routes. This is a significant amount of work that was placed on these officers and can I say for them to have gone through all of these routes and not only have gone through and assessed all of the proposed changes that were put forward with the TransLink review as that first part of the process commenced, and then to have to turn around and say, right, what are the ones that we really need to address here, what ones can we retain in their current form and really put the thought into looking at getting the outcomes that we need for this city. They have put considerable amount of work in and they are to be commended for the job that they did over a very short period of time. Councillor interjecting: Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Madam Chairman, I think the fact that, throughout this Brisbane City Council review process that there have only been nine route removals. It’s a significant step forward in comparison to what was being proposed to be changed under the TransLink review. Councillors interjecting. Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Madam Chairman, I know that those on the other side continue to be rude and interject all the time. Chairman: Don’t be distracted by them, Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR— Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. But I think it’s just a lack of understanding that they have as to what has been undertaken as part of this review. Yes, it is important to have a more efficient transport network across this city. It is not appropriate, or financially responsible, to be running services for a single passenger or three passengers. These buses are meant to accommodate over 40 passengers and that is what we have to look at. We have to look at efficiency and effectiveness of these routes. Now, as part of this process with the opportunity of the review, I don’t sit back and just say, oh, let’s leave it all to the transport planners. I offered suggestions from my residents where they were in need of additional services and as a result of those suggestions being put forward as part of this review we have seen extensions of services throughout the Parkinson Ward to meet the growing demand, to meet the areas that have previously been under-serviced, to meet new residential areas and their needs, and that’s important that when these reviews come about it is not about sitting back and whingeing and whining, it is about being proactive and representing your community and saying that this is a new and developing area and it’s where there is a need for additional services. Madam Chairman, I am grateful that the residents of Calamvale will be getting an extension to the 138 service and this will also create a better link to Calamvale Community College where we have 2100 students attending. This will assist their parents in accessing that school and it will also facilitate better opportunities for children to be engaged in active school travel as well. There have also been extensions of services throughout Heathwood and Doolandella, and certainly the proposals under TransLink did nothing but remove services there so that is an absolute win for those residents as well.

Madam Chairman, I would just to like to place on the record, in respect to some of the services when we’re talking about many of these services where there have been changes throughout that south-western corridor, there has been areas of genuine duplication removed and alternate services recommended, particularly where those alternate services are now revised routes. That is what does not seem to be coming from those on the other side. Instead of engendering hysteria with the residents, it should be a genuine engagement to say have you considered these alternate revised routes to see if you are able to utilise these, because a lot of residents are not necessarily aware that there is an alternate route. Certainly with my residents that may have read the paper and been a little concerned about some of the statements that were being made, they came to me and said what is happening with our route, what else can we do? It was quite as simple as saying there is an alternate route that you can access because that alternate route has been revised. So Madam Chairman, those passengers who would have travelled on the 101, passengers on the existing Route 101 between Inala Plaza and the Ipswich Motorway can continue to have access to the high frequency route 100 BUZ. So that is an alternate route for them. Passengers on route 102, passengers who travel between Corinda and Oxley stations are able to use the existing route 106 or the rail line. On route 103, passengers using the current route 462 service would now be required to use the route 103 service. So that’s an alternate for those people. That’s what this whole process is certainly all about. So passengers currently travelling on route 460 from College Avenue in Forest Lake are able utilise the new route 101 service to travel to the Forest Lake shops and Inala Plaza where onward connections are available, or they can use the revised route 118 rocket during peak hours to access both Garden City and the CBD. The 100 bus also provides a high frequency service along Woodland Avenue and Partridge Street. So we’re not cutting people off. We’re looking at options that are available for them. The route P461, passengers in Forest Lake are able to travel on the revised 460 service, which has got increased frequency. Then passengers again for College Avenue are able to travel on the revised 118 Rocket and revised 101 services to Forest Lake Village and Inala Plaza. Again, route 462, passengers in Centenary Village at Darra will be serviced by the revised route 103. Passengers wishing to travel from the Richlands station to Richlands court house and Inala Plaza, Boundary Road industrial area, so that’s servicing all those people who need to get to their workplaces, would be serviced by the revised route 101. Passengers travelling from Heathwood and Forest Lake to Richlands station would be serviced by the revised route 460. Route 465, passengers currently using this service would be able to use the revised route 460, which would service the Richlands station, Forest Lake and Heathwood. There’s also route 466 and passengers using this service would now be able to catch the new route 122 or 110 services. So what we have done with this review, Madam Chairman, with the network planners, they have put forward as best as possible an alternate option so that we are reducing duplication but still offering services for those residents. So it is a balancing act, Madam Chairman, and I know that this balancing act is not an easy process, but certainly the officers have put considerable time, thought, effort and consideration into the process, and I thank them for what they’ve done because it’s not an easy task. There are a lot of groups, a lot of configurations and a lot of network requirements as far as timing that have to be taken into account. But what is important for all of us as councillors in this place is to go out to our residents and to explain that there have been revised routes. They may think if you say to them, oh, you can get the 101, you can get the 100, they may think

that that’s in its old form. It needs to be clearly enunciated to them that there are revised routes and these are options for them as well. So Madam Chairman, in comparison to what TransLink was proposing the residents of this city are significantly better off— Councillors interjecting. Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: —with the outcome of this review. Those on the other side may sit there and talk and carry on but what it comes down to is— Chairman: Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR, your time has expired. Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Chair. Chairman: Further debate. Councillor GRIFFITHS. Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair, and I rise to speak about Items A and B of this report. First of all, I’d just like to say a few points in relation to the speech that we’ve just heard from a general sort of theme that’s happening from these guys over there. Basically, what they’re saying is, yes, it’s bad, this review is bad but it could have been far worse. We could have actually—we were about to give you a far worse review but, look, we’ve saved you and we’ve made it only bad for you. Councillors interjecting. Councillor GRIFFITHS: Well, let’s be reckless. Everyone is waiting, while what the LNP do is blame TransLink. It’s not TransLink. That board was wiped out when the LNP came to power and they took it into the departments so that they could control it. Councillor interjecting. Councillor GRIFFITHS: They took it into the— Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Councillor KNAPP. Councillor DICK: —the departments so that they could control it. The transport board doesn’t exist. It doesn’t exist. It was abolished. Councillor interjecting. Councillor GRIFFITHS: Well, that must be news for them, that the transport—yes, the transport board doesn’t exist. It doesn’t exist. Sorry, Councillor KNAPP, you’re out of your depth. What we need to see, what we’re seeing—thank you Madam Chair. What we’re seeing here is that there’s a lot of duck-shoving going on, a lot of duck-shoving. These people here in this chamber—this LNP crew—screamed when they actually realised how much trouble their colleagues in the State had created. Councillor interjecting. Councillor GRIFFITHS: And I tell you what, it was quickly handed over to them when the State realised what a stuff up they’d made of this particular issue. Councillors interjecting. Councillor GRIFFITHS: It was a real stuff up. But, it’s not one that they’ve got out yet, because residents are still unhappy. Residents aren’t satisfied. There are no actual improvements to the system. Was there any opportunity for residents to say we want additional services, we want improvements to services? Certainly in my area they weren’t listened to about that. They weren’t written up at all. So this great review that we’ve been hearing about, maybe it’s good for some LNP councillors but it certainly wasn’t good for all the residents of Brisbane. Councillor interjecting. Councillor GRIFFITHS: I suppose one of the things that really struck me when I was listening to Councillor Angela OWEN-TAYLOR was the fact that we’re going to keep blaming TransLink. We’re going to keep blaming TransLink but at no time did I actually hear her say or voice that one of the main problems in this whole

process has been the fact that the Chairperson of Transport in this Council has done nothing proactive, nothing proactive, when the review was being done by the LNP State Government. It’s the same for the LORD MAYOR, and that was after question after question, week after week. It was a real weakness that as Council, Brisbane City Council, we weren’t standing up. Our Chairperson for Transport, our LORD MAYOR weren’t standing up for our public transport. It was embarrassing. I also found it interesting that Councillor Angela OWEN-TAYLOR said it was not appropriate to be running services if they weren’t efficient or effective. Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR, we— Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Point of order, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Point of order against you, Councillor GRIFFITHS. Yes, Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR. Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Claim to be misrepresented. Chairman: Thank you, Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR. Councillor GRIFFITHS: I’ll just say, Madam Chair that I wrote that down as she was saying it. What Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR was making very clear is that we shouldn’t be running services that are inefficient and that are—well sure, there’s some logic in saying that. But what we are doing here as a Council is delivering services for residents. Councillor interjecting. Councillor GRIFFITHS: It’s our job to deliver services for residents, and it’s our job to deliver services equally across the city for as many residents as we can— Councillor interjecting. Councillor GRIFFITHS: —to get the best outcome we can for all our residents, not just the residents of the western suburbs, say. Councillors interjecting. Councillor GRIFFITHS: Because it seems strange that we have 90 per cent of the cuts for the south-west. Councillor interjecting. Councillor GRIFFITHS: It seems strange that that has occurred. I believe that most— Councillor interjecting. Councillor GRIFFITHS: —of the punters out there would say that cutting services to some of the poorer people in our city is not on. It‘s not good. It’s not fair dinkum. It’s actually almost un-Australian. Councillor interjecting. Councillor GRIFFITHS: —even though before we heard the LORD MAYOR talking about not wanting to get into a class war. Councillor interjecting. Councillor GRIFFITHS: You’re doing it. Councillor interjecting. Councillor GRIFFITHS: And you’re doing it by cutting services to some of the poorest, most disadvantaged people in the city and that is a shame for our city but, more so, it’s an indictment on your fundamental beliefs about where services should go and who they should go to. We believe services should be improved. We believe services should be increased. Councillor interjecting.

Councillor GRIFFITHS: We don’t believe that we should be saying, well, it was bad but now it’s only half as bad. We should be making our public service, our public transport, better. We should be delivering more for our residents, particularly at a time when we’re looking to grow the city so much; we’re looking to increase density so much but we’re looking to cut our public transport services. I just want to go back to the other agenda item here, which I notice no one from the LNP side has spoken about but once again this petition seeking concessions for our job seekers. The standard line, it’s not us, it’s TransLink. This surely is something that we should be doing for people who are seeking jobs. We’re fair dinkum about helping them get a job and if they haven’t got a car let’s assist them by giving them concessions. Now I understand that we don’t set the prices, I understand that. But I don’t understand why our Chairperson here isn’t taking this forward. I don’t understand why our LORD MAYOR isn’t taking this forward. Councillor interjecting. Not here. Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, not here. Because it’s such an important issue and it’s good for all of us when we get more people into the workforce. So to my way of thinking, and to my colleague’s way of thinking, that is a worthy thing to do, and that is something that we should be doing so that we get more people to participate in our economy and more people to participate in what Brisbane has to offer. Councillor interjecting. Councillor GRIFFITHS: Madam Chair, just in summary what we’ve seen here from this review that’s been so poorly sold to us, is that LNP is about cutting services. Despite what they say, the LNP are about cutting services, everywhere, anywhere that they can. Despite what they say about it not being a class war, this is very much a class war, because they’ve targeted the poorest most vulnerable people in our city. Chairman: Councillor GRIFFITHS, I would ask you to withdraw that comment. You are imputing motive and— Councillor GRIFFITHS: Madam Chair, I will withdraw that comment— Chairman: You’ve made it many times and— Councillor GRIFFITHS: I believe there is a correlation between them. I believe there is a correlation between cutting services and the poorest and most vulnerable people in our city. I believe that, Madam Chairman, I believe that, I believe—whether you want to own it, Madam Chair, or the LNP wants to own it, it’s there in black and white. Madam Chair, finally, what this review is leading to, what this review was about initially and I believe will be about in the future, is the privatisation of our bus services. Councillor interjecting. Councillor GRIFFITHS: The loss of a bus service to a bus profit-making agenda. As far as I know, the research all shows that it doesn’t work; you don’t make money out of public transport. You can’t make money out of public transport because you’re actually trying to provide a service— Councillor interjecting: Councillor GRIFFITHS: —for your residents, that’s right. Chairman: Further debate —Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR, you claim to be misrepresented. Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: That’s correct, thank you, Madam Chairman. My statement was not that it’s just not appropriate to buses for only two or three passengers but it was that it was not appropriate or financially responsible to run buses with either one or two or three passengers because the operating costs of the buses and the bus driver’s wages far exceeds the one or two or three fares that they would receive for that timeframe.

Chairman: Thank you, Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR. Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Order. Councillor HUANG: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak on the Public and Active Transport Committee report and the bus network review. Madam Chairman, since the end of last year, Brisbane has undergone two bus reviews and the reason for that is that our bus network is not sustainable in its current form. Although Brisbane City Council is proud of the quality of bus services we provide to our citizens the inefficient management and ever- increasing bus fares are a legacy of the previous Labor State Government. Councillor interjecting. Councillor HUANG: This has forced Brisbane City Council and the new State Government to take actions to improve its efficiency and keep bus fares to a reasonable rate. Councillor interjecting. Councillor HUANG: If we compared Brisbane’s bus fares to Auckland City in New Zealand, a city of similar size, both in land mass and population—and also it’s one of our sister cities—we can see our bus fares are about two to nine times more expensive than the bus link services in Auckland, which depend on the distance you are travelling. When an Auckland resident pays a fare of 50 cents for their City LINK and we are paying $4.80 for a single trip, then I think we need to ask ourselves why. Madam Chairman, it is unfortunate that we have inherited the legacy of an incompetent and inefficient Labor State Government. Councillor interjecting. Councillor HUANG: Who has squandered the golden years of Queensland’s booming economy and left us with massive debts and mismanaged government services. It’s time to bring it back on track. This bus network review will deliver an improved and more efficient bus network, based on common sense and Council’s own detailed knowledge of the network. This review provides us with an opportunity to look at the evolution of existing services while they are nine proposed routes removals. These routes account for just 1.75 per cent of passengers across the total network and these areas will not be left completely without service. We are retaining our most popular services, such as our route 18 BUZ and two CityGlider routes, which carry 43% of passengers. Madam Chairman, this administration is doing its best to ensure the majority of the travelling public will remain unaffected and that we are leaving no area completely without a service. Council has identified proposed changes based on a careful and thorough review during the past four weeks of network data and patronage trends from across 235 routes, which included 146 routes with no changes, nine routes removal and eighty service changes, including 46 timetable changes and 34 route changes. That includes three service amalgamations. Madam Chairman, if these proposals were to be implemented in full we will be able to achieve a more efficient and cost effective bus service for our city. That will not only retain but likely to increase its patronage. Councillor interjecting. Councillor HUANG: Madam Chairman, an efficient and cost-effective bus network is to the best interests of all our citizens and this bus review is an important step in the right direction, and I commend this report to the chamber. Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Further debate. Councillor NEWTON.

Councillor NEWTON: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair, I rise to speak on Item A, this report. I’m not going to talk about the debacle of the State Government’s previous bus review, which was an absolute disgrace— Councillor interjecting. Councillor NEWTON: —the slash-and-burn approach to public transport services in the city, which left thousands of people stranded not just in my ward but in wards elsewhere. I know the LNP councillors agree it was a debacle— Councillor interjecting. Councillor NEWTON: —they have said. Interestingly, when Labor councillors that initially raised concerns to the State Minister condemned this side of the chamber for being concerned about this debacle, Madam Chair— Councillors interjecting. Councillor NEWTON: —when the LNP councillors came on board expressing similar concerns we heard him back away and throw this basket case review over to Council, Madam Chair. Councillor interjecting. Councillor NEWTON: So here we are today and I am pleased to see that the Public and Active Transport Committee has finally had a presentation about the bus network review, Brisbane City Council’s bus network review. It’s a shame there wasn’t one on the TransLink review which might have taken some time because of all the cuts. I am concerned today to hear that somehow it’s the previous state government’s fault— Councillor interjecting. Councillor NEWTON: —that there’s a need to change the network. Yet, at the same time the LORD MAYOR was presenting his network review said changes weren’t really largely needed because Brisbane City Council has and always will continue to review bus services, Madam Chair. So which is it? Have bus service has been reviewed over the lifetime or not? If there’s not much change happening in Brisbane’s review, surely that’s a reflection of the fact that administrations, both Labor and LNP, have conducted reviews over its time, Madam Chair, to tinker and make improvements and changes to bus services. So that’s absolute rubbish what I’m hearing from those opposite today. I want to talk briefly and just set the record straight about one of those nine bus routes that have been removed, as pointed out in Item 3. So it’s really concerning to hear the chairperson’s history lesson on the 328 bus route, because it wasn’t completely accurate. Somehow there was a criticism of the 328 bus route and somehow that was the former state Labor Government’s fault. So just to set the record straight on this, Madam Chair, 328 was originally a service that was added on to the 325 service. I lobbied for a change to the bus route, a small change which would enable passengers to alight in the College Green Estate at Boondall. When the Boondall College Green Estate was constructed, it was one of those situations where the developer had very generously promised they would get a bus service, something that I’m sure many of us when developers are selling their new development, say that there will be a bus service in that area. Unfortunately, that wasn’t something that had been discussed with Council. But after lobbying I was able to achieve a situation where instead of some dead-running occurring to where the 325 would drive down Stanworth Road and head across to Aberdeen Parade and end up at the Boondall train station, or scoot down one of the other streets to get through there. I managed to have the route start just a little bit earlier and head down Northumbria Street and hence the birth of the 328 service, some eight, nine years ago, Madam Chair.

Now on 18 June 2012, after the election of the Campbell Newman LNP Government, the 328 service was extended, so instead of being the short small addition to the 325 service at Boondall train station it wound up being extended to go through Taigum, Fitzgibbon and across to Carseldine. That addition to the service, which was criticised by Councillor MATIC saying that it was inefficient and inappropriate, had only been in place less than a year, Madam Chair, less than a year. I must admit I was quite excited about some of those changes to the 328 and it does relate to this particular review, because the 328 finally enabled residents in a couple of the Department Housing commission units on the corner of Roghan and Church Road to get to their local shops at Centro. So it was really important to them. Unfortunately, the Brisbane City Council bus network review takes that service away so the 328 has been replaced by the 341 and 325, and extension to these routes. A gap remains, Madam Chair, so I’ll be making a submission on this issue and other issues that residents have raised with me about how we can do better for our bus users, because in my view there’s two particular key groups of bus commuters. There are those who catch a bus regularly to get to school or get to work every single day. Go to work, go in one direction and back home again. Then there are others in our community who might use the bus once every couple of days, once a week, once a month, to get to important services, to the doctors, to visit loved ones in nursing homes. That is a really important role that Brisbane City Council can play as a local government, in terms of making sure that we have those cross-community services; those that connect with people with other people and services in our community. So I’ll be making a submission, I will be actively out and I will continue to be out in the next 48 hours—well, until pretty much we have a chance to make our submissions by midnight on 20 May—to make sure we can do we can for our residents in Brisbane when it comes to Brisbane City Council bus services. Chairman: Further debate. Councillor MATIC. Councillor MATIC: Madam Chair, where to start? That was an interesting debate and an interesting reminder of the history on a number of levels. Look, firstly, I just want to acknowledge that there are 18 councillors in this chamber who actually feel that there was a positive outcome that was put forward. Councillor interjecting. Councillor MATIC: The Northside Chronicle sets out, Councillor NEWTON, for example, welcomed the return of the 325 to Taigum shopping centre. She welcomed the retention of the 326 and the 327. She did mention her concern about the removal of the 328 but as Councillor NEWTON said here that she’s concerned about that connectivity they acknowledged in the story in the Northside Chronicle, Madam Chairman, that I’m hoping with the introduction of the new 341 service that there will be potential to start the service at the shopping centre then to Roghan Road, Fitzgibbon, which would then capture the very same residents that she’s concerned about in respect of the 328 service. The 328 service speaks for itself, Madam Chairman, in respect of the numbers or lack of numbers that that particular service caters to, an exceedingly low number. I find it quite amazing that there is no reference in any of the LNP councillors’ speeches to the actual bus network document, which actually sets out the proposals and then offers the alternative options. In respect of 328, this service has extremely low patronage, an average of between one and four passengers per trip. What was important in this bus network review was that when we mention a change to a route, whether it’s a route change or the cancellation of a service, we clearly stated what the alternative option was. Affected passengers would need to use the proposed extensions to 325 and 341. Passengers may also have access to the 330 bus, the P331 and 335, depending on where they’re stopping on the route. Extensions have been proposed to 325 to send that by Kirby Road,

Taigum to City Express, to service College Green and the P341, Carseldine into city, to service Fitzgibbon and Logan Road. So Madam Chairman, what ALP councillors have failed to do is actually note the review and the alternative options provided. The reality of the situation is far different from what we’ve heard today from Councillor DICK, and other councillors on that side of the chamber, as to this review and its impacts across the city. The changes that are proposed have not been widespread at all in any way, shape or form. There are 68 per cent of bus users throughout this city whose services remain completely and utterly unaffected. Madam Chairman, of all the 253 routes that are in our control, there are only nine cancellations. Those are due to incredibly low patronage numbers on average. Even through those cancellations, Madam Chair, residents have not been left without a service. In each of those cancellations there is an alternative service already in existence or a route change proposed to cater to the needs of those residents. That is fundamentally the truth. That has very clearly been set out in the bus network review document. But what you hear from those opposite, Madam Chairman, is nothing more than a fairy tale, and if you listen to those statements of those opposite who choose to ignore the contents of the bus review document, then you get nothing more than spin. Now we’ve had from Councillor FLESSER, for example, Councillor FLESSER said he was pleased Brisbane City Council’s review had recommended keeping routes 306, 307 and 322. I’m hopeful these routes are now safe. Well, so am I, Councillor FLESSER. We’re putting these proposals up. The Minister has provided us an indication that what Brisbane puts up will be improved. But Madam Chair, at the end of the day we have two councillors providing the support. We have Councillor SUTTON on her own website— Councillor SUTTON: I don’t have a website. Councillor MATIC: Council bus review local services saved. Councillor SUTTON: —I don’t have a website. Councillor MATIC: Now Councillor SUTTON has within her own—I’m thinking, oh, it’s Facebook. Councillors interjecting. Councillor MATIC: It’s Facebook. Councillor SUTTON has gone out and made a statement to all her residents to— Councillor interjecting. Councillor MATIC: No, I’m not, no. So Councillor SUTTON has set out— Councillor interjecting. Councillor MATIC: —strong local support— Chairman: Order. Councillor MATIC: —that the services are saved, Madam Chair. The services are saved. Councillor interjecting. Councillor MATIC: So there’s not actually a single service in Councillor SUTTON’s ward that is affected. Councillor interjecting: No? Councillor MATIC: None at all. Councillor interjecting. Councillor MATIC: And that will be perhaps a Labor ward. But so— Councillor interjecting. Councillor MATIC: —listening to Councillor GRIFFITHS, the class warfare continues. The class warfare continues. Councillor GRIFFITHS made some very fascinating

statements. He spoke about TransLink. He spoke about the State Government but he did not speak about the presentation committee and that, Madam Chairman, is because he wasn’t actually there. Councillor GRIFFITHS: Point of order, Madam Chair. Chairman: Point of order against you, Councillor MATIC. Councillor GRIFFITHS: I don’t believe that’s relevant but I was at a funeral. Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Councillor GRIFFITHS, just a moment. I did not understand a word you said. You called a point of order— Councillor GRIFFITHS: I don’t believe that’s relevant but I was at a funeral. Chairman: That’s not a point of order. It’s not how you do it, once again. Councillor GRIFFITHS: I missed the debate. Councillor interjecting. Councillor MATIC: Councillor GRIFFITHS finds the debate low, Madam Chairman. He obviously wasn’t listening to his own side of the chamber when they got up just to— Chairman: Order. Councillor GRIFFITHS. Councillor MATIC: —about this bus review. Councillor GRIFFITHS: Point of order, Madam Chair. Chairman: Yes, Councillor GRIFFITHS. Councillor GRIFFITHS: I claim to be misrepresented and I take offence— Chairman: Thank you. Alright, resume your seat. You claim to be misrepresented, resume your seat. Councillor MATIC. Councillor MATIC: I did not make it up. Councillor GRIFFITHS was not there and if Councillor GRIFFITHS stands up in this chamber and chooses to condemn this bus review. The ALP shadow spokesman on buses, Madam Chairman, chooses to stand up and condemn this review without even making one reference to what’s on it, to clearly outline what the alternative options are for services within these areas. So it’s quite clear that those opposite have not read this document and it’s quite clear listening to Councillor DICK that — poor Councillor DICK. I do have to take a moment to empathise with obviously his state of being present or mentally perhaps. Poor Councillor DICK it is obvious that the pressure of being the ALP’s leader in Opposition has gotten too much for him, Madam Chairman, because you listen to him speak and you would think that he was delirious, that he was possibly suffering from some kind of out-of-body experience and with respect of what was actually occurring in this bus review. It’s quite obvious, Madam Chairman, that his delirium has affected his ability to be cognitive and logical he’s saying or yet more basic than that, to be able to read this bus review document, to be able to actually turn to the relevant sections in respect of his ward and make a clear conscious interpretation of what the truth actually is. It’s very simple, I turn to route 101 and it’s all actually just set out here in plain English. It’s just that I know how challenging it must be, the pressure of being the Leader of the Opposition in Council has obviously affected his ability to read. Bring back Councillor SUTTON, the call is on, Madam Chairman. Councillor interjecting. Councillor MATIC: Madam Chairman, it says here—

Chairman: Order. Councillor MATIC: —the route 101 was originally introduced prior to the introduction of the 100 BUZ, which now services a significant part of the route. By changing the route of the 101 existing passengers still have a high-frequency service, but passengers in areas previously under-serviced, including Doolandella, will now have better access to public transport. Councillor interjecting. Councillor MATIC: Oh, I know. The class warfare continues with providing better services in an ALP ward. This service would maintain a link between Inala Plaza and Forest Lake Village which caters for the change proposed in the Route 460. Passengers on the existing Route 101 between Inala Plaza and the Ipswich Motorway continue to have access to the high frequency route 100 BUZ. There was a mention before, Madam Chairman, of the Aveo retirement village at Durack, which is in Councillor DICK’s ward, which sits on this 100 BUZ service. So there is absolutely no effect— Councillor DICK: It doesn’t go to Corinda. Councillor MATIC: —to them at all. Councillor DICK just said does not go to Corinda. Now, in committee this morning we spoke about the number of passengers on the service between those two stops that go to Corinda. The average number of patrons in that particular route was between one and four. So— Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Order. Councillor MATIC: —between those two train stations was between one and four. Chairman: Order. Councillor JOHNSTON. Councillor MATIC: So this is wrong, don’t believe it. There’s the driver and then there is one passenger, two, three passengers, Madam Chairman. So those opposite have at the end of this day absolutely no credibility in this place. Chairman: Councillor MATIC, your time has expired. Councillor MATIC: We are delivering this issue in a proper fashion— Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Order. Councillor DICK: None of the residents think that, I can tell you that. Chairman: Order. Councillor DICK. Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Councillor GRIFFITHS, you claimed misrepresentation. Councillor GRIFFITHS: Certainly, Madam Chair. In relation to my point of order, I think Councillor MATIC said I was offended by the review. I was not offended by the review; I was offended by the fact that he had a go at me for not attending the meeting because I was at a funeral. Councillor interjecting: That’s right. Chairman: Thank you.

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Public and Active Transport Committee was declared carried on the voices.

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

AYES: 18 - The DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Margaret de WIT, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN-TAYLOR, Julian SIMMONDS, Andrew WINES, and Norm WYNDHAM.

NOES: 8 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Milton DICK, and Councillors Helen ABRAHAMS, Shayne SUTTON, Peter CUMMING, Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS, Victoria NEWTON, and Nicole JOHNSTON.

ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Peter Matic (Chairman), Councillor Steven Huang (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Nicole Johnston, Kim Marx and Ryan Murphy.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE:

Councillor Steve Griffiths.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BUS NETWORK REVIEW 605/2012-13 1. Alan Warren, Divisional Manager, Brisbane Transport, and Greg Spelman, Manager Strategy and Network Services, Brisbane Transport, delivered a presentation on the Bus Network Review. They provided the information below.

2. One of the aims of the Bus Network Review was to deliver a more efficient network by reviewing services with underutilised capacity. The scope of the review was outlined. The following aspects were discussed: - The TransLink redesign of the network was not considered as a basis for the review. - Changes were to be incremental. - Any changes were to be undertaken in a way that ensured areas would not be left completely without services. - Any changes considered were to be carried out in consultation with Brisbane residents (with consultation being held from 22 April until 20 May 2013). - Final proposals are to be presented to the Minister by 1 June 2013, as requested. - Network design needed to continue to provide an alternative to the convenience of private vehicles. - The high frequency network was to remain based on Bus Upgrade Zone (BUZ) services/CityGlider concepts, in order to provide ‘no timetable needed’ services. - Express and all-stop service combinations were considered important to meeting different passenger requirements. - Ease of travel for individuals, and services that connect between locations where people want to travel, were considered important. - The ability to transfer easily to travel between different parts of the network was considered critical (for example, the role of the Cultural Centre).

3. The changes proposed under the review were summarised. Details provided included the following: - A total of 235 routes were reviewed, resulting in 146 routes not changed, 80 service changes (made up of 46 timetable changes and 34 route changes including three amalgamations) and nine route removals (affecting 1.75 per cent of passengers). - Sixty-eight per cent of passengers are on routes that will not be affected. - BUZ and CityGlider routes were largely untouched. - Two new routes were proposed.

4. Examples of proposed service changes were provided. The routes discussed were: - Route 66 (Woolloongabba to Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital via the Busway) - Route P436 (City to Brookfield rocket) - Route 213 (Cannon Hill to Carindale local service) - Route P374 (Paddington to city pre-paid all stops) - Route 153 (Drewvale to City rocket) - Forest Lake/Inala services.

5. Outcomes of the review were listed as being: - a more efficient network delivered without leaving areas completely without services - areas of genuine duplication removed, but complementary or necessary supplementary services retained - infrastructure pressures reduced - numbers of buses on Victoria Bridge reduced (dramatic reduction in bus numbers are not possible without failing to meet demand) - bus numbers in CBD more aligned to demand - simplicity of the network now based on ease of travel, with overlapping or similar route variations amalgamated - network connectivity retained especially the role of the Cultural Centre.

6. Public consultation was detailed. Information provided to the Committee on the public feedback included: - A total of 420 registrations were received from people opting-in to alerts for release of Council proposals. - Bus Network Review webpages had received 61,208 page views since feedback commenced. - Contact Centre staff were briefed to handle customer enquiries and direct them to feedback channels. - Review and feedback opportunities were promoted through existing communication channels such as Your City Your Say, Moving Brisbane e-Newsletter, Living in Brisbane publication and conventional media. - A link from the TransLink website was provided. - Proposals and feedback surveys were available online at brisbane.qld.gov.au and via hard copy at all Libraries, Regional Business Centres and Ward Offices.

7. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked the officers for their informative presentation.

8. RECOMMENDATION:

B PETITION – REQUESTING THAT JOB SEEKERS BE GIVEN CONCESSION GO CARDS FOR USE ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT CA13/187263 606/2012-13 9. An e-Petition signed by residents from across Queensland, requesting that concession Go Cards be given to all job seekers who receive government (Centrelink) payments to attend job interviews and further training, was presented to Council at its meeting on 26 March 2013, by Councillor Peter Matic, and received.

10. The Divisional Manager, Brisbane Transport, provides the information below.

11. It is noted that of the 90 petitioners, 35 reside within Brisbane City and 55 reside outside the city.

12. TransLink Division of the Department of Transport and Main Roads is the entity of the Queensland Government that is responsible for the delivery of public transport services and infrastructure for South East Queensland. Council has noted the petitioners’ concerns regarding the lack of a concession ticket available to job seekers (Centrelink recipients) who do not hold a pension or student card.

13. As TransLink is responsible for defining ticketing and fares policies, Council does not have the authority to implement concession Go Cards and is contractually bound to operate under TransLink’s ticketing and fare structure.

Consultation

14. Councillor Peter Matic, Chairman of the Public and Active Transport Committee has been consulted and supports the recommendation below.

Preferred option

15. It is the preferred option that the petitioners be advised that TransLink Division, Department of Transport and Main Roads, is responsible for the delivery of public transport services and infrastructure for South East Queensland, as well as defining all ticketing and fares policies. It is further proposed that the petitioners be advised that the Brisbane City Council will forward their concerns to TransLink for consideration.

16. The Divisional Manager therefore submits the following recommendation with which the Committee agrees.

17. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PREFERRED OPTION ABOVE AND OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT. ADOPTED

Chairman: Please resume your seats quickly. Councillor COOPER, Neighbourhood Planning and Development Assessment Committee.

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE

Councillor Amanda COOPER, Chairman of the Neighbourhood Planning and Development Assessment Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Vicki HOWARD, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 7 May 2013, be adopted.

Chairman: Is there any debate? Councillor COOPER: Yes, Madam Chair. At the meeting last week we had a presentation about the SealSMART initiative. Certainly, the Manager of Development Assessment gave us a presentation which really outlined how Council is committed to trying to achieve excellence in our development assessment (DA) process and to achieve the goal of being our country’s best practice development assessment process and to streamline our processes.

So this is an outcome of some consultation with the community, where we’ve had a number of people provide feedback to us that our development assessment processes have significantly improved with electronic lodgements constituting five per cent of applications in our city. So certainly we are moving to a paperless world in terms of processes. But there was a query raised on a number of fronts about the plan sealing process and as a consequence we have undertaken an investigation into that process and we’ve talked to a full range of people who will be part of that process, and they have given us some feedback about how it might be improved. Of course, it’s important to note plan sealing actually is defined under the Sustainable Planning Act as a client’s assessment and we noted that we’re seeing a number of people sending in plans to Council that could not be sealed because they haven’t submitted complete applications, Madam Chair, which meant they were going basically around and around in circles as a consequence of that development assessment process. So we’ve come up with a solution to standardised conditions to deliver a five business day turnaround for a lot of these plan sealing applications. We ran a trial with three consultants that saw 48 applications proved in 3.3 business days and we have reviewed that and gone through our process to determine that they have been able to meet council’s requirements and to fulfil the requirements of state government legislation. We think this is of significant benefit to the industry through reduced cost, reduced fees and reduced time in getting a property to sale and, of course, with the benefit to homeowners so they can move to their homes a little bit faster rather than what was sometimes over 20 business days to assess these requirements. So Madam Chair, it’s very clear the planned sealing features still apply and must be signed off by a registered professional engineer of Queensland after the dispute. So there are all sorts of provisions in place to ensure that this is done properly and there will be an audit process that will be established at the conference. I would like thank Andrea Kenafake for their hard work on establishing this new process. Andrea did a great job presenting this information and really is clear evidence of how DA worked very hard to provide customer focus as well as, of course, delivering on both counts of expectations and community’s high standards for compliance in the sequence of this matters. Thank you. Chairman: Further debate. Councillor ABRAHAMS. Councillor ABRAHAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to be brief and just give a few comments from the Labor perspective on SealSMART. Any initiative that fastens the process reduces the cost of development so that it therefore should but not always does reduce the cost for the purchaser, Labor supports, and we will vote for this presentation. But there are concerns that we should put on the table that were discussed in detail that are inherent in the SealSMART process. But I suppose my perspective is this is the end of the process. Development applications are the beginning of the process. So if the people in the development industry see a City Plan that is adhered to, why then might they feel that they need to adhere to some of the standards through the construction and through the planned sealing time and through the building inspection time? It all goes together. If we’re going to be serious we need to make sure that the compliance, the enforcement, the auditing is watertight, consistent and above any criticism. That is not the case with many sections of development at this time. Councillor interjecting. Councillor ABRAHAMS: Therefore we in Opposition will be keeping a very close watch on this initiative because it was only a very few surveyors with only a very few applications during the trial and let us all know that during a trial everyone is on their best behaviour. It is what happens five years down the track that is more to the point.

I am particularly concerned that plan sealing is where sewerage, stormwater — and stormwater in particular — is finally assessed and approved. If — if — the standards are not met, and some of those standards have a number of ways of meeting the condition of development, if those standards are substandard or are not met it may not be until two or three years later that the property owner, the neighbouring property owner, is aware that possibly a better process should have been undertaken during the SealSMART process. Council is currently, when those problems present, calling it a civil matter and the two neighbours have to find the solution themselves. Council is long gone. The SealSMART is long gone and the community has to manage an unacceptable interface. They are the problems that we need to take seriously and make sure not through an irregular auditing process, I would suggest an extremely strong auditing process right from the beginning and it would be two strikes and you're out for anyone who doesn't do the compliance absolutely fails. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor COOPER? Councillor COOPER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'd like to just make a point that Councillor ABRAHAMS suggested that this process, you know, she had some concerns which is fair enough. I just wanted to be very clear that there is specific agreement between Council and accredited consultants. There is a six month probation period for new consultants. There is a comprehensive planned and regular auditing program that has been put in place, so that was outlined very clearly by officers. Accredited consultants must be able to provide information on any application within two business days and every single consultant must carry public liability and indemnity insurance before they are able to be eligible to be an accredited consultant and of course, Madam Chair, any breaches will potentially lead to removal from a process. So Council has very clear guidelines in place to make sure that all of these issues are carefully addressed. I do disagree with one point made by Councillor ABRAHAMS. She said with this process — and I quote directly from her — she said Council is long gone and we don't vary responsibility. Well I don't see this organisation, Madam Chair as being long gone. These are matters that Council requires to be resolved. Council has established a process that is very clear and — Chairman: Councillor ABRAHAMS. Councillor COOPER: — and, Madam Chair, the misunderstandings that seem unfortunately quite frequent with Councillor ABRAHAMS as to whether a matter is a Council matter or whether it is a matter for the Queensland Development Code is very much I think where she's down the wrong — she's headed down the wrong road on a regular basis where she seems to think a whole range of things which might be building related are Council matters. No, Madam Chair, there are private certifiers, there is the Queensland Development Code as administered by the state government and it would be good if perhaps the councillor checked the facts of the matter before she makes her erroneous comments. Thank you.

Upon being submitted to the Chamber by the Chairman, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Neighbourhood Planning and Development Assessment Committee was declared carried on the voices.

The report as follows

ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Amanda Cooper (Chairman), Councillor Vicki Howard (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Helen Abrahams, Geraldine Knapp, Shayne Sutton and Andrew Wines.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – INTRODUCING SEALSMART 607/2012-13 1. Andrea Kenafake, Manager Development Assessment Branch, City Planning and Sustainability Division, attended the meeting to introduce the SealSMART program. Ms Kenafake provided the information below.

2. SealSMART was introduced following feedback from the building industry and the community that the previous electronic assessment processes were good, however improvements could be made. One of the key issues highlighted was that the anticipation of delays in the process lead to incomplete development applications being submitted.

3. Plan sealing is a requirement for compliance assessment of development applications, under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. Prior to the introduction of SealSMART, the process for plan sealing these types of applications would take between 20 and 30 business days to complete, even longer if the application did not contain the relevant supporting information.

4. The SealSMART program began with the idea of standardising conditions that would provide a five business day turnaround for low-risk plan sealing applications. An initial trial was conducted using three accredited consultants and this proved to be very successful. It was noted that 48 applications were processed through the SealSMART program trial, taking an average of 3.3 business days for approval to be granted.

5. A review of the trial showed that the majority of applications were now meeting Council’s conditions and complying with the appropriate local and state government standards and legislation. Feedback received indicates that industry representatives were impressed with the SealSMART program and changes are being made to any applications that are to be submitted.

6. The SealSMART program has provided benefits to the industry by reducing holding costs, fees and the time taken in getting the property to sale. These benefits are passed onto the homeowner by allowing them to move into their home sooner, and with less cost.

7. Council has also benefitted from the introduction of the SealSMART program, in the areas of customer service and best practice standards for development assessment. All of these benefits encourage future investment in the city.

8. Additional facts about the SealSMART program were outlined as follows: - plan sealing fees still apply - engineering conditions must be signed off by a registered professional engineer of Queensland (RPEQ) - training is provided and accredited consultants are required to sign an agreement with Council - newly-accredited consultants must complete a six-month probation period - a comprehensive auditing program is planned and undertaken regularly for accredited consultants - accredited consultants must be able to provide information on any application within two business days - public liability and indemnity insurances are required as an incentive to remain compliant - any breaches of Council’s conditions for accredited consultants can lead to removal from the program. An image of a training session with these consultants was shown.

9. In summary, Ms Kenafake stated that the SealSMART program has been a win for Council, a win for industry and a win for homeowners because it provides further opportunities for

improvement in the way that Council does business.

10. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Ms Kenafake for her informative presentation and congratulated her team for their dedication to the success of the SealSMART program.

11. RECOMMENDATION:

Chairman: Councillor BOURKE Environment Parks and Sustainability meeting?

ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE

Councillor Matthew BOURKE, Chairman of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Fiona KING, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 7 May 2013, be adopted. Chairman: Is there any debate? Councillor BOURKE: Look, Madam Chairman, just very, very quickly, last week was International Compost Week for those back in the chamber who weren't aware and this week as the LORD MAYOR alluded to earlier is International Volunteers Week and so this week's Committee presentation was around Habitat Brisbane and the work that our volunteers do with Habitat Brisbane. Last week's two Committee presentations, following on from the very popular fliers of Brisbane line, were a presentation around our bio-control project with our Weevil Warriors. The largest bio-control project of its kind in Australia where we breed some 500,000 weevils each year to control a range of water weeds introduced plants across our water — water bodies that we have across the city and also in the spirit of Compost Week, underground champions look at some of the organisms and invertebrates that do the hard work in our natural areas and our backyards and some quite interesting questions and quite an informative presentation in both cases. I know that the Labor councillors enjoy both of them with questions coming from Councillor FLESSER and Councillor CUMMING quite thick and fast. Chairman: Further debate?

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

The report as follows

ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Matthew Bourke (Chairman), Councillor Fiona King (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Peter Cumming, Kim Flesser, Geraldine Knapp and Ryan Murphy.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – WEEVIL WEED WARRIORS 608/2012-13 1. Dennis Gannaway, Program Delivery Manager, Habitat Restoration and Partnerships, Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability Branch, attended the meeting to provide an update on Council’s Aquatic Weed Biocontrol Program, known as the “weevil weed warriors”. Mr Gannaway provided the information below.

2. Council’s biocontrol facility is the largest of its kind in Australia. A photograph was shown of the facility located in Bracken Ridge.

3. The biocontrol program breeds three species of weevils for the control of weeds in Brisbane’s waterways. The breeding program produces in excess of 500,000 weevils per year that will be used to control the invasive weed species known as; Salvinia, Water Hyacinth and Water Lettuce.

4. Information was provided on the species of weevils bred as part of the biocontrol program, and images were shown of their effectiveness in the control of the invasive weed species.

5. The Aquatic Weed Biocontrol Program has been operating in Brisbane over the past 15 years. During that time, the weevils have been released in the Lesley Harrison Dam, Oxley Creek catchment, Bulimba Creek catchment, Enoggera Creek, as well as in private dams in peri-urban areas.

6. Outside of Brisbane, a number of project partners have benefitted from the program by using some of the weevils supplied through the biocontrol program. These partners have included: Moreton Bay Regional Council, Redlands Regional Council, Gold Coast City Council and SEQwater facilities.

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

8. RECOMMENDATION:

B COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – UNDERGROUND CHAMPIONS 609/2012-13 9. Stacey McLean, Principal Program Officer, Biodiversity Planning, Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability Branch, attended the meeting to provide information on Brisbane’s underground champions. Mr McLean provided the information below.

10. A number of plants, animals and invertebrates exist underground across the suburbs of Brisbane. Some of the subterranean life forms include: - frogs - invertebrates – ants, spiders, cicadas, crickets, beetles, worms and wasps - fungi - crustaceans – crabs, mud skippers and freshwater mussels - platypus - birds – pardalotes, rainbow bee-eaters - reptiles, such as burrowing skinks.

11. Information about the environmental significance of the underground species of spiders (Golden Trapdoor), burrowing skinks and frogs, ants and fungi was provided and images were shown.

12. The Chairman thanked Mr McLean for his informative presentation.

13. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE

REPORT. ADOPTED

Chairman: Councillor McLACHLAN Field Services Committee?

FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE

Councillor David McLACHLAN, Chairman of the Field Services Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Norm Wyndham, that the report of that Committee held on 7 May 2013, be adopted.

Chairman: Is there any debate? Councillor McLACHLAN: Oh, Madam Chairman, just briefly before I get to Item A, I'd just like to remind councillors of the fantastic Tip Shop Art Competition which is currently being showcased at the library and thanks very much to the library for allowing this work to be shown there. There are 18 works on display and they're absolutely fantastic. I recommend to all those listening, all the councillors, to go and have a look and encourage you to vote for your favourite piece of work. I'm pleased I'm not judging, it is a vote of the public with a prize to the winner, but there is just some astonishing work on display there and I'd certainly recommend it to you. I'd like to thank the hardworking team, the small hardworking team, of City Waste Services for bringing this together. This is a commitment of the LORD MAYOR and put together by the City Waste team to draw attention to the great opportunity that all residents have to get things, get good things, from our two tip shops, the south-side Tip Shop which has been with us now for three years and the new north-side Tip Shop. All or most of the materials that these artists used in their work has come from those Tip Shops and it's extraordinary what they've been able to find and to reuse and those works exemplify the whole process of recycling and reusing which is at the forefront of our Towards Zero Waste strategy. All activities of the Tip Shop and of this competition support the work of the Endeavour Foundation who is our partner in operating the Tip Shops. Madam Chairman, Item A, all councillors have recently been involved in Anzac Day ceremonies and most of those, if not all of those, were at Council provided facilities, although sorry those that are looked after by Council initiated by the RSL in most cases and there has been a lot of work done, a lot of capital work undertaken, on those commemorations to make sure that they were in top-notch condition for Anzac Day this year and as a precursor to significant Anzac Day ceremonies next year and particularly the year after. So I'd like to thank the Asset Services crews and their contractors who've been out looking after the Anzac memorial sites and I think everyone can be assured that this will be a continuing program, but I think I speak on behalf of all councillors in thanking the hardworking team of Asset Services and their contractors efforts for ensuring that the memorials were in top shape for Anzac Day this year. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Further debate?

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

ATTENDANCE:

Councillor David McLachlan (Chairman), Norm Wyndham (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Peter Cumming, Nicole Johnston, Kim Marx and Ian McKenzie.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – ASSET SERVICES’ PREPARATIONS FOR ANZAC DAY 2013 610/2012-13 1. Tim Wright, Manager, Asset Services, Field Services Group, Brisbane Infrastructure Division, delivered a presentation on work undertaken by Asset Services on memorial sites in preparation for the 2013 Anzac Day commemorations. He provided the information below.

2. Crowds at Anzac Day are getting larger each year. Photographs of commemorations were displayed. This year for the first time the ceremony was shown on the large screen in King George Square to cater for the overflow from Anzac Square.

3. Details of six significant upgrade projects carried out by Asset Service this year were provided. The works carried out included: - Anzac Square Brisbane (Shrine of Remembrance, fountain and ponds upgraded) - Anzac Memorial’s Eternal Flame in the Shrine of Remembrance (flame mechanism and tile surfaces improved) - Ithaca Memorial Park, Paddington (restoration and repair works to memorial performed) - Oxley Place Park, Oxley (restoration and repair works to memorial performed) - Windsor Memorial Park, Windsor (repair and cleaning of monument and surrounds carried out) - Kalinga Park, Toombul/Clayfield (damaged memorial gates repaired). Photographs of the memorials following the above works were displayed.

4. In addition to normal programmed maintenance, sites identified by the Returned and Services League (RSL) receive additional servicing prior to Anzac Day. Other work performed was detailed as follows: - Annual floral displays are replenished. - Memorials and surrounding infrastructure, such as seats, are cleaned and painted where required. - Grass is cut prior to the event. - Parks Teams undertake a general tidy up and sweeping on the day.

5. Some memorial sites known to Council as “reflection areas” are also cleaned although they do not form part of the official RSL Anzac Day activities.

6. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Wright for him informative presentation.

7. RECOMMENDATION:

Chairman: Councillor ADAMS Brisbane Lifestyle meeting?

BRISBANE LIFESTYLE COMMITTEE

Councillor Krista ADAMS, Chairman of the Brisbane Lifestyle Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Andrew WINES, that the report of that Committee held on 7 May 2013, be adopted. Chairman: Is there any debate? Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. Last week Brisbane Lifestyle Committee saw a presentation on our Compliance and Regulatory Services (CARS) branch SPER (State Penalty Enforcement Registry) as requested by committee members. SPER is a division of the Office of State Revenue which is in the Queensland Treasury and Trade and Council is one of over 100 administrating authorities, which register debts with SPER as well. So what we looked at, Madam Chair, was the process we go through for recovering debt within Council across our many different compliance areas. I have to say under this administration, the stewardship of the LORD MAYOR Graham Quirk, we take a very clear friendly, fair and firm approach to debt recovery. Our friendly approach is seen in tolling information promoted across the Council, Flow Tolling and go via websites, signage advising motorists that they're entering a toll road, giving of three days to make sure they pay before the reminder notices are issued. We're also about fairness, Madam Chair, and toll road operators sent up to three reminders over a three month period before sending it to Council. Council then issues the pin those three reminders again over a 105 day cycle. Our three stage appeal process can come into that process too. As many local councillors will know that you may get a complaint from a constituent that they're concerned that their penalty was not fair and we can take that through as well to complaints issues as well. Another thing about fairness is that we only do issue one penalty per day to motorists who travel across toll bridges or tunnels et cetera irrespective of how many times they actually go over the bridge or through the tunnel. So there's a case of one pin per day even if they used it six times. Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Order, order. Councillor ADAMS: I'm telling you this Councillor FLESSER because your Labor committee members asked for this presentation. I was quite happy to present this information but if you don't want to listen to it I'm happy to sit down as well. We're also about being firm— Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Order. Councillor ADAMS: —following enforcement orders when they're actually issued and after 31 days of following it though, we do, as a last resort refer some of our unpaid debts to SPER. The toll road operators send it on and the issue is escalated with action taken on our offenders. Insofar as our arrangements with SPER, we have paid infringements sent to them at the end of our lifecycle for collection. We pay an amount to lodge the infringement with SPER and that lodgement fee comes back through the customer's debt once it is collected through SPER. There are challenges obviously with SPER and how it operates. The level of debt is increasing annually at SPER. The capacity of SPER to recover an infringement debt and the high proportion of tolling customers in particular who are unwilling to pay infringements. So they are looking at ways to improve their return as well on payment plans and resources to management manage them and of course there's always the problem that they can't track interstate offenders unfortunately.

Madam Chair, our plan for the future is to work in partnership with SPER. We want to see increasing debt recovery within the first 12 months before we have to get to referral, so we're trying to make sure that there isn't bad debt so we can work through the friendly and fair part before we have to refer it on. We want to make sure that we are providing better outcomes achieved by SPER and we are working with SPER very closely in the management of in particular our high order repeat offenders. I can recommend the report to the chambers. Chairman: Further debate?

Upon being submitted to the Chamber by the Chairman, the motion for the adoption of the report of the Brisbane Lifestyle Committee was declared carried on the voices.

ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Krista Adams (Chairman), Councillor Andrew Wines (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Vicki Howard, Steven Huang and Victoria Newton.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE:

Councillor Steve Griffiths.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – STATE PENALTIES ENFORCEMENT REGISTRY 611/2012-13 1. Sean Hodgson, Acting Manager, Compliance and Regulatory Services Branch, Brisbane Lifestyle Division, attended the meeting to present on the State Penalties Enforcement Registry (SPER). He provided the information below.

2. SPER is a division of the Queensland Government’s Office of State Revenue within Queensland Treasury and Trade. Over 100 administering Queensland authorities register debts with SPER. These include: - magistrates, district and supreme courts - police service and Traffic Camera Office - hospitals - Department of Transport and Main Roads - universities - councils.

3. Council’s Compliance and Regulatory Services (CARS) Branch employs a Friendly, Fair and Firm enforcement approach regarding debts to Council. Mr Hodgson explained the Council ‘life cycle’ process for unpaid toll fines.

4. At the end of the ‘life cycle’ the unpaid infringements go to SPER for collection. Council pays $56.90 for every infringement lodged with SPER. This lodgement fee is added onto the customers’ debt and is returned to Council once the debt is collected.

5. Mr Hodgson diagrammatically displayed the SPER debt recovery process.

6. Some of the challenges facing the SPER debt recovery process are: - level of debt is increasing annually at SPER - capacity of SPER to recover infringement debt - high proportion of tolling customers unwilling to pay infringements - increase in payment plans and resources to manage them

- SPER has no power to pursue interstate offenders

7. In the future Council is hoping to increase the debt recovery within the first twelve months of referral to SPER (i.e. before it becomes a ‘bad debt’), ensure better promotion of enforcement outcomes achieved by SPER and undertake joint action against repeat offenders.

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

9. RECOMMENDATION:

Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS Finance Economic Development and Administration Committee?

FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE

Councillor Julian SIMMONDS, Chairman of the Finance, Economic Development and Administration Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Angela Owen-Taylor, that the report of that Committee held on 7 May 2013, be adopted.

Chairman: Is there any debate? Councillor SIMMONDS: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Just a brief bit of good news. The International Congress and Convention Association’s city rankings are out for 2012. These are international rankings and Brisbane has significantly improved on its rank. So in 2011 we were ranked 87th and in 2012 we were ranked 56th, so it just goes to show that with support our city can punch above its weight when it comes to conventions and delegate meetings and with the City Hall reopening and of course with R&A coming online as well we have the potential to really build on that firm base and position ourselves as a world leading city for convention and events. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor FLESSER? Councillor FLESSER: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to talk about the net borrowings reports. There’s only one thing going up in this Council higher than the LORD MAYOR’s fat cat salaries and that’s the debt. It’s debt and this report absolutely proves it. I have a prediction. This will be the last one of these reports that this Council hears in decades where our total debt is less than $2billion. So this report shows that in the March 2013 it has risen up to $1.947 million and we all need to remember back in 2008 the debt that this Council was zero. So in just a short number of years from zero to $1.947 million. So, Madam Chair, where is this debt coming from? Well we all know where it’s coming from, it’s toll roads and toll tunnels and if you look at the report, you’ll see that we owe $255 million on the Go Between Bridge. Now I’d like to question why we still owe that much money. The bridge has been there for a number of years. I remember clearly and others would remember clearly when the LORD MAYOR at the time talked about this bridge when he said it was going to actually write a big fat cheque — big fat cheque between $88 and $145 million for this Council. Well the last 18 months this debt has gone from $261 million down to just $255 million and it greatly reduced two per cent of the debt in 18 months. Let’s look at CLEM7. We owe $434 million on CLEM7, 18 months ago $440 million, so in those 18 months we’ve only repaid 1.3 per cent of the CLEM7 debt. Remember again what the LORD MAYOR at the time said back in 2006.

Seven years ago, what did he say to the Council chambers? He said that with a huge degree of certainty Council will borrow nowhere near $450 million for the Queensland Treasury Corporation. Well, Madam Chair, here we are seven years on and this Council still owes $434 million for the CLEM7 tunnel and on the reports that we’ve been reading in the paper it looks like the actual value of that tunnel is not even going to reach the amount of money this Council has paid both in the sweetener to River City Motorway and our upfront costs. So it’s been a complete financial disaster for us. Of course, the big increase in debt at the moment of course with the Legacy Way Tunnel. So we’re up to $690 million for the Legacy Way Tunnel and as we all know, as former LORD MAYOR Campbell Newman said back in April 2010 when he was talking about the CLEM7 tunnel and the different between it and the Legacy Way tunnel, is that ratepayers are not exposed to the financial risk if traffic numbers are lower than expected. Well, Madam Chair, traffic numbers have been lower than expected on the CLEM7, they’ve been lower than expected on the Airport Link and there’s every chance it’s going to be the same case for the Legacy Way. So let’s look at how the Council has been accumulating this debt and look what the credit agency ratings have been saying. I remember back before 2008 credit ratings always for this Council were always stable or positive, but from 2008 they’ve gone haywire. They’ve gone up and down, negative outlook, developing outlooks. They still haven’t reached the same level as they were back in 2008. We all know why. It’s because of the debt that’s reported in this report. Madam Chair, one of the big problems of course is the amount of interest payments that we’re making for this huge debt. If you look at the report you can see that in this last quarter we paid $28.966 million in repayments for the current debt we’ve got. Well at our current interest rate of 5.87 per cent, that’s $26 million of that that’s gone in interest. So in the last three months, in those three months this is the report, we paid $28.966 million in repayments, $26 million of that is just for the interest. No wonder our total debt is not reducing, Madam Chair, because it is causing a huge financial burden on this Council. This Council is being crippled by the debt and it’s not the—if we look a bit of history about this, it’s not debt to sewer every single home in Brisbane that every ratepayer will benefit by. I refer to the project Clem Jones did. It’s certainly not debt that Jim Soorley inherited from Sallyanne Atkinson for borrowing for transfer station. This is debt for risky toll roads that have a bad history of going broke. These are regional tolls road projects and I’ve said it many times before that should be properly funded by the state and federal government not by the ratepayers of Brisbane. So, Madam Chair, this report absolutely proves that my initial statement that the only thing going up in this Council higher than the LORD MAYOR’s fat cat bonuses is debt and the figures are here for us all to see. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor SIMMONDS? Councillor SIMMONDS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. As Councillor FLESSER has dusted off the same speech he gives that report, I’m happy to dust mine off and give people another lesson in how we are on our debt profile in this Council. Look again Councillor FLESSER feigns surprise. I don’t know why — I don’t know why because our borrowings are completely in line with what we have outlined and the profile we’ve outlined is part the Legacy Way project. He confidently makes a prediction that it will go over $2 billion. Well probably because that’s what we’ve said in our reports. He’s probably read that in our report on the basis that we’ll go over $2 billion and then probably when we get the $400 million payment from the Federal Government it will drop below $1.6 billion, Madam Chairman. So that will be— Councillors interjecting.

Councillor SIMMONDS: He ought to run a future prediction service, he really ought to. One of those 1800 numbers or something, Madam Chair, is where his real talents lie. So I’m happy for him to confidently predict that we will stick in line with our debt profile that we have outlined, that’s not a problem at all and of course when we look at that net debt and we look at that net per person, we can see it’s significantly under the previous Labor administration. I have this draft here which I’m happy to show around. Here we are when we hit the peak of our borrowings for Legacy Way it starts tapering down and here they are this giant mountain peak well above that line, Madam Chairman, in the previous Labor administration. It talked about finance costs, well let’s have a look at the finance costs and we can see that the previous Labor administration spent $4.38 million per week in interest with their borrowings, the previous Labor administration. Ours is approximately half that, so that we are spending half the interest costs the previous Labor administration spent when they were—in fact, I can say the previous Labor administration spent 13.3 per cent of its budget paying interest. We will spend 4.7 per cent. 1.3 per cent of their budget they spent paying interest. No wonder they were closing libraries, no wonder they were closing pools in comparison to our interest costs which will be 4.7 per cent. So we have a lower amount of borrowings with a large rate base and a lower debt per capita, Madam Chairman, than the previous Labor administration. In fact our net debt per capita will be 18.5 per cent less than it was under the previous Labor administration. As for our credit rating, well I am very pleased that Councillor FLESSER has recognised that it has gone up the last two years. Gone up twice in the last two years. We are now rated strong with our usual outlook, a very positive result and a clear indication that with the debt profile that we’ve outlined were very comfortable with where we are and very comfortable that this Council is appropriately managing its finances. Thank you.

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of the Finance, Economic Development and Administration Committee was declared carried on the voices.

ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Julian Simmonds (Chairman), Councillor Angela Owen-Taylor (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Fiona King, Ryan Murphy, Shayne Sutton and Kim Flesser.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION - NET BORROWINGS: CASH INVESTMENTS AND FUNDING FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 2013 109/800/148/1 612/2012-13 1. Jiri Arnost, Corporate Treasurer, Corporate Finance, Organisational Services Division, presented a report to the Committee on Council’s net borrowings for the quarter ended March 2013. The report details the corporate cash holdings invested and the status of Council’s funding activities.

2. The presentation provided a market and economic review, and a summary of the following issues in relation to Council’s investments: - cash position - cash activity review - earnings - funding capability - borrowings - facility performance

- credit margins - leasing exposure.

3. The Chairman thanked the Corporate Treasurer for his informative presentation. The report was submitted to the Committee for noting.

4. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION IN THE REPORT, SUBMITTED ON FILE AND TABLED. ADOPTED

B BUSHLAND PRESERVATION LEVY REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 2013 173/695/586/3 613/2012-13 5. The Manager Financial Management, Corporate Finance Branch, Organisational Services Division, provided the Committee with a report on expenditure for bushland purposes for the period ended March 2013.

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

7. The Committee noted the information contained in the report and that the balance of the funds held for environmental bushland purposes for the period ended March 2013 was $3,629,128.

8. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE REPORT SUBMITTED ON FILE AND TABLED. ADOPTED

C BANK AND INVESTMENT REPORT - NOVEM BER 2012 134/695/317/3-02 614/2012-13 9. The Chief Financial Officer, Organisational Services Division, provided the Committee with the monthly summary of Council’s petty cash, bank account and cash investment positions as at 30 November 2012.

10. During the November period, total Council funds held by banks and investment institutions (per general ledger) decreased by $40.2 million to $322.7 million, excluding trusts.

11. Council funds as at 30 November 2012 held by banks and investment institutions (per statements) totalled $327.5 million. The variance relates to the partial repayment of working capital borrowings which amount to $35 million in November.

12. Unreconciled bank receipts and deposits in transit are overstated due to reconciliation variances at the end of the period. These transactions have since been reconciled.

13. Surplus funds are invested daily with approved counterparties.

14. The Committee noted the report and the Chairman thanked the Corporate Treasurer for attending the meeting.

15. The Bank and Investment Report for November 2012 is tabled for noting by Council.

16. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE REPORT TABLED BE NOTED. ADOPTED

D BANK AND INVESTMENT REPORT - DECEM BER 2012 134/695/317/3-02 615/2012-13 17. The Chief Financial Officer, Organisational Services Division, provided the Committee with the monthly summary of Council’s petty cash, bank account and cash investment positions as at 28 December 2012.

18. During the December period, total Council funds held by banks and investment institutions (per general ledger) decreased by $83.5 million to $239.2 million, excluding trusts. The decrease is a result of: - the lowest point in the rates revenue cycle - payments made to suppliers prior to the public holidays - significant payment being made to debt servicing, licence fees and projects. These payments were offset by receipts from Queensland Urban Utilities for tax reimbursement.

19. Council funds as at 28 December 2012 held by banks and investment institutions (per statements) totalled $246.6 million. The variance relates to timing differences between transactions recorded in the general ledger and those reflected in the bank statements.

20. Unreconciled bank receipts and deposits in transit are overstated due to reconciliation variances at the end of the period. These transactions have since been reconciled.

21. Surplus funds are invested daily with approved counterparties.

22. The Committee noted the report and the Chairman thanked the Corporate Treasurer for attending the meeting.

23. The Bank and Investment Report for December 2012 is tabled for noting by Council.

24. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE REPORT TABLED BE NOTED. ADOPTED

Chairman: Councillors are there any petitions? Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR?

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:

Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have a petition from 45 residents requesting traffic calming. Chairman: Councillor McLACHLAN? Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have a petition from supporters of works to be done in Crosby Park, Hamilton.

At that time, 6.15pm, the Deputy Chairman, Councillor Angela OWEN-TAYLOR, assumed the Chair.

Deputy Chairman: Councillor SCHRINNER? Councillor SCHRINNER: I have a petition I’m presenting on behalf of the LORD MAYOR calling on support for SANDBAG in the Bracken Ridge area. Deputy Chairman: Councillor FLESSER? Councillor FLESSER: Thank you, Madam Chair. I present a petition for a large number of residents calling on Council to name the new bandstand. Deputy Chairman: Councillor KING? Councillor KING: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a petition here from residents in Geebung. Deputy Chairman: Councillor NEWTON? Councillor NEWTON: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a petition from residents in Brisbane Street, Sandgate regarding implementing traffic management measures to alleviate the volume of traffic and I have a substantial petition regarding bus services. Deputy Chairman: Councillor MARX?

616/2012-13 It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Kim MARX, seconded by Councillor Victoria NEWTON, that the petitions as presented be received and referred to the Committee concerned for consideration and report.

The petitions were summarised as follows:

File No. Councillor Topic CA13/311653 Angela Owen-Taylor Requesting traffic management measures to address vehicles speeding in Menser Street, Calamvale CA13/311682 David McLachlan Supporting the proposed Hamilton Picnic Hill and other improvements, particularly a new children’s playground, in Crosby Park, Hamilton, CA13/291105 The Deputy Mayor, Requesting Council to support State Government funding on behalf of the Lord for the community organization SANDBAG Mayor CA13/311627 Kim Flesser Requesting that Council name the new bandstand in Banyo Memorial Park as the Banyo Memorial Bandstand CA13/311616 Fiona King Requesting that a concrete bollard fence be constructed along the northern boundary of all blocks in Weenga Street, Geebung CA13/311632 Victoria Newton Requesting that Council implement traffic management measures to alleviate the volume of traffic in Brisbane Street, Sandgate CA13/311705 Victoria Newton Opposing changes to bus services proposed by the Queensland State Government

Deputy Chairman: General business—are there any matters of general business? Councillor de WIT?

GENERAL BUSINESS:

Councillor de WIT: Thank you, Madam Deputy Chairman. I rise to speak about constitutional recognition for local government and in doing this I’m really doing it from my position as president of LGAQ. The LORD MAYOR spoke about this earlier today, but it really is a very important issue and it’s crucial that everyone here fully understands what constitutional recognition is or is not all about.

Madam Deputy Chairman, I’ve had the opportunity of being present last Thursday when the Prime Minister and Minister Albanese were here in the company of the LORD MAYOR and Felicity-Anne Lewis, President of ALGA, when the referendum was actually announced. It is a great relief that at long last after years of campaigning for this, that local government across Australia will have the chance to at last be recognised in the Constitution of Australia. Going right back to 2008 there was a constitutional convention held in Melbourne. That was organised by ALGA and it was a two day convention and Councillor MATIC and myself were at that and that was where we had a lot of constitutional experts present and for two days we threw around the pros and cons of having another referendum on constitutional recognition and the possibility that it could be successful.. Madam Deputy Chairman, it’s vital that not only all councillors but also staff— Council staff—know the facts because what I’m finding already in the last week is that there is a lot of misunderstanding about what constitutional recognition will really mean in terms of local government. First of all what it is actually about, it is the addition of a few words to section 96 of the Constitution, which at the moment, states that the Federal Government can only give money directly to states, cannot give money directly to anyone else. So therefore every time the Federal Government provides funding for any local government projects, Roads to Recovery, City Hall’s a good example, the tunnels, they do not have any legal constitutional right to do that. It would not be an issue probably had there not been two High Court challenges in recent years, both of which have been successful. So this is a really vital change that each and every one of us needs to the Constitution of Australia. Madam Deputy Chairman, I’d like to say and make it very clear what constitutional recognition is not about. It is not about changing the relationship between state and local governments. It is not about changing any powers in relation to how local government is formed and regulated. It is not about changing the way councils are funded and it’s not about changing how much revenue councils will receive from state or federal governments. Madam Deputy Chairman, what this is about is providing certainty. It is simply putting in place the legal structure that is needed to ensure that we can continue to receive money directly from the Federal Government without any legal challenge in the High Court and all the associated costs that go on with that. It is vital that local communities and councils have certainty that they can continue to receive the funding for worthwhile projects and infrastructure directly from the Federal Government and one that is of vital importance particularly more so outside Brisbane than in Brisbane is the Roads to Recovery program which was introduced by the Howard Government but has been continued by the Labor Government since and at the moment I believe is set in concrete until 2019. That is where councils put in their own business cases on projects that need funding and if they have put forward a sufficiently good business case, it is highly likely that the Federal Government will be able to assist. Madam Deputy Chairman, there’s a number of people that I would like to actually acknowledge in terms of this referendum coming into being. The really key point of course about this is that there is bipartisan support for it, so not only is there the Prime Minister and her government, but also the Greens Party, the coalition and the Independents who are all supporters of this referendum taking place and also the referendum being positive and a yes vote being— Deputy Chairman: Just a moment please Councillor de WIT. Councillor CUMMING if you’re going to interject I will warn you. Councillor de WIT? Councillor de WIT: Thank you, Madam Deputy Chairman. In addition to those people that I’ve already mentioned, really there are a number of people who’ve gone out on a limb, the first one being the premier of this state who not only wrote to the Prime Minister offering his support as state premier, but he also wrote to every other state premier.

Now we know that Western Australia at state government level is not at all supportive of this and we know that there are other premiers not so supportive and yet our premier has stuck his neck out and sort of taken the fight up to these premiers to get behind this very worthwhile cause. The other people I’d like to acknowledge are Tony Abbott who also has come out and given his support and behind the scenes Senator George Brandis is a huge supporter of this amendment and likewise I think the most vocal of supporters is Senator Barnaby Joyce. So this is something that goes beyond political boundaries and I think everyone needs to understand that. It's in the interests of everyone here, as I said before, and it's in the interests of every Council staff member that we get, constitutional recognition. Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Point of order Councillor CUMMING. Councillor CUMMING: Will Councillor de WIT take a question? Chairman: Councillor de WIT? Councillor de WIT: Yes, Councillor CUMMING? Councillor CUMMING: Councillor de WIT I was listening to the radio last night, it was the PM and they were talking about in the federal council of the Liberal Party, as it's called, by a majority of two-thirds of the vote had actually voted against supporting constitutional recognition. They also had an interview Senator Cory Bernardi who was dead set against it. We've also heard recently from Peter Reith who opposed the referendum when it last run as well, saying very much opposed. Are you sure there's bipartisan support of the referendum? Chairman: Order, so we can hear Councillor de WIT's response please. Councillor de WIT: The people who are important in this matter, Madam Chair, are the people, the federal parliamentarians. It's not what happens at a party organisation or gathering and I'm quite sure there were things passed at Labor Party conventions that never see the light of day in Labor policy. I am absolutely sure, Madam Deputy Chairman, that we have the bipartisan support that we need for this referendum so that no matter who is speaking when it comes to the referendum, it's yes everywhere from all of our political parties, plus the independents, Madam Deputy Chairman. There is some absolute nonsense being floated around at the moment. I have a couple of emails that are just extraordinary in that they are so wrong in what they're saying. There is this theory that is going to erode state rights. It has nothing to with state rights, it does not affect state rights in any way whatsoever. When you have people like the expert panel that the Prime Minister established and that was a cross party panel and for Queensland we had Jane Prentice of course was one of the representatives. But for people like Justice James Spigelman QC who headed up that committee and here you've got the best constitutional lawyers in this country who are all saying this needs to happen and it needs to happen now, also they are all saying it has no impact on state rights. It is really important that if you hear any of these sorts of misnomers, that you understand fully what this is about and that you can correct the misunderstandings that are out there. So in terms of getting further information, there is a huge campaign which is now being kicked off, both by the LGAQ and every council in Queensland has contributed to that, we have to provide some function nationally to ALGA and some will be spent locally. But there is a lot of information available on the LGAQ website, the ALGA website and I just really implore you to make the most of this once in a lifetime opportunity. Rarely in a referendum do you have bipartisan support. We have got it this time. Councillor interjecting.

Councillor de WIT: We have got it this time. Now you know, you can sit over that side and interject, criticise what I'm saying, but I'm telling you this is not political. Councillor interjecting. Councillor ABRAHAMS: Point of order, Madam Chair. Deputy Chairman: Point of order Councillor ABRAHAMS. Councillor ABRAHAMS: Just wishing to be quite clear that my interjection was heard appropriately. It was supporting, not a negative. Deputy Chairman: Councillor ABRAHAMS, that's not a correct point of order. Councillor de WIT: Well Councillor ABRAHAMS, sorry I didn't hear you clearly what you had to say, but I know Councillor DICK is supportive of this and he certainly has connections in terms of the committee, the parliamentary committee, which then looked further at whether or not there should be a referendum. This has been investigated, looked at thoroughly. It's not something that ALGA has lobbied for, for the last five years, without having good reason, without having done their homework. Already quite a lot of money has been spent on the experts that we have used. So Madam Deputy Chairman, again, this is about a very simple amendment to the Australian Constitution; easy to understand. It's about guaranteeing that the Federal Government has the right to provide funding directly. Simple example, the $10 million as the Lord Mayor mentioned, Federal Government gave directly to Brisbane City Council towards City Hall. There are numerous of these projects, Madam Deputy Chairman, that can be quoted as an easy to understand example for anyone out in the general public. So I just implore you, please make sure you know fully what this is about and please get behind it in any way you can. Deputy Chairman: Thank you Councillor de WIT. Further general business? Councillor DICK. Councillor DICK: Thank you, Madam Chair. I speak on a couple of others tonight, the referendum of the constitution as covered, the Bus Review and the handling of the Bus Review and public transport matters by Councillor Peter MATIC. Also, if I get time, the issues surrounding saving the Darra Community Hall. Madam Chair, I just want to follow on from Councillor de WIT and reaffirm very publicly tonight my support for the referendum that was announced last week. As we heard from Councillor de WIT, she said all people that matter are within the Liberal Party and the National Party are supporting this. Now I certainly take Councillor de WIT at her word, I know her passion for this issue in this Council. As a result of my moving those votes some time ago, set a very clear message on the eve of the committee of which the LNP all voted for by motion unanimously and I acknowledge the LNP supporting my motion. But I was concerned when I read on Friday, the day after the referendum was announced, AAP's report that, quote headline: Premier Campbell Newman doesn't support wording of referendum because he undermines state governments. So just heard from Councillor de WIT that apparently we owe a big debt of gratitude to Councillor — to the former Lord Mayor. He goes on to say: the former Brisbane mayor believes extra powers to pay councils directly and bypass state governments are a concern. Quote: I'm not prepared to support something that undermines the state government and other state governments. So I am concerned the day after the referendum is announced, that we're seeing the former Lord Mayor who said one thing when he was in local government, the very next day saying that he won't allegedly support the referendum. Maybe Councillor de WIT needs to pick up the phone and get an iron-clad guarantee. It goes one, there's other premiers, as Councillor de WIT said, there's Councillor Colin Barnett, the leader of the Liberal National Party who's announced he will be campaigning against this referendum. Councillor interjecting.

Councillor DICK: Well I won’t go into the other issues that Colin BARNETT won't support, but I know for a fact he won't support this referendum and has said he will campaign against this referendum.

At that time, 6.20pm, the Chairman, Councillor Margaret de WIT, resumed the Chair. Who else is saying no? The New South Wales Premier, Barry O'Farrell said: I don't support the referendum on local government. Who else is saying no? These are the decision makers, we've just heard, who are supportive of referendum. Julie Bishop, now I think she would be quite an influential person, Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Federal Liberal Party; referendum a distraction, Bishop. These aren't necessarily big supportive yeses I'm hearing here. What did Ms Bishop say when she was asked? She said, I think — which is a referendum, on Sunday she was asked would you support the referendum. What did she say? One would have thought listening to Councillor de WIT she'd be jumping in and saying, yes, we are going to vote yes, we are going to lead the campaign. What did she say? I think this is just another distraction on the part of Julia Gillard. What's missing is the public debate. They haven't given enough time for the public to come to terms with it. This is the Liberal Party already starting to unwind the yes campaign. The other person who I am led to believe is an influential player inside the Liberal National Party, fellow Queenslander, Barnaby Joyce. Councillor interjects. Councillor DICK: Well the leader of the National Party in the Senate for the time being, a potential deputy prime minister as I'm led to believe. This is his response to the referendum; this is on the day, the day of the referendum announced. Did Barnaby — Senator Joyce go out and say, I'm a Queenslander, I'm going to support the referendum, and I’m going to say yes? This is his quote, when announced, do you support — this is his direct quote, quote: they've announced a great big wedge that's actually going to compromise our capacity to get up financial recognition of local government. Barnaby Joyce, Julie Bishop, Barry O'Farrell, Colin Barnett, what have they all got in common? They're all members of the Liberal Party, the National Party— oh and Campbell Newman, who said the day after, I'm not prepared to support something that undermines the State Government and other state governments. They were his words. I'm not making that up, if that is an incorrect statement from AAP and the media, someone needs to get up in this council chamber and correct the record. That does not sound to me that there are supportive bodies and supportive voices with inside of the Coalition. I certainly hope, Madam Chair, that you will exert your significant influence as a sitting member of the Liberal National Party in this state, to pull these people into line and get them out to campaign yes, not undermine in and wind up the yes campaign, because we know that the referendum for this issue has come twice before, 1987 was the last time it was put to the Australian people, John Howard, the then leader, said yes we will support it. When it came to the referendum, got rolled by the party room and led to no campaign. So with respect to you know, the Liberal Party has form on this. They have massive form in not supporting constitutional recognition of local government. Time and time again and I certainly hear Senator Benardi's comments, he's already fronted up to somehow get the money for the no campaign, but that's a whole other issue. However I do want to acknowledge the work as Council de WIT says, there have been local government bids from across Australia pushing this for some years. I know Councillor you mentioned the inquiry that was chaired by a good friend of mine, Michelle Rowland, the Federal member for Greenway, I acknowledge the work of her and her city. Disappointingly there was a dissenting report by the

following members: Senator David Bushby, Mr Mark Coulton MP, Senator David Fawcett, Mr Steve Irons MP and Ms Jane Prentice MP. The only things I see in common with all of those people were members of the Liberal National Party. An inquiry set up, dissenting report, deputy leader not supporting it, leader of the National Party not supporting it, Premier of Queensland not supporting it, Premier of New South Wales not supporting it, Premier of Western Australia not supporting it, I certainly hope the decision makers that are making the decision, apparently not the Liberal council, which I suppose is what is the majority, well I know that doesn't count—I certainly hope all those other people are going to step up to the plate, see their errors of the way, listen to you, Councillor de WIT, as President of the Local Government Association Queensland and also a strong proponent of this and that we can get them on board. You will have a better chance of convincing them that I would. But to moving right along, I do want to touch on the bus review. There were a couple of issues that I left out of my remarks, so that I know the bus review would want me to say and that is my grave concern that we are going through this plane without any knowledge of what we're going to say to the State Government. We are cutting services with Council money who simply does not know, or won’t tell, how much we're going to save as a result of this review. That doesn't make sense and we know the LORD MAYOR said last week and subsequently, we need to do this to save money. We know from Councillor KNAPP's own wording she said, you need to find out otherwise we're going to lose jobs and services. I cannot let Councillor MATIC's smears go by but somehow he's criticising me for standing up for the community and criticising, I know, for a couple of weeks now, the Member for Inala, Anastasia Palaszczuk. It led to me thinking of Councillor MATIC's attacks on my saying apparently I want to leave this sphere of government. But there are only two people in this chamber who ever have run for public office. Now on this side of the chamber, one of course is the Lord Mayor who failed in his attempt to gain state office and the other was Councillor Peter MATIC who ran for state office, against the Member for Inala in 2006. So I— Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Order, order. Councillor DICK. I would like to hear what Councillor DICK is saying. Order. Councillors interjecting. Councillor DICK: people from— Chairman: Councillor MATIC, Councillor— Councillor DICK: —but I certainly hope that this isn't some sort of perverse “get even” on the people of Inala because we know his first choice was run for public office and not this level of government. Chairman: Councillor DICK, I think that's really imputing motive and it's an unacceptable statement. Councillor DICK: I shall rephrase my comment. Being that Councillor MATIC was rejected by the people of Inala in 2006— Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Order. Councillor DICK: —then struggled to get 20 per cent of the primary vote and I certainly hope my interpretation that his review isn't some kind of revenge on the people of Inala. Chairman: Councillor DICK, your time has expired.

Councillor BOURKE. Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I just want to talk briefly about the— Chairman: Order. Councillor BOURKE: —Rotary International, Madam Chairman and the event I attended on Saturday night with Councillor DICK and other members from my community. Madam Chairman, I'm very privileged, I now have four Rotary Clubs in the Jamboree Ward, Madame Chairman, and on Saturday night we welcomed the Rotary Club of Rocks Riverside, Madam Chairman, into the Rotary fold for district 4630, Madam Chairman. Rotary, as we all know as councillors, do a fantastic job in our community and the support they provided in our local area during the flood events, both this year and in 2011, Madam Chairman, cannot be put into words. It was a tremendous effort. These individuals play a significant role, not just in the Rotary Club, but also in the wider community, Madam Chairman, and it's great we've been able to form another club, this one covering the eastern side of my ward going into the suburb of Oxley with Councillor DICK, Madam Chairman, covering Seventeen Mile Rocks, Sinnamon Park and Oxley. I want to particularly put on the record my thanks to Anthony Marks, David Butcher and particularly Paul Kernot, Madam Chairman, who was a Rotarian from my Rotary Club, the Jindalee Rotary Club and Paul has put an immense and significant amount of time into working with the 20-odd members of this new Rotary Club, in establishing the club, helping them get on the right footing so that they can continue to serve a community out there in the south western suburbs, Madam Chairman. As I said in my speech earlier, Rotary does a fantastic job in our community. In hours of need for our communities, they are often at the forefront providing services, providing help and I think all councillors in this place should take some time and see how they can help their local Rotary Clubs because the benefits that you'll receive and the benefits that your community will receive will be times 10 or 100 of any effort and grants that you're able to provide in the future. Chairman: Further general business? Councillor Griffiths. Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, thanks, Madam Chair. I wish to speak on a few items in relation to my ward. One is regarding a High School city plan, tree jobs and finally the Arctic Library. First off I want to start by saying that I'm appalled by the LNP's desire to close Nyanda High School which was previously called Salisbury High School. This is a school that has a proud tradition of serving the community and the southern suburbs. It particularly focuses on students, many students with special or high needs, students from non-English speaking backgrounds, refugees and also students from lower socio-economic backgrounds and I say this both as a former special ed teacher but also as a former graduate of a state school, that state school education is fantastic and what we need to be doing is supporting state school education, not destroying state school education. I am really, really concerned that what we're seeing here is a move to get rid of a service provision within the local community of Salisbury. It doesn’t just service Salisbury, but it services many students from the southern suburbs, including Acacia Ridge, Archerfield and further down as well. The school has wonderful staff. They are very committed to their students and the students who attend this school benefit from a school that is smaller. Not all students do well in a school that has 1500 or 2000 students. So the argument about efficiency sometimes gets lost or loses the value of an education for groups in our community who need more intense input and who could benefit from more intense involvement from staff that know all the students.

One of the things that makes me particularly sceptical about the whole approach of the closure of this school is the fact that when I looked at the consultation that the school undergoes, it's approximately six hours of consultation. So its close the school, well actually LNP Government is saying six hours of consultation is enough for us to make our minds up. It also concern me that if we're actually going to provide the best for all our students and not just wealthier students, that we need to look at ways of making the funding fairer, based on need, rather than just based on your ability to lobby. That's why I really am in support of Gonski and the funding that that will provide. Because that means that students who attend state schools, or schools that aren't as well funded, including many Catholic schools or many independent schools, will receive a fair level of funding and it will see an amount of funding that will actually benefit not just the schools and the students, but think a bit more out of that puzzle, but it will actually benefit our economy because it means that we're actually seeing that we're giving more people the opportunity to reach beyond their goals and to reach out so that they can actually succeed. So that's why I don’t support the closure of this school and it's why I support putting more money into public education and to education where it's needed. I think it's a shame, I think it's devastating for our economy and for our country that the Liberal Party so strongly oppose the recommendation of Gonski. Before I was pulled up for saying this was class warfare. But to me it just seems very obvious that many of the schools that are proposed to close are in poorer communities. The other thing that really concerns me is the fact that the site identified for closure is right on the rail line at Salisbury. It's a massive site and be perfect for the growth node that council's seeking to put in at that site. What we're seeing with growth nodes, as we saw tonight with the two speakers, is that they're no longer five storeys as negotiated with the community, suddenly Council can overturn those decisions and make them 11 storeys. I know that Councillor COOPER this evening couldn't actually explain why that happened or why you've had a neighbourhood plan saying one thing that you get community agreement on, but then that decision can suddenly be overturned. That's happening all over the city. My biggest concern then, from Council's perspective, is that while the state is doing the dirty work on closing the school or wanting to close the school, we're coming along and we'll be in the prime position of rezoning the land and rezoning the school and making it a high growth zone. So I think it's double whammy for the local community there and I think if that's the case, it's quite dishonest, quite misleading for the local community. I just want to raise another point with regards trees. As many councillors here would be aware, there are a number of outstanding tree jobs. I have written to my local field services people and asked for a list of the tree jobs that are outstanding in my ward because I can only say the complaints about trees, as are the general complaints about service delivery in the ward, particularly by field services, is just growing dramatically. I know that's also being experienced by other people. The response I received from field services, no, we no longer give this out, even though we were all entitled to receive it previously and we're all updated regularly on the outstanding jobs previous, I have written to the LORD MAYOR and asked for the tree list of outstanding jobs in my ward, but that hasn't been provided either. For some reason it's secret. I think it's really concerning that the best response I was thinking you knew, yes, it's on the list, but no, you don't have access to the list and it will get done at some stage. I don’t think that's good enough for this Council. I don't think it's good enough delivery by the chairs there. I know they're laughing over there at the moment, snickering, obviously they know what's on the list and maybe that’s why it has been—notice Councillor Knapp's also there having a mutter, but I don't believe, for instance, that that is good enough. For the Council not to be able to see the outstanding work that is before Council in each ward, and particularly in our own wards.

Finally, I just want to finish and thank the great work of the Arctic team, the Acacia Ridge Library team. They set up a library while the library was closed down there. They've run that library for a number of years. With support from local councils, but community based library and it was their final fundraising event on the weekend. To Robyn Wooster and her team of volunteers, they've done a marvellous job for people at Acacia Ridge in providing technology and providing books and providing a very dedicated service to the people of Acacia Ridge and I will continue to work for them and lobby for improved services down in that area. Thank you very much. Chairman: Further general business? Councillor ABRAHAMS. Councillor ABRAHAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair I wish to speak on two development applications as a ward of The Gabba, being 115 Cavendish Road and 11-21 Buchanan Street and I will be quick. Madam Chair, we heard two very articulate women speak about the impact of two 11 towers and two 12 towers on their street. But I just wish to advise where those developments varied from the code, after all, they were all both code accessible and this is what the majority of applications in Brisbane are going to confront, what with neighbourhood plans and the general thrust of renewed city plan. So the pain and emotion that we see, I believe, is going to be duplicated time and time again because of the helplessness that people will experience with code assessment. 115 Cavendish Road varies considerably from the code. The code said a building in the East Brisbane Corridor Neighbourhood Plan, should be no more than 30 metres wide. That building is more than 50. It is linked together with a covered walkway at every level; it is read from the street as a solid block of development. It is not a tower but a wall. We heard, in the response from Councillor COOPER, a bit of a furphy about whether the development was MS units or not, Multiple Sclerosis (MS) units or not. But the result of it changing from being an application with multiple sclerosis was another 30 units on the site. It went from 157 to 186 units and the majority of those are one bedroom. That is not a community. That is something that is not within the variety and range of housing which is said to be an objective of our plan. One of the issues clearly that we heard was the fact of parking. The traffic report says that there are 70 car parking spaces will be permitted on the street. That I just cannot believe anyone would put that in writing. That area is constantly parked out and it even said 10 of those 70 are on Cavendish Road. Now if any of you know Cavendish Road, no one parks on it because essentially it is a two-lane road all the time. But it just shows paucity of the information and the grounds on which this assessment was made. The Eastern Corridor Neighbourhood Plan says it should have at least 10 per cent of the development commercial use. This is 100 per cent residential use. They asked for and got relaxation on deep planting while they have approval to remove the existing trees along Cavendish Road as a result of this development. They have also been told and have had approval for the size of the parking bays, rather than the recommended 2.6 metres wide, is 2.4 metres. So people won't use the car parks because they will start hitting each other's cars. This is what has been approved on that site and I haven't mentioned what the community has the size, scale, bulk and overshadowing. It is not appropriate. It is an inappropriate development imposed on existing community. The next development is 11-21 Buchanan Street. I think everyone one of us must have really thought twice if we were living in a unit and beside that unit, there is going to be a bank of 22 air conditioning units. Those units are going to be overcrowded and overshadowed with an interface of six level units to 12 level units and Council is on track to approve it. Yet the first performance criteria of the South Brisbane Riverside Plan says and I quote: “High footprint and bulk, consistent with scale and character with the relevant precinct. I would suggest it's consistent with what is possible but not what is already developed in the

precinct. Reduce the bulk and amenity impacts on adjoining residential developments.” How can you have a solid wall, 12 storeys of new units and say there has been any attempt to meet that criteria. It goes on further: providing a transition to lower scale buildings and spaces. That 12 storey solid wall is abutting a central private courtyard and as we heard, will never see any sun. There has been no attempt except the removal of one unit adjacent that public space, that is the only token change to try and put in this performance into that development. It is not appropriate. It is not what we should be doing in the name of high density in our city. Clearly if you want high density, it is lower at the sides abutting the six to five storey building and the central height, which they're permitted and I believe they should have, of 12 storey central to the site. Instead, what do we have? A very narrow corridor which public space that will, I predict, last a very short time because there is a restaurant, people will leave that restaurant, walk through the site at night to get to the river and sure enough and I understand the body corporate saying, we don't want to have people walking through our site from the restaurant. Neither should they. It is poor design. It is poor design because that central corridor which is so narrow is forcing this interface of 12 storeys against some five, six storeys. I really would urge, I would really plead, that we do listen to what has been said to us and review this development. After all, it is the precedent; it is the precedent of the 12 storeys all along this area. So far in Buchanan Street, there is only one six storeys and then this 12 storeys on the river. You've all seen the photo, it is intrusive, it is a box, it is inappropriate. As well as that, we're losing two NALL trees as you heard, 60 years old, which were protected through the Pradella development next door. Do you know what I found? I was asked whether a local neighbour who wanted to put a carport in front of their property, whether they'd remove the NALL tree. Council said no. It was only a car port. No, you can't remove it. So how can we say to a mum and dad wanting to do a carport being told no and really inconveniencing their development, but on this side, we can let two major, mature eucalypt trees go without any consultation with the community, without any consultation with the councillor, just made with a tick of a pen for this larger development? We really have to design better, we really must, if we're going to be serious about high density which I do support it in this area, we must make sure the design meets that objectives that we define in to our neighbourhood plan. Chairman: Further general business? Councillor MARX. Councillor MARX: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak very briefly on Mother's Day which was Sunday just gone. There were three events I attended on that morning. The first one was the Brandon Road Bushcare Group who meet monthly at Williams Park. They're a very dedicated, very small group of people who have been looking after that park for many, many years. I've been going along on a monthly basis since I was a candidate, so I'm into my third year of attending and helping out. I take my husband along as well as he enjoys getting out early on a Sunday morning as well. I have to admit I was a bit miffed that it was Mother's Day, but anyway, we decided to go ahead, so that was okay. Then the Islamic College of Brisbane have also chosen to have their P&C's on a Sunday morning which also, once again, was on Mother's Day. So I managed to get along there and have a chat to them about their multi fest fete, spring fest that they've got coming up in June. Then after that, I shot over to Sunnybank High, into Councillor HUANG's area where the Tzu Chi Foundation was having a Buddha's birthday celebration and a Mother's Day ceremony as well and I just want to mention at that particular ceremony, what they did was they had mothers come up on stage and they had their children come up and serve them a cup of tea, so I thought that was a lovely little gesture on their part and I think that stands in good stead for children as

they're growing up, that they need to take care of their mum. So that's all I wanted to say, thank you. Chairman: Further general business? I declare the meeting closed.

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

Submitted by Councillor Victoria Newton (received on 10 May 2013) Q1. Can the CEO please provide the number of staff employed by Brisbane Transport at 30 April 2010, 30 April 2011, 30 April 2012 and 30 April 2013 by:

- Total number of people employed within Brisbane Transport - Number of full time equivalent bus drivers employed within Brisbane Transport - Number of part time bus drivers employed within Brisbane Transport - Number of contract and temporary bus drivers within Brisbane Transport - Number of full time equivalent ferry and CityCat drivers employed within Brisbane Transport - Number of part time ferry and CityCat drivers employed within Brisbane Transport - Number of contract and temporary ferry and CityCat drivers employed within Brisbane Transport

Q2. Can the CEO please provide the total number of fines issued by libraries and the total amount collected from library fines in: - 2010/2011 - 2011/2012 - 2012/2013

Q4. Can the CEO please provide the number of tree maintenance requests that are scheduled and yet to be completed at 30 April 2013.

Q5. Can the CEO please provide the number of footpath repair requests that are scheduled and yet to be completed at 30 April 2013.

Q6. Can the CEO please provide the number of pothole repair requests that are scheduled and yet to be completed at 30 April 2013.

Q6. Can the CEO please provide the number of properties expected to be resumed for the Kingsford Smith Drive upgrade project:

- Stage 2, number of properties resumed in full - Stage 2, number of properties partially resumed - Stage 3, number of properties resumed in full - Stage 3, number of properties partially resumed

Q7. Can the CEO please provide the number of parking infringement notices issued in the CBD and Fortitude Valley since 14 January 2013 for not paying the parking meter:

- Number of infringements issued on Saturday - Number of infringements issued on Sunday - Number of infringements issued Monday to Friday between the hours of 7:00pm to 10:00pm - Total income from parking fines in CBD and Fortitude Valley since 14 January 2013

Q8. Can the CEO please advise how many applications for rate relief have been received by Council to date, in the current financial year?

Q9. Can the CEO please advise how many applications for rate relief were received by Council in the 2011/12 financial year?

Q 10. Can the CEO please advise what was the total amount of rates relief granted by Council in the 2011/12 financial year?

Q11. Can the CEO please advise what is the total amount of rates relief granted by Council to date, in the current financial year?

Q12. Can the CEO please advise what is the average amount of rates relief requested by applicants to date, in the current financial year?

Q13. Can the CEO please advise what was the average amount of rates relief requested by applicants in the 2011/12 financial year?

Q14. Can the CEO please advise what please outline the key strategies Council uses to make Brisbane ratepayers aware that they can apply for Rates Relief if they need it. Please give an example of the most recent public communication exercise council has undertaken to generally advise residents Rates Relief is available.

Q15. Can the CEO please advise who are the current members of the Rates Relief Tribunal?

Q16. Can the CEO please advise how regularly the Rates Relief Tribunal meets.

Q17. Can the CEO please advise the dates of the last six Rates Relief Tribunal Meetings.

Q18. Can the CEO please provide the rationale for the 15 minute parking limit in The Gabba Traffic Area?

Q19. Can the CEO please advise how much has been spent supplying arrangements of fresh flowers for Civic Events at City Hall so far this year?

Q20. Can the CEO please advise how much has been spent supplying arrangements of fresh flowers for the reception area of the Lord Mayor’s Office so far in 2012/13 financial year?

Q 21. Can the CEO please advise how many unpaid toll infringements have been referred to SPER in the 2012-13 financial year?

Q22. Can the CEO please advise how many of these unpaid toll infringements referred to SPER in the 2012-13 financial year have been paid?

Q23. Can the CEO please advise how many unpaid infringements issued to SPER in 2012- 13 financial year have since been waived?

Q24. Can the CEO please advise how much is currently owing in unpaid fines?

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 Victoria Newton (from the meeting of 4 December 2012) Q1. Could the CEO please advise the amount paid by Council for employees’ ‘executive bonuses’ in the 2010/2011 financial year?

A1. It is assumed that the question refers to the executive incentive scheme which was initially introduced by the Soorley administration in 1994 and subsequently modified to provide stronger links to delivery of outcomes for Brisbane residents by subsequent administrations.

$1,963,045.

Q2. Could the CEO please advise the amount paid by Council for employees’ ‘executive bonuses’ in the 2011/2012 financial year?

$2,158,441.

Q3. Could the CEO please advise the number of Council employees who were paid ‘executive bonuses’ in the 2010/2011 financial year?

Q4. Could the CEO please advise the number of Council employees who were paid ‘executive bonuses’ in the 2011/2012 financial year?

A4. It is assumed that the question refers to the executive incentive scheme, which was initially introduced by the Soorley administration in 1994 and subsequently modified to provide stronger links to delivery of outcomes for Brisbane residents by subsequent administrations.

Submitted by Councillor Nicole Johnston (from the meeting of 7 May 2013) Q1. Would the CEO please advise when the Brisbane City Council Annual Report for 2012-13 was published on the corporate website as stated in his answer to question notice on 26 March 2013 regarding Chairman’s discretionary allowance of office?

Q2. Would the CEO like to clarify his incorrect answer to the Question, would the CEO please advise the amount of the Chairman’s discretionary allowance of office for 2012-13 as originally asked by Cr Johnston on 19 Febraury 2013?

Q3. Does the CEO agree that the answer made by hin to a question on notice published on 26 March 2013 that “This question would need to be directed to the CEO” was actually directed to the CEO by Councillor Johnston, through the processes set out by the CEO to all Councillors, and published in the Council papers on 19 Febraury 2013?

Q4. Would the CEO please advise whether he approves or reviews the answers to questions on notice before publication?

Q5. Would the CEO please advise to whom (no name is required - description by division or office would be accpetable) he has delegated responsibility of answering and approving questions on notice, if not done by him personally?

A1. to A5. Information being compiled

Submitted by Councillor Nicole Johnston (from the meeting of 7 May 2013) Q1. Would the CEO please advise how many requests for mosquito spraying by location (for example park name, street name or other identifier as suits officers) and suburb have been made to Council in the 2012-13 year?

Q2. Would the CEO please advise how many of the requests for mosquito spraying in 2012-13 have been actioned by spraying?

Q3. Would the CEO please provide a list by location and suburb of all mosquito spraying conducted by Council in 2012-13?

Q4. Would the CEO please advise the budget figure for mosquito spraying in 2012-13?

Q5. Would the CEO please advise how much of the budgeted figure for mosquito spraying in 2012-13 has been spent to date?

Q6. Would the CEO please advise whether there is a size limit on an area for mosquito spraying?

Submitted by Councillor Nicole Johnston (from the meeting of 7 May 2013) Q1. Would the CEO please provide a list of projects by name, location and value for each project approved by Brisbane City Council and funded via community disaster and resilience grants from the federal and/or state government in the 2011-12 and 2012-13 financial years?

Q2. Would the CEO please provide the total amount of community disaster and resilience grants from the federal and/or state government in the 2011-12 and 2012-13 financial years?

Submitted by Councillor Victoria Newton (from the meeting of 7 May 2013) Q1. I refer to your answers on the Agenda Paper dated 26 March in relation to the total annual cost of the Bulimba Cross River Ferry Service in financial year 2011/12 and the anticipated total annual cost of running the same service in 2012/13. Can the CEO please explain why Council expects this service to cost $143,915 more in the 2012/13 financial year than it did in the 2011/12 financial year.

Q2. I refer to your answers on the Agenda Paper dated 26 March in relation to the number of trips taken on the Bulimba Cross River Ferry Service in financial year 2011/12 and the anticipated number of trips taken on the same service in 2012/13. Can the CEO please explain why Council expects 121 145 less trips to be taken on this service in the 2012/13 financial year than taken in the 2011/12 financial year.

Submitted by Councillor Nicole Johnston (from the meeting of 7 May 2013) Q1. Would the CEO please provide a list outlining the number and type of workplace injuries incurred by Asset Services South staff and contractors for the current financial year?

Q2. Would the CEO please provide a list outlining the number and type of workplace

[4403 (Ordinary) meeting – 14 May 2013] - 96 - injuries incurred by Asset Services South staff and contractors for the 2011-12 financial year?

Q3. Would the CEO please advise how many traffic islands, roundabouts and traffic calming devices are scheduled or have had their landscaping removed and replaced with concrete in the current financial year in: a. north region b. south region c. central region d. east region e. west region.

Q4. Would the CEO please advise who made the decision and why Councillors in west region are regularly briefed about community leasing issues in their wards?

Q5. Would the CEO please advise who made the decision and why Council officers refused to discuss or provide information to Councillor Nicole Johnston about community leasing issues such as the Annerley District Community Centre in Tennyson Ward?

Q6. Does the CEO think it is acceptable to discuss community leasing issues with some Councillors but not others and wouldn’t a consistent approach be better?

Q7. Would the CEO please advise how many rubbish bins have been removed from bus stops and not replaced during the current financial year in South Region?

Q8. Would the CEO please advise why Council refuses to list for budget funding a flood height gauge at the public pontoon on Oxley Creek near the Pamphlett Bridge?

Submitted by Councillor Victoria Newton (from the meeting of 7 May 2013) Q1. The Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ) and Queensland Treasury Corporation (QTC) have recently released financial performance indicator guidelines and benchmarks for Queensland Councils. Could the CEO please advise this Council's current figures for the following financial performance indicators, as suggested by LGAQ and QTC:- a. Asset Sustainability b. Operating Surplus Ratio c. Own Source Revenue d. Total Debt Service Cover e. Net Financial Liability f. Cash Expense Ratio.

Q2. Can the CEO please advise the locations of new skate park facilities which have been constructed (or will be constructed in the case of 2012/13) in these financial years: a. 2008-09 b. 2009-10 c. 2010-11 d. 2011-12 e. 2012-13

A1. to A2. Information being compiled.

RISING OF COUNCIL: 6.50pm.

PRESENTED: and CONFIRMED

CHAIRMAN

Council officers in attendance:

Andrew Langford (Team Leader, Council and Committees Support) Stephanie Thompson (Council and Committees Support Officer) Billy Peers (Personal Support Officer to the Lord Mayor and Council Orderly)

[4403 (Ordinary) meeting – 14 May 2013]