The 4522 Meeting of the Brisbane City Council

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

The 4522 meeting of the Brisbane City Council, held at City Hall, Brisbane on Tuesday 28 March 2017 at 2pm

Prepared by: Council and Committee Liaison Office City Administration and Governance

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

THE 4522 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL, HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE, ON TUESDAY 28 MARCH 2017 Dedicated to a better Brisbane AT 2PM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS______i PRESENT:______1 OPENING OF MEETING:______1 MINUTES:______1 QUESTION TIME:______1 CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS:______13 ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE______13 A NEW LEASE TO QUEENSLAND CRICKET ASSOCIATION LTD______49 B CONTRACTS AND TENDERING – REPORT TO COUNCIL OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR FEBRUARY 2017______51 C STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – INNER CITY BYPASS UPGRADE INNOVATIVE PROPOSAL______57 PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE______67 A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – UPDATE ON EASTERN AND NORTHERN BUSWAYS______72 INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE______73 A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – SCHOOL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLANS______78 B PETITION – REQUESTING A SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION ON MONTAGUE ROAD, WEST END______79 CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE______81 A DEVELOPMENT APLICATION UNDER SUSTAINABLE PLANNING ACT 2009 (SPA) – DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR A SHOWROOM AND UNDEFINED USE (ELECTRIC VEHICLE SERVICE CENTRE) – 1058 AND 1062 ANN STREET, FORTITUDE VALLEY – THE TRUST COMPANY (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED______81 ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE______84 A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – HYDROMETRIC TELEMETRY NETWORK______85 B REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL NOT RELOCATE THE TOILET BLOCK IN DOWNEY STREET PARK, WINDSOR, TO THE STREET-VIEW SIDE OF GREEN TERRACE/NORTHEY STREET, WINDSOR______86 C PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL RENAME BENEKE STREET PARK, ON THE NORTH-EAST CORNER OF THE HAMILTON AND WEBSTER ROADS ROUNDABOUT, TO ‘PACKER PLACE’______87 FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE______88 A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – QUALITY FACILITY MANAGEMENT______89 LIFESTYLE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE______90 A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE CITY CEMETERIES______92 B PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL BAN SMOKING IN KING GEORGE SQUARE______93 FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE______94 A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – STONES CORNER: FREE PUBLIC WI-FI AND LOCAL BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE______95 CONSIDERATION OF NOTIFIED MOTION – PLAYER STREET CONNECTION:______96 PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:______102 GENERAL BUSINESS:______103 QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:______105 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:______105

[4522 (Ordinary) Meeting – 28 March 2017] MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

THE ?? MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL, HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE, ON TUESDAY ?? Dedicated to a better Brisbane AT 2PM

[4522 (Ordinary) Meeting – 28 March 2017] MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

THE 4522 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL, HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE, ON TUESDAY 28 MARCH 2017 Dedicated to a better Brisbane AT 2PM

PRESENT:

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

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

OPENING OF MEETING:

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

MINUTES: 466/2016-17 The Minutes of the 4521 meeting of Council held on 21 March 2017, copies of which had been forwarded to each Councillor, were presented, taken as read and confirmed on the motion of Councillor Andrew WINES, seconded by Councillor Steven TOOMEY.

QUESTION TIME:

Chairman: Are there any questions of the LORD MAYOR or a Chairman of any of the Standing Committees? Councillor MURPHY. Question 1 Councillor MURPHY: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. My question is to the LORD MAYOR.

[4522 (Ordinary) Meeting – 28 March 2017] - 2 -

We are now three years into our Youth Strategy 2014-2019 which is aimed at delivering a vibrant, youth-friendly Brisbane. In the lead-up to National Youth Week, can you please update the Chamber on what this Administration has achieved with our Youth Strategy so far? Chairman: LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Well, thank you very much, Councillor MURPHY, and thank you, Madam Chairman. There are many aspects to the Youth Strategy which was set down 2014-2019 in terms of an information delivery period. That said, I won’t be able to cover all of the aspects of that Youth Strategy in responding to Councillor MURPHY today, but I would certainly like to outline some of those aspects. Council, of course, as I said, introduced the strategy in 2014. We have over 200,000 young people between the ages of 17 and 25 years living in Brisbane. Our vision is to have a city where young people are healthy, valued and confident citizens who are actively contributing to a better Brisbane. When this strategy was introduced, Madam Chairman, we set out a number of new initiatives and programs, creating opportunities for Brisbane’s young people and for the larger community. Some of those included the new public swimming pools—Bracken Ridge and at Parkinson, in your own ward, Madam Chairman. Council has now completed two new purpose-built accessible swimming pools in those locations, and additional facilities such as the heated pool, the kiosks and change rooms, as well as many other aspects in those, what we call aquatic centres now, are adding to the value and opportunity for young people to be active and healthy citizens in our city. The Emily Seebohm Aquatic Centre, for example, in Fitzgibbon, opened in February of 2016 and the aquatic centre in Parkinson in October last year. These pools provide young people who live in our outer suburbs with more opportunities for fun, fitness and recreation. Madam Chairman, we’ve established a new multicultural performing arts centre. We simply call it SunPAC. It is the Sunnybank Performing Arts Centre, and it provides, within a fairly substantial multicultural area, an opportunity for not only multicultural communities, but also the broader community to be engaged in the performing arts. So, Madam Chairman, that facility, the first out there in the suburbs, is providing some real opportunities for emerging artists in the performing arts space in our city. It opened in October last year. It was a combination of a partnership, if you like, with the Sunnybank Rugby Union Club. That’s worked very well. It doubled, in terms of the actual final product, the amount of money that Council was putting in to make sure we had a very, very good facility. City Colours, Madam Chairman—this is a part of the Administration’s work with young people to transform run down, dark and uninviting public spaces—laneways and bridge underpasses—into a vibrant display of public art and murals. There has been some 21 murals installed across the city since April 2013. Maeve Baker, an artist in residence at the Visible Ink hub, has been chosen to design the light-up of the William Jolly Bridge during Youth Week this year. Maeve has said that, after stumbling across Visible Ink space in Fortitude Valley, she started using the space and the materials at every opportunity, and soon became their artist in residence. So, Madam Chairman, library learning programs have been another part of the Youth Strategy. Our Council libraries are continuing to build on partnerships with young and community groups to expand the engagement with more young people, hosting contemporary activities such as digital literacies and social connections. We’ve got events, Madam Chairman, such as the Valley Fiesta also which are providing terrific opportunities for young artists to showcase their skills. The Lord Mayor’s Young and Emerging Artist Fellowships—we’ve seen notable winners like Brooke Ferguson, Maxine Mellor and Lachlan O’Donnell.

Madam Chairman, we have a whole range of other opportunities through the Lord Mayor’s Budding Entrepreneurs Program. The Budding Entrepreneurs Program provides practical support to some of our city’s best emerging technology start-ups. The program offers up to $5,000 grants for entrepreneurs to attend the start-up event and obtain professional advice, undertake further education, and to participate in a trade mission. Chairman: Further questions? Councillor CUMMING. Question 2 Councillor CUMMING: Thanks, Madam Chairman. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. In your most recent Council budget, you cruelly axed the water rebate for new pensioners and pensioners who move. You also slashed the cap on the rebate by hundreds of dollars a year. Despite this, at least one of your LNP Councillors is steadfastly refusing to acknowledge these cruel cuts, telling pensioners on their website they could still apply for a rebate. LORD MAYOR, is this an indication that at least one of your Councillors doesn’t approve of your heartless cuts, or have they just not been paying attention to anything you are doing? I table an extract from the website from the relevant Councillor. LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman, I thank Councillor CUMMING for the question. Madam Chairman, this Council, of course, is still one of the most generous councils in this country when it comes to that of pensioner rebates, Madam Chairman. We have been a consistent provider of rebates within the ratings system and, Madam Chairman, at a time when all other councils in South East Queensland removed the pensioner rebates for water, this Council continued to provide an opportunity and still does today, Madam Chairman, providing an ongoing opportunity for pensioners in that space. So, Madam Chairman, the reality is that there were changes in the budget last year, and they have all been documented, debated, questioned over, Madam Chairman, during the budget last year. So, Madam Chairman, that is a matter which we have dealt with. We almost have another budget upon us. It’s only a few months away now, and this Administration will be delivering another budget. So, Madam Chairman, I am not overly familiar with the question that Councillor CUMMING is putting forward today in terms of that information. If there is incorrect information on sites, I would just ask all Councillors to check that to make sure that the information they do provide is correct, and is contemporary in terms of arrangements that we have in place. So, Madam Chairman, with every budget, there are decisions that are made. Those decisions are made in the overall context of the revenue requirements of the city, versus that of the city’s desire to assist people where we possibly can. And so, again, Madam Chairman, whilst I understand the question that Councillor CUMMING is putting before us today, I’d just again restate that this Council continues to be, I think, probably the most generous Council in Australia. I’d be interested to know if anyone could come up with a more generous council in Australia when it comes to pensioner rebates. We have tens of millions of dollars every year, Madam Chairman, that we place against pensioner remissions in terms of the rebates provided in terms of direct rates remissions that we provide in this city. Forty per cent, Madam Chairman, in terms of rate remissions for our full pensioners, 20% for part pensioners, and it does amount to a significant amount of money. There are always those in the community, Madam Chairman, who believe that there ought to be other entitlements, but we have to measure that against the other ratepayers who also have to carry the burden of those entitlements. So we try to reach that happy medium position. I’m aware also of many struggling

families out there. They’re the ones that have to pick up the tab, if you like. The more remissions you have, they have to pick up the pieces in terms of the revenues that are lost. So, we made some decisions last year, Madam Chairman. We believe they were fair and reasonable decisions in the context, again, that every other council in South East Queensland had removed those remissions some years ago. So we were the last, and we have still retained many aspects of that system, Madam Chairman, to provide opportunities for pensioners going forward. So I thank Councillor CUMMING for the question, but we will always be a Council which is generous to its pensioners, Madam Chairman, and part-pensioners, but equally we also have to be cognisant of the fact that we have to deal with all ratepayers of the city. Apart from pensioners, there are also many other struggling people out there, and we have to be conscious of that. We have to keep up with the infrastructure build of the city, that’s what people demand of us. We have to find the revenue to do that. But equally, Madam Chairman, we have to be conscious of people’s capacity to pay. Chairman: Further questions? Councillor HUANG. Question 3 Councillor HUANG: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to the Chair of Lifestyle and Community Services Committee, Councillor BOURKE. In four more days, Council launches its annual Youth Week event with the opening event being the QUBE Effect in King George Square. Can you please outline all the positive work that Council does in the youth space to ensure Brisbane’s young people become confident citizens who actively contribute to a better Brisbane? Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor HUANG for the question. There is probably only one Councillor in this place who could identify as youth, and that’s Councillor MURPHY. Many of us probably feel young at heart, but there is only probably Councillor MURPHY in here, and that’s why he is the LORD MAYOR’s assistant when it comes to youth affairs in this Council, Madam Chairman. First, to actually have a Councillor dedicated to working and identifying opportunities on how this Council can work with young people across our city to get the best out of them and to get great outcomes for them, Madam Chairman. As Councillor HUANG said in his question, this weekend, on Saturday, starts our Youth Week activities. It’s kicked off the QUBE Effect which is that signature event started by Brisbane City Council a number of years ago to support and promote local bands and local artists, Madam Chairman. So, what will be happening? Well, on Saturday, from 11am in King George Square, we will have a range of musical performances being conducted, Madam Chairman. At 4pm, we move from King George Square into the Queen Street Mall on the stage to provide a better venue for those performances, and we will be providing live entertainment, food stalls, there will be a rock climbing wall, Madam Chairman, an open-air photo booth, art displays, a chill-out zone, and a range of other activities to engage with young people. All of this, of course, is free, Madam Chairman, so it’s a great opportunity for young people and members of the community and residents to come along and hear some fantastic performances. We received a total of 69 applications this year to be a part of the QUBE Effect, which is up on last year, and it continues to grow year on year. We ended up short-listing 23 acts to perform in the QUBE, and for those Councillors in this place who haven’t had an opportunity to see the QUBE, it’s a metal cube made of scaffolding with 360-degree cameras hanging from the top to capture the performances as the artists do those performances.

We then collate that video and that footage and tie it together and provide it to those short-listed finalists for them to use as part of being short-listed for future gigs and for promotion. We also go out to the public and ask for a People’s Choice Award. So there’s a $2,000 cash prize, as well as a number of other small prizes, including performance prizes. One of the prizes is a gig at the Jungle Love Festival for the winner of the People’s Choice Award. Last year, of course, the applicant or the person who won the People’s Choice Award was Francesca de Valence who came in and spoke in Council, and she performed last week here in City Hall as part of our popular Lord Mayor Tuesday concerts, with our Vera Lynn tribute, with some 1,100 people attending after we did the final numbers on that particular concert. So, Madam Chairman, it is a range of different bands that have put themselves forward to be a part of this fantastic event aimed at young people, and youth in our community. We have pop bands, we have rock bands, we have folk and acoustic music that will be being played, Madam Chairman, by some of the 23 different groups who have put themselves forward. Madam Chairman, the QUBE Effect is just one part of the Creative Brisbane Creative Economy strategy and our Youth Strategy. This Council has been working tirelessly to engage with the creative economy and also with young people in our community on outlets and opportunities for them to promote their hobbies and their activities. So, while QUBE Effect will be part or the main part, and this is the start of Youth Week, there will also be over 100 other activities right across the city, Madam Chairman, targeting creative workshops and other young opportunities. So there’ll be things like skateboarding clinics, and a range of other targeted programs to support young people in our community. We even have night time canoeing at one of our environmental centres, rock climbing, abseiling, and skate competitions. Our 33 fantastic Council libraries, many of which now have dedicated young and youth spaces in them, Madam Chairman, will also be hubs to provide support for our Youth Week activities. Last year there were some 12,000 people who were involved in Youth Week activities across our city. Obviously, as we continue to grow and expand the range of offerings each year with Youth Week, we continue to see more people joining in, being a part of these great free activities in making the young people in our community more confident, making them more engaged, and supporting many of them in not only their hobbies, but also potential future careers for them. So, Madam Chairman, I’d encourage all Councillors in this place to take some time, check out the website, make note of any of the activities that might be in your wards, and encourage people to come to QUBE Effect on Saturday. There’s going to be some fantastic performances, Madam Chairman— Chairman: Councillor BOURKE, your time has expired. Councillor BOURKE: Thanks, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Further questions? Councillor CUMMING. Question 4 Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Madam Chair, my question is to the LORD MAYOR. The development of a six-storey, 95-unit highrise on land zoned ‘sport and recreation’ at Tarragindi has enraged local residents, with hundreds turning out to heated public meetings, and over 1,500 submissions received against the development. Councillor ADAMS has told angry public meetings that she supports the highrise development. Do you support her in not publicly releasing her written submission made to Council officers, or do you think she has not even bothered making any representations about the highrise development?

LORD MAYOR: Well, I thank Councillor CUMMING for the question, Madam Chairman. If he’s talking about forgetting to do submissions, I think he is referring to himself, Madam Chairman. Councillors interjecting. LORD MAYOR: As I recall it, Madam Chairman, there was no submission to the Regional Plan and no submission to the Coorparoo local plan from Councillor CUMMING in spite apparently of having strong views on both. Now, Madam Chairman, the trouble with Councillor CUMMING is that he has trouble keeping up, because the reality is that there has been a lot of water under the bridge in terms of the Tarragindi Bowls Club, which is the sporting club to which he refers in relation to Councillor ADAMS in that Tarragindi area. We all know in this place—and Councillor CUMMING knows as well—that anybody can put in any application they like to this Council, and this Council is then duty-bound under State planning law to make an assessment of that application. It doesn’t mean that we have to agree with that application, Madam Chairman, in the form in which it is put in. So, Madam Chairman, the reality is that Councillor ADAMS has been meeting with local residents now for a considerable period of time. There have been many meetings. I know that Councillor GRIFFITHS has been at those meetings. I know that the Federal Labor member has also been at those meetings. Councillor interjecting. LORD MAYOR: Councillor ADAMS, yes, she’s been there too, Councillor. So, Madam Chairman, that’s the reality. There has been ongoing negotiations in relation to that site, and in relation to the number of storeys that might be appropriate on that site, and also the surrounding residents and their views, Madam Chairman, are very much taken into account in all of that assessment. The officers of this Council are obliged to assess an application. They can take into account— Councillor GRIFFITHS: Point of order, Madam Chair. Chairman: Point of order against you, LORD MAYOR. Councillor CASSIDY. Councillor GRIFFITHS: The LORD MAYOR is not answering the question. The question was, does the LORD MAYOR think Councillor ADAMS should release her submission to the public and— Chairman: And the LORD MAYOR— Councillor GRIFFITHS: —then make it available? Chairman: Councillor GRIFFITHS, the LORD MAYOR has five minutes. LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman, it is up to any Councillor whether they wish to, or not wish to release a submission to the public. That’s a matter for the individual Councillor. It’s a matter for the individual Councillor whether they actually make a submission. Again I note that the Leader of the Opposition didn’t bother to lodge a submission for the biggest game in town, the Regional Plan. So, Madam Chairman, you know, I don’t know, Madam Chairman, in relation to the issue—I know I’ve written as a local Councillor many submissions to applications over the years, and, Madam Chairman, you don’t necessarily go around releasing those submissions to— Councillor JOHNSTON interjecting: I do. LORD MAYOR: Well, you might, Councillor. That’s good for you. That’s good for you. Councillor interjecting. LORD MAYOR: All I’m saying—well, that’s lovely.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON! Stop calling out. LORD MAYOR: That’s lovely. We are always pleased to hear what you’re up to, Councillor JOHNSTON. But I say again, it is a matter for every individual to make their own determination as a local Councillor how they wish to communicate with their electorate, Madam Chairman. But all I can say is that Councillor ADAMS has been with that local community and right in the thick of it from the time that that application set its foot in this place, Madam Chairman. Now, the reality is that she hasn’t shirked the task out there. She has fronted up as the local Councillor to many public meetings. She’s heard what people have had to say. She has been engaging with the local community. Councillor interjecting. LORD MAYOR: She’s doorknocked the local area, Councillor GRIFFITHS, thank you for the interjection. So she has been involved in every respect, in terms of hearing what the community have had to say. At the end of the day, Madam Chairman, the officers of this Council have an obligation to make an assessment of an application against the plan based on the Sustainable Planning Act or what will now be the new Planning Act from 1 July, and that of other planning laws associated with State requirements of all local authorities throughout Queensland. So, Madam Chairman, that is where it is. So, again, let’s not get carried away. I heard six storeys mentioned. Let’s not get carried away, Madam Chairman— Councillor interjecting. LORD MAYOR: Eight storeys, eight now? Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Order! LORD MAYOR: Well—hang the expense—let’s make it 20, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Order! LORD MAYOR: Let’s make it 20, just to keep— Councillor GRIFFITHS: Point of order. Can I quote you on that, LORD MAYOR? LORD MAYOR: Yes, you will anyway. Chairman: Councillor GRIFFITHS, that is— LORD MAYOR: You will anyway. Chairman: Order! Councillor GRIFFITHS, that was not an appropriate point of order. LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Madam Chairman, they will anyway, because they’re only having a bit of political fun out there. They don’t have the responsibility of making the assessment. I know—I hear all the feedback—I know you’ve been out there offering to pay, with Mr Perrett, pay for appeals on behalf of people in terms of an application, Madam Chairman. That’s interesting. Chairman: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired. Councillor SRI, you’re due for a question. Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair, my question is to the LORD MAYOR. Councillor WINES: Point of order, Madam Chairman. I think— Chairman: Point of order. Councillor WINES: —questions go from side to side. Chairman: Oh, my apologies. Yes, it is the Administration’s side, sorry. You’re next question.

Further questions? Councillor WYNDHAM. Question 5 Councillor WYNDHAM: Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought, because I was so short, you’d missed me. Madam Chair, my question is to Councillor McLACHLAN, the Chair of Environment, Parks and Sustainability. Last week our Council welcomed almost 600 Year 7 students from 50 schools, one of those schools from China, to participate in Future BNE Challenge as part of the World Science Festival. Can you please advise the Chamber on how this important event is contributing to a future Brisbane that’s clean, green and sustainable? Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to Councillor WYNDHAM for the question. Yes, indeed, this was a great event, just ahead of Youth Week. The Future BNE Challenge is an event delivered by Brisbane City Council’s Green Heart Schools in partnership in this case with the Queensland Museum and sponsors, and was a critical part, an important part of the 2017 World Science Festival. There were over 500 Year 7 students from 50 schools across Brisbane and South East Queensland who participated, and as you mentioned, Councillor WYNDHAM, there were 50 special visitors from Shanghai Province in China, a testament to the reach of this youth event. Hundreds of students from across Queensland joined in virtually by livestreaming from their classrooms and making Future BNE the biggest schools learning challenge to be held in Brisbane, which was last week, last Friday, at the South Bank Piazza, joined by Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, that reliable well-known voice encouraging young people to enjoy science, and our own representative for youth affairs, Councillor MURPHY, representing the Council on this occasion. So thank you for representing us at that event. Other partners included Professor Michele Burford from the Australian Rivers Institute, Queensland Urban Utilities, SEQ Water—so all bodies involved with water and water management. The students this year were dubbed the 2100 Future BNE Response Team, and they were asked to think, obviously, well into the future about, in particular, our city’s water security. So that was the theme of this year’s challenge, was all around the importance of water and water security. The prize that the students are competing for is a well worthwhile prize—$5,000 to pay for up to 10 Year 7 students and two of their teachers to attend the Melbourne Water Kids Teaching Kids Conference to be held later this year. They will present their winning Future BNE Challenge video on the conference’s main stage in front of students from all over Australia. That prize will be announced on 3 April. Madam Chairman, as we know, water is central to our identity in Brisbane, the river city, the heart of our city, fed by creeks and streams of all the catchments that extend as far as Cunninghams Gap. As we enter the so-called ideas boom, we turn our focus to innovation, to developing ideas, to transforming these ideas into products and technologies that can help our nation. So cities like Brisbane are becoming cleaner, greener and more sustainable, and the ideas of students like the Year 7 students last week at the Piazza thinking about the future is absolutely crucial to that future, and in particular in relation to our most precious resource, water—vital for our quality of life and our essential survival. To manage our water resources effectively, we need to have the sort of future- focused and innovative ideas that come from students in Year 7, Year 8, Year 9, Year 10—all those students thinking about what to do in the future. These particular Year 7 students were tasked with developing water security solutions, and they’ve got a strong legacy to build on, thanks to the efforts that we put into

making sure people are aware of our contribution and our focus on water and water security. So, these are things like adapting to the realities of increased growth, improving waterway health across the region, and delivering economic prosperity through sustainable water management. But, in terms of what Council is undertaking, specific outcomes in this portfolio include sustainable water management and focusing on river, bays and waterways—a commitment to managing Brisbane’s water resources, including supply, stormwater and waterways. So this was important background information that was provided to students as they thought about the future. It was an important opportunity to remind them of the water cycle—drought to flood, to drought—and to talk about Council’s role in protecting the amenity of our waterways and looking at the examples that we’ve talked about here in the past. Projects such as the Coorparoo Creek Park, looking at the flood detection works, drainage upgrades, backflow works and park embellishments. These are important things to bring to the attention of students as they think about our future water supply and water management. So, Madam Chairman, these are all things that we got out of talking to our students. We’re very proud to be involved in those projects. We’re very keen to see what they come up with as they think about what to do to win this particular challenge, and we look forward to the winning school representing Brisbane in Melbourne in the next few months. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Chairman: Further questions? Councillor SRI. Question 6 Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. It’s not a trick question, it’s not a party political attack. I’m genuinely interested in your answer. It does have a few dates in it, though, so I’ll read it slowly and hopefully it makes sense. So my question is, if a local Councillor in 2017 told you that they were gravely concerned that speed limits on a given road were dangerously high, and they told you that since 2014 growing traffic and pedestrian volumes had led to a significant increase in the number of accidents and near-misses on that corridor, do you think it would be appropriate to rely on crash data from the period from 2007 to 2011 in assessing whether or not that speed limit should be lowered in 2017? So to emphasise there my concern, is it appropriate to rely on crash data that’s almost 10 years old, when the local Councillor has specifically raised concerns about changing road uses and recent changes to a road that make that area much more dangerous in 2017? Is it appropriate to rely on such old traffic crash data in making those speed limit decisions? LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman, I thank Councillor SRI very much for the question. Madam Chairman, the issue of roads is one which Council is obviously constantly reviewing, and issue of safety on those roads is of importance to us. It’s part of the analysis of what we undertake when we look at road improvements. Madam Chairman, also in terms of the crash analysis, some of that data also—in fact, all of that data actually comes from the State. It comes from accident records from DTMR (Department of Transport and Main Roads), Madam Chairman. They obviously accumulate the data that they receive from police records as well, sometimes those police records can take a while to come through. So, Madam Chairman, we do rely on the most available information that we have when we’re making assessments. I mean, if we have to say no, we say no to things. But, Madam Chairman, in terms of the data, there’s no secrets around what that latest data is. We’re upfront, Madam Chairman, in providing the information that is available to us.

Now, in terms of the assessment then, the assessments obviously for all projects have to be looked at in regards to available resources. So, it’s a general question, and, Madam Chairman, I’m only giving for that reason, a general answer. I don’t know what particular road this is relating to. But I can say that, whatever data we have, we’re not afraid, Madam Chairman, in terms of the openness of that data, and whatever the crash records are, the crash records are. And as I say, we very much use that, together with other factors such as engineering safety assessments, Madam Chairman, to determine what we do in terms of the road networks against the resources that we have from the ratepayers of the city. So, with the available information that I have in the question, Madam Chairman, that’s probably as much as I can give in regard to it. So, again, the data that we have is only data that comes from State Government sources. Chairman: Further questions? Councillor MARX. Question 7 Councillor MARX: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My question is to the Chair of the Field Services Committee, Councillor MATIC. Can you please update the Chamber on how this Administration is creating opportunities for youth employment within the Field Services group, and how this is helping to grow our local economy? Councillor MATIC: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor MARX for the question. With the approach, now, of National Youth Week, it’s important to look at these opportunities for young people within our community, and to help them establish their futures as well. Within the Field Services group, it’s a great opportunity within that area to look at those different traits. When you look at the various opportunities within Field Services group, there is a myriad of opportunities for young people to be able to take up those vocations in their future endeavours, to make their contribution to their community, and also to contribute to the local economy. It’s pleasing to see that there are a number of different programs that Council offers in various forms, whether it be through schools, or whether it be through universities. Just within the 2016-17 financial year, we’ve had 31 placements for apprenticeships, but on top of that, we’ve had 29 other placements in program areas to help people evolve those skills. It’s really great to see that we start at a base level with that program, so Council works very closely with high schools, the Department of Education and Training, industry bodies, and training organisations, to go out to young people and talk about the opportunities that exist within the organisation for them to take up. By being able to provide that information, by participating in all these different vocational career days, for example, it really highlights to young people what local government offers to them. When you look at, Madam Chairman, apprenticeships in the past, it was predominately an area that a lot of young people went into in their futures. They made that decision to go there, but we have seen over time the number of people increase to tertiary studies, and seeking higher-level education roles. But it’s great to see that there are still a number of young people out there that want to get out there and build, that want to get out there and plan, that want to get out there and maintain our city. Being able to do that through Council is an enormous opportunity. We have a number of different programs such as the Pre-trade Youth Work Experience program which targets those people finishing pre-vocational training courses within registered training organisations. We’ve got different types of work experience that are offered to young people, just for the purposes of being able to experience what that particular trade is. That covers a whole bunch of

different areas. It’s about plumbing, electrical, fabrication, turf management, park maintenance and gardens, and also sign manufacturing and heavy vehicle mechanical maintenance. So there’s a number of programs there just to give young people a feel of what it is to be within that role, and to help them in making those decisions of where they want to go, but importantly also apprenticeships. Council offers a number of apprenticeships around the organisation, particularly within the Field Services group, for those young people to take up those options. It’s interesting also from a tertiary perspective. I’ve had the great pleasure of meeting a number of university graduates entering their last year of, for example, engineering, in the area of traffic study, where it’s a prerequisite of their qualification that they needed to undertake a set period of work experience within Council or a government body, such as State, but particularly within Council, within that specialty so that they can undertake the necessary studies so that they have that in place in an arrangement with the University of Queensland for them to complete their degree. These kind of invaluable services that we offer to tertiary students go a long way towards fulfilling their obligations at that tertiary level. It’s really interesting to see that even at a level of that tertiary qualification of engineer, that you still need to have the hands-on experience of dealing with traffic management. For example, it could be a traffic study, or it could be within the area of the projects office looking at the design and construction of that particular project. Those are the kind of hands-on essential work experience services that Council offers. Within our city, Madam Chairman, it’s great to see that Council is playing its role to helping young people develop their skill base, to helping young people develop a future for themselves, where they can then go on to make their contribution to our community. Being able to do that, when you look at the number of people working within Council, but importantly the length of time that they work within Council within our various trades, it’s great to see that Council provides such a solid base of support. Because when you’ve got people coming in and making a contribution, when they’re out there doing the day-to-day things that Field Services does, to make our city a better place, these young people are providing an enormous benefit back to our community, both in their contribution to the community but also, importantly, to the economy. When you see these people come through the organisation—I’ve had the great pleasure and honour of meeting people that have worked for 15, 20, 30 up to 40 years within this organisation. These are tradespeople, day in, day out, making their contribution, making a difference to our city, building on their base of experience within their trade, and importantly, Madam Chairman, through our traineeship program and through that vast experience, providing— Chairman: Councillor MATIC, your time has expired. Councillor MATIC: —that for the future as well. Chairman: Further questions? Councillor CUMMING. Question 8 Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to the LORD MAYOR. Last weekend it was reported that 1.3 megalitres of untreated raw sewage poured into the Brisbane River over a two-year period during a minor rain event. Other sources reported the spillage as being 5,000 litres per second. Queensland’s Environment Department is currently investigating Queensland Urban Utilities (QUU) over this failure, and is also investigating the frequency of leaks from the Eagle Farm Pump Plant. Queensland Urban Utilities could be fined if inspectors are not satisfied with their explanation. LORD MAYOR, as the Brisbane Council City is an 85% majority shareholder in QUU, what are you doing to ensure QUU is meeting its responsibilities in terms of service delivery, and what are you doing to ensure this kind of

environmental disaster doesn’t happen again? Have you called the Chairman of the Board, who you appointed, to get an explanation? LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman, I thank Councillor CUMMING very much indeed for the question. Madam Chairman, I have in fact spoken to the CEO in relation to this matter, one Ms Louise Dudley, Madam Chairman, a former employee of this Council, who is the CEO of QUU. Madam Chairman, I am aware of the press reports in regards to this matter. I think the press reports said that the leakage was in the order of 5,000 litres of sewage per second. I can report to this Chamber, Madam Chairman, that the leakage was actually not 5,000 litres per second, but it was 180 litres per second. I can also advise from my discussions that 180 litres per second was heavily diluted. So, Madam Chairman, where there is a sewage spill as a result of an electrical breakdown, Madam Chairman, and it is raw sewage, that is one thing. In the middle of a rain event, Madam Chairman, as was the case in this instance, that occurred at 6pm last Friday night, Madam Chairman, the water flow was heavily diluted. So, Madam Chairman, there will be a report that will be forwarded to the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection. The QUU organisation have some 14 days in which to lodge that report of incident. Councillor CUMMING has been in this place a long time, and he was here during the time when we, as an organisation, had responsibility for water supply and sewerage, both in the times when he was part of the Labor Administration, and subsequent to that when we were a LNP, or Liberal originally, and then LNP Administration. Even when we as an organisation had water supply and sewerage, the reality is that there were sewage overflows that occurred in terms of breakdowns. The part of the system is established in a way that where there is an electrical breakdown, an engineering issue, Madam Chairman, that there is an overflow comes into play. They occurred when the time when we had water supply and sewerage, and they still occur today with QUU. It is an integral part of the system, Madam Chairman. It is designed to create an overflow situation when the pipes can no longer maintain that flow. So, in this case, there was an electrical engineering breakdown in the system. That particular location at Eagle Farm, the pump station there, takes 65% of Brisbane’s sewage. That’s the extent of sewage that goes through that pump station. So, Madam Chairman, in this case, the QUU’s environment team conducted water sampling upstream and downstream of the overflow on Saturday, with results indicating no increased ammonia levels or decreased oxygen levels. Further sampling was carried out yesterday, Monday, and those results are expected in the coming days. So the Eagle Farm pump station, Madam Chairman, I can report is currently meeting demand with wet weather contingencies in place. So, Councillor CUMMING, that’s an update in terms of the information from QUU. We will obviously continue to take an interest in it and monitor it, but again I just restate that these systems are designed that they will create an overflow if the circumstances warrant. What happens if you don’t create an overflow situation? Well, Madam Chairman, the whole asset is put at risk. The whole pumping station is put at risk, Madam Chairman, and then, given that this pumping station carries 75% of this city’s—or 65% I should say, of this city’s sewage, then you have a problem, then you have a massive problem. So it is, Madam Chairman, critical that that overflow is provided for as a part of the network. Nobody wants overflow to occur, but, Madam Chairman, it is an integral part of the system. We will continue to monitor it, and I can assure the Chamber that QUU will meet their statutory obligations and provide a full report to the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Madam Chairman, that will be done within the statutory time period. Chairman: That ends Question Time.

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 20 March 2017, be adopted.

Chairman: LORD MAYOR, before you proceed, in relation to item 3 of the E&C Report, Councillors will note that there are or may be a number of superannuation funds that may have invested funds into the Transurban consortium, which oversees the companies who are the actual parties to the proposed contractual arrangements, which are the subject of item 3. These superannuation funds include AustralianSuper and LGIA Superannuation, amongst others. I am aware that some Councillors in this Chamber today may have investments in those superannuation funds. I am also aware that Councillor BOURKE currently sits on the LGIA Superannuation Board, but that funding decisions are made by externally engaged fund managers. So, those Councillors do not, because of those investments, have any actual or perceived conflict of interest that would disqualify them from participating in this debate today, and decision on this item. The same applies to Councillor BOURKE. No conflict of interest exists simply because he sits on the board of LGIA Superannuation. Do any Councillors wish to make their position known in relation to this report? DEPUTY MAYOR: Point of order, Madam Chairman. Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR. DEPUTY MAYOR: Yes, I do hold AustralianSuper, so I just wanted to declare that, even though you’ve said there’s no conflict of interest. Chairman: Thank you. Councillor COOPER. Councillor COOPER: Thank you, Madam Chair. I also have my superannuation through AustralianSuper, so I’d like it noted for the record. Thank you. Chairman: Thank you. Councillor MATIC. Councillor MATIC: Madam Chairman, I have super through LGIA which I wish to note as well. Chairman: Councillor BOURKE. Councillor BOURKE: Thanks, Madam Chairman. As you read out, I am a Director at LGIAsuper, but I am there in my nature as a position on LGAQ (Local Government Association of Queensland), and I don’t have a conflict of interest. Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY. Councillor CASSIDY: I also have super with AustralianSuper, Madam Chair. Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON.

Seriatim for debate and voting - Clause C At that time Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON rose and requested that Clause C, STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – INNER CITY BYPASS UPGRADE INNOVATIVE PROPOSAL, be taken seriatim for debating and voting purposes.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, I’ve got superannuation but I don’t know if I actually own Transurban shares or not. Chairman: Thank you. So, LORD MAYOR, would you prefer to start with items 1 and 2, or would you prefer to go to item 3? LORD MAYOR: I’d actually prefer to start with some broader comments, Madam Chairman, firstly if I may, and then— Chairman: So, given that it’s seriatim for debate and voting— LORD MAYOR: Sure. Chairman: Would you prefer to start with A and B? LORD MAYOR: Yes, I’m happy to do that, very happy to, thanks, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Thank you. LORD MAYOR: So, Madam Chairman, can I just say at the outset that I’m sure I speak on behalf of all Councillors in this place that our thoughts go out to our fellow Queenslanders today in North Queensland with Cyclone Debbie, Madam Chairman, and the destruction that is no doubt being brought upon. As we sit here right now, it would have crossed the coast, Madam Chairman, and again we will do all that we can within our available resources to assist where appropriate. I can advise the Chamber that we have a number of facilities, Madam Chairman, that, by way of assistance, we’ve got 40 SES (State Emergency Service) personnel that are on standby. We are awaiting instruction from the local disaster management group in those affected areas, Madam Chairman, for a deployment of that assistance. Obviously much of that assistance will occur once the eye of the cyclone has passed and will be in a recovery phase. That said, we have been asked to send up a couple of boats, and, Madam Chairman, we have deployed those personnel through SES to give assistance in that regard. Again, others will be on standby ready to respond. Madam Chairman, last week I took a question on notice from Councillor CUMMING. It was in relation to a question which was claiming the 10 house fires in Brisbane that had occurred over the past 12 months, and it was making reference to some criticism from QFES (Queensland Fire and Emergency Services). Madam Chairman, I can give a report to Councillor CUMMING and the Chamber as I promised to do. Of those 10 houses or house fires in Brisbane, there was only one that was directly relevant to QUU, and that was the Paddington fire incident. Six of the others were not related to a QUU service. In other words, those six dwellings, Madam Chairman, were in areas where there was no water supply services. There was another three that were recorded in that 10 that were outside of the operational area of QUU. So, in other words, they would be with Urban Utility or—I think it’s Urban Utility, yes. So, Madam Chairman, they would be in areas—could have been in Logan, could have been in Moreton Regional Council, but either way they were a part of the Brisbane metropolitan area, but outside of the QUU area of operation. Now, in respect of it, Madam Chairman, I’m able to inform the Chamber that QUU has a long-standing memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Queensland Fire and Emergency Services. The MOU documents are how the relationship between the two organisation operates, and covers issues such as information provision to Queensland Fire and Emergency Services relating to topics like hydrants, networks and maintenance programs. QUU continues to carry out network fire capacity risk analysis and invests around $7 million a year maintaining, testing, renewing and upgrading fire hydrants and water mains to ensure the Department of Energy and Water Supply guidelines are met. Those activities include maintaining fire hydrants, and they include inspecting and cleaning on a regular basis those hydrants. It involves

[4522 (Ordinary) Meeting – 28 March 2017] - 15 - ensuring hydrant markers and ‘cat’s eyes’ are in place. It looks at flow testing hydrants, and it looks at replacing and upgrading hydrants and water mains. Now, within the operations, Madam Chairman, there is a group of 31 ‘priority one’ suburbs, and these suburbs are set out with some special arrangements. There is—if I can say this, QUU have changed the way it responds to emergencies in recent times in that they are automatically contacted by Queensland Fire and Emergency Services when a fire occurs in one of the 31 priority suburbs via a dedicated 24-hour hotline. Queensland Fire and Emergency Services and QUU have, Madam Chairman, again, have had a long-standing fire risk assessment, and that assessment is agreed to by the Department of Energy and Water Supply. So, Madam Chairman, that is the circumstances. I can say that in relation to the Paddington fire incident, Madam Chairman, there were no issues at the time in regards to that. There were certainly tests that were undertaken, and QUU, when they undertook that test, showed that it was meeting the water pressure standard of 210 kPa at that time, Madam Chairman, and that continues to be the standard across the suburbs. The 31 ‘priority one’ suburbs that I mentioned, that is not due to a lack of water, Madam Chairman. What it is—they are identified suburbs because of the building construction material, the density and age of those buildings, the size and the type of the infrastructure. So, Madam Chairman, again those special arrangements are in place in regards to those locations. So, I’m glad to be able to report back to Councillor CUMMING in respect of that question. Madam Chairman, we move now to the events of the last week. I just want to very quickly mention that there was a tourism summit that was held in Brisbane last week. That was attended by Councillor ADAMS and myself. That summit, Madam Chairman, drew together probably about 200, I think there were in the audience, different sectors of the tourism industry were involved. It was a great opportunity, Madam Chairman, for the tourism sector in our city to take stock and to look at the opportunities that might be available to us to maximise the tourism opportunities we have for this city into the future. Tourism is a very big generator of employment, Madam Chairman. We know with the 4,200 rooms that have come online in terms of the hotel sector since we introduced an incentive around the construction of four and five-star hotels, that’s created 2,000 jobs in those hotels alone in the last few years, Madam Chairman, with those 17 new hotels. The sector itself is growing, 25% growth in international tourism in the last four years, 18% growth in domestic tourism in the last four years, and a lot of infrastructure being built in that space, with the Brisbane Airport, the Queens Wharf development and many others, including the Howard Smith Wharves development. So there is a lot of capital being spent around tourism, and we need to make sure that we maximise the opportunities that we have to create employment in our city off the back of that industry. Madam Chairman, I had the pleasure to attend on Sunday the MIT— Massachusetts Institute of Technology—Global Entrepreneurship Bootcamp. This is an event been organised out of QUT (Queensland University of Technology) in conjunction with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It is one that QUT thought might bring about 20 entrants. We ended up with about 150. These are young entrepreneurs from around the world. Many of them are full-time students wanting to become entrepreneurs, and it’s a full week of intensive training, Madam Chairman, in entrepreneurship. So, we welcome those people to the city and trust that they will also, in the future, be doing business with our city. This morning I had the opportunity to inspect Witton Barracks with Councillor SIMMONDS and Councillor McLACHLAN. This is, of course, an area which was formerly owned by the Federal Government. The Council, by way of obtaining that land, is doing up some of the heritage listed buildings on that site. There will be the creation of a park, an ultimate landing location for a

duplication of the Walter Taylor Bridge in the years to come. So, Madam Chairman, many aspects of opportunity with this 1.9 hectare piece of land. It was, in terms of the history of the site, an interesting site in that the time when General MacArthur was here in 1942, one of his early actions was to set up an interrogation centre— Chairman: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired. 467/2016-17 At that point, the LORD MAYOR was granted an extension of time on the motion of the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, seconded by Councillor Andrew WINES.

Chairman: LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: And so, Madam Chairman, that was a centre of interrogation and intelligence gathering from Japanese prisoners of war during the Second World War. Moving on to the items before us today, item A, Madam Chairman, is a lease to the Queensland Cricket Association. This is at 1 Greg Chappell Street, formerly known as Bogan Street, which was changed for good and proper purposes. Councillor interjecting. LORD MAYOR: Yes. Madam Chairman, the proposal here is for Council to grant the Queensland Cricket Association a 20-year lease with an option of a further 20 years on that lease. This will happen upon the Queensland Cricket Association surrendering their current lease agreement with Council. The lease area includes two cricket fields, 21 practice wickets, 12 playing wickets, an administration building, function centre, gymnasium, change rooms and a grandstand. Queensland Cricket intends to spend some $5.8 million on operating and capital expenditure during the first 20 years of the lease. Additionally, $450,000 will be spent annually on building and grounds maintenance throughout the term of the lease. In addition n to the above stated works, refurbishment works will be made to the headquarters building. There will be the construction of a new player amenities building, and improvements made on the two cricket field wickets. So that’s item A. Item B, Madam Chairman, contracts and tendering. The first of those is a panel —and this is the hire of barges and work boats, Madam Chairman. There’s a number of entities there that are listed, and around $1.37 million of anticipated expenditure. The purpose of this—Council obviously uses barges and work boats under variable conditions, including overwater geotechnical drilling investigations within the Brisbane River, and so a variety of vessel types are required. The second item, Madam Chairman, relates to the provision of a third party triple certification of Field Services. This is the management system. So, third party certification is critical to the Field Services’ continuous improvement agenda, through the systematic review of Field Services’ process and systems— a six-month surveillance audit program, and a three-year recertification program against the three standards of occupational, health and safety, and environment and quality. So, in this case, BSI Group ANZ Pty Ltd were the successful tenderer, Madam Chairman. They bid the lowest—no, not the lowest, the second lowest in this particular case. BSI achieved the highest value for money, however. The other ones, DLCS achieved the lowest price, but did not demonstrate the same level of competency and capability as BSI to undertake this work. So DLCS had a reliance on one key auditor for knowledge and conducting the audits, and the value adds in relation to the pool and usage of comparable data were not clear in the assessment of officers. So, Madam Chairman, BSI Group—given the closeness of the price—achieved a better value for money outcome.

There was another one there, too, Bureau Veritas, I think it’s pronounced. They didn’t demonstrate the same level of experience in dealing with clients of a similar size, Madam Chairman. They were, again, a cheaper tender as well, but again at the margins. Next item 3, Aus Air Electrical Pty Ltd, achieved the highest value for money. They are cheapest bidder on that work as well. The purpose of that is the removal of existing wiring and lighting infrastructure. Number 4, the Landscape Construction Company Pty Ltd, $266,351. Madam Chairman, they achieved the lowest price and the highest value for money index. The purpose of this work, the Darien Street Sports Park upgrade, is a capital works project located in Bridgeman Downs. The previous work at this site has been delivered over several stages, and consecutive financial years. To facilitate the commencement of a soccer season, this work must be completed by 1 April this year. So, that’s getting close. So the scope of works for Stage 3 includes removal of the existing turf, laying of top soil, installation of tactiles, installation of galvanised steel visibility handrails, and a few other pieces of work including the spreading of mulch, sand silting and the rest. Thank you. The next one, number 5, the Landscape Construction Company Pty Ltd, $314,202, again the highest value for money, lowest price. That is associated with the staged closure of Riverside Drive at West End. This parkland has been upgraded to cater for an increase in population in this area. The outcome is part of the Kurilpa Point Master Plan. This next stage of the project includes formalisation of the temporary road closure, the construction of all-access picnic nodes, disabled car parking, and bicycle repair facilities. So the project includes also a modification to the existing shared path near Davies Park. Number 6 is Lambert and Rehbein, and that is $1.6 million in this case. The contract is for the provision of consultancy services to support the delivery of the priority structural repairs program, and associated asset portfolio for the remainder of the 2016-17 financial year, through to the 2019-20 financial year. In this case, Madam Chairman, lowest price—no it’s not—it’s not the lowest price, it’s the highest value for money index. They achieved that. Cardno actually tendered the lowest price, but they did not demonstrate the same level of capability. To assess if the shortlisted companies were able to provide the level of service required, the consultants were requested to undertake trial inspections and reports. The work demonstrated in the trials from GHD were far superior, Madam Chairman, and that is why they were assessed the highest value for money in this case. The next one is Probuild Industries Pty Ltd, $148,884. In this case, they achieved the highest value for money index. Again, not the lowest price, but Probuild tendered the second lowest price and they achieved the highest value for money index, because Hawley Constructions Pty Ltd tendered a lower price, but did not have as comprehensive methodology, and did not demonstrate the same level of experience with DDA (Disability Discrimination Act 1992) work on understanding of the design and certification components required. Allen’s Asphalt were the successful tenderer in number 8, $5.642 million, in this case, lowest—no, they weren’t the lowest price. They were in fact the lowest price, yes, and achieved the highest value for money index. Number 9, Probuild Industries Australia Pty Ltd, $308,262. This is for work around Downey Park. It’s a high-use park with multiple sporting leases, new toilet block location, be closer to the playground and the picnic node, viewable from the road, and will also flood-proof the building from minor storm surges. So, what do we know here? Well, they achieved a value for money index of 23.71, Madam Chairman, and it was the lowest price. Next one, number 10, Intrec Management Pty Ltd. This contract is for the upgrade of the Toombul and Northgate Halls, via a design and construct contract. Both projects, Madam Chairman, will be completed by June of this year. The lowest price and the highest value for money was achieved by Intrec.

CONVIC Pty Ltd, this contract is for the provision and construction— Chairman: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired. 468/2016-17 At that point, the LORD MAYOR was granted an extension of time on the motion of the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, seconded by Councillor Andrew WINES.

Chairman: LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and I thank the Chamber. So CONVIC won this one, Madam Chairman, skate facilities at Paddington, $813,000. It wasn’t the lowest, Madam Chairman, CONVIC achieved the highest value for money index, and their tender submission was of a very high standard, including relevant examples of projects previously completed. So, Madam Chairman, they have done work for Council and other local authorities as well, and they have a very experienced team which provide a very good product at the end of the day. On that basis, they were awarded the highest value for money. Epoca Constructions Pty Ltd, $956,000, rounded up, or rounded down, I should say. This contract is for the establishment of open space on the northern section of Witton Barracks. This is the work that I saw this morning. The scope of the works includes demolition of existing concrete footings and disused volleyball court, removal of trees and remediation of contaminated soil, realignment of the stormwater line, and construction of a new entry to the site. So, Madam Chairman, no other offers were received on that, which is quite surprising, really, but that’s what happened. Elite Retaining Systems Pty Ltd, trading as Australia Marine & Civil is the next one, $263,470. Lowest price, highest value for money. It’s construction services to complete the slope stabilisation works at Beaconsfield Street. So we thank all those others who tendered. Madam Chairman, 14 is Project Irrigation Australia Pty Ltd, $425,000 is the expected spend over a five-year period, but in this case, on a comparative basis, $70,073, lowest price, highest value for money index achieved. It is for a central control water monitoring system. Next one is KJ Ross and Associates Pty Ltd—and we’re up to 15—software assurance services with the Local Government Systems (LGS) project. This is $1.5 million in this case, Madam Chairman, it is the establishment of a CPA (Preferred Supplier Arrangement) for a period of up to three years, the provision of software assurance services, so a specialised field in this particular case. The next one is Deloitte Consulting, again associated with the LGS systems, Madam Chairman. They were established again for a three-year period. It’s in relation to advisory services associated with the LGS project. They have extensive capabilities and experiences in the applicable area, and have been pre-qualified by the Queensland Government to provide these services under ICTSS 13.03 (ICT Services Pre-Qualified Suppliers Panel). The next one is Business Aspect Pty Ltd, this is an independent chair in regards to the LGS system, Madam Chairman. These are actions flowing on from announcements that I’ve made previously in relation to the Local Government Systems. They will fall within the budgetary announcements that I have made previously, Madam Chairman, and it is part of the actioning. So that is Business Aspect Pty Ltd. They will be providing services by way of an independent chairmanship. Moreton Island Adventures is the next one, that is $4.137 million. We’ve got approximately 300 rateable properties across the three townships, and Madam Chairman, this is the Council-owned transfer station. So, the successful tender in this case will facilitate the collection and removal of waste, recycling materials, and other waste materials, such as large items, batteries, and

gas bottles from the island. Those three townships there, Madam Chairman, will be the beneficiaries. 19—Sensei Productivity Pty Ltd. This is $1.318 million, lowest price, highest value for money index. This is for the provision of Project Online solutions for Council. Project Online is responsible for migrating the Council project management tool, based upon the Microsoft Project Online. Number 20 is Pickwick Group Pty Ltd as the trustee for the Pickwick Cleaning Services Unit. They achieved a 65.32 value for money index rating—it’s $120,664, and while they were not the cheapest, they were rated as the best. They achieved the highest value for money and the second lowest tender price. Wat-er Blast tendered a lower price, but did not demonstrate the same level of experience, resources and reliability, methodology and commercial viability. So it was on that basis that officers recommended to Cabinet, Pickwick Group Pty Ltd. 21—Emerson Network Power Australia Pty Ltd for $761,688, Madam Chairman. This is supply, installation, and maintenance of computer room air conditioning units at Council’s central database out at Holland Park, and also at Brisbane Square. In this case, highest value for money index achieved, there were only—no other offers, in fact. SenSen Networks Pty Ltd, $1.235 million, highest value for money achieved, lowest price, and Compliance and Regulatory Services undertook a proof of concept in 2015 to examine the applicability, benefits, and risks of automated number plate recognition, Madam Chairman. So that is in relation to services in that space. Madam Chairman, the next one is John Cristian Pilditch trading as John Cristian Productions. This is the production of the Lord Mayor’s Christmas Carols, Madam Chairman. Again, that contract provides for the services of production, bringing together the Lord Mayor’s Christmas Carols event each year in a state ready for TV production. Number 24, and the lucky last, I think, is it? No. The Trustee for the Hosking Family Trust trading as Bushcare Services, Bushcare. This is a contract, Madam Chairman, for the restoration works for 664 Lake Manchester Road, Kholo. The work will benefit the environment following the unavoidable impacts of work in significant habitats and vegetation, by counterbalancing with work required on other sites. So, in this case, it achieved the lowest price and highest value for money at $184,297. Thank you, Madam Chairman, that’s A and B done. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor CUMMING.

Seriatim – Clauses A and B Councillor Peter CUMMING requested that Clause A, NEW LEASE TO QUEENSLAND CRICKET ASSOCIATION LTD; and Clause B, CONTRACTS AND TENDERING – REPORT TO COUNCIL OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR FEBRUARY 2017; be taken seriatim for voting purposes. Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Madam Chair. In relation to item A, we are supportive of this matter. The Queensland Cricket Association (QCA) has developed a good facility out there, and they’re going to put a lot more money into it as well, and that’s great to see. It’s good to see that the QCA is putting a lot of money into cricket. I recall the only other time we’ve had much dealings with cricket in this Chamber in recent times, has been the Council Administration giving more weight to the ‘Nimbys’ (Not In My Back Yard) and the kids from Valleys Cricket Club. So, Madam Chairman, I hope they’ve changed their attitude subsequent to that, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, in relation to item B, the contracts and tenderings, obviously look, the standout items here are these items that relate to the Local Government

Systems project, this disastrous project that the Brisbane City Council has been involved with. These figures can just simply confirm what a disastrous contract it’s been between Council and TechnologyOne. At item 16, there’s a $5 million contract with Deloitte for advisory services, Madam Chairman. Now, the Brisbane City Council must be one of Deloitte’s favourite clients these days, as I think Deloitte were called to do the report on the invoice fraud issue in April this year. That was at a cost of $450,000. Now they’ve hit pay dirt with a $5 million contract, so that’s another $5 million down the sinkhole for ratepayers, Madam Chairman. This contract is for one year, with a possible extension for another two years. Does this mean the contract could end up costing $15 million, or is $5 million the maximum? So I’d be interested to know what that is, Madam Chairman. Then we have item 15, $1.5 million to KJ Ross and Associates. This is software assurance services, whatever that means, and the LORD MAYOR’s explanation didn’t shed any more light on that. So again, I’m hopeful that $1.5 million is the maximum cost and it’s not going to be—because it’s potentially a three-year contract, it’s not going to be $4.5 million. But there’s more, there’s more. The costs keep on mounting. Business Aspect Pty has been given a $600,000 contract for an independent chair for the Local Government Systems project program re-board. So is that $600,000 the chair is going to get paid, or $600,000 to find a chair? I mean, is the salary for the chair— Councillors interjecting. Councillor CUMMING: Yes. Well, yes—I hear the interjections. You know, we have got a Finance Chair in Councillor ADAMS, so I’m not sure what involvement she’s had or, you know, the fact that she’s not doing a lot to keep this project going along in any satisfactory manner. And she’s on about 250 grand a year, that’s her package. So why do we need another chair, Madam Chairman. So these three items, $5 million to Deloitte, $1.5 million KJ Ross, $600,000 to Business Aspect, that’s $7.1 million extra to add to the mounting list of costs awarded in relation to this contract. Madam Chair, the ratepayers’ money should be spent on useful items and not on contractual disputes brought about by Council’s incompetence. This project has already cost millions more than it was set to save over the 10-year life of the project. The LORD MAYOR has botched this project, and he has repeatedly refused to publicly release a report into the debacle that also cost ratepayers over $220,000. Right from the start, TechnologyOne laid the blame for the $60 million blowout squarely at the feet of Graham QUIRK and the Brisbane City Council, despite their best efforts to shift the responsibility. How many more consultants, and how many more millions of dollars of ratepayers’ funds will go into salvaging this botched project? The LORD MAYOR owes Brisbane residents a full explanation of how this has happened on his watch, but he’s hiding the report. He needs to come clean before another dollar is spent. Until we get a clearer picture of how the Administration has allowed this contract to fall in a heap, we won’t be voting to spend another cent on this project. Madam Chairman, I refer to the other items in the report. The only one I’d like to highlight is just item 19, Project Online solutions. Again, I’d like some more details. The LORD MAYOR’s explanation what that was about, was again very vague. The other one is item 23, Madam Chairman. A comment there is simply that $400,000 per annum just seems to be a lot of money for a Christmas carols event, and, Madam Chairman, it’s being held at a Council venue. It’s not like we’re paying money for venues, and we think it appears on the face of it to be an excessive amount of money. Chairman: Further debate?

Councillor MATIC. Councillor MATIC: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair, and I rise to speak to item B, and in regards to two items. I won’t be commenting on Ebenezer Scrooge’s comments next door, about Christmas, Madam Chairman, but more importantly I’ll be talking about number 8 and number 18, Madam Chairman. In respect of number 8, Allen’s Asphalt, I really want to acknowledge the work that’s gone into getting this value for money outcome for ratepayers, Madam Chairman. This particular project is a continuation of the Smoother Suburban Streets program that our LORD MAYOR and this Administration committed to providing for Brisbane residents. These are the kind of items, Madam Chairman, that as core deliverable for Brisbane city residents, and for which Brisbane residents, as we all know as Councillors, are at the top of their priority list of deliverables for them. This kind of outcome for value for money, is a clear indication that the way that Council is rolling out this project, and the bundles they’re doing to the market, that we’re getting the kind of outcomes that we’re seeing here, because by providing this kind of value for money outcome, the $90 million a year commitment by the LORD MAYOR, over four years, the $360 million total package, we will see even more roads being delivered, Madam Chairman, under this program. This is the kind of outcome that is great for local residents in being able to deliver smoother suburban streets for them, it’s great for the local economy, Madam Chairman, as we see this Council continue to deliver day on day, more than any other level of government to the economy, to local jobs, and to our local communities. This is the kind of work that we want to applaud, and we’re glad to see that industry is coming on board with us on that journey. Now, in respect to item 18, that’s Moreton Island Adventures Pty Ltd, this is a great news story for all of the residents out on Moreton Island, Madam Chairman. The value for money outcome here provides enormous savings to the existing budget that we’ve allocated in the current year. This is the kind of outcome that we want to see as part of our waste contract, that continues to provide great service to the residents of Moreton Island, but also at the same time providing a great benefit to the ratepayer, providing essential savings, and being able to allocate those funds to provide even greater outcomes. So I want to thank the whole team for the work, the significant amount of work, that they’ve done under this portion of the waste contract, and being able to get this outcome, because it’s a great story for all involved. Thank you. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor SUTTON. Councillor SUTTON: Madam Chair, thank you. I rise to enter this debate on item B, and I’ll have some more to say about item C once we get to that debate. But I have to say I got this E&C Report and it just made me mad, because it just reinforced the mediocracy of this LNP Administration. The contracts—and item C, which we will get to later—just show we have a LORD MAYOR who is in retirement mode. We have a DEPUTY MAYOR who can’t decide which own-goal he wants to score next, and we have a Finance Chairperson who has clearly been promoted above her capacity. Madam Chair, these contracts in this report are astounding. I’m going to start with the Christmas carols, $400,000 each year to run the Christmas carols. Look, I went last year, sat behind the LORD MAYOR, had a pleasant evening. But I don’t understand why it’s costing us $400,000. I mean, I don’t know what’s in Rhonda Burchmore’s write-up, Madam Chairman, but you know what, I would like to see the budget breakdown for these Christmas carols. I would like to see an itemised list about how we get to $400,000.

I would also like to see Council’s justification for selecting this provider to run these carols under a sole sourcing arrangement. Because you know what, they’re not the only event provider that could actually pull a gig like this together, suitable for television broadcast. So I want to know, Councillor ADAMS, when you get up to speak, through you, Madam Chair, LORD MAYOR, when you get up to provide your summary, I want to know what’s the sole sourcing justification, and I want a commitment to release an itemised budget breakdown about how we’re getting to $400,000 a year to run the Christmas carols. It’s not about the fact that we shouldn’t have Christmas carols. I support the Christmas carols. But let’s actually have a look at the expenses and look at, is this the best value for money, or can we be providing more to the residents of Brisbane for the same amount of money, by having someone else who can do the job perhaps with a little bit more value for money? Contract 19, Project Online solutions. This is a $1.3 million contract. The LORD MAYOR was very, very vague in terms of his description of this contract. We have, when we got this report on Thursday, on Friday we asked to see the file, prior to this debate. Lo and behold, no file, haven’t seen it. They always say, ‘oh, call the file. When we were in Opposition, we used to call the file and we used to go through the file’. We do, Madam Chairman. We don’t get it. I’ll tell you when we’ll get this file, we’ll get this file in six weeks’ time. That’s when we’ll get this file, when we’re in recess, or when everything is done and dusted. Okay? So, again, a bit better of a description about what this actually means. Then we get to the Local Government Solutions program. We get to these contracts and this project that is becoming a deeper and deeper money pit. Every single time we hear about this program, it is costing us more money. This is a project that is now costing us more than it was originally designed to save us. Let me say that again, the savings that this project was supposed to generate for this Council have been completely lost. It is now going to cost us more to have this project than it was going to save us. Well, isn’t that great financial management? Isn’t it great? You know what, I acknowledge, there’s already two Council officers who have lost their jobs over this. But you know what? The lack of political accountability on this front, here in this Chamber is astounding, astounding. And that we’ve got a contract here, again sole-sourced contracting, for a chairman, an independent chair, when we already have a Chair of Finance, Madam Chair, as Councillor CUMMING said. She already gets paid in excess of $200,000 a year. Why do we need an independent chair? If she is up to the job, Madam Chair, through you, of being the Finance Chairperson of this Council, we shouldn’t need this. If the LORD MAYOR wasn’t in retirement mode, and he was up to the job, we shouldn’t need this. This was a project that was botched from the start, and you know what, Councillor ADAMS shouldn’t share all the blame. The blame needs to be fairly and squarely levelled at Councillor SIMMONDS who has now ridden off to another portfolio, because this was his baby when it came. In fact, one of the Council officers who has bitten the bullet over this project, I remember him bringing him to Finance Committee telling us that he was our great saviour, our great saviour that was going to be this IT master for Council. Lasted less than two years, and cost us $60 million. Chairman: Councillor SUTTON, come back to the report, please. This is about contracts and tendering, not about individual Council officers. Councillor SUTTON: Well, Madam Chair, what I am saying is—and I guess I’m providing context about this botched project, that is now costing us more than it ever proposed to save—that we now have before us, three more contracts totalling more than $7 million in additional costs for this Council, because these people to my left, this LNP Council, who were in charge of the final decision making, who bought this decision and this contract to Council for endorsement, couldn’t get it right. And they are so arrogant and so cocky that they believe—Councillor QUIRK

believes he can just ride off into the sunset, and the rest of them believe that they can get another term at running this city, in the face of this financial mismanagement. Do you want to know how many extra roads you could resurface, or how many extra playgrounds you could build, or how many extra library car parks, or road intersections you could build for $60 million, that has been lost as a result of this project? Or if they had got the project right, if you actually work out the amount of savings that was initially supposed to be saved, if you add the savings plus the cost blowout together, it’s even worse. That is a lot to forgo, Madam Chair, and I want to make sure that everyone in this Chamber, particularly the LNP Councillors, have to sit in the uncomfortableness of that situation, that what ratepayers won’t get, because of their inability to manage our finances and our contracts in an appropriate way. It is mediocrity at its best, and Brisbane residents deserve a whole lot better than this crew over here, that proclaim that they are strong financial managers, and the reality, and the actions, and the contracts that are before us today, show the lie that that is. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor BOURKE. Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I just rise to enter the debate on item A and, if I have a chance, item B. Madam Chairman, item A that we have before us today is a lease to the Queensland Cricket Association, Madam Chairman. The LORD MAYOR touched on this, so this is for the site at 1 Greg Chappell Street in Albion. Their current lease was due to expire in the mid-2020s. They have been working very diligently on a master plan and future planning for the sport of cricket at that site, and have identified the need to extend their current lease to give them more certainty of tenure, so that they can create a facility that is up to scratch, to provide a world class cricketers for our Australian Cricket Team and our Queensland cricket teams, Madam Chairman. So they came to Council and they approached Council about getting a 30-year lease, and in discussions with the Queensland Cricket Association, we’ve landed upon a 20-year lease, with a further 20-year option, which is the document that you have before us today. Of course, there is already significant cricket infrastructure at this location, so there’s 21 practice wickets, 12 playing wickets, all of the other ancillary buildings that need to go along, so gyms, function centre, an administration centre, grandstands, as well as the two main cricket fields that form part of this facility. Queensland Cricket have identified a $5.8 million investment into the site, over the first section of the lease, Madam Chairman, which obviously is a significant investment to continue to improve the facility and provide for young people in our community. So, Madam Chairman, I think it’s a great outcome for not only this side in Albion in Councillor McLACHLAN’s ward, where he’s going to have a facility that not only will be used by cricket but by a broader community as well, but also, Madam Chairman, in terms of improvements for cricket as a whole. It’s great that we are able to continue to support the sport of cricket in the city, and I encourage all Councillors to support item A today. Madam Chairman, item B, I’m going to talk about contract 23, as you might think. Madam Chairman, I don’t know why the Australian Labor Party want to be the Grinches of Christmas in the City of Brisbane. But I feel a little bit like Dorothy from The Wizard of Oz, Madam Chairman, ‘because you were there, and I remember you were there, and you were there’, Madam Chairman, because a number of the Councillors on the other side were quite happy to go, and I wasn’t going to name Councillors, but one of them has said themselves that they were there.

A number of the Councillors on the other side of the Chamber were happy to go, in the VIP section, to the Lord Mayor’s Christmas Carols, and sit there and enjoy the show, Madam Chairman. But then they come in here and criticise the entertainment and the wonderful display that was put on as part of the Christmas carols. They not only got the bumper record crowd last year, because of the investment and the work that we’ve done with this provider over the last three years, to build the event and to actually create the event, but also all of the thousands of people across the city and, indeed, across the State who saw it televised as well. So, Madam Chairman, this does get a broad and wide audience. So this Council has for a number of years, for a very long time, provided a Lord Mayor’s Christmas Carols free for the people of Brisbane, free—that’s the other thing. You know, it’s all right for the Labor Councillors to say, ‘how could it cost this?’ Why? Well, when you put on an event, you have a choice. You can either charge a fee to recoup some of your costs, or you can put it on free. This Council makes a collective decision to put this event on free for the people of Brisbane so that— Councillor interjecting. Councillor BOURKE: —so that everyone—mums, dads, kids, families, young people, old people alike —can go and enjoy the Christmas carols and the display, and get into the festive spirit, Madam Chairman. We don’t charge a fee. It might be easier to offset and reduce some of the costs if you charge a fee, but we don’t. But the best thing about the Australian Labor Party is that they love to spin a story. They love to tell a tale. They like to skew the facts one way or another to suit their own political agenda, because what they didn’t read, and for the benefit of those who might be listening, and for the media is, at the top of the column where they’re talking about this amount of money, where it says, ‘Nature of Arrangement and Estimated Maximum Expenditure’. So, while Councillor CUMMING and Councillor SUTTON bandies about figures, and uses figures, that’s a maximum— Councillor interjecting. Councillor BOURKE: —that’s a maximum, that’s the maximum. Through you, Madam Chairman, to those opposite, that’s the maximum expenditure that Council is authorising. We might not spend up to that amount, Madam Chairman, through you, but, Madam Chairman, we need to authorise an amount, and we have provided here the authorisation for a maximum, Madam Chairman. So I would just encourage those opposite to get into the spirit a little bit early, to find that inner child in themselves, to celebrate Christmas, to be a part of this, because it is a great event. Because many of you have been to it. Many of you have been to it. You enjoy going yourselves. Why would you want to deny residents of Brisbane who enjoy this event, the 9,000 people who attended last year— Councillor SUTTON: Point of order, Madam Chair. Chairman: Point of order, Councillor SUTTON. Councillor SUTTON: Claim to be misrepresented. Chairman: Thank you. Councillor BOURKE. Councillor BOURKE: Okay, Councillor SUTTON is there, so she’s claiming that she was misrepresented. But she even said she was there. But, Madam Chair, I don’t know why those opposite are going to deny the 9,000 people who attended this event last year, the thousands of people who saw it on TV, the joy of having a Christmas carols again here at Riverstage, when it’s so well received, and the quality of the production has been taken to such a high standard, that we’re getting great support from various media outlets as well. So I just ask all Councillors to support both item A and item B.

Chairman: Thank you, Councillor BOURKE. Councillor SUTTON, you have misrepresentation. Councillor SUTTON: Madam Chair, Councillor BOURKE was claiming that myself and the Labor Councillors wanted to ‘deny’ people the opportunity to go to the Christmas carols or to watch the Christmas carols. In fact, I was very, very clear in my speech, about the fact that this wasn’t about not hosting Christmas carols, or not having Christmas carols that were televised. It was very clearly about value for money, and the amount that we are actually spending and seeing if we can do it at a more reasonable cost. Chairman: Okay. Further debate? Councillor JOHNSTON. Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Order! Councillor JOHNSTON. Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman, I rise to speak briefly on items A and items B. Firstly with respect to item A, this does look like a good arrangement, finally, coming from Council. I think there’s been a few that haven’t been great, but certainly it looks like there’ll be significant investment into cricket facilities at Albion, which I think is a very positive thing for our community, especially because my brilliant nephew plays in the junior elite program that happens there. So that’s very good. However, most of my comments are with respect to item B, and there’s a couple of things I’d like to put on the record. Now, I don’t think Councillor BOURKE could have been talking about the same Christmas carols as that actually happened last year in 2016, because here’s some of the comments from residents who are concerned about how carols are run. They say, ‘the management of this event is appalling. My kids and I secured a spot on the grass and our picnic blanket and we were waiting for my husband to park the car. When he arrived security would not let him in. He explained his family was already there, but no. She said half a dozen people were in the same situation. What if that was a parent of older kids who had planned to return to them on a picnic rug? Or an elderly person? Or a disabled person? Nope. End of story. You can’t come back in, apparently’. Another complaint about the carols, that residents waited until 6.30 to arrive so that their toddlers could last the night. They were turned away. Now, Madam Chairman, there is a huge discrepancy between what the LNP Councillors tell this Chamber, and what they actually deliver for the residents of this city. We see it time and time again. So what I’d like to know, LORD MAYOR, when you’re summing up, will we be separating families at your carols this year, at your Lord Mayor’s Christmas party? Or will we have some entry arrangements using this $400,000 to ensure that families aren’t locked out and separated, that children aren’t separated from their parents, and we’ve got a workable arrangement in place for our community? Because last year did not work, clearly. There were problems with capacity. There were problems with letting people in and out, and you clearly need to do better, LORD MAYOR, if you’re going to spend $400,000. That’s $400,000 I could spend fixing three road safety projects around Tennyson Ward schools, but you want to spend it on carols. So let me be clear, LORD MAYOR, you need to do better. Councillor interjecting. Councillor JOHNSTON: I would certainly like to—and yes, he’s laughing. Laugh away, LORD MAYOR. These are your residents who have complained about the management of this event, very clearly and very publicly to this Council.

Secondly, I, too, want to make some comments about the IT contracts that are in the budget before us today. So, this debacle is just going from worse, to worse. First of all the LORD MAYOR went public and announced there was a problem with the IT contract for these backend Council services. He said it might cost residents $120 million to rectify this, and that rates might have to go up. Rates might have to go up. That’s what he publicly admitted to. Now, then the LORD MAYOR came in this Chamber, and when he is asked questions about what the problems are, and can we see information about the internal reports that have been done by Deloitte and the other consultants, at huge cost to ratepayers, he won’t brief Councillors, he won’t brief us, even privately, so we understand what went wrong, and he certainly will not be accountable to the people of Brisbane for what has gone wrong, by publicly disclosing these reports. And today we’re being asked to spend another $7 million plus, with very little explanation about what’s going on again, to fix this mistake. A mistake that the company themselves went public saying was Council’s fault. And it seems it was, because senior Council staff were sacked. This LORD MAYOR has said publicly so many weeks in a row now that he will be upfront and tell us what’s going on, but he is not. He’s talking the talk, but he is not being upfront with residents. Councillor ADAMS: Point of order, Madam Chair. Chairman: Point of order, Councillor ADAMS. Councillor ADAMS: To the report. Chairman: Thank you. Councillor JOHNSTON, this is about the contracts themselves, not about everything else around the world. Please come back to the report. Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman, and this $7 million of expenditure that Councillor ADAMS has referred to in here, under her supervision, under her supervision, is to fix a massive IT stuff-up that happened on her watch— happened on her watch. And yes, she got the hospital pass from Councillor SIMMONDS, there’s no question about that, but she is responsible, she is accountable and, Madam Chairman, she doesn’t want me talking about it. So not only will the LORD MAYOR not release— Councillor ADAMS: Point of order, Madam Chair. Chairman: Councillor— Councillor ADAMS: Claim to be misrepresented. Chairman: Thank you. Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, just come back to the report, please. Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman, and I am. Let me be clear again. The $7 million plus that Councillor ADAMS in her department, in her area, that she wants us to approve today, to fix up a massive, massive IT stuff-up under her watch, that’s what these contracts are for. Worse than that, Madam Chairman, not only have we appointed I think, what, three different lots of consultants now—three, I think—plus, we’re now appointing somebody, a person, presumably, who is going to be an independent chair of this project. So, we are now outsourcing management of this project to somebody else. We’ve got another company providing advice on how it should happen. We’ve got Council staff presumably trying to deliver it internally. And TechnologyOne out there, the original contractor—who knows what Council is getting them to do. This is such a tangled web and a tangled mess, and it is the LORD MAYOR’s responsibility.

Rates, he said, are going up because of this stuff-up. And every additional cent that we are asked to fund in this place contributes to that cost to the ratepayer. Now, Councillor ADAMS is very cranky, I can see, Madam Chairman, but this happened on her watch. She is responsible for this. She is appointing another person, who has appointed consultants, who has appointed other people, to try and fix it, Madam Chairman. We don’t even know what’s wrong because this Administration will not brief Councillors, and provide us with a copy of the consultant’s report. We have to go on the fact that Council officers have been sacked, which the LORD MAYOR didn’t tell us. That got— Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, that is not in this report. Councillor JOHNSTON: Well, Madam Chairman, if— Chairman: This report is about the contracts. It is not about the employment of specific Council officers. Councillor JOHNSTON: Thank you. Chairman: I will tell you for the final time, please come back to the report. Councillor JOHNSTON: And, Madam Chairman, let me speculate about perhaps why we need an independent chair, the Local Government Systems project program board, why do we need an independent chair to be appointed to oversee this project? Could it be that we’ve lost senior Council staff who were involved in the project, and this contract before us today is to replace those people with outside consultants? Goodness me, that would be my reading of the contract before us today. But perhaps the LORD MAYOR will stand up and tell me I’m wrong. Perhaps the LORD MAYOR will stand up and tell me, ‘no, no, Councillor JOHNSTON, the independent chair of the Local Government Systems project program board got nothing to do with the TechnologyOne contract, got nothing to do with oversighting and delivering that contract for this Council’. Perhaps he will, Madam Chairman, through you. I don’t know, but my reading of it, and the LORD MAYOR’s inadequate explanation about where this money is being spent, is not good enough, Madam Chairman. This Administration lacks integrity. It lacks accountability, and it lacks transparency. And every single time they stuff up, as they have with these IT contracts, it costs ratepayers more. You cannot trust them. Chairman: Councillor ADAMS, you wish to make a personal explanation? Councillor ADAMS: Yes, Madam Chair, I think I’ll do it in my speech. I want to speak to item B, if that’s okay, if I can continue? Chairman: Certainly. Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve listened to the last 20 minutes of vitriol and insults flung across this Council, but when it comes down to it, every ridiculous accusation and/or question that has been made, from the Councillors opposite, have been very clearly explained from the absolute outset when the LORD MAYOR stood up and very clearly explained to the people of Brisbane, the way forward with our IT system. Unlike many other levels of government and previous administrations, we have taken a decisive and immediate action on what we need to do with our IT systems. The most important thing in all of this, is that residents will not experience any changes in their service from Council, and that is what these contracts here today are about. Councillor interjecting. Councillor ADAMS: It is about renegotiating the contract—and I’ll take the interjection from there. I would love to see the Hansard, or the notes at any time, when the LORD MAYOR has said that rates will rise due to this. That is an absolute misrepresentation of anything that the LORD MAYOR has said in the last three months concerning this contract.

Renegotiating this contract allows Council to minimise delays and potential overruns, and ensure delivery of a system that meets Council’s needs into the future. I hear from those on the—‘we could spend it on roads, we could spend it on intersections’. You know what? If we can’t get the IT systems out to plan our roads and plan our intersections, and do all of our invoicing, nothing else will happen. Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Councillor SUTTON! Councillor ADAMS. Councillor ADAMS: This project was brought to Council in 2015, and was designed to integrate and update 13 outdated customer service IT systems. Thirteen systems that are absolutely vital for Council to operate for the people of Brisbane. We stopped making payments to the vendor in October when it became aware that we were not getting significant milestones met. That is good governance. That is the decision that we made. As a consequence, the LORD MAYOR commissioned an independent review so we could get the project back on track. And again, everything we are doing now through these contracts were clearly explained by the LORD MAYOR at a media conference and in this Chamber time and time again, over the last several months. The review team made recommendations for change to ensure a successful outcome, and the LORD MAYOR outlined those changes and recommendations that we were going to make. We have to renegotiate the contract with a six-month deadline for the vendor. We supported the recommendations to appoint a systems integrator. The LORD MAYOR has said that numerous times. And that is what we have here before us today, a contract for a systems integrator, somebody who can actually assist in the implementation of Council’s existing systems, and plan a viable alternate option to ensure our IT systems remain available when necessary—again, to make sure that our current IT systems continue to work, and we can do our business as usual for the people of Brisbane. We will continue to work with the vendor on that. Meanwhile, other suggestions were also recommendations, were software assurance advisors. So the LORD MAYOR made it very clear, up to $60 million may be the cost for the work that we have to do to renegotiate this contract, and this is the start of that $60 million. This is not on top of, this is not a deeper hole. This is not all the hyperbole that we hear from those on the other side. This is this Administration getting on with the job, standing up with their hand on their heart, and fixing up an issue that we have with our IT systems, and getting on with the job and getting it back on track. Item 15—KJ Ross has been appointed as software assurance advisors. We have software assurance advisors in Council, but this one is specifically for the LGS project. The establishment of the preferred supplier arrangement is to provide us with flexibility. We’re going to need some very discreet packages of work with this new contract, and that is what we have actually employed KJ Ross to do. It will allow us to arrange to place orders, to make sure that KJ Ross can stand as a separate assurance services, and check that the software that is going to be developed by the vendor conforms, to what we need in Council. Councillors interjecting. Councillor ADAMS: Basic management. Chairman: Councillor SUTTON, don’t call out across the Chamber. Councillor ADAMS. Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. Item 16—Deloitte advisory. Again, as I mentioned, we stood up very clearly and said there will be a systems integrator for this renewed project. This is a contract for Deloitte of $5 million over three years, to make sure that we have somebody overseeing with external expertise, with commercial expertise, to make sure that we don’t go off track, as has happened

in the last 12 months. And more importantly, to make sure that we get these contracted items from the vendor integrated into our platforms to update our systems. Last but not least, of course, item 17, the independent chair. There are many boards across this contract. We are renegotiating the contract, which is why we cannot release the confidential information at the moment while we are in contract negotiation. It is absolutely common commercial sense, that those on the other side do not seem to understand, or have the slightest clue on how it works in contract negotiation. It also is totally inappropriate that I, as the Chair of Finance and Economic Development, would be the chair that would oversee the negotiation of a contract, or a chair that came from the vendor that oversaw the contract. This is an independent chair, both from Council, and of the vendor, to make sure that we are renegotiating the terms of the new contract. Then they will then be able to lead the board to make sure that the project, the systems integrators, and all of the team from the vendors and from Council can work to get this back on track. This is part of the $60 million that the LORD MAYOR has made very clear that we are doing to get this project back on track. It is not a deeper hole. This is nothing hidden. This is no surprise. This is what we stood up and told the people of Brisbane, and those on the opposite side, what we are doing, and we are getting on with the job of fixing this and getting it back on track, and that is good governance. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor WINES.

ADJOURNMENT: 469/2016-17 At that time, 3.58pm, it was resolved on the motion of Councillor Andrew WINES, seconded by Councillor Steven TOOMEY, that the meeting adjourn for a period of 15 minutes, to commence only when all Councillors had vacated the Chamber and the doors locked.

Council stood adjourned at 4.02pm.

UPON RESUMPTION:

Chairman: Further debate? Councillor SRI. Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. I rise to speak really briefly on item B. I wasn’t going to speak on this, but I couldn’t resist when the discussion about the Christmas event popped up. I share some of my colleagues’ concerns and comments that they’ve already raised today, but I actually wanted to come to the defence of the Administration regarding the cost of the Lord Mayor’s Christmas Carols. I don’t like Christmas carols very much. They’re not my thing. They’re a bit of— Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Order! Councillor SRI: I could think of better ways to spend an evening. I don’t mind the small Christmas carols with, like, a few friends and family, but the big events aren’t for me. But I do think it is important that the councils and governments invest money in large cultural celebrations, that there’s government funding, that there’s public funding for events of this kind, even though I personally think they might be a little bit tacky. I know a lot of people enjoy them. I think if we’re concerned

about councils overspending money, there’s plenty of examples I can point to, and some have been raised today, of the poor uses of ratepayer funds. But perhaps this isn’t the one to be focusing on. I do think the concerns raised about the fact that the—I understand maybe one of the other Councillors can correct me on this, but I understand that it was a sole tendering process, so they didn’t actually go to any other event management companies to see what they might have on offer. I think that’s really concerning. I think for contracts of this size, we’re talking $1.2 million I believe. Perhaps we should be not just going to one provider, but taking a few quotes from a few different sources. So I think that’s really problematic. But, as a general principle, I think we should be supportive of public funding for these sorts of cultural events. While there are definitely concerns with the way the event is run, and I’ve heard some of those complaints that residents have made previously, but that core principle that we should be funding these big cultural events is an important one to defend. I hope that specific criticisms about the way this tendering process was carried out, and specific questions about whether the event is value for money, don’t undermine or detract from that core value, that I’m sure we all share, which is that this is a good thing to be spending ratepayers’ money on. Thanks. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor RICHARDS. Councillor RICHARDS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak today on item B, the contracts and tendering, ecosystems works at 664 Lake Manchester Road, Kholo. Madam Chairman, Council’s Bushland Acquisition Program commenced in 1990, and has since protected some of the city’s most valued nature reserves for future generations. A key priority for the program is to protect large-scale habitat areas and ecological corridors, to ensure that species can move safely through the landscape, and helping to make them more resilient to threats. In the most recent budget, Council committed $120 million to accelerate the bushland protection with 10 years’ worth of acquisitions in four years. Now, 664 Lake Manchester Road, Kholo was land that was purchased by Council in 2010 through this Bushland Acquisition Program. Thereby, in February this year, Council commenced ecological restoration works at the site. So, contract number 531040 for ecosystem works at 664 Lake Manchester Road, Kholo, the lump sum amount of $184,297 will cater for habitat restoration works, which means the site will receive a total of 10,122 plants, including spotted gum, Queensland blue gums, pink bloodwood, Moreton Bay ash, river sheoak and sandpaper fig, and the addition of over 3,000 cubic metres of mulch, approximately two linear kilometres of coarse woody debris to provide much-needed ground habitat, and 18 nest boxes to cater to a range of local fauna. So, Council will be restoring approximately seven hectares of land at the 664 Lake Manchester Road, Kholo site, which is part of the 118 hectare reserve named as Shelley Road Bushland’s Natural Reserve that is managed by Council. The restoration of this site will support many of Brisbane’s significant species including the feathertail glider, greater glider, brush-tailed phascogale, the echidna, pale-vented bush-hen, powerful boobook and barking owls, the white-bellied sea eagle, and the wedge-tailed eagle. There is no doubt, Madam Chairman, that this Council’s aim to achieve 40% natural habitat cover will be achieved in Brisbane by 2031. On behalf of the community of the Pullenvale Ward, many thanks to the tremendous work of Council’s Asset Services West, Natural Environment team, the NEWS (Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability) branch, and the services from organisations like Bushcare Services, for keeping Brisbane clean, green and sustainable.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor SIMMONDS. Councillor SIMMONDS: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I’ll be brief. I rise to speak about item B, in particular the Witton Barracks open space establishment contract. This is, as the LORD MAYOR said, something that myself, the LORD MAYOR and Councillor McLACHLAN had the privilege to be on site just this morning, with work already well under way. The team have done a fantastic job. They’ve removed what vegetation was required, and kept the significant trees in place, while they’ve already started digging around the trees, the root balls, in order to get rid of the slightly contaminated top soil and replace that. This will allow the fences to come down on this facility for the first time in 75 years. The last 75 years, it has very admirably been a vital part of our Defence infrastructure. In its very earliest iterations as a POW (Prisoner of War) interrogation location, as part of the Japanese campaign, but more recently even with the UQ (University of Queensland) Regiment, and others who have occupied the space. But for the first time, the public will get the opportunity to come on to that land, to enjoy it as open space, and that was the primary driver that we used to negotiate the purchase of the site with the Federal Government. I’d like to thank the Federal Government, to the local Federal member, Jane Prentice, and others who assisted us as part of that. Both sides recognise the importance of keeping this land in public ownership. As the western suburbs and Indooroopilly continue to grow, an important part of what we do in Council is providing infrastructure to cater for that growth, and that means new parks. Councillor interjecting. Councillor SIMMONDS: This 1.9 hectare facility is going to be a fantastic addition to the local community. It’s going to be a destination park— Chairman: Order! Councillor JOHNSTON! Councillor SIMMONDS: It’s going to be a destination park for westside residents, I know that. I know that because of the significant work that Councillor McLACHLAN and his team have already done and continue to do, and I thank them very much for that. There’s a very exciting process about to begin where we’re going to do a bit of community consultation about the overall master plan for that site. But look, first things first, and that is to get people on enjoying this open green space, and then I look forward very much to the discussion with the community about how we look at the buildings on site, about restoring them, and making them an important part of the community, and facilitating community use of those. So, I urge all Councillors in this place to support item B, because this is a very important contract for the westside residents of Brisbane. Chairman: Further debate? LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and I thank all Councillors for their contribution to the debate. Madam Chairman, it was in contracts and tendering, Councillor SUTTON was making the comment, Madam Chairman, that I’m in retirement mode. So let’s deal with the elephant in the room. Madam Chairman, I am in retirement mode. I have been in retirement mode when I went to the election in 2012, and I retired three Labor seats on that occasion— Councillors interjecting.

LORD MAYOR: I was in retirement mode when I went to the people in 2016, and I retired another Labor seat— Councillors interjecting. LORD MAYOR: And then the Greens came along and decided to retire another one. So, Madam Chairman, of course I’m in retirement mode. The time that I’ve been in this chair, I have retired, Madam Chairman, Labor Councillors from the total of 10 now down to five. And I can’t wait for the next retirement-mode opportunity in 2020. Councillors interjecting. LORD MAYOR: So, Madam Chairman, we’ve already seen, Madam Chairman, in 2012— Chairman: Order! LORD MAYOR: —in 2012 Councillor CUMMING have a near political death experience when I was in retirement mode, and, Madam Chairman, he’s worked his bottom off since then to make sure he recaptured his position. So, Madam Chairman, let me talk about the Lord Mayor’s Christmas Carols. I could not believe the amount of debate we had today over the Lord Mayor’s Christmas Carols. Madam Chairman, this has been a long-standing tradition, and event in our city. And we have, Madam Chairman, quite specifically and deliberately built the standard of that event. We’ve built the standard, Madam Chairman, because it is not just about those people who attend the event, but it is also about the many, many thousands more who watch it on a televised episode of that event. Madam Chairman, it has grown in terms of the talent pool that is coming to that Lord Mayor’s Christmas Carols, to the extent—and I make reference to Councillor JOHNSTON’s comments, Madam Chairman. She was drawing reference to the fact that somebody had to be turned away, Madam Chairman, at the gate. I wonder why that was so. Apparently it was our organisational ability. Well, in fact, Madam Chairman, it was under police direction—that’s something Councillor JOHNSTON struggled with over time. But it was under police direction, Madam Chairman, that we had to do it, because it was at capacity in Riverside, and the police said no more. A very clear instruction. Madam Chairman, not only did we have people that were within Riverstage itself, but we had outside of Riverstage, we had screens set up, Madam Chairman, where people could also view the concert. And it was a very, very successful event by any standard. I was aware of the family of the journalist concerned that wrote that story, Madam Chairman, which is where Councillor JOHNSTON has sourced that information. It was a story that was written. So, Madam Chairman, the fact of the matter is that that event has improved very significantly, and has continued to over the stewardship of the current producer. These events, when you look at the cost, it is not about the cost going to the producer, Madam Chairman. That is the cost of everything. That’s the cost of the talent, it’s the cost, Madam Chairman, of the promotion of the event, and, Madam Chairman, it is all of the aspects of it. There has been a significant growth in the sponsorship of the event, as the product has improved also. Cristian Pilditch continues to do a very good job. He certainly has my confidence, Madam Chairman, from the work that I have seen. The level of performance improvement that has occurred in that event. I would say this, that that event now is every bit as good as the standard of performance you are getting out of Sydney and Melbourne. Madam Chairman, it is another signal of this city coming of age. It is our biggest festival of the year, Christmas. It’s what we as a city celebrate. It brings many, many people to the city from the regions as well at that time of year, and so, Madam Chairman, that is the story with it.

Madam Chairman, I just also thank Councillor ADAMS who covered off on 16, 17 and 19, the LGS systems, Madam Chairman. As I said at the outset, the allocations contained in here today are all in line with those announced allocations when I made the public announcement on 25 January this year. Madam Chairman, if ever that was to change, if ever it was to change, I would certainly be advising this Chamber. But, Madam Chairman, I indicated—what I believed was the maximum additional cost of the project at that time. I did it in good faith, and these expenditures are, Madam Chairman, assessed within that amount. We need to get the project back. We need to get it at a level where we can get the project complete, and we are still in the phase of negotiating that contract with the current provider. So, Madam Chairman, we will, once those negotiations are complete, certainly advise the Chamber. That will be as a matter of course, Madam Chairman, that we will bring that information back to the Chamber and advise of any key advances in that project as we progress. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Chairman: I will now put item A.

Clause A put

Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the adoption of Clause A of the report of the Establishment and Coordination Committee was declared carried on the voices. Chairman: I will now put item B.

Clause B put

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

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

The voting was as follows:

AYES: 21 - The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES, Norm WYNDHAM, and Nicole JOHNSTON.

NOES: 5 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Peter CUMMING, and Councillors Jared CASSIDY, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, and Shayne SUTTON.

ABSTENTIONS: 1 - Councillor Jonathan SRI. Chairman: We will now proceed to item C. Also, I just remind any Councillors if they may have Transurban shares—as Councillor JOHNSTON alluded to before she didn’t know if her superannuation fund has Transurban shares, if there’s anyone wishing to make any declarations before we proceed? Then there being no one rising to their feet, LORD MAYOR, item C. LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Well, Madam Chairman, this item is in relation to the Inner City Bypass (ICB), and in regards to an innovative proposal—by way of agreement that Council has reached with Transurban Queensland.

Madam Chairman, when we originally announced the Inner City Bypass project, we said that we believed it would be around an $80 million project. We went to market, and there was a very competitive tendering program out there in the marketplace. That resulted in BMD Constructions being awarded the tender. We then announced that that project cost was expected to come down to within $60 million. Madam Chairman, we then had an opportunity to open negotiations with Transurban Queensland. It came to us with a proposal, Madam Chairman, and that has been negotiated through, Madam Chairman. There have been significant negotiations around what is presented today. But essentially, today we are in a position where, given this arrangement, this agreement, Madam Chairman, with Transurban, and given a successful passage through the State Government, Madam Chairman, the cost of the ICB virtually comes down to a few million dollars. I say that because this innovative proposal, Madam Chairman, would see a significant saving to Council, around $22 million in relation to one aspect of the proposal, and then a further saving, Madam Chairman, which would be in the order of $32 million in regard to another component. So one part of it relates to HCV (Heavy Commercial Vehicle) toll changes, Madam Chairman, up from the current 2.65 multiplier, to three. That, Madam Chairman, has occurred in relation to other parts of the motorway system, other parts which have been approved by the State Government—the Logan Enhancement Project being one. I always think of the Southern Bypass Road as it originally was, but the Logan Enhancement Project, Madam Chairman, and so that’s currently under way. Now, in terms of the arrangements with this, it would see changes to the CLEM7, Go Between Bridge, and that would occur in 2018, and Legacy Way in 2020. So, Madam Chairman, the other part of it is—which was, if you like, the broader operations of that section of the Inner City Bypass, it does not involve tolls in any way, but that does mean that the operations of the Inner City Bypass would be given to Transurban. That will result in about $1 million a year recurrent savings as well, and based on their performance on other parts of the road network that they are operating, we believe that it will also account for about a 25% improvement in the operations of that road. So, we’re talking there about the performance of the network. So it’s everything from the additional cameras, that they will put in, in terms of incident surveillance monitoring and response and, Madam Chairman, just generally in terms of the road network. Now you say, well, what’s in this for Transurban? Well, the reality is that part of the Inner City Bypass of course links that of the Legacy Way facility, and the Airportlink facility. So, Madam Chairman, there is very, very good reason why they want an efficient piece of road network along that corridor. It is with that in mind that we have been able to undertake negotiations. We’ve been able to continually improve the outcome of that negotiation to a point now where, as I say, we can virtually do Inner City Bypass almost free of charge for the people of Brisbane. That’s a very significant saving, Madam Chairman, for the people of this city, for the ratepayers. So, Madam Chairman, it is presented today, and we have to obviously approve this to Council. It will then need to go to the State Government for their assessment. I have, in a preliminary sense, written to the Minister for Main Roads and Transport in relation to this matter, and again—once the passage here today, if this Council approves it, it will go on from there. The operating arrangement, Madam Chairman, would be for a 20-year period from 1 July 2018, if this agreement is supported. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor CUMMING: Yes, Madam Chairman, in relation to item C, the Brisbane City Council wants to upgrade the Inner City Bypass. The Inner City Bypass is a Council-owned and controlled road. It’s not a toll road. So, what the proposal is today, and rather than the owners of, I think it is something like 445,000 rateable properties in the City of Brisbane paying for an upgrade of a major Council road, it will be funded by an increase on tolls on other roads in the city. So, the main source of revenue is an increase in the heavy commercial vehicle toll. These tolls will increase from 2.65 to three times the car tolls for the Clem Jones and Go Between Bridge on 1 July 2018, but users of Legacy Way will also face increases. HCV tolls for Legacy Way would also increase from 2.65 to three times, but as from 1 July 2020, some two years later. But other motorists using Legacy Way would also be slugged. All motorists using Legacy Way would pay an increase, and our calculations of the increase are round about nine per cent for motor cycles, cars, heavy commercial vehicles, and other commercial vehicles. So, Madam Chairman, as I said, instead of the 445,000 ratepayers sharing the cost, the cost burden will be piled on the motorists using the three toll roads. The inevitable consequence of increasing tolls is that less people will use toll roads. Patronage has been poor for the most part on the toll roads that have been built in Brisbane, way under what was commercially viable. That’s why the companies that offered to run them commercially went broke, and these toll increases will mean the situation gets worse. So, who are we talking about, heavy commercial vehicles? They’re rigid trucks with three or more axles, articulated trucks, buses, two-axle rigid trucks having a gross vehicle mass greater than 4.5 tonnes, motor vehicles having a gross vehicle mass greater than 30 tonnes, or any vehicle having spatial dimensions which are substantially consistent with the criteria in any of those paragraphs above. Madam Chairman, depending upon the economics of the heavy vehicle section of the transport industry, this toll slug could have a few different consequences. The first would be that the costs of the small business operators who own and operate trucks will have fee increases. Their industry will be less profitable. Many of them struggle already to make ends meet. Many have borrowed to purchase their rigs. They work long hours and are often away from home for days on end. The LNP at Council level is imposing another burden on the battling small business operators. The LNP try to pass themselves off as the friends of small business, but when it comes to doing a tricky deal with the big end of town in Transurban, the small business operators get shafted. The other part of our community that will cop a financial slug will be the customers of the truck industry. If the operators can pass on all or part of the financial impost caused by the BCC Transurban deal, they will do so. So the retailers and manufacturers taking delivery of items being delivered by the truckies will face a cost increase as well. Again, if they can’t pass the increase on, they’ll be less profitable. If they can, again their clients will face increases. So it’s another cost increase for small business, and the LNP Administration at City Hall could not care less. Madam Chairman, another concern I have is the overall cost to the community of this deal. If Council had paid for the upgrade, the contract with BMD was $31,345,987. Now, the LORD MAYOR says that meant the overall contract was about $60 million. I’ll accept his figures. I’m not sure that it did amount to that amount, but, Madam Chairman, look, the last time I looked, Transurban wasn’t a charity. Big companies don’t outlay significant funds unless they’re going to make a profit. So where does the profit come from in this deal, and what level of profit will be made by Transurban? Madam Chair, I can think of several ways that Transurban will generate a profit. The simplest would be if the increase in tolls generated more revenue than the cost of the upgrade. So the cost of this project rather being $60 million on the

LORD MAYOR’s figures—$31 million on the BMD contract, could be $70 or $80 or $90 million. I’d be very interested in knowing how much Transurban have budgeted to make on the toll road increases, and how much they’ve budgeted to make as a profit out of this. What are their revenue projections? The other way Transurban could generate extra revenue would be to encourage —and I use that word advisedly—motorists and trucks and everyone else, to use a toll road before or after using the ICB. Councillor JOHNSTON interjecting: Funnelling. Councillor CUMMING: Now, Councillor JOHNSTON says funnelling. That’s what it’s called. And funnelling, I would have thought, in this situation got a lot of potential for Transurban to be ‘a nice little earner’, as the Minder used to say. Madam Chairman—and Transurban, it’s an interesting company, Madam Chairman, because we did some research on Transurban, an article in The Age newspaper back in May 2016, where the article read: "Toll road giant Transurban is positioning itself to manage the entire road network of Australia’s three major cities as governments make the ‘inevitable shift’ to road pricing. A senior Transurban executive told a private meeting of investors this month that the company wanted to be viewed as the ‘natural custodian’ of the nation’s motorways, in the likely event of motorists being charged to drive on them." That’s what Transurban thinks is going to happen. "The Melbourne-based company has a near monopoly on private roads in Australia already, controlling 13 of the 15 toll roads in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. Analyst Morgan Stanley have described a Transurban-run, user-pays system across all roads as a ‘meta-monopoly’. Such a move would further entrench the company—which owns Citylink in Melbourne, the M2 in Sydney and all of Brisbane’s toll roads—as a de-facto private sector planning agency in those major cities. Few, if any, countries in the world have allowed a major operator to control so much of their road network." Madam Chairman, I table the article for the information of the Chamber. Madam Chairman, so with views like this, it’s no wonder that Transurban are keen to get their hands on the ICB, Madam Chairman. Perhaps some would see it as the final link in the chain. The final concern we have is that the higher tolls will encourage truck drivers to not use toll roads at all. This would mean more congestion on non-toll roads, and the greater opportunity for bad accidents, and do the overall system no good at all, Madam Chairman, if truck drivers decided to avoid toll roads, because they’d got sick of the increases. They already pay substantial tolls, way above other motorists, and these increases would make it three times what the cars pay, rather than 2.65 times. Madam Chairman, we think it’s not fair for truckers to pay, a small percentage of the general motoring public, to pay for a major project for this, especially as I said it’s not a toll road. It’s not an upgrade of a road that they’re using anyhow, Madam Chairman, and paying a toll on. And it’s also not fair for all users of Legacy Way Tunnel from 1 July 2020 to pay. Also the timing's interesting in the political cycle, Madam Chairman. The substantial increases on Legacy Way, as we calculate it is about nine per cent, will come into effect three months after the next Council election. Councillors interjecting. Councillor CUMMING: I'm sure that had nothing to do with it. I'm sure that had nothing to do with it. So, Madam Chair, we believe that costs should be spread between the 445,000 rateable properties in the City of Brisbane. Not mainly imposed on a small, often barely profitable segment of the small business sector. Madam Chair, we will be voting against this proposal. Chairman: Further debate? DEPUTY MAYOR.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I also rise to speak on this item, and what we have today is a good deal for the ratepayers of Brisbane, a good deal for the City of Brisbane, and will free up a significant amount of capital and funding for other important projects across the city. Now as the LORD MAYOR mentioned, this project started off as an estimated $80 million project. Today, if this deal is approved by Council, we will see it being delivered for just a few million. That is a good outcome for the ratepayers of Brisbane, but let's be very clear what this means. We've heard various conspiracy theories about Transurban and their motivations here. The reality is this—what will be happening is that instead of all ratepayers paying—let me say that again—instead of all ratepayers paying, the only people who will pay for this upgrade are the people that use toll roads. So that is a very important point, and is anyone in Brisbane forced to use a toll road? Is anyone in Brisbane forced to use a toll road? Absolute rubbish. No one is forced to use a toll road. They do so by choice, and they do so because they see a value in using that infrastructure. Now these roads are all used optionally, and no one is forced to use the toll roads in Brisbane or South East Queensland. Now some other cities have gone down a different track where they actually force people to use toll roads. They close down lane space on the free alternative routes to force people, or funnel people into toll roads. This is not being done in Brisbane, and the choice to use a toll road is exactly that. Now we know that when the CLEM7 was first proposed it was called the North-South Bypass Tunnel, and Labor's plan for that included putting bus lanes on the Story Bridge. What's that mean? Funnelling, funnelling. Labor's proposal was to funnel traffic into the CLEM7 Tunnel, and they've got the hide to accuse other people of funnelling? That was their plan. Now the numbers, the traffic numbers, for CLEM7 sure would have been higher if Labor was in administration, because they would have forced people into the tunnel. They would have taken away the choice, but right now the users of our toll roads have the choice, and so if they don't want to contribute to important infrastructure they don't have to. They don't have to. They can sit in congestion on free roads all they like to avoid the toll if they wish, but people see the value in doing it. That's why there's 120,000 people a day, 120,000 trips a day, on the infrastructure in the TransApex network that this Council initiated. So people do see the value of that infrastructure—120,000 trips a day on TransApex which, as we know, is CLEM7, the Go Between Bridge, Legacy Way and Airportlink, the projects that Council proposed and are now in place. So we will see this project being funded on a voluntary basis rather than by every single ratepayer in the city, and I think that's fair. That's a good outcome, but more importantly, and the thing that I like about this proposal most of all, is that people from outside of Brisbane who use the toll roads are helping to fund it as well. So every day people from Redlands, Ipswich, Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Moreton Bay region, are all using our road network, and at the moment they are not contributing towards any kind of operations of the Inner City Bypass. Now the Inner City Bypass is our busiest Council road in the city. Over 100,000 vehicle trips a day on the road, and those people are coming not just from the City of Brisbane but from all around the region. This model will see those people from outside the city contributing via their toll contribution. So they are contributing and that is fair. So the people of Brisbane get a win out of the situation. So the people from Ipswich—I know that Paul Pisasale is a big user of Legacy Way Tunnel. He will happily contribute to the funding of this project, as will many of his residents who choose to use our toll roads. So this is a good outcome for the ratepayers of Brisbane, because we're taking the burden off all ratepayers and we're providing choice in the funding of this

project. As I said, no one is being forced to use the toll road, so no one is being forced to pay any kind of increase in tolls. They have other choices. Now that leads me into another issue that we have here. Now Labor has criticised this deal, and that criticism, as is so unusual in this place, is complete hypocrisy. Because this deal is the same type of deal that the Labor State Government has done with the Logan Enhancement Project just recently, just recently. This is the same type of deal. Councillors interjecting. DEPUTY MAYOR: Now how is the Logan Enhancement Project being funded? It's being funded by increases in tolls specifically for heavy vehicles. Does this sound familiar at all? The toll is going up to three times the price of a car toll to fund the Logan Enhancement Project? So apparently it's okay for Labor to do it at the State level, but it's an outrage when the Council would consider the same type of funding arrangement. Now the Labor State Government has been trumpeting how good that is. We saw the Treasurer, Curtis Pitt saying ‘this is a win for the local community’, and I'm talking about the Logan Enhancement Project funded by heavy vehicle toll increases. He said “this proposal is a great example of industry bringing their ideas to the table and working with government to facilitate them”. Now we've seen ‘mango Mark’, Mark Bailey, also is a big fan of this project as well. He said this “provides an outstanding opportunity to transform a vital part of South East Queensland transport infrastructure that is currently suffering from congestion.” Well does that sound familiar? I think the Inner City Bypass is a vital part of our transport infrastructure that is currently suffering from congestion. Not only does Labor support it at the State level, Labor inter-state has supported the same type of things. The Andrews Labor Government on 1 April, so within a matter of days, will be increasing the tolls for trucks on their motorway network to three times the level of a vehicle toll. They're doing that to fund an upgrade to the Tullamarine Freeway and CityLink. They are using the exact same type of mechanism down there in Victoria—the Labor Government down there is doing exactly this. So anything that Labor says in opposition to this is simply hypocrisy and once again, opposition for opposition sake. Labor is doing this in other parts of the country. They're doing this in other parts of South East Queensland's road network. They're doing it because it makes sense. They're doing because infrastructure can be funded, without putting burden on all ratepayers or all taxpayers. So if it's good for the goose it's good for the gander. I won't say who the goose is and who the gander is, but it's good. So, Madam Chairman, this is an excellent deal for the ratepayers of Brisbane. We'll take the burden off all ratepayers, and we'll provide choice into who funds this infrastructure, and the people that fund the infrastructure will be the people that use our toll road network. Now to give you an idea on the type of increases in tolls here, Labor was bandying around some percentages—so they said that apparently this will cause trucks to use other routes because the toll is going up. Now if you look at the CLEM7 tolls, the change from 2.65 to three times a vehicle trip, in today's tolling levels is $1.72 extra according to my calculation. So the toll for trucks will increase from $13.07 to $14.79, so that's based on the current today tolling levels. So do you really think that $1.72 extra on top of $13.00 is really going to force hordes of truck drivers onto other streets? No. This is a tax deductible expense for business operators who need to fast and efficiently move their goods and services around the network. They're not going to go on a stop-and-start route

down a local street to save $1.72, which is tax deductible. So Labor is pulling your leg. They are pulling your leg. This is simply going to be—and that's the other benefit I like about this, because if the truckers are paying, that means the ATO (Australian Taxation Office) is helping to fund this, it means the Federal Government's putting money into the ICB upgrade through tax deductibility. So thank you to the Federal Government and the ATO for their contribution towards this. This is a good outcome for the City of Brisbane. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor SUTTON. Councillor SUTTON: Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to enter the debate on this motion. I'm happy to say who the goose is and that's the person who just sat down Madam Chair because clearly— Chairman: Councillor SUTTON. Councillor SUTTON: —he has no understanding about what it is like to be a sole operator in the transport industry, and he has got no idea about what a decision like this can mean to those operators. It is equivalent to the Liberals in Canberra last week justifying the welfare cuts because they don't understand that $4.50 is not a cup of coffee— Chairman: To the report. Councillor SUTTON: —For some people, it's actually a litre of milk and a loaf of bread, Madam Chair. You know what, they cannot be trusted. Remember when they went to the people of Brisbane and said your tolling period for the CLEM7 is going to be 30 years. What is it now? It's 50 years, because of a decision that they made. Remember when they went to the people of Brisbane and said the Hale Street Link was going to generate a big fat cheque. Remember that? This Council has never received a big fat cheque from this tolled infrastructure. Far from it, Madam Chair. The cost of the Hale Street Bridge construction skyrocketed to almost three times the amount that they originally told us it was going to build. The traffic projections for any—any—of their tolled infrastructure has never— has never—met the projections. Even the Legacy Way Tunnel has never met the projections that they told us that it would. So how can any of us say or believe what this Administration is saying today about this deal. They cannot be trusted when it comes to dodgy deals over public infrastructure. They cannot be trusted. Councillor SCHRINNER tried to say that this deal is just like the Logan Motorway Enhancement Project. More trickiness from the person who wants to be Brisbane's next Lord Mayor. Do not trust him. Madam Chair, the Logan Motorway has always—always—been a tollway. It has always been a toll road. The ICB has never been a tollway. The ICB is a free public road, and for the first time—well Councillor SCHRINNER's slip of the tongue over there before in his speech—go back and check the Hansard—he said we'll soon be paying for it. So we just—he did, he did. He did, Madam Chair. Councillor interjecting. Councillor SUTTON: Play back the tape. Have a listen to what he said. We all heard it. Madam Chair we have two key issues about this, or three key issues. First that they can't be trusted, they cannot be trusted about anything that they say about this kind of infrastructure delivery. Second, is the impact on the vehicle that will be having to pay the higher toll, and what that will do to them as individual companies and private operators. But thirdly, what it will do to surface road

traffic in Brisbane, with heavier vehicles choosing not to use the road infrastructure and going back onto our suburban streets. This Administration has already had to acknowledge that not enough—that their traffic predictions for all of their tolled infrastructure are not being met. Now they're coming up with weird and wonderful ideas about how to get even less traffic to use these tolls, and the timing is funny. The timing is funny. That these tolls won't take effect until after the next Council election. So I don't believe for one second this is a project timing issue. I believe that it is all about trying to get the LNP back into a governing position, back after 2020, and that whoever is the next Lord Mayor after the next election can deal with this headache after that period of time. Madam Chair, we won't support this. We don't support this documentation and we do have real concerns about what is a public documented Transurban strategy, in terms of its company strategy. It's a pretty brazen position for them to take, and you know what, the LNP here in Brisbane are making it one step easier for them and we're not going to be part of that. So, no, we won't be supporting this today. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor COOPER. Councillor COOPER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I rise to speak to the item before us today. I would first of all like to say that I am quite disappointed by the debate that we've heard from the Australian Labor Party, because they are clearly—well my interpretation of their rejection of this particular proposal, which is an in-principle agreement between Brisbane City Council and Transurban, means that the potential to see up to $54 million, that might be allocated to other infrastructure projects in this city, they don't seem to be interested. That their wards—their wards—would be the beneficiary, potentially, of such a deal to be struck. We know that Councillor SUTTON has repeatedly said that we should bring forward work for Wynnum Road. Well how do we bring forward work on other infrastructure projects if we don't have support— Chairman: Councillor SUTTON! Councillor SUTTON! Councillor COOPER. Councillor COOPER: Thank you, Madam Chair. If we don't see that the Labor Party sees that this is a very good opportunity for the people of Brisbane, the ratepayers of Brisbane, to save the money that they would otherwise have to be putting towards the upgrade of the ICB, and instead to enter into an agreement with Transurban to undertake that work for a significant saving of up to $54 million. How irresponsible would we be as an Administration if we didn't consider a proposal to deliver a road project that we were committed, to in line with our specific specifications, that delivers a huge range of benefits, improves the safety, deals with congestion, and as the DEPUTY MAYOR said, the most congested arterial road in this city under Council's control, busier than the Story Bridge. This piece of road is a critical piece of infrastructure, and this project will address that issue. It is currently operating at 90% capacity. We anticipate by 2021 it will over-capacity—100,000 vehicles using this road each and every day. So it has a significant impact on our whole road network, but particularly on the northern road network of Brisbane City Council. A critical piece of infrastructure that will be upgraded. It will deliver huge opportunities for the western suburbs, with the improvements to bus transport. So at the moment the bus network is able to utilise Legacy Way coming into town. This ramp that will go from

Bowen Bridge Road onto the ICB will allow that same opportunity to go outbound, to head to the west. We have seen a significant improvement in the bus patronage because of this opportunity to access the Legacy Way Tunnel, and who are we from the Administration to say that we shouldn't deliver a project that improves the safety —so we're seeing congestion at Herston Road where vehicles are trying to exit —about 55,000 vehicles are using that exit each and every day—and this project will make significant improvements to the safety. We won't see what we're seeing at the moment—queuing on the shoulder, Madam Chair, that causes safety concerns on multiple occasions on this section of the ICB. All these significant improvements that this delivers for the people of Brisbane, and at a price that allows us to look to deliver upgrades across the network. Each and every ward will be the beneficiary if this deal is struck between Brisbane City Council and Transurban. So clearly it means that the Australian Labor Party Councillors don't want any additional expenditure on infrastructure in their ward. Clearly they feel that that money is not something they're really interested in. So when we say—and I think we say in this Chamber each and every week— our city is growing. We need to continue to deliver infrastructure. The Federal Government has said state governments, local governments, need to be more innovative in the way they finance the delivery of infrastructure, and what is this project? This is an innovative proposal to deliver exactly that, and I think it is quite outrageous of the Australian Labor Party Councillors to say this is not a good deal. This is not a good deal according to them. Well I totally and utterly disagree. This is a proposal exactly, of the kind of the proposal that the Federal Government are saying to all levels of governments that they need to look for, to make sure that ratepayers and taxpayers' dollars are being spent more effectively. Then we see the Logan Enhancement Project, which the Australian Labor Party think, it's okay. It's okay for the State Labor Party to sign off on a deal where we see an increase to the tolls, and not only an increase to the tolls, but an extension of the period when tolling will occur. So it's not just a simple little transaction that the Labor Party would like to have you believe. It is a significant increase to the period that it would actually be tolled. So perhaps they haven't really done their research very well, but I would say to you that the Logan Enhancement Project has significant parallels to what we are proposing here for the ICB. If the Australian Labor Party think that it's good for the goose, then why is it not good for the gander to apply this same sort of proposal for a road in the City of Brisbane? The only conclusion that I can draw, Madam Chair, is that this is more about politics than it is about saving— Councillor SUTTON: Point of order, Madam Chair. Chairman: Order! Councillor SUTTON. Councillor SUTTON: Claim to be misrepresented. Chairman: Thank you. Councillor COOPER. Councillor COOPER: Madam Chair, I'm sure that Councillor SUTTON, who is such a staunch advocate for bringing forward infrastructure delivery for her ward, is regretting —bitterly regretting—her words, because her words can only be interpreted in one way.

If it was the Australian Labor Party that were proposing this kind of scheme, that would be okay, but it is this Administration who have demonstrated over the last 10 years, a huge commitment to delivering infrastructure—$7 billion worth of infrastructure for the people of Brisbane, who have got a forward program of 90 road projects, and continuing to invest in upgrading the road infrastructure for our city. Well then apparently it's not a good deal. So, Madam Chair, I leave us all to draw our own conclusions. I personally believe that if we can save the ratepayers of Brisbane up to $54 million, and get the same outcome delivered, then that is a good deal for the people of Brisbane. I think that it would irresponsible for us to treat it like it's a joke, or to play politics on a very important commitment to this city. We deliver infrastructure. We will continue to deliver infrastructure, and we will look for each and every way to deliver great improvements for our residents. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Chairman: Councillor SUTTON, you claim misrepresentation. Councillor SUTTON: Thank you, Madam Chair. Councillor COOPER claimed that I said that the reason why we didn't support this deal was because of party politics and we didn't support the fact that it was like the Logan Motorway, because of party politics. That is not the case. I very clearly said in my speech that the difference to us was the fact that the Logan Motorway was a toll road and it had always been a toll road, and the ICB was a free road and it had always been a free road, and that was the difference in— Chairman: Thank you Councillor SUTTON. Councillor SUTTON: —why we're not supporting it. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor JOHNSTON. Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak on item C, and I'm taking a slightly different approach to this item before us today, and I want to start with some general comments and flag I have an amendment. I hope, genuinely hope, someone will second it, especially after Councillor COOPER's speech. However, what I would like to say is that our responsibility in this Chamber is not to do what's best for Transurban shareholders, it's to do what's best for the residents of Brisbane. I know that Scott Charlton and his team at Transurban are very, very smart people. Much smarter than the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor ADAMS and Councillor COOPER, even put together. I have no doubt that for Transurban shareholders this will be a good deal. The question that I have is will it be a good deal for the residents and the ratepayers of Brisbane, and that's where I have some doubt. I have doubt because, as we've heard only earlier today, this Administration come into the Chamber week after week, promising savings, promising whiz-bang new things that'll be delivered cheaper and better, and time, after time, after time, they fail to deliver on those contracts and it ends up costing us as ratepayers more. Now we've seen that so many times. That is my concern about what's going on here today. My second concern is the absolutely rubbery numbers that are in this E&C report before us today. Now when the budget was handed down in June last year, $79 million was allocated towards the ICB project. In the papers before us today the bottom line to Council is somewhere between $3 million to $4 million in costs, presumably administrative costs.

Now $79 million minus $3 million is $76 million. Now between the reimbursements from Transurban and the savings, we should have $76 million of the budgeted funds, which the LORD MAYOR has said are the figures. So they're in here today—they say $3 million to $4 million is the actual cost to Council. Now 79 minus three, 76, 79 minus four, 75. Still $75 million to $76 million against the budget allocation last year. So I would like to know from the LORD MAYOR today why he says those savings will only be $22 million to $54 million, because based on our budgeted figures we have $79 million set aside this year and next year. So I want to know LORD MAYOR—you and the DEPUTY MAYOR have both stood up here today and said ‘it's only a few million dollars, it's a good deal for ratepayers, it's almost free’, I believe the DEPUTY MAYOR said—‘almost free’. So $79 million minus $3 million or $4 million in actual costs is $75 million or $76 million. I would like to know why it's only reported in these figures in the amounts that are in here, because there is a huge gap, a huge gap. The gap between $54 million—the highest amount of savings as Councillor COOPER has just said as well—and $76 million, is some $20 million plus. So where is the missing $20 million? If this is as good a deal as the LORD MAYOR has said—$79 million in the budget, actual costs to Council $3 million to $4 million. That's what's in the papers before us today—where is the rest of the money going? So that's my second concern. My third concern—and I am so pleased that Councillor COOPER has stood up, because I know she's going to second this motion I'm about to move, the amendment. She has said and the DEPUTY MAYOR has said that each and every ward will be the beneficiary of the infrastructure spending from these savings. Now Councillor COOPER, who's in charge of this area— Councillor COOPER: Point of order, Madam Chair. Chairman: Councillor COOPER. Councillor COOPER: Claim to be misrepresented. Chairman: Thank you. Councillor JOHNSTON: I said both Councillor COOPER and the DEPUTY MAYOR, and I believe the DEPUTY MAYOR did say that. Councillor COOPER also though stood up and said that this money would be reinvested back into other infrastructure, so I'm going to take her at her word, Madam Chairman. There's somewhere between 54 and probably 75 thousand dollars in savings allocated in this year's budget and next year's budget for other projects in this city. Now, Madam Chairman, we've heard Councillor COOPER say, other Councillors ask for things. Well I ask all the time in this place, all the time. Again today I'm going to move an amendment calling for Council to reinvest some of those savings back into local road projects in Tennyson Ward. Now I will support the motion before us today, if Councillor COOPER and the DEPUTY MAYOR and the LORD MAYOR are true to their words, and will support this amendment today. Now they've said it as plain as they can here today, that they will reinvest these savings back into other wards, so I flag the following amendment and I really would appreciate a seconder.

470/2016-17 At that juncture, Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON moved, seconded by Councillor Jonathan SRI, that the Standing Rules be suspended to allow the moving of the following motion

I move that the following is inserted at Paragraph 54, Item C, Establishment and Coordination Report

3. Council allocates $450,000 of the estimated $22.7m to $54.5m in savings from the Inner City Bypass Upgrade to undertake construction of road and pedestrian safety projects near Graceville State School at Acacia St and Richardson St, Corinda State School at Pratten St and Cliveden Ave, Yeronga State School at Park Rd and Christ The King at Randolph St/Addison Rd, Graceville. Chairman: An amendment has been moved to the recommendations at paragraph 54, as read by Councillor JOHNSTON through the insertion of a section 3. Councillor JOHNSTON to the amendment. Councillor JOHNSTON: Thank you, and I genuinely thank Councillor SRI for enabling the debate here before us today. Madam Chairman, I am prepared on this occasion to take the LORD MAYOR, the DEPUTY MAYOR, and the Infrastructure Chairman at their words, but they need to demonstrate—they need to demonstrate today that what they're saying is that the savings will go back into each and every ward in this city. These are the projects in my ward that urgently need to be done. They're all supported by Council traffic officers. They're all listed in my budget submission and Councillor's submission. I've added an extra one today because there's so much money available— somewhere between $54 million and $75 million of unspent Council funding allocated to road projects that is not going to be spent now because of this arrangement that's before us. Now my view is, Madam Chairman, that we need to ensure that what Councillor COOPER has said, and what the DEPUTY MAYOR has said, and what the LORD MAYOR has said, will actually happen. This is the way that we can make it happen. This amendment simply asks for $450,000 of the very large sum of $54 million to $75 million, to be invested in Tennyson Ward. Now that's a tiny amount. If you divided the $70 million-odd by 25 it would be way more—way more than $450,000. So I'm not asking for much here. I'm asking for road projects to be funded in Tennyson Ward that are absolute top priorities for my residents, that are supported by Council's traffic engineers, and Councillor COOPER and the DEPUTY MAYOR and the LORD MAYOR have told us today the very reason that they are doing this is to make sure that these savings are available for other road projects. Councillor WINES: Point of order, Madam Chair. Chairman: Point of order Councillor WINES. Councillor WINES: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just would seek a ruling on the competence of this amendment as a result of Acacia Street, Graceville, being in fact Acacia Avenue. Chairman: Thank you Councillor WINES, and Councillor WINES I do uphold your point of order. As Acacia Street does not exist, it does nullify the intent of the motion—of the amendment. We will return to the— Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Madam Chair. Chairman: Point of order Councillor JOHNSTON. Councillor JOHNSTON: Let's be clear, Madam Chairman. The wrong wards have been referred to in this place, street names are often mistaken in here. Let me be clear, we are well advanced on this debate. It's very clear where I'm referring to and— Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON—no, stop. Councillor JOHNSTON: —Madam Chairman, refusing to allow this is wrong.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON. Councillor JOHNSTON: It is wrong! Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON. Councillor JOHNSTON: You are doing this for political purposes, and not to allow— Chairman: For the fourth time— Councillor JOHNSTON: —it is absolutely morally and ethically wrong. Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON— Councillor JOHNSTON: It's wrong! Chairman: —your behaviour is atrocious in this place. Councillor JOHNSTON: It's not my behaviour that's atrocious, it's this Administration— Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON! Councillor JOHNSTON: —that is atrocious. That it will not allow this debate— Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON section 51 of the Meeting Local Law, when I speak you resume your seat. Councillor JOHNSTON: —should proceed. This debate should proceed. Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON. Councillor JOHNSTON: This debate should proceed. Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON resume your seat. Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON resume your seat.

Order under section 186A of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 that disorderly conduct by Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON be noted in the minutes Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON you are failing to comply with my direction. Under section 186A of the City of Brisbane Act I rule that your conduct be noted in the minutes. Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON if you continue to defy my rulings in this place you will be ejected. Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, Councillor JOHNSTON! Councillor interjecting.

Order that Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON leave the meeting for disorderly conduct under section 186A of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON under section 186 of the City of Brisbane Act you have continuously failed to follow my direction. I rule that you leave the Chamber immediately. Do not return for the remainder of the Council meeting Councillor JOHNSTON. Under section 186A I have made a ruling that your behaviour repeatedly defying my direction, and my rulings in this place is disorderly conduct, and you are required to be suspended for the remainder of the meeting. Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON remove yourself from the Chamber. Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Quietly.

Councillor JOHNSTON! Councillor JOHNSTON. Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON quietly remove yourself from the Chamber. Councillor interjecting. Chairman: Remove yourself from the Chamber. Councillor interjecting.

Order under section 186A of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 that disorderly conduct by Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON be noted in the minutes Chairman: Your behaviour is continuing to be disorderly. I further note it be recorded in the minutes.

Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON left the meeting. Chairman: Returning to Councillor WINES' legitimate point of order, an amendment or a motion cannot be upheld if there is material misstatement or incorrect identification of a location that does not exist. Consistent with my rulings that I have applied recently, and also previously to a motion that Councillor SUTTON has had in this place, the amendment will not continue. Thank you for seeking my ruling appropriately Councillor WINES. Further debate?

Councillor SUTTON: Point of order, Madam Chair. Chairman: Point of order Councillor SUTTON. Councillor SUTTON: Can I just clarify that for future, my recollection—and I may be wrong—is that my motion was allowed to continue once it had been amended. Chairman: No, Councillor JOHNSTON your motion— Councillor SUTTON: No, Councillor SUTTON. Chairman: —your motion was amended. Councillor SUTTON: Yes, and then it was allowed to continue being debated. Chairman: Correct. Councillor SUTTON: Is that so—just clarifying what's happening here—so are we allowed to continue? Chairman: That's what Councillor WINES essentially raised the other week and got argument for, of trying to do the right thing. Subsequently today he has sought my ruling. I was trying to give my ruling when Councillor JOHNSTON engaged in disorderly conduct. Councillor SUTTON: So does that mean—I'm sorry I don't—so does that mean going forward if there's a mistake it'll be ruled out of order and it won't be able to be debated, or is that—because my motion— Chairman: Councillor SUTTON when your motion came forward, and also previously when the other motion came forward an amendment, was put before debate ensued. Councillor SUTTON: Yes. Chairman: So in the interests of permitting debate, given that the amendment to rectify the motion to competence was put immediately before debate ensued, I allowed that to occur. Okay? Councillor SUTTON: That's what will happen in future?

Chairman: If there is somebody that identifies that there is an incorrect location and they want to amend that motion to clarify it, I would accept that amendment before debate ensues. Councillor SUTTON: I just wanted to clarify, sorry. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor SRI. Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. I'll be voting against this motion. Chairman: We're now back on the original motion. Councillor SRI: Yes. Chairman: Now because the amendment has been ruled incompetent, we cannot vote on the amendment, and we cannot proceed with debate. So we are back on the original item C. Councillor SRI: Yes, I'm clear on that, yes. Chairman: So I'm just clarifying for everyone—actually before we proceed, Councillor COOPER, you don't want your misrepresentation now? Thank you. Councillor SRI, please proceed. Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. Yes, so to item C, I'll be voting against this. I think I'm on the record as previously being opposed to this project in general. I’m not convinced that it's an effective use of ratepayers' funds and I'm not convinced that it's an effective response to traffic congestion, and I don't think it helps shift modal share from private vehicle transport towards active transport and public transport. But I'm also quite concerned about this particular deal that's before us today. I think there's been a bit of what I might refer to as intellectual laziness, where we've recognised that maybe one day in the future we will be exploring options like congestion charges, and that we may have to explore user-pays approaches to road networks more generally. I think that's fair to say that everyone's on the same page that that might be on the horizon one day. Yes, okay, maybe not but—I'm hearing a bit of grumbling from behind me—but that discussion about whether or not road networks in general should be user-pays and whether or not we should be exploring things like congestion charges, is quite different to a situation where we have heavy tolls on some roads, and then the rest of the road network remains free. It feels to me like in simplistic terms what we're effectively saying with this approach is that rich people can afford to pay to drive on the toll roads, and the rest of the population has to sit in traffic and just suck it up. That seems a little bit inequitable to me. But I'm also really concerned about how much power and profit we're handing over to a private company in this particular situation, as has already been flagged in this Chamber. These guys aren't doing this as a charity, they're doing this to make profit. So effectively what the Council seems to be doing is handing over a potential revenue stream and saying ‘oh well road users are going to pay for the roads but we're not going to collect the money from that’. This is revenue that you guys are foregoing. This company is not taking this on as a liability, they're taking this on to make profit. So I don't quite understand why when it seems obvious that the Council has a significant revenue problem, and this Administration is constantly telling us that we don't have the money for urgent upgrades. So it seems there is a revenue problem, yet we're handing over what seems like a big source of revenue that a private company is happy to snap up. So I'm a little bit confused about the logic there. Maybe I've misunderstood something. I'm open to being corrected, but it just seems really bizarre that we're continuing

down this road of allowing private companies to control significant parts of our road network to make a profit from that road network, while Council just has to deal with the consequences of all the extra traffic that's being shifted away from those toll arteries. I still haven't had a satisfactory answer to that question that was flagged earlier about whether this particular deal before us will lead to more heavy vehicles using other roads. Is this going to force more traffic onto roads that don't have tolls attached to them, onto side streets, onto roads that Council has to bear the costs of maintaining? If one of the Councillors from the Administration could answer that question I'd really appreciate that. There's a lot about this deal that just strikes me as really bizarre. I don't quite understand the logic of it and I don't think it represents sensible long-term financial planning, let alone a sustainable response to traffic congestion. I can't support it for those reasons. Chairman: Further debate? LORD MAYOR. LORD MAYOR: Thanks, Madam Chairman. Well I respect the various views that are around the Chamber today. There is a healthy argument to be had around this. I mean, I just do want to address one point though and that is this issue that we're somehow impacting on poorer people. I don't quite understand that by way of only rich people can afford to pay tolls. You see, the proposition that's been put forward for a long time is around congestion charging, that you have a congestion charge and then people won't use the roads at that particular time of day. I put to you the proposition that the very people that you affect with that policy is poor people. It's the same thing. The difference here is that with a toll road you have a choice. We have never built a toll road where we haven't provided an alternative route which people can take. So people have a clear option here. If people see a value for money proposition, be that in terms of saving of wear and tear on their vehicle, saving in terms of fuel, saving in terms of time—then they will take the toll road opportunity. If they don't see that proposition, then they won't. Now in this case we've had a market-led proposal come to us. What we are getting of course is an upgrade to the ICB which also provides an on-ramp connector going to the west from Bowen Bridge Road which will provide for fast and efficient public transportation services as well. We know that we've been able to increase public transport use on those routes using the Legacy Way Tunnel by 40% in the morning peak. What this upgrade will do is to improve that opportunity for public transport users in the afternoon peak. So there's a real benefit in that sense with that on-ramp. So again, no tolling on this particular facility, but you are right about one thing, Transurban people are smart people. They, Madam Chairman, believe that they can operate the Inner City Bypass more efficiently than we are. They will do that and they're assessing that on the basis of other roads that they operate, and their view simply is this—that if they operate that section of road which links two of their tolled roads, if they can operate that middle section more efficiently, then it's going to improve the capacity and outcome for them at the other two tolled sections of road. Now that's a punt on their part. They're backing themselves, and who are the beneficiaries of them backing themselves, the ratepayers of Brisbane City Council, the ratepayers of Brisbane. But the ratepayers of Brisbane also win through the fact that the people that use the ICB don't pay a toll. If they get a more efficient section of road space, non-toll road users will also gain from the better efficiencies of that road operation, and we end up with a $1 million recurrent benefit for the ratepayers of the city as well.

So, Madam Chairman, I honestly don't see a lot of downsides in this. If those same smart people don't believe that the trucking industry will pay three times the car toll they wouldn't be proposing it. They wouldn't be proposing it. They've assessed this situation in other parts of the country, and they've done their own consultation with industry to make up this proposal. So, of course, anything that we do today by way of approval that then has to be supported by the State Government, but as has been outlined, the State have, through the Logan Enhancement Project, also gone down this track. The governments in other states have gone down this track, so I think that's it's an opportunity that we have that we ought to grab and, Madam Chairman, for that reason I'm putting forward this item C for the support of the Chamber.

Clause C put

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

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

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

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, David McLachlan, and Julian Simmonds. (In relation to Clause C, Stores Board Submission – Inner City Bypass Upgrade Innovative Proposal, Councillor Matthew Bourke, through his role as a Councillor, holds a position on the LGAQ Policy Executive, and by nature of that position, holds a position as a Director of LGIAsuper. LGIAsuper, through its funds managers, own shares in Transurban Queensland. The Chief Executive Officer, in concurrence with the Chief Legal Counsel, City Legal, City Administration and Governance, determined that there is no conflict of interest due to the nature of the roles being ex-officio and that a funds manager makes investment decisions for LGIAsuper. The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Adrian Schrinner and Councillor Amanda Cooper also have superannuation with AustralianSuper. AustralianSuper invests in Transurban Queensland. No conflict of interest exists as they do not have influence over the investments of AustralianSuper.)

LEAVE OF ABSENCE:

Councillor Peter Matic.

A NEW LEASE TO QUEENSLAND CRICKET ASSOCIATION LTD 112/445/800/11-03 471/2016-17 1. The Acting Divisional Manager, Lifestyle and Community Services, provided the information below.

2. Crosby Park is located at 1 Greg Chappell Street, Albion, and extends east from Greg Chappell Street to Royal Terrace and north to Crosby Road. It is approximately 12 hectares and is comprised of informal use park and sport park. Approximately one third of the sport park is leased to Queensland Cricket Association Ltd and is known as the Queensland Cricket Complex.

3. Queensland Cricket Association Ltd’s current lease commenced on 7 March 1996 and expires on 6 March 2026 and comprises part of: - Lot 1 on RP33563 - Lot 2 on RP33564 - Lots 1 and 2 on RP33562.

4. The lease area includes two cricket fields, 21 practice wickets, 12 playing wickets, an administration building, a function centre, a gymnasium, change rooms and a grandstand.

5. On 29 July 2016, Queensland Cricket Association Ltd submitted a new lease application requesting that Council extend the current lease term by a further 30 years, expiring in March 2056. It is proposed that Queensland Cricket Association Ltd surrender its current lease and be granted a new 20-year lease, with an option for a further term of 20 years, for part of Crosby Park, 1 Greg Chappell Street, Albion. As the lease exceeds 10 years and covers parts of a lot, Queensland Cricket Association Ltd will be required to submit a Development Application for Reconfiguration of a Lot within 12 months of this approval, pursuant to the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. It should be noted the reconfiguration is for the tenure of the lease only. The lease terms are shown in Attachment B (submitted on file).

6. Queensland Cricket Association Ltd took possession of the premises at Crosby Park in 1996 and has since spent more than $5 million in redevelopment to provide international standard playing and training facilities. These improvements, along with an additional $7 million spent on regular maintenance over this period, supports 250,000 cricketers in Queensland.

7. In 2015, Queensland Cricket Association Ltd requested an extension to their existing lease term in order to continue development of the precinct in line with a new strategic and precinct plan. As part of this plan, Queensland Cricket Association Ltd has requested to change the name of the facility from the Queensland Cricket Complex to the Allan Border Precinct.

8. The Queensland Cricket Complex is bordered by the National Cricket Campus (Campus), which is owned and operated by Cricket Australia. Queensland Cricket Association Ltd envisages that, by 2020, the new Allan Border Precinct will be fully integrated with the neighbouring Campus. It is envisaged that the Campus will be a key venue for training and warm-up activities for the International Cricket Council Twenty20 World Cup, to be held in Australia in 2020. It will also host State, national and international age championships and youth tournaments.

9. Queensland Cricket Association Ltd intends to spend $5.8 million on operating and capital expenditure during the first 20 years of the lease. An additional $450,000 will be spent annually on building and grounds maintenance throughout the term of the lease. In addition to the works identified in their maintenance plan, during the term of the lease Queensland Cricket Association Ltd intends to complete capital facility improvements on the premises. These improvements include the refurbishment of Queensland Cricket Headquarters, construction of a new player amenities building and improvements to Allan Border Field and the Craig McDermott and Peter Burge wickets.

10. The Acting Divisional Manager provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed.

11. RECOMMENDATION:

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

Attachment A Draft Resolution

DRAFT RESOLUTION TO ENTER INTO A LEASE WITH QUEENSLAND CRICKET ASSOCIATION LTD FOR CROSBY PARK, 1 GREG CHAPPELL STREET, ALBION

(i) Council is the registered proprietor of land described as Lot 1 on RP33563, Lot 2 on RP33564, and Lots 1 and 2 on RP33562, Parish of Toombul, 1 Greg Chappell Street, Albion

(ii) Queensland Cricket Association Ltd has requested to be granted a lease over part of Lot 1 on RP33563, part of Lot 2 on RP33564, and part of Lots 1 and 2 on RP33562, Parish of Toombul, 1 Greg Chappell Street, Albion

then Council:

(i) approves entry into a new lease for 20 years (Term) plus a further term of 20 years (Further Term) in accordance with Queensland Cricket Association Ltd lease terms as set out in Attachment B (submitted on file) subject to:

(a) Queensland Cricket Association Ltd obtaining a Development Approval for Reconfiguration of a Lot within 12 months of this approval

(b) Queensland Cricket Association Ltd first registering a surrender of their current lease, expiring 6 March 2026, within six months of this approval

(c) Queensland Cricket Association Ltd entering into commercial subleasing arrangements for any period for various buildings on the premises during the Term and Further Term

and otherwise on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Manager, Asset Management, Brisbane Infrastructure, and the Chief Legal Counsel, City Legal.

(ii) approves Queensland Cricket Association Ltd making an application to reconfigure a lot pursuant to the Sustainable Planning Act 2009

(iii) consents to Queensland Cricket Association Ltd entering into a mortgage of the Term and Further Term. ADOPTED

B CONTRACTS AND TENDERING – REPORT TO COUNCIL OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR FEBRUARY 2017 109/695/586/2-04 472/2016-17 12. The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.

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

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

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

Council has entered into the contract; (b) the value of the contract; and (c) the purpose of the contract (e.g. the particular goods or services to be supplied under the contract).

16. The Chief Executive Officer provided the following recommendation and the Committee agreed.

17. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE REPORT OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR FEBRUARY 2017, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder.

Attachment A City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 – Chapter 6 – Contracting Details of Contracts Accepted by Delegates of Council for February 2017 Contract/Quote No. and Delegate Nature of Contract/Quote Purpose Unsuccessful Tenders and Comparativ Approval, Successful Contractor/s Arrangement Quotes including VFM e Tender Start/End including Comparative Tender and Estimated achieved Prices Dates and Prices and Value for Money Maximum Term (VFM) Index achieved Expenditure BRISBANE INFRASTRUCTURE 1. Contract No: 510565 CPO Corporate Hire of Barges and Workboats Non-conforming tenders Approved: Procurement 23.02.17 Bhagwan Marine Pty Ltd Arrangement Barges Australia a division of Not Start: Achieved highest non-price score of (CPA) (Panel National Maritime Services applicable 06.03.17 77.65 Arrangement) (N/A) Term: Schedule of rates Three years Marine Civil Contractors Pty Ltd with an Achieved non-price score of 74.19 $1,377,000 option to extend for Atoll Logistics Pty Ltd two Achieved non-price score of 72.92 additional years. Australian Barge Hire Pty Ltd Achieved non-price score of 68.00

Envirostruct Services Pty Ltd Achieved non-price score of 67.98

Gold Coast Barge Services Pty Ltd Achieved non-price score of 67.65

Amity Trader Pty Ltd as trustee for the Scorpio Trust Achieved non-price score of 66.25

Waterway Constructions Pty Ltd Achieved non-price score of 65.84

OPEC Systems Pty Ltd Achieved non-price score of 63.62

The Marina Specialist Pty Ltd trading as The Jetty Specialist Achieved non-price score of 60.70

Brisbane Boat Hire Achieved non-price score of 55.22

Crosana Pty Ltd as trustee for Michael Reid Family Trust trading as Crosana Pty Ltd Achieved non-price score of 54.31

Simon Paroz & Co Boatbuilders Pty Ltd Achieved non-price score of 45.92 2. Contract No: 520272 CPO CPA Provision of Third Party Triple Shortlisted offers not Approved: (Preferred Certification of Field Services recommended 22.02.17 BSI Group ANZ Pty Ltd – Supplier) (FS) Management System $183,160 Start: $186,450 Schedule of rates and auditing of FS quarrying DLCS International Pty Ltd 01.03.17 Achieved the highest VFM of 44.72 operations against the Mining Achieved VFM of 42.65 Term: $186,450 and Quarrying Safety and $179,950 Three years

Contract/Quote No. and Delegate Nature of Contract/Quote Purpose Unsuccessful Tenders and Comparativ Approval, Successful Contractor/s Arrangement Quotes including VFM e Tender Start/End including Comparative Tender and Estimated achieved Prices Dates and Prices and Value for Money Maximum Term (VFM) Index achieved Expenditure Health Act 1999 Bureau Veritas Australia Pty with an Ltd option to Achieved VFM of 39.94 extend for two Offers not recommended $254,400 additional years. Lloyds Register Quality Assurance Ltd Achieved VFM of 29.38 3. Contract No: 520281 CPO Lump sum Ivory Street Tunnel LED Shortlisted offers not Approved: Lighting Upgrade recommended 08.02.17 Aus Air Electrical Pty Ltd – $865,657 $999,392 Start: $865,657 Stowe Australia 13.02.17 Achieved the highest VFM of 9.57 Achieved VFM of 6.55 Term: 16 weeks Offers not recommended $1,088,137 QA Electrical (Qld) Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 3.86

4. Contract No: 520299 CPO Lump sum Concrete and Landscape Shortlisted offers not Approved: Works at Darien Street Sports recommended 08.02.17 The Landscape Construction $266,351 Park – Stage 3 $349,672 Start: Company Pty Ltd – $266,351 Boyds Bay Landscaping Pty 10.02.17 Achieved the highest VFM of 31.98 Ltd trading as Boyds Bay Term: Landscape & Environment Seven Achieved VFM of 25.40 weeks

Offers not shortlisted $335,185 Qld Civil Group Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 19.99

Non-conforming offers N/A Dig-It Landscapes Pty Ltd 5. Contract No: 530752 CPO Lump sum Riverside Drive Park Upgrade Shortlisted offer not Approved: recommended 08.02.17 The Landscape Construction $314,202 $355,138 Start: Company Pty Ltd – $314,202 Allencon Pty Ltd 13.02.17 Achieved the highest VFM of 21.88 Achieved VFM of 19.22 Term: 15 weeks Offer not shortlisted $379,785 Dig-It Landscapes Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 6.19 6. Contract No: 530941 CPO Schedule of rates Professional Consultancy Shortlisted offers not Approved: Associated with Priority recommended 09.02.17 Lambert and Rehbein (SEQ) Pty $1,600,000 Structural Repairs Program $330,650 Start: Ltd – $281,975 GHD Pty Ltd 20.02.17 Achieved the highest VFM of 31.56 Achieved VFM of 19.81 Term: $236,930 One year Cardno (QLD) Pty Ltd with an Achieved VFM of 19.84 option to extend for Offers not recommended three $379,310 additional Bligh Tanner Pty Ltd years. Achieved VFM of 19.64 $439,540 Aurecon Australasia Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 17.18 $405,205 Complete Urban Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 15.30 $775,745 Beca Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 9.60 7. Contract No: 530979 EM City Lump sum Disability Discrimination Act Hawley Constructions Pty Ltd $138,870 Approved:

Contract/Quote No. and Delegate Nature of Contract/Quote Purpose Unsuccessful Tenders and Comparativ Approval, Successful Contractor/s Arrangement Quotes including VFM e Tender Start/End including Comparative Tender and Estimated achieved Prices Dates and Prices and Value for Money Maximum Term (VFM) Index achieved Expenditure Projects 1992 Improvement Works at Achieved VFM of 58.69 23.02.17 Probuild Industries Pty Ltd – Office $148,884 Nudgee School of Arts Start: $148,884 Premis Solutions Pty Ltd $172,300 24.02.17 Achieved the highest VFM of 60.45 Achieved VFM of 42.37 Term: 12 weeks Dart Holdings trading as A $223,900 Dart & Co. Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 39.08

Signature Projects Pty Ltd $214,470 Achieved VFM of 15.39

Blackwood Projects Pty Ltd $224,500 Achieved VFM of 11.80

Box & Co Pty Ltd $233,730 Achieved VFM of 4.28 8. Contract No: 530984 CEO Schedule of rates Smoother Suburban Streets – RPQ Asphalt Pty Ltd $6,691,286 Approved: External Asphalt Resurfacing Achieved VFM of 9.27 21.02.17 Allen’s Asphalt Pty Ltd – $5,642,237 Package 3 Start: $5,642,237 Fulton Hogan Industries Pty $6,767,775 24.02.17 Achieved the highest VFM of 10.63 Ltd Term: Achieved VFM of 8.57 12 weeks $6,260,672 Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 8.31

Alternative offer not recommended $5,549,740

Allen’s Asphalt Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 7.93 9. Contract No: 530987 CPO Lump sum Supply and Installation of Shortlisted offers not Approved: Toilet Blocks at Downey Park recommended 22.02.17 Probuild Industries Australia $308,262 and Fenwick Park $343,356 Start: Pty Ltd trading as PBI Australia Moodie Outdoor Products Pty 27.02.17 – $308,262 Ltd Term: Achieved the highest VFM of 23.71 (Option 1) 15 weeks Achieved VFM of 22.98 $363,789

Moodie Outdoor Products Pty Ltd (Option 2) Achieved VFM of 21.69 $437,665

Offers not recommended $518,400 J. Mac Constructions Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 12.22

Exeloo Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 8.87 N/A Did not demonstrate compliance with mandatory requirement

Building Solutions Brisbane Pty Ltd 10. Contract No: 531001 CPO Lump sum Toombul and Northgate Halls Offers not recommended Approved: Upgrade 16.02.17 Intrec Management Pty Ltd – $494,821 Probuild Industries Australia $518,736 Start: $494,821 Pty Ltd 21.02.17 Achieved the highest VFM of 15.56 Achieved VFM of 14.65 Term: $497,957 14 weeks KANE Constructions Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 14.41

Non-conforming offer N/A Box & Co Pty Ltd

Contract/Quote No. and Delegate Nature of Contract/Quote Purpose Unsuccessful Tenders and Comparativ Approval, Successful Contractor/s Arrangement Quotes including VFM e Tender Start/End including Comparative Tender and Estimated achieved Prices Dates and Prices and Value for Money Maximum Term (VFM) Index achieved Expenditure 11. Contract No: 531002 CPO Lump sum Skate Facilities – Paddington Precision Skate Parks Pty Ltd $776,876 Approved: Stage 2 Achieved VFM of 8.61 23.02.17 CONVIC Pty Ltd – $813,200 $813,200 Start: Achieved the highest VFM of 10.68 The Trustee for Lewers Family $729,052 23.02.17 Trust trading as Concrete Term: Skateparks Pty Ltd 12 weeks Achieved VFM of 6.33 The Trustee for VFG Trust trading as Skate Parks Pty Ltd $562,756 Achieved VFM of 5.51 12. Contract No: 531004 CPO Lump sum Witton Barracks – Open N/A, no other offers received. N/A Approved: Space Establishment 16.02.17 Epoca Constructions Pty Ltd – $956,970 Start: $956,970 17.02.17 Achieved VFM of 8.57 Term: 14 weeks 13. Contract No: 531032 CPO Schedule of rates Beaconsfield Street Slope Moggill Constructions Pty Ltd $384,638 Approved: Stabilisation Achieved VFM of 2,054 23.02.17 Elite Retaining Systems Pty Ltd $263,470 Start: trading as Australian Marine & Crosana Pty Ltd as trustee for $387,079 24.02.17 Civil – $263,470 Michael Reid Family Trust Term: Achieved the highest VFM of 2,657 trading as Crosana Pty Ltd Six weeks Achieved VFM of 2,041

CPM Group Pty Ltd $708,533 Achieved VFM of 1,129

LIFESTYLE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES 14. Contract No: 530948 CPO CPA (Preferred Central Control Water Offer not recommended Approved: Supplier Monitoring System 31.01.17 Project Irrigation Australia Pty Arrangement) Turf Irrigation Services $94,624 Start: Ltd trading as Project Pumps Achieved VFM of 84 01.02.17 and Irrigation – $70,073 $425,000 Term: Achieved the highest VFM of 108.5 Non-conforming offer Three years with an The trustee for WNL3 Family N/A option to Trust extend for trading as Waterworx two Australia Pty Ltd additional years. TRANSPORT FOR BRISBANE Nil CITY PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY Nil CITY ADMINISTRATION AND GOVERNANCE 15. Contract No: LGS001 CEO CPA (Preferred Software Assurance Services Contract was entered into N/A Approved: Supplier – Local Government Systems under section 2.4(c) Sole or 28.02.17 KJ Ross and Associates Pty Ltd Arrangement) Project Select Sourcing of Council’s Start: Lump sum or Contract Manual pursuant to 28.02.17 schedule of rates the City of Brisbane Act 2010. Term: One year $1,500,000 with an option to extend for two additional years. 16. Contract No: LGS002 CEO CPA (Preferred Project Advisory Services – Contract was entered into N/A Approved: Supplier Local Government Systems under section 2.4(c) Sole or 28.02.17 Deloitte Consulting Pty Ltd Arrangement) Project Select Sourcing of Council’s Start: Schedule of rates Contract Manual pursuant to 28.02.17 the City of Brisbane Act 2010. Term: $5,000,000 One year

Contract/Quote No. and Delegate Nature of Contract/Quote Purpose Unsuccessful Tenders and Comparativ Approval, Successful Contractor/s Arrangement Quotes including VFM e Tender Start/End including Comparative Tender and Estimated achieved Prices Dates and Prices and Value for Money Maximum Term (VFM) Index achieved Expenditure with an option to extend for two additional years. 17. Contract No: N/A CEO Schedule of rates Independent Chair – Local Contract was entered into N/A Approved: Government Systems Project under section 2.4(c) Sole or 28.02.17 Business Aspect Pty Ltd $600,000 Program Board Select Sourcing of Council’s Start: Contract Manual pursuant to 28.02.17 the City of Brisbane Act 2010. Term: Up to three years. ORGANISATIONAL SERVICES 18. Contract No: 510554 CEO CPA (Preferred Moreton Island Waste and Amity Trader Pty Ltd as $5,287,099 Approved: Supplier Resource Recovery Services trustee for the Scorpio Trust 28.02.16 Moreton Island Adventures Pty Arrangement) Achieved VFM of 14.3 Start: Ltd – $4,137,546 Schedule of rates 20.08.17 Achieved the highest VFM of 18.6 Tanga Ferries Pty Ltd $6,674,005 Term: $4,137,546 Achieved VFM of13.7 Three years with an option to extend for four additional years. 19. Contract No: 510592 CPO CPA (Preferred Project Online Solution Offers not recommended Approved: Supplier 21.02.16 Sensei Productivity Pty Ltd – Arrangement) Program Planning $1,894,610 Start: $1,318,576 Lump sum and Professionals Pty Ltd trading 27.02.17 Achieved the highest VFM of 58 schedule of rates as Pcubed Australia Term: Achieved VFM of 32 Three years $1,318,576 $2,215,011 following Allaboutxpert Australia Pty implementa Ltd tion with an Achieved VFM of 21 option to extend for two additional years. Non-conforming offers

EPM Partners Pty Ltd as the N/A Trustee for EPM Partners Unit Trust N/A SMS Consulting Group Ltd

20. Contract No: 510602 CPO CPA (Preferred Boat Ramp and Waterway Shortlisted offers not Approved: Supplier Structure Cleaning recommended 09.02.17 Pickwick Group Pty Ltd as the Arrangement) $109,820* Start: Trustee for the Pickwick Schedule of rates The Trustee for the B&J 05.06.17 Cleaning Services Unit Trust – Kennett Family Trust trading Term: $120,664* $600,000 as Wat-er Blast Pty Ltd Two years Achieved the highest VFM of 65.32* Achieved VFM of 62.83 with an $144,200* option to *Final tendered price and VFM The Trustees for Pelican extend for includes the cost of all sites initially Bigwosha Trust trading as three quarantined for Social Enterprises. Pelican Bigwosha Pty Ltd additional Achieved VFM of 42.12* years. **Final tendered price and VFM excludes the cost of all sites Offers not shortlisted initially quarantined for Social $129,096** Enterprises. MMS Group Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 54.63 $121,619** Prima Restoration Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 41.82 $208,234** Graffiti Eaters Pty Ltd

Contract/Quote No. and Delegate Nature of Contract/Quote Purpose Unsuccessful Tenders and Comparativ Approval, Successful Contractor/s Arrangement Quotes including VFM e Tender Start/End including Comparative Tender and Estimated achieved Prices Dates and Prices and Value for Money Maximum Term (VFM) Index achieved Expenditure Achieved VFM of 35.30 $191,532** IPCQ Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 24.80 $279,215** HTCQ Pty Ltd trading as Marine Engineering & Diving Achieved VFM of 18.44 $451,732**

Aussie Hydrovac Services Pty Ltd $477,360** Achieved VFM of 12.28

Ecospec Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 7.76 21. Contract No: 510608 CPO Lump sum and Supply, Install and Maintain N/A, no other offers received. N/A Approved: schedule of rates Computer Room Air 16.02.17 Emerson Network Power Conditioning Units at Holland Start: Australia Pty Ltd – $761,688 $761,688 Park and Brisbane Square 28.02.17 Achieved VFM of 10.5 Data Centres Term: Up to five years. 22. Contract No: 510610 CEO CPA (Preferred Suburban Safety Mobile Offers not recommended Approved: Supplier Technology Solution 21.02.17 SenSen Networks Pty Ltd – Arrangement) The Trustee for the De Boer $1,591,827 Start: $1,235,848 Lump sum and Family Trust Trading as 22.02.17 Achieved the highest VFM of 58.7 schedule of rates PrintData Term: Achieved VFM of 32.86 Three years $1,235,848 with an Non-conforming offer option to N/A extend for Tenix Solutions Pty Ltd two additional years. 23. Contract No: 510632 E&C Lump sum Production and Event Contract was entered into N/A Approved: Management of the Lord under section 2.4(c) Sole or 12.12.16 John Cristian Pilditch trading as $1,200,000 Mayor’s Christmas Carols Select Sourcing of Council’s Start: John Cristian Productions Contract Manual pursuant to 01.02.17 the City of Brisbane Act 2010. Term: Three years with an option to extend for one additional year. 24. Contract No: 531040 CPO Lump sum Ecosystem Works for Aust Care Environmental $204,328 Approved: 664 Lake Manchester Road, Services Pty Ltd 09.02.17 The Trustee for the Hosking $184,297 Kholo Achieved VFM of 42.74 Start: Family Trust trading as 20.02.17 Bushcare Services – $184,297 Ecosure Pty Ltd $239,527 Term: Achieved the highest VFM of 46.12 Achieved VFM of 37.57 Two years

SEQ Sustainable Eco $228,710 Enterprises Pty Ltd trading as Regen Australia Achieved VFM of 36.29 $287,250 Ausecology Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 29.90 $281,407 Austspray Achieved VFM of 28.55 ADOPTED

C STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – INNER CITY BYPASS UPGRADE INNOVATIVE PROPOSAL 188/630/414/1449 473/2016-17 18. The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.

19. The Chief Executive Officer and the Stores Board considered the submission, as set out in Attachment A, on 14 March 2017.

20. The submission is recommended to Council as it is considered the most advantageous outcome for the provision of the required works.

Purpose

21. That the Chief Executive Officer (through the Stores Board) recommends to Council to directly enter into the ICB Upgrade Upstream Deed and associated transaction documents with Project T Partnership, GBB Operations Pty Ltd and LW Operations Pty Limited, that are wholly owned subsidiaries of, and managed by, Transurban Queensland (TQ) to fund and deliver the ICB Upgrade, provide ongoing operations and incident response and routine maintenance on the ICB, in accordance with the Innovative Proposals Policy.

Background

22. Following the Lord Mayor’s ICB Upgrade announcement in June 2015, TQ confirmed its intention to submit a proposal to deliver the ICB Upgrade.

23. TQ submitted the proposal as an innovative proposal under Council’s SP105 Innovative Proposals Policy. In November 2015 the Oversight of Consultancies Special Committee (OCSC) endorsed the proposal as having sufficient merit to warrant progression to Stage Three (Detailed Proposal) of the Innovative Proposals Policy.

24. Under the proposal, TQ would fund and take on the responsibility to deliver the ICB Upgrade works and associated enhancements and provide ongoing incident response, routine maintenance and operational support for the ICB to improve travel times, reliability and safety for all road users.

25. The TQ proposal will help Council ensure that the ICB Upgrade delivers maximum benefit for the community and that Brisbane’s road and public transport systems will cater for future demands as the city grows. The proposal will see significant enhancements to the management and operations of the ICB and provide motorists with a seamless and consistent journey between Legacy Way, AirportlinkM7 and Clem Jones tunnels through a managed motorways approach.

26. In order to progress delivery of the ICB Upgrade, the Establishment and Coordination Committee approved a Significant Contracting Plan in December 2015 for the procurement process for the ICB Upgrade as a Design and Construct (D&C) tender and contract process.

27. Council entered into a contract with BMD Constructions Pty Ltd (BMD) on 9 December 2016, to design and construct the ICB Upgrade following a competitive tender process. The successful interactive tender process delivered project savings of $20 million.

28. In parallel, TQ commenced work on its detailed proposal including the development of traffic forecasts, financial modelling and associated funding options to deliver the ICB Upgrade.

29. TQ has proposed to partially fund the delivery of the ICB Upgrade works and associated enhancements and ongoing operations, incident response and routine maintenance through changes to the tolls on Legacy Way in accordance with existing concession arrangements, increases to the Heavy Commercial Vehicle (HCV) tolls on Clem Jones Tunnel, Go Between Bridge and Legacy Way Tunnel and through network efficiencies. The increase to HCV tolls requires Queensland Government approval.

30. Following the success of similar Australian examples, Council is confident TQ’s innovative proposal will deliver significant benefits to Brisbane, and an efficient, universal approach to both construction and maintenance of the ICB. Successful examples include:

- New South Wales – a multiplier increase for HCVs of 1 times to 3 times on the Westlink M7 and from 2 times to 3 times in the Lane Cove Tunnel are being used to fund the NorthConnex project - Queensland – the Logan Enhancement Project will be funded through annual toll increases for HCV’s from 2.6 times to 3 times using the Logan Motorway, Gateway Extension Motorway and Gateway Motorway - Victoria – increases to both day and night HCV (1.3 times to 3 times during the day) and Light Commercial Vehicles tolls are resourcing the CityLink Tulla Widening.

31. Council also has an existing ICB maintenance contract with CPB Contractors Pty Ltd (CPB) that continues through to 30 June 2017, with an option to extend for a further five years at Council’s discretion. Council has reached in-principle agreement with CPB to extend the existing maintenance arrangement until such time as TQ commence routine maintenance under their proposal.

32. Council has reached in-principle agreement with TQ on the commercial terms of the proposed transaction and the parties have progressed to develop the final binding documents for consideration by Council.

Proposal summary

33. The key components of TQ’s proposal include the following. - Delivery, project management and contract responsibility for the ICB Upgrade works. - Design and implementation of improved Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) along the ICB corridor. - Providing traffic operations and incident response services consistent with the Legacy Way Tunnel and Clem Jones Tunnel along the ICB corridor through to the end of the Legacy Way concession period. - Providing routine maintenance of the ICB corridor for an initial 10 year period with an option for a further 10 years. - Providing a significant funding contribution to the overall proposal through: - increasing the Legacy Way tolls to the maximum allowable toll levels under the existing tolling approval (to Airport Link Tunnel toll levels) - increasing HCV tolls from 2.65 times car toll to 3.0 times car toll for each of Legacy Way, Go Between Bridge and Clem Jones Tunnel (subject to Queensland Government approval) - operational efficiencies derived through synergies across tollway concessions and the ICB.

34. It is proposed that, subject to Queensland Government approval, the increase in the toll payable for HCVs will take effect for the Clem Jones Tunnel and the Go-Between Bridge, on 1 July 2018. This date coincides with the expected completion of construction works for the ICB Upgrade.

35. For the Legacy Way Tunnel, the increase in the tolls payable will take effect on 1 July 2020. This date coincides with a payment TQ is contractually obliged to make to Council in relation to the existing Legacy Way Tunnel tollway concession arrangements. The parties have agreed to defer the increase until then, as changing the tolls before this date would impact on the terms of the concession arrangement and unnecessarily complicate the calculation of that payment.

36. Under the proposed arrangements, the payment date for the proposal will occur at practical completion of the ICB Upgrade works. The anticipated date for practical completion under the current D&C contract with BMD is 30 June 2018.

37. The value of the payment is subject to the approval by the Queensland Government of the proposed HCV toll increase. If the proposed HCV increase is approved, the project budget will be $3.3 million, a saving to Council of $54.5 million.

38. If the proposed HCV increase is not approved, the project budget will be $35.1 million a saving to Council of $22.7 million.

39. Under both scenarios, TQ will refund all construction costs already paid by Council to BMD upon execution of the contract, and TQ will be responsible for all future construction costs payable to BMD.

40. The transaction documents have been reviewed and developed by Clayton Utz as Council’s legal advisor in consultation with the project team and include the following. - ICB Upgrade Upstream Deed (refer to Attachment B, submitted on file) (includes payment arrangements): - Annexure A – D&C Contract Annexure (including additional ITS enhancements) - Annexure B – Maintenance Annexure (including maintenance and lifecycle costs of the additional ITS enhancements) - Annexure C – Operations and Incident Response Annexure. - D&C Side Deed (refer to Attachment C, submitted on file). - Deed of Novation and Amendment (refer to Attachment C, submitted on file).

Rationale for direct engagement under the Innovative Proposals Policy

41. Is the proposal an ‘Innovative Proposal’ for the purposes of the policy? (a) Has the proposal been received from an entity, other than a government entity or an entity which represents a group of government entities (such as Local Buy Pty Ltd)? Yes, the proposal has been received from TQ, the toll road business formerly known as Queensland Motorways. The business is managed by Transurban Group on behalf of consortium members Transurban, AustralianSuper, and Tawreed.

(b) Has the proposal been solicited, sought or requested by Council through the processes set out in Council’s Contract Manual or Annual Procurement Policy and Contracting Plan? No, Council made provision in its budget to undertake the upgrade of the ICB from three lanes to four and procured BMD through a competitive tender process to design and construct the ICB Upgrade. Under provisions of the Legacy Way Concession Deed between Council and LW Operations, TQ has exercised its right to negotiate with Council to deliver the upgrade of the ICB, where the contract with BMD would be novated to TQ.

(c) Does the proposal solve a problem of Council’s, address an opportunity for Council, or enhance services Council provides to rate payers? Yes, the existing configuration of the ICB is operating at up to 90% capacity and is forecast to be over capacity by 2021. Traffic volumes have increased from approximately 92,000 vehicles per day in May 2015 to over 100,000 vehicles per day.

It is a critical corridor in the inner-city road network, providing a vital and convenient connection between Legacy Way Tunnel, AirportlinkM7, Clem Jones Tunnel, Sandgate Road, Go Between Bridge via Hale Street, Kingsford Smith Drive and Lutwyche Road.

Under the proposal, TQ would fund and take on the responsibility of the ICB Upgrade works delivery and provide ongoing incident response, routine maintenance and operational support on the ICB to improve travel times and safety for all road users.

(d) Is the proposal innovative? The proposal is innovative in that it: - provides funding for the project through changes to existing tolling arrangements and changes to the revenue sharing mechanisms under the existing tollway concession arrangements, which can only be achieved through agreement with TQ - has offered value associated with future consolidation of TQ’s tunnel control rooms and operation maintenance structures - offers a holistic solution to the ICB Upgrade including design and construction, operations and maintenance and ITS enhancements - offers a low-risk opportunity for Council to partner with private enterprise - de-risks construction with TQ liable for the D&C contractor and Legacy Way Tunnel integration - provides operational efficiencies via network synergies - enables consistent incident response services to be delivered as a package across assets - provides greater network reliability and resilience through improved road safety and integrated operations to improve incident response.

(e) Does the proposal represent value for money for Council?

TQ are taking on the traffic volume and revenue risks associated with making this funding available. TQ has offered to allocate these funds to deliver the ICB Upgrade works and provide ongoing incident response, routine maintenance and operational support on the ICB to improve travel times and safety for all road users.

Council engaged an independent financial advisor to review the TQ offer and financial model and provide independent market valuation advice regarding the proposal. The financial advisor established that the TQ discount rate is within an acceptable market range for this transaction, representing fair market value to Council.

TQ’s funding solution enables Council’s budget to be allocated to other Council priorities.

42. Is this a type of contracting activity desired by Council? Yes, Council has already procured the contractor (BMD) under a D&C contract to deliver the ICB Upgrade and Council has an existing contract with CPB to maintain the ICB. This proposal achieves the same outcomes but includes substantial additional benefits and value to Council.

43. Is a Direct Engagement strategy appropriate? (a) Is the requirement unsuitable for tendering because either: (i) there are proprietary rights such that tendering for the requirement would infringe the intellectual property rights of the party providing the Innovative Proposal? Yes, under the Legacy Way Concession Deed, TQ opted to exercise its right to engage in negotiations with Council to deliver the upgrade of the ICB. (ii) there are innovative elements such that tendering for the requirement would deprive the party making the Innovative Proposal of the benefit of its innovation? Yes, only TQ can offer this proposal due to their concessionaire arrangements with Council for the Go Between Bridge, Legacy Way Tunnel and Clem Jones Tunnel.

(b) Does the proposal represent an advantageous outcome for Council? Under the existing Legacy Way concession arrangements toll levels can be increased to the maximum allowable under Queensland Government approvals (Airport Link levels). Under the existing arrangements, Council is entitled to 60% share at the discount rate established under the Legacy Way concession deed.

In this proposal, TQ is proposing a significantly higher share of increased revenue providing a significantly higher value proposition for Council than could be achieved under the existing concession arrangements.

In addition, TQ’s proposal offers broader network benefits including improved connectivity and enhanced safety. TQ can apply Legacy Way Tunnel operating standards to the entire ICB corridor and utilise their existing control room and incident response process, resulting in lower costs which benefit ratepayers.

44. Key risks (if any) associated with the proposal TQ’s innovative proposal offers a low-risk opportunity for Council to partner with private enterprise where much of Council’s project risk is transferred to TQ. The key risks retained by Council are as follows.

Procurement risk Risk Comments/other risk mitigation strategies rating Queensland Government Medium Council will make a contribution to cover the shortfall in rejects Council’s request to funding sources. increase HCV tolls Native title/Cultural Low These Council retained risks are consistent with other Heritage/artefacts major road projects. Planning approval Low Council has already progressed the required planning challenge approvals for the project and there is no current challenge to these approvals. Access risk (i.e. risk of Low Council will be responsible for providing TQ with gaining ingress and egress) sufficient rights to occupy the Licensed Construction Areas by the relevant dates for access. TQ will be responsible for complying with any conditions of access,

Procurement risk Risk Comments/other risk mitigation strategies rating and managing the Contractor’s access. Lifecycle maintenance Low TQ will not take the risk of lifecycle maintenance for the ICB (other than lifecycle maintenance in respect of ITS, see below). Force majeure risk Low If any claims arise in respect of force majeure, this will be subject to the material adverse effects (MAE) regime to the extent that they are an Uninsurable Force Majeure Event. Under the Project Deed, force majeure only entitles the D&C contractor to time. While the occurrence of a force majeure event will suspend TQ's obligations it will only become an MAE event to the extent it is uninsurable. Council proposed Low To the extent that Council proposes a modification, this modifications will be at Council’s cost. Financial due diligence Low TQ is a toll road business that is managed by the Transurban Group on behalf of consortium members Transurban, AustralianSuper and Tawreed, acquired by the consortium in 2014 for approximately $7 billion. Council has step-in rights under each local government toll road. Council directed suspension Low If the suspension directed by Council is a result of TQ's or the contractor's failure to comply with their obligations, then TQ will not be entitled to make a claim against Council.

45. Outcome of detailed assessment Based on the above detailed assessment, it is recommended that Council accepts the terms contained in TQ’s Final Binding Offer and approves that the associated documentation be executed.

Internal engagement

46. Assessment Team A detailed assessment of the proposal and financial model has been carried out by the following team members in accordance with Council’s Innovative Proposals Policy: - Program Director, Major Projects, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure - Project Director, ICB Upgrade, City Projects Office, Brisbane Infrastructure.

Council engaged an independent Financial Advisor to review the TQ offer and provide independent market valuation advice regarding the proposal. This advice confirms that the final offer from TQ represents fair market value.

Council also engaged a legal advisor to ensure that the required legal documents reflect market precedent transactions, provide for appropriate risk allocation and reflect the unique nature of the transaction.

Proposed Contract

47. Legal name, ABN/ACN LW Operations Pty Limited and registered address of ACN 165 190 554 recommended supplier 7 Brandl Street, Eight Mile Plains, Queensland 4113 (LW Operations)

GBB Operations Pty Ltd ACN 165 190 572 7 Brandl Street, Eight Mile Plains, Queensland 4113 (GBB Operations)

Project T Partnership comprising and acting by:

Project T Partner Co 1 Pty Limited ACN 166 004 557 7 Brandl Street, Eight Mile Plains, Queensland 4113

Project T Partner Co 2 Pty Limited ACN 166 004 235 7 Brandl Street, Eight Mile Plains, Queensland 4113 (Project T Partnership) Contract standard to be Clayton Utz Pty Ltd were engaged to develop the contract documents. used: Amendments to standards: Not applicable All non-compliances with Yes contract conditions and specifications resolved? Is liability and indemnity to No be capped? Execution date of contract: Expected 31 March 2017 Term/period of contract: The Upstream Deed and associated annexures applies from contract commencement to the end of the Legacy Way concession period (2065). Price basis: Lump sum Variation for rise and fall Not applicable in cost: Security for the contract: Council has rights to pursue LW Operations for damages. To the extent LW Operations is insolvent, Council has remedy under the LW Concession Deed. Security (unconditional undertaking) in the form of one bank guarantee for $2 million for the 10+10 Routine Maintenance period and Council can request a bank guarantee for $2 million at any time during the Operations and Incident Response period until 2065. Defects liability period/ 12 months in relation to the D&C contract Warranty period? Liquidated damages: No liquidated damages apply but Council’s right to claim general law damages is preserved. Software component? No AS4000/4902 Provisional No Sums? Contract preparation: Clayton Utz Pty Ltd Records reference PD17/11754 number(s) for the finalised contract:

Estimated cost and budget

48. Under the proposed arrangements, the payment date for the proposal will occur at practical completion of the ICB Upgrade works. The anticipated date for practical completion under the current D&C contract with BMD is 30 June 2018.

49. The value of the payment is subject to Queensland Government approval of the proposed HCV toll increase. If the proposed HCV increase is approved, the project budget will be $3.3 million, a saving to Council of $54.5 million.

50. If the proposed HCV increase is not approved, the project budget will be $35.1 million a saving to Council of $22.7 million. Under the proposal, from the date of execution of the ICB Upgrade Upstream

Deed, TQ will be responsible for all payments to the D&C contractor for ICB Upgrade project, providing immediate savings of $31.5 million against Council’s approved budget.

51. Funding for this proposal is available in the current ICB Upgrade budget.

Financial Year 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 $000 $000 $000 Capital 1,550 30,077 48,805 Expenses - - - Revenue - - -

52. Overall costs and savings to Council’s budget are summarised in the tables below.

ICB Upgrade Budget Amount ($M)

Revised budget at D&C contract award* $57.8

Forecast budget with TQ Proposal** $35.1 - without HCV toll increase approval - with HCV toll increase approval $3.3

* Includes ICB Upgrade only ** Includes ICB Upgrade, 20 years routine maintenance, Operations and Incident Response Services and ITS enhancements until 2065

Savings Amount ($M)

Savings against revised budget

- without HCV toll increase approval $22.7 - with HCV toll increase approval $54.5

Additional savings through routine ICB Approximately $1.0 per annum maintenance avoided costs

Next steps and timing

53 Formal Council approval by 28 March 2017 will allow the following milestones to be achieved.

Milestone Anticipated Date Transaction documents executed 31 March 2017 Payment date at practical completion 30 June 2018

54. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL APPROVES:

(1) DIRECTLY ENTERING INTO THE INNER CITY BYPASS (ICB) UPGRADE UPSTREAM DEED AND ASSOCIATED TRANSACTION DOCUMENTS WITH PROJECT T PARTNERSHIP, GBB OPERATIONS PTY LTD AND LW OPERATIONS PTY LIMITED, THAT ARE WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES OF, AND MANAGED BY, TRANSURBAN QUEENSLAND TO FUND AND DELIVER THE ICB UPGRADE, PROVIDE ONGOING OPERATIONS AND INCIDENT RESPONSE AND ROUTINE MAINTENANCE ON THE ICB, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INNOVATIVE PROPOSALS POLICY.

(2) THAT THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER IS EMPOWERED TO FINALISE, SIGN AND MANAGE THE CONTRACT ON COUNCIL’S BEHALF. ADOPTED

Chairman: Councillor CUMMING. 474/2016-17 At that juncture, Councillor Peter CUMMING moved, seconded by Councillor Jared CASSIDY, that the Standing Rules be suspended to allow the moving of the following motion

That the Lord Mayor make available to any Councillor who wishes to view all files relating to the Brisbane City Council internal report into bus driver safety commissioned through AusSafe.

Chairman: Three minutes to urgency, Councillor CUMMING. Councillor CUMMING: Thank you. Thanks, Madam Chair. I asked a question of the LORD MAYOR last week in relation to this report, and twice during his response, he said that, I quote him, he said, ‘Councillor CUMMING I think you could probably find it on file if you asked for it. I'd certainly be happy to make that available if there is any difficulty you have in terms of that report’. At the end of his response he said, ‘So, Madam Chairman, again to the point of Councillor CUMMING's question, we will certainly, if he has requested a file—and I don't know whether he has or he hasn't—but, Madam Chair, I'd be delighted to make that available’. Madam Chair, we took the LORD MAYOR at his word. We put in a request to inspect the file, Madam Chairman, and this afternoon after the meeting started, the response said, ‘sorry the request was for all files relating to the Brisbane City Council's internal report into bus driver safety commissioned through a company called AusSafe’— Councillor MURPHY: Point of order, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Point of order Councillor MURPHY.

Councillor MURPHY: Councillor CUMMING has a task which is to establish urgency within three minutes. He's been speaking for a third of his time and he's yet to even touch on that, Madam Chairman, so I ask that he do that. Chairman: Thank you Councillor MURPHY. Order! Councillor CUMMING was actually relating his request to the LORD MAYOR's statements which, in this case, I deem would be relevant. But Councillor CUMMING, if you can come to the urgency please. Councillor CUMMING: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chairman. DEPUTY MAYOR: Point of order, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Point of order DEPUTY MAYOR. DEPUTY MAYOR: I seek your ruling on the competence of this motion because I have some information which throws light on that. This report is actually not finalised, is in draft form I understand, and neither myself, nor the LORD MAYOR, nor any members of Civic Cabinet have even seen the report. So we're talking about an incomplete report. Chairman: Order! I'll just go back to the—order—I'll just go back to the urgency motion and the urgency motion was that the LORD MAYOR make available to any Councillor who wishes to view the files relating to the Brisbane City Council internal report into bus driver safety commissioned through AusSafe. So this doesn't make reference to whether it's a finalised report or a draft report. If a report is in draft currently, it would in essence not be a report because a draft is not deemed to be a document in the true sense. In that respect, given that there is not a report in existence unfortunately— Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Okay so you—hang on, hang on. You're talking about, in the motion it says the words ‘the Brisbane City Council internal report.’ There is no such internal report in existence at this point. So unfortunately I'm going to have to— Councillor CUMMING: Well, Madam Chair, if I could just say— Chairman: —say that it does rule it incompetent. Councillor CUMMING: —if you read the wording in full it says ‘files relating to the Brisbane City Council's internal report into bus driver safety commissioned through a company called AusSafe.’ Chairman: But at the same time Councillor CUMMING— Councillor CUMMING: Files relating to— Chairman: I know this is getting into a little bit of semantics here, however I'm going to have to draw a line and say you can't have files relating to a report that does not exist. Councillor SUTTON: Point of order, Madam Chair. Chairman: I'm in the middle of making a ruling Councillor SUTTON. Can you just wait until I've— Councillor SUTTON: Okay. Chairman: —I've had enough interjections. I know where both sides are coming from. There may be files which relate to driver safety and I am not disputing that. However, there is not in existence a Brisbane City Council internal report officially. So because this specific report does not exist, unfortunately my ruling is at this point, given the new information provided by the DEPUTY MAYOR, that I will need to rule this incompetent.

So I think I've heard both sides of the argument and committed it to be discussed in that respect. There was that new information. Obviously when the LORD MAYOR was discussing it previously, he was referring to the fact that obviously there will be at some point in the future a report. Now your point of order. Councillor SUTTON: Madam Chair, with your indulgence, could I just provide some further information that may assist. Council's information— Chairman: Sorry, just a moment. If you're going to have conversations, please go out of the Chamber. Councillor SUTTON: Can I just clarify that this was a file request that Labor Councillors lodged independently with the information records, access to records process. They felt that there was enough on the file to actually make a ruling on whether or not we could access that file or not. I guess this is the point that we're trying to do. They have actually assessed our request for a record and they have actually denied that record to us. It is not about the stage of completeness that they have given. The reason that they have given is because ‘the file is protected from release by legal professional privilege and therefore will not be able to be released to you’. So it wasn't an issue like the DEPUTY MAYOR has said about the completeness of the report or otherwise. The reason the file has been denied to us is due to professional legal privilege, which we believe is in direct contradiction to the statements that the LORD MAYOR made last week saying that we could access the file, which is the point that Councillor CUMMING was trying to make— Chairman: Right, I understand where you're going with this. I haven't seen your documentation. I haven't seen the documentation and I was not aware of your request. However, this is more so about me making a ruling on an urgency motion to be debated, and I have made a ruling that we cannot debate something that does not exist. So therefore, the Brisbane City Council internal report, in accordance with what the DEPUTY MAYOR has advised to this Chamber, in his role as Chairman of the Public and Active Transport Committee portfolio area, is that there is not a Brisbane City Council internal report which has been completed into bus driver safety or commissioned through AusSafe. On that basis, at this stage I'm going to rule the urgency motion incompetent. However, I think it would be appropriate for the LORD MAYOR to be given the opportunity to come back to the Chamber at an appropriate time and clarify this matter for you, because he's obviously made some statements and there seems to be some disparity. So, unfortunately we won't be proceeding with that urgency motion. Further debate—

475/2016-17 Councillor Peter CUMMING moved, seconded by Councillor Jared CASSIDY, that the Chairman’s ruling be dissented from. Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion of dissent was declared lost on the voices.

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

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

NOES: 19 - The DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors

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

PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE

DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, Chairman of the Public and Active Transport Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Andrew WINES that the report of that Committee held on 21 March 2017, be adopted.

Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR. DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Look because it's a portfolio matter, I just wanted to clarify this matter that just came up with the motion and the debate. I again say if there's any confusion about this report and the file, it is because there is no report, and it is because neither the LORD MAYOR, nor myself, nor members of Civic Cabinet, have seen any kind of report. We haven't seen a report and we haven't seen a draft report either. So it's understandable that there's speculation about this report because nobody has seen it at the elected level. When that report is finalised, then obviously there's a process in place that it needs to go through within Council, but there is no report. I say again, I haven't seen a report nor have I seen a draft report. If there's anything on the file, more than likely it would relate to a procurement of a contractor to do the report. It wouldn't relate to the report itself, and there would be no report on the file. So by all means you've been given a response today. I haven't seen the file and I have to rely on the advice that you've received from, I assume, the officers at Brisbane City Legal practice, but I have not seen any file nor any reports. So it's a bit hard to see something that doesn't exist. Madam Chairman, moving on, there's some exciting things happening with the Brisbane Metro Project at the moment and I'm pleased to confirm that next week we will see the start of several community information sessions that will be held at various different locations. Those community information— Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Order, order! For the third time, order! DEPUTY MAYOR. DEPUTY MAYOR: Councillors opposite should stop moaning and get on board with the Brisbane Metro project. When are you going to get on board together with the State Government and the Federal Government, because guess what? The people of Brisbane are on board with this project, and you know what, if you don't get on board, you're going to be left behind. You will be left behind just like you were left behind at the 2016 election, and the 2012 election, and the 2008 election, and indeed partially left behind at the 2004 election as well. So when are you going to realise that people want infrastructure projects and public transport projects delivered. They don't want opposition for opposition's sake. They don't want petty point scoring. They want people to get on and deliver. We will continue to do that. It's up to you whether you're on board or not. Brisbane Metro community information sessions will be starting on Tuesday 4 April and they will run through until close to the end of April, through to Thursday 27 April. Now we would love to be able to delay these sessions to some stage in the future for the convenience of Labor Councillors,

[4522 (Ordinary) Meeting – 28 March 2017] - 69 - but ultimately we have a business case to deliver on a certain timeframe, and we need to get on with this process. Now if people are interested in this project, they will certainly have multiple channels to seek that information. They can do so right now and certainly the information sessions are part of that. So we'll be holding these sessions at a range of different locations including the Queen Street Mall, Garden City Library, Holland Park Library, King George Square, the Brisbane Square Library and also the Diana Plaza Hotel at the Gabba. So there's a range of different opportunities along the proposed corridor, or the Metro route, for people to get involved, to come along to find out more about the project, to ask questions and certainly to be brought up to date. We're also in a position where this project continues to grow in terms of the amount of information that is going into the business case, and some very exciting developments have been coming forth in recent times. For example, I can report today that the 60 metro vehicles will all be equipped with free Wi-Fi for passengers. That is something that will be rolled out to benefit those passengers on Brisbane Metro when it's in place. This is something that will be a customer experience or a passenger experience that certainly doesn't exist in our city at the moment. So passengers will not only benefit from significant time savings, they will benefit from faster trips. They will also have a range of different conveniences which they don't have at the moment, such as free Wi-Fi services on the metro vehicles. I think that's just one small but important exciting new part of the project which I'm looking forward to seeing rolled out. Labor Councillors, once they get on board, will be able to access the Wi-Fi as well to update their Facebook and to check their work emails. But this project, as I said, is something that is supported by the Brisbane community. People want us to get on with it. People want us to make it happen. They don't want another project which is simply talked about but never happens. We've seen that, sadly, too much in South East Queensland over the years. That brings me to the report that we had to Committee last week where we heard about the Northern and Eastern Busways. I asked the officers to provide an update on those projects, because I distinctly remember 10 years ago in my office receiving a nice brochure, similar in some ways to the brochure that we received for Cross River Rail recently. That brochure, 10 years ago, talked about the impending construction of the Eastern Busway. It was a great document—I should have brought it along with me—but that document went into great detail about the detailed plans for the Eastern Busway and the benefits that the project will bring. Ten years on, so this was in February 2007, 10 years on, we've had one kilometre of the Eastern Busway built, and it's a 16-kilometre busway corridor. So there are 15 kilometres left to deliver, and meanwhile, in our part of town, the people are scratching their heads wondering when the State Government is going to get on with this project which was announced with much fanfare well over a decade ago, and we were sent detailed information exactly a decade ago. It is just not good enough. So, Metro is not going to be one of those projects, and the only way Metro is not going to happen is if a do-nothing State Government stops it from happening. That's the only way Metro will not happen, because we are determined to make it happen and we are determined to make sure that in the future, when we have the first part of Metro in place, that we can have the Eastern and the Northern Busways in place, as promised by the State Government so that we can roll out further metro services down the track. I'd like to see the two metro lines complemented with an Eastern Metro, and a Northern Metro that goes all the way up through to the Bracken Ridge corridor specified in the Northern Busway plan. The Capalaba link, which is part of the Eastern Busway plan. What's more, there's been long talked about links down to

Springwood extending the South East Busway down to Springwood, which could also accommodate an extension of the Metro down to Springwood. So Metro is a concept and a project that is expandable in the future, but it requires on having the separated and dedicated infrastructure in place to do that. That's where the State Government is letting the team down. Now we always hear that the State Government blames the Federal Government for these projects not happening— ‘the Federal Government won't give us money for Cross River Rail or the busways.’ We heard in the Committee last week that there's never been a business case presented to the Federal Government for the Northern and Eastern Busways. There's no business case. No detailed business case has ever been provided, as far as we can tell, to the Federal Government for those projects. So when the State Government tells you there's no Federal money forthcoming, they're being disingenuous. They haven't actually provided a business case. They haven't actually asked for the money, other than putting their hand out and treating the Federal Government like some kind of dumb ATM machine that will just spit out cash when they type in the right PIN number. Reality is if the State Government wants money from the Federal Government, they need to provide business cases for these projects. If they can't do that, then they won't ever get any money. So I hope that they progress these projects. We've heard some comments in recent times that indicate there's more work being done on projects like the Eastern Busway, or the Eastern Transitway, and projects like the Northern Busway as well. I certainly hope that is the case, so that we can see in the future, extensions of Metro along these new sections of busway. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor KING. Councillor KING: Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise briefly to speak on item A and can I start by saying I am proud to be part of an Administration that delivers infrastructure projects and keeps Brisbane moving forward. Madam Chair, I remember that brochure as well DEPUTY MAYOR. Mine came in 2010 when I got this beautiful brochure about the Northern Busway which cut through Lutwyche Cemetery, which cut through Bradbury Park, which took away the Chermside Bowls Club or affected their greens, which also affected the netball courts at Bradbury Park, dividing a community in two. I remember those public meetings oh so well, standing with my community when the State member at the time was Minister Hinchcliffe, who did not turn up to those public meetings to face his constituency about dividing his community and his area in two. I would like to say, because he probably was a bit conflicted being the Minister for Infrastructure who is supposed to be delivering a project for his own ward, instead of dividing it and smashing it in two. Madam Chair, I was a little bit confused because we know how important the Northern Busway is. Councillor COOPER knows how important the Northern Busway is to the residents on the northside. When I've asked questions about where the Northern Busway is planned out now, because a very sensible government took it away from going through a heritage listed cemetery, going through our sporting fields, going through our parkland, Madam Chair, but this government that's down there at George Street at the moment, they're still working on it. They've been working on this project for years. I fear this project is actually truthfully being put on hold. Oh, and that has been actually verified when you look at the South East Regional Plan because there is no plan for the Northern Busway. They're not even going to think about it for 20 years. But Brisbane, ‘up your population by 47%, but we're not going to put the infrastructure behind it’.

There is no plan for the Northern Busway, which is an absolute disgrace when that Labor State Government down at George Street is telling us to increase population, but not providing the infrastructure behind it. Madam Chair, if those opposite, especially the Opposition Leader, had bothered to read the Infrastructure Plan, he would have realised there were no plans for the extension of the busway on both sides of town, and he would support 100% the delivery of the Metro. Madam Chair, I stand and I will keep pushing for the State Government to actually come clean and deliver State Government infrastructure, especially to the northside of town. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Chairman: Further debate? DEPUTY—Councillor MURPHY. Councillor MURPHY: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, I rise to also speak on item A the Committee presentation which speaks about the Eastern and the Northern Busways and look, Councillor KING is a very tough act to follow, Madam Chairman, because she is absolutely right. When it comes to the level of growth that the State is expecting us to have in Brisbane in infill, and the level of infrastructure spend that they are delivering to keep up with that growth, there couldn't be too more disconnected figures I think in all of Queensland politics at the moment. We are expected to cater for all of this growth, and yet the State is spending less on infrastructure than they were 10 years ago, as Councillor KING said, when this project was last progressed. So particularly in my area, there is a great need for us to see the Eastern Busway progressed, for us to see the mode of transport which carries over 60% of people in this city, advance beyond Buranda. In the Eastern suburbs we actually don't have any State roads. All our roads are Council roads so we don't get those big infrastructure projects that we've seen in the past on some of the State roads like Airportlink, and we don't have those busway corridors. Yes, we have the Cleveland rail line, but that hasn't been upgraded in years, and certainly isn't on the State Government's list to carry any duplication any time soon. We have no major highways, on the south of the city, the north of the city have the State controlled roads and highways. The west has highways. We don't have any highways either so there's a limited scope for the Federal Government to be able to spend money on infrastructure projects. Of course, we have the major growth that is going on all down Old Cleveland Road and along Wynnum Road, and we are the only ones that are building any infrastructure to keep pace with that. So, Madam Chairman, the Eastern Busway, as we know, was meant to be out to Capalaba by 2026 so work would progressively take place. I remember even seeing all the designs and the re-designs of the Carindale transit-oriented development that was going to be the site of the one of the major busway centres. Unfortunately, the project has stopped dead in its tracks at Buranda and we are not seeing it progress any further. Councillor SCHRINNER mused as to why is it not progressing further. I mean this is a $1.7 billion project. It was meant to cost $1.7 billion to get from Buranda all the way to Capalaba. Well Councillor SCHRINNER, I probably have an answer for you there. When you take $465 million to build one kilometre of busway—you can do the maths on that—you're going to run out of that $1.7 billion fairly quickly if you continue overbuilding things like the former State Government did. So it's very understandable that they looked at the figures and said, ‘well, we probably can't build this for anywhere near the amount of money that we have available to us’. The unfortunate thing is that they did resume all the properties ahead of the corridor. Do you remember the Myer Centre? Do you remember the whole Coorparoo centre? All the shops that they shut along there. All the business owners that Councillor CUMMING is talking about—small trucking businesses

—tonight. Well how about the State Government who resumed and shut down all those businesses, small and large, to make way for the busway that they never built. Well, I really feel for them, Madam Chairman, and if it weren't for the fantastic Honeycombes development that's going on at the moment, Coorparoo would be in a very sad state indeed. So fast forward to 2015, we know that the former State LNP Government had a plan to deliver the $50 million transitway system, which obviously was never going to be as good as a dedicated busway, but at least it contained some bus priority measures. It contained some bus priority lanes and jumps at traffic lights. It would have enabled us to progress public transport along Old Cleveland Road a little bit faster. The last time we saw the project rear its head again was during the Council election, where the then Labor Opposition decided that they were going to take over a State Government project and throw less money at it again, which was then revised down from $50 million to $15 million. So I don't know what kind of bang for your buck you would have got there, but then obviously they didn't get elected. So then what the State Government did was they decided, ‘well we're going to put the nail in the Eastern Busway altogether’, and they actually removed it from their infrastructure plan. It disappeared from their website. As far as we were concerned, the Eastern Busway was vaporised. It was never going to happen. This is despite it still being listed as a priority on Infrastructure Australia's website. I wonder what project is missing from Infrastructure Australia's website? Could that be Cross River Rail which isn't even on there, and yet the State Government were willing to take off a project that was actually listed on there, prioritised by the South East Queensland Council of Mayors, and was one of the ‘Magnificent 7’ projects. So that project got vaporised and all we've seen from the State Government is talk about Cross River Rail. Lots of talk about Cross River Rail as Councillor SCHRINNER said. Lots of glossy brochures that go all the way out to Currumbin and up to Noosa to talk about a rail project in Brisbane and nothing, nothing about the Eastern Busway. That was until Councillor SCHRINNER put the Eastern Busway on the radar just over a year ago now, Madam Chairman, with his petition which was signed by thousands of residents across the eastside, and as far out as the Redlands and Logan. He has put the Eastern Busway back on the agenda which is a great win for the residents of my area, and a great win for all residents that catch buses in the eastern suburbs. At that time, 6.03pm, the Deputy Chairman, Councillor Vicki HOWARD, assumed the Chair. Councillor MURPHY: Now I know that the holding statement that's been put out is that they're looking at ways in which to redesign the project. They're going to redesign it again, so we know that's what they like to do when they don't have enough money to build a project, they go back and they redesign it again, and again, and again. It seems like the best solution when you can't deliver a project is actually just to continually redesign it. If you re-design it enough, you'll actually put out ever delivering it. I think that's the solution for Cross River Rail which now, they're doing another EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) for Cross River Rail and that's a decade old as well. So you can see a pattern, Madam Deputy Chairman, in how the Labor Party treat projects. Councillor interjecting. Well, you know, I take your interjection about the Brisbane Metro which we announced in 2016, and which I guarantee you we will deliver, because we actually deliver projects on this side of the Chamber, Madam Chairman.

You know, they talk a lot about infrastructure projects. their much-vaunted Tidal Flow System on Coronation Drive, the one green bridge they delivered. They deliver nothing so we won't take lectures from infrastructure from Labor Councillors, because their track record is absolutely atrocious. So look I want to again, Madam Deputy Chairman, just congratulate Councillor SCHRINNER for, even though it is a small victory and I know there's a long way to go, the Eastern Busway is now back on the agenda. A great win for residents and I look forward to continuing to call on the State Government to fund this very important project for our community. Deputy Chairman: Further debate? DEPUTY MAYOR? I'll now put the report.

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

ATTENDANCE:

The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Adrian Schrinner (Chairman), Councillor Andrew Wines (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Jared Cassidy, Ian McKenzie and Kate Richards.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE:

Councillor Peter Cumming.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – UPDATE ON EASTERN AND NORTHERN BUSWAYS 476/2016-17 1. Brendan O’Keeffe, Principal Engineer, Policy and Strategy, Business Improvement and Transport Strategy, Transport Planning and Strategy, Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on the Eastern and Northern Busways. He provided the information below.

2. The strategy for the Brisbane Busway Network was first proposed by Council in 1995, as a 75-kilometre network. The proposal for the network was adopted as policy by the Queensland Government in 1997 in the Integrated Regional Travel Plan. The network currently includes the South East Busway (delivered by the Queensland Government in 2000), the Eleanor Schonell Bridge (delivered by Council in 2006), and the Inner Northern Busway (delivered by the Queensland Government in 2008).

3. The Eastern Busway, Stage 1 was delivered by the Queensland Government in 2009, with the University of Queensland (UQ) Lakes to Buranda section, and in 2011 with the Buranda to Coorparoo section. The Northern Busway was delivered by the Queensland Government in stages, with the King George Square to Roya1 Brisbane and Women’s Hospital section delivered from 2004-09. The Windsor to Kedron section was delivered in 2012, as part of the Airport Link toll road package.

4. As of 2017, only 27 kilometres of the 75-kilometre busway network has been constructed. Mr O’Keeffe presented maps detailing the proposed routes of the Northern and Eastern Busways, and the current missing links in the network. Trends in population growth have indicated that the complete network will be necessary by 2020.

5. Detailed planning and stakeholder and community consultation was completed in 2010 on the proposed Northern Busway, from Kedron to Bracken Ridge. The community consultation focused on the need for a dedicated busway option on Gympie Road between Kedron and Chermside, a new bus interchange at Chermside, dedicated bus lanes from Chermside to Aspley, and on-street sections from Aspley to Bracken Ridge. In 2012 the Queensland Government opted for investigations of bus lanes on

Gympie Road to Carseldine, and there are also ongoing Queensland Government investigations into bus priority and transit stop needs.

6. The ultimate proposal for the Eastern Busway includes a dedicated busway from Main Avenue, Coorparoo, to Capalaba, however approximately 15 kilometres of the busway is yet to be constructed. In relation to the current status of the Eastern Busway, it has been noted that minor elements of the future bus station needed for the route will be incorporated into the redevelopment that is currently occurring in Coorparoo. In 2008 and 2011, submissions were made to Infrastructure Australia (IA) for the Main Avenue to Bennetts Road, Coorparoo section, however the Queensland Government has not released a business case for the project.

7. There are shorter-term proposals for the Eastern Busway including the 2012 submission to IA for the Northern ($66 million) and Eastern ($50 million) TransitWay projects. IA has requested the Queensland Government do further work, including a ‘detailed business case and robust economic analysis’. The Queensland Government has publicly committed to progress the TransitWay, however, in January 2015 there was a change of State Government, which has delayed action.

8. The Eastern and Northern Busways have long been supported by Council, and have been incorporated into Council’s CityShape planning for new growth along transport corridors and transport nodes. Council’s Eastern corridor neighbourhood plan was approved to allow transit-oriented residential growth along the planned Eastern Busway corridor. The busways are also supported by the South East Queensland Council of Mayors, which highlighted the importance of the busways in the 2015-16 Federal advocacy document, A Shared Future: Collaborative Opportunities for South East Queensland.

9. The Queensland Government’s Draft South East Queensland Regional Plan (ShapingSEQ) 2016 document identified that both the Eastern and Northern Busways or other passenger transport trunk corridors were required, however these projects were not listed as priorities in the State Infrastructure Plan (2016), and have not been submitted by the Queensland Government for inclusion on IA’s latest Infrastructure Priority List (as of February 2017).

10. On 8 March 2017, a TransLink spokesman confirmed that planning for the Eastern Busway was being revised, with the Southeast Advertiser stating that “TMR (Department of Transport and Main Roads) is also looking at developing short and medium-term options along Old Cleveland Road, including priority bus lanes.”

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

12. RECOMMENDATION:

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

INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE

Councillor Amanda COOPER, Chairman of the Infrastructure Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Fiona KING, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 21 March 2017, be adopted.

Deputy Chairman: Councillor COOPER. Councillor COOPER: Thank you, Madam Deputy Chair. We had a presentation at Committee last week on school traffic management plans presented by Chris McCahon. It was I think very informative for all of the Committee members, and I would just say to all Councillors in the Chamber, please work with your schools, and encourage your schools to participate in this process. This is something that will be invaluable and we will be urging all schools who ask Council to upgrade infrastructure, to actually work with us, and to prepare a traffic management plan.

We also had a petition in relation to a speed limit review for Montague Road. Happy to make any comments in response to that later. Thank you, Madam Chair. Deputy Chairman: Further debate? Councillor SRI. Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Deputy Chair. I rise to speak on item B which is the petition regarding lowering the speed limit on Montague Road. Councillor COOPER, through you, Madam Deputy Chair, I'd like to unpack a couple of major flaws in the speed limit review process which is the basis of Councillors opposition to lowering the speed limit at this time. I'll then go on to highlight some of the key arguments weighing in favour of dropping the speed limit on Montague Road. So, Council conducted this speed limit review in response to safety concerns raised by a number of local residents and business owners. My general concern is that the speed limit review process which the Queensland Government encourages Council to follow, doesn't necessarily yield sensible outcomes in built up inner city suburbs, particularly in areas that have recently undergone rapid development and transformation. This is in large part because the process doesn't include pedestrian or cyclist counts, and deprioritises the needs and concerns of pedestrians and public transport users. The speed limit review process is in inherently resistant to changes that would improve pedestrian cyclist safety and amenity. It's overly bureaucratised and heavily centralised, and doesn't sufficiently account for local context or the need to prioritise pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users ahead of cars. If we follow this process in the CBD, it would have recommended against dropping speed limits to 40 kilometres an hour. I think all of the Councillors in this place would probably agree that the 40-kilometre an hour speed limit is working pretty well in the CBD, and that if the State Government's review process contradicts that, then the review process itself is flawed. It's also kind of morbid that the review process relies so heavily on crash data as the primary indicator regarding safety. This creates a situation where no matter how dangerous a road is, and no matter how many residents and local residents complain that an area has become more dangerous, Council won't act until after multiple serious crashes have occurred. So I'm not convinced that this speed limit review process should be relied upon by Council as our only tool of analysis in decision making regarding speeds, particularly in areas with lots of pedestrians. However, for the purposes of discussion today, I wanted to raise specific concerns about this particular speed limit review. I hope these concerns will be conveyed to the relevant Council officers and that Councillor COOPER will be good enough to take these concerns in good faith as they're intended. The outcome I'm seeking is that we hold off on responding to this petition until further research has been conducted. An alternative outcome I'd like to see is that this Administration will remain open to conducting another speed limit review in the most dangerous section of Montague Road sometime in the next few months, once newer crash data has become available. The speed limit review report relies heavily on data from two traffic recorders, which recorded both traffic volumes and speed data over a seven-day period. But unfortunately this data is fundamentally flawed due to the poorly thought out locations of the traffic counters. On traffic recorder was positioned right down at the southern end of the road near Cordeaux Street, which is a lower density residential neighbourhood that receives substantially less traffic than the rest of Montague Road. This is just before the approach to Orleigh Park where the road narrows and vehicles slow down to turn onto Orleigh Street. The other traffic recorder was positioned at the very northern end of the review area, immediately before the Jane Street traffic lights. This segment of Montague Road between Jane Street and Vulture Street also receives far less traffic because the majority of vehicles travelling into and out of the peninsular

[4522 (Ordinary) Meeting – 28 March 2017] - 76 - currently turn onto Vulture Street, thereby avoiding the Jane Street intersection altogether. So the independent consultancy has put these recorders in places where there are lower traffic volumes and lower speeds than the most dangerous stretch in the middle of Montague Road. It's a little bit like measuring how fast a bunch of sprinters are running by positioning the speed gun 20 centimetres in front of the starting line. So even though my concerns and the concerns of residents were primarily related to the middle stretch of Montague Road near Victoria Street, the consultancy has measured the vehicle speeds and traffic volumes at the far ends of the road, away from the major trouble spots. My second related concern is that this report doesn't include pedestrian or cyclist counts, even though pedestrian safety issues were the primary trigger for this speed limit review. The report goes into a lot of detail about the number of vehicles per hour and what speeds they were travelling at, but it doesn't make any serious attempt to explore how frequently pedestrians cross the road or where the pedestrians cross most often, which should logically be the focus for this kind of review. The report's failure to focus at all on cyclist safety and comfort is deeply concerning, and again defeats a key purpose of the speed limit review. My third and perhaps most significant objection is that the independent consultants appear to have relied on very out of date crash data in assessing safety concerns. It is particularly problematic because it seems to have been the crash data, as part of the Environment Assessment component of this review, that ticked the balance in favour of retaining the current speed rather than dropping it. The review relied upon crash data from 2007 to 2011, even though this review was conducted at the end of 2016. I'll say that again. It relied upon crash data from 2007 to 2011. This is in spite of the fact that I have repeatedly emphasised to Council how significantly traffic conditions and crash frequencies have changed in the last few years. Back in 2007 Montague Road was a lot safer. There were far fewer cars and far fewer pedestrians. People didn't have to play chicken with semitrailers every time they wanted to get to the bus or the local shops. In the period from 2007 to 2011 there were fewer than 15 significant accidents along Montague Road. Nowadays there are dozens of accidents along Montague Road every year. I'm personally aware of five accidents that have occurred along the Victoria Street stretch since the beginning of January this year. I'm sure there are more that I haven't heard about. I'm extremely sceptical of claims that no relevant crash data from 2011 onwards was available, or that more recent data was not suitable to be relied upon. I know the State Government can be pretty slow to release this sort of information, but a lag of five years is pretty hard to believe. If it really was the case that more recent data was unavailable, it would have been better to exclude crash data from the review altogether, rather than relying on crash statistics that were between five and 10 years old. The Montague Road precinct has changed dramatically in recent years. This area is undergoing a process of rapid densification, with dozens of warehouses and industrial businesses being replaced by high density residential along with commercial uses that generate higher volumes of traffic, both in terms of pedestrians and vehicles, compared to previous land uses. Montague Road includes a range of uses that generate high pedestrian volumes including the CityGlider bus stop, major supermarket, several small supermarkets, commercial offices, major dance schools, and high density residential. I could go on. A large new childcare centre that's currently under construction, and obviously the very popular Davies Park Markets. It's also a key connector to the local primary school and the Riverside Parklands. So the opportunity we have along Montague Road is to create a walkable neighbourhood more reminiscent of

Grey Street at South Bank, with a lively and vibrant streetscape and high volumes of pedestrian and cyclist traffic.

At that time, 6.13pm, the Chairman, Councillor Angela OWEN, resumed the Chair. Councillor SRI: As the West End population grows, we need to make it easier, safer and more comfortable for people to use active transport and public transport rather than relying on private vehicle transport. This will improve local amenity and commerce, and will also allow for larger numbers of commuters to travel in and out of the suburb along Montague Road. The LNP South Brisbane riverside neighbourhood plan reinforces this vision. It says that along Montague Road, retail development and I'm quoting here, ‘retail development street upgrades, landscaping and building design will establish an attractive and comfortable environment for pedestrians’. So it sounds like we all share similar visions for how this road will evolve, and maybe we should be working together to achieve that vision. A crucial and necessary step in this transformation of Montague Road is lowering the speed limit. This will reduce noise and air pollution. It will make the footpaths a more comfortable pedestrian environment. It will improve amenity for the many residents now living in apartments along the road. It will also improve the actual safety and perceived safety for cyclists who ride along this corridor. Dropping the speed limit will make it easier and safer for the vehicles to turn onto Montague Road from side streets and driveways, and will also reduce hassles and safety concerns for CityGlider bus drivers who are pulling out of bus stops. During peak periods, traffic along Montague Road already moves really slowly, and dropping the speed limit is unlikely to have any significant impact on travel times for private vehicles during rush hour. However, it will significantly improve safety for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists throughout the day. In the last two or three years, there's been a significant increase in crashes and near misses along this corridor. The Victoria Street intersection near the ALDI supermarket is a most notorious hot spot for collisions and near misses. Pedestrians of all demographics cross Montague Road on a daily basis, including dozens of school children, people with impaired mobility and people with impaired vision. Thousands of commuters cross Montague Road each day to access CityGlider bus stops, particularly at the Victoria Street intersection. So this isn't a change that costs Council any money. It doesn't cost us any significant amount of money to drop the speed limit, but if Council pushes ahead with the installation of pedestrian refuge islands along Montague Road, which I think is going to happen, it would make sense to drop speed limits at the same time. This is a change that has a lot of community support. It has the support of the local Councillor. The local police station want to see it. I'm really hard pressed to understand why Council would be opposed to dropping the speed limit along this road and I think the only reason is because of that speed limit review process. As I've emphasised, the speed limit review process was deeply flawed. It relied on out of date crash data and poorly positioned traffic recorders. So I implore you Councillor COOPER, think through on this. Maybe we can have another speed limit review in a few months when newer crash data becomes available. Maybe we can have some consultation sessions with residents if that's important to you, but there's really strong support for this. The community wants it, the local businesses want it. I just don't understand why we're turning this straightforward request down. Chairman: Further debate? Nothing further? Councillor COOPER.

Councillor COOPER: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd just like to say in response to the comments made by Councillor SRI that I understand his position. I think all of us as local ward Councillors have streets that we would love the lower speed limit for, but there is a process that everybody, and it's not up to us to treat people differently. There is a consistent process that must be applied to each and every street, each and every road in this city, and that is what the Council officers have done. So there was a specific request by QPS (Queensland Police Service) to have a look at a section of Montague Road. So we actually undertook work. So the investigation was an independent investigation. So it was in line with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, a tongue twister if there ever was one, but it also reviewed WebCrash data. Now we don't get WebCrash data as up to date as we would like, and we have actually been talking with QPS about getting data quicker so that we are able to utilise it. But Council officers can only deal with the information that they are provided from the State Government. I note that the State Government have expressed an intention to improve the flow of that information, so I appreciate that. They have to look at things like road function, road geometry, what the surrounding land use is, the crash history, speed, traffic volume. We also note that this road is utilised by the CityGlider. So it is a key public transport road that actually serves an important function in the whole of the city. So Council officers have gone through the process. It has been independently reviewed. There was actually a recommendation for both sections of Montague Road to be put to 60 kilometres, but Council has actually said one section should be 60 and the section between Drake Street and Orleigh should be more appropriately signed at 50 kilometres per hour. So I disagree with Councillor SRI that Council officers haven't tried to take on board the feedback. They absolutely have. I note that there's a whole lot of work being undertaken in consultation with Councillor SRI to look at improving the safety. There's a local, there's an LATM (Local Area Traffic Management) project that is underway. There will be intersection upgrades. There's a whole range of activity in this particular space to try and improve the safety, because we're not, certainly not burying our head in the sand. We do want to try and make sure we do get good outcomes for local residents. But I also would like to note that Councillor SRI didn't support the budget last year. We allocated funding for lights in Montague Road and Vulture Street intersection. He didn't support that, Madam Chair. So I would suggest Councillor SRI, if you want to see these upgrades for your local community, then you should support the budget process because that is a good opportunity— Councillor SRI: Point of order, Madam Chair. Chairman: Point of order Councillor SRI. Councillor SRI: Claim to be misrepresented. Chairman: Thank you. Councillor COOPER. Councillor COOPER: Well, I fail to see how your comments to, and I note to City South News where you said there was only a small allocation of funding, that that did not meet your standards. I think that that is pretty disappointing. If you don't support the budget, you don't support those projects listed in the budget. Those projects are there to upgrade these sorts of facilitators for your local community. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chairman: Councillor SRI, you claim misrepresentation. Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. Yes, just quickly I'm at pains to emphasise that I was quite supportive of funding being allocated to the Vulture Street/Montague Road intersection, and that by voting against a budget schedule, that doesn't necessarily mean I'm voting against every single item that's been allocated or not —

Chairman: Order! Councillor SRI, a misrepresentation does not permit you to go into further debate. Councillor SRI: No that's fine, Madam Chair, I think I've made my point. Chairman: Thank you, please resume your seat. I will now put the report.

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

ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Amanda Cooper (Chairman), Councillor Fiona King (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Kim Marx, Ryan Murphy and Shayne Sutton.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE:

Councillor Steve Griffiths.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – SCHOOL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLANS 477/2016-17 1. Chris McCahon, Transport Network Operations Manager, Transport Network Operations, Transport Planning and Strategy, Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on School Traffic Management Plans (TMPs). He provided the information below.

2. There are more than 300 physical schools and education centres in Brisbane with a total of 117,116 students enrolled. Each of these locations faces challenges regarding traffic and transport. Council’s Parking Taskforce identified a number of common school travel issues including: school expansions and increased populations; heavy reliance on private motor vehicle travel to and from schools; concerns with traffic congestion and delays; parking demand pressures; driver behaviour issues; student safety concerns; and a high number of infrastructure requests.

3. To address traffic issues, the Parking Taskforce recommended further investment into school safety, the rollout of standardised ‘drop and go’ signage, and each school implement a TMP and include off-street parking in their future expansion plans. A trial of driver behaviour monitoring cameras was also recommended.

4. A TMP contains information about where to get help and assistance, tracks the rules that schools have asked parents and carers to follow, and helps a school to monitor its actions and initiatives. It also provides comprehensive lists of solutions to common traffic problems, documents where loading zones, parking areas, crossing facilities and footpaths are located, and highlights alternative travel options.

5. Council provides each participating school with a TMP template and guides the process of: documenting existing traffic management arrangements; identifying emerging issues; developing actions and putting them into practice; and monitoring the plan’s progress. Over time, changes can be made to the TMP where necessary.

6. The TMP template has been provided to 87 schools, 23 of which have returned a completed plan. Council is currently working with an additional 25 schools to develop their TMPs and assist with solutions to address emerging issues.

7. A diagram and photograph of an enhanced school ‘drop and go’ zone were shown. These zones feature a standard LOADING ZONE sign accompanied by a white and green SCHOOL LOADING ZONE sign, both mounted on a white and green striped pole.

8. An example of data collected by driver behaviour monitoring cameras was displayed. The data illustrated that vehicles begin to arrive at approximately 2.45pm to pick up students. This results in parking congestion because the majority of students do not arrive to be collected until 3.05–3.10pm. DRIVER BEHAVIOUR MONITORING signs are installed to inform drivers that their actions are being recorded.

9. Council has received a high level of interest from schools wanting to improve their travel arrangements. Council has implemented a number of upgrades to help address identified issues, and positive feedback has been received from schools about the assistance they received. Schools with completed TMPs have benefited from enhanced ‘drop and go’ zone signage installed by Council.

10. TMPs are part of Council’s suite of school travel and safety programs including Active School Travel, Safe School Travel, Safer Routes to School and Enhanced School Zone Signage. Schools can access information about TMPs by visiting Council’s website and searching ‘School Traffic Management Plans’, calling Council’s Contact Centre, or emailing Council’s Transport Planning and Strategy branch at [email protected]

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

12. RECOMMENDATION:

B PETITION – REQUESTING A SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION ON MONTAGUE ROAD, WEST END CA16/746288 478/2016-17 13. A petition from residents, requesting a reduction of the speed limit from 60 km/h to 40 km/h on Montague Road, West End, between its intersections with Jane Street and Orleigh Street, was received during the Spring Recess 2016.

14. The Manager, Transport Planning and Strategy and Congestion Reduction Unit, Brisbane Infrastructure, provided the following information.

15. The petition contains 105 signatures; 68 residents live in West End and 37 live in other suburbs in Brisbane.

16. Montague Road, between the intersections of Jane Street and Orleigh Street, is a straight 12-metre wide two-lane road that allows for traffic movement through the suburb, servicing local residents and businesses. Attachment B, submitted on file, shows a locality map of the location. This section of Montague Road is marked with edge line markings and provides for on-street parking on both sides of the road.

17. An edge line is a solid white line that delineates the edge of the traffic lane. When applied on wide roads, the edge line narrows the traffic lanes and allows for through-traffic to be positioned away from the kerb and any parked vehicles. Edge line markings may increase safety for cyclists by providing a separate lane to ride in other than the primary traffic lane.

18. In October 2016, Council requested an independent third party speed limit review on Montague Road, West End, in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Department of Transport and Main Roads’ Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Two sections of Montague Road were analysed for the speed limit review, between Jane Street to Vulture Street, and Vulture Street to Orleigh Street. Speed limit reviews take into account the road function, recorded traffic speeds and volumes, environmental characteristics and crash data. Traffic counts for the speed review were conducted over a seven-day period from Monday 10 October 2016 to Sunday 16 October 2016. The recommendation from the independent third party speed limit review was that Montague Road, between Jane Street and Orleigh Street, should be 60 km/h due to the road characteristics and functionality.

19. Montague Road between Jane Street and Drake Street provides access to local business and traffic movement through the suburb. Experience and research in Australia and overseas has demonstrated that arbitrarily imposed limits that are too low attract poor levels of compliance. Taking into consideration the recommendations of the speed limit review and the assessment of existing speed limits on Montague Road, it is recommended that the current 60 km/h speed limit on Montague Road between Jane Street and Drake Street remain the same.

20. In a separate enquiry that was received at the same time as this petition, the Queensland Police Service (QPS) requested for Council to review the speed signage on Montague Road, to ensure signage was positioned at correct intervals and locations. As part of this review process conducted for QPS, Council identified that 50 km/h speed limit signage in the section of Montague Road between Drake Street and Orleigh Street was missing. Montague Road includes commercial businesses on at least one side of the road, except for the section of Montague Road between Drake Street and Orleigh Street, which is primarily residential with access to private properties only. The southern point of Montague Road where it transitions into Orleigh Street also borders parkland. Due to the adjacent land use and bordering parkland, Council believes it is appropriate to retain the existing speed limit of 50 km/h between Drake Street and Orleigh Street. It is therefore recommended that the missing 50 km/h signage on Montague Road between Drake Street and Orleigh Street is reinstated.

21. In relation to concerns with pedestrian safety, a review of pedestrian crossing infrastructure along Montague Road between Jane Street and Orleigh Street confirmed there is a signalised pedestrian crossing facility at the intersection with Jane Street, and a pedestrian refuge facility located to the south of Raven Street.

22. In addition to these facilities, Council has previously committed to investigate the construction of traffic signals at the intersection of Vulture Street and Montague Road, West End. This facility would further improve pedestrian connectivity and safety across Montague Road. Council is currently in the design process for these traffic signals and subject to approval and funding, construction will commence in the 2017-18 financial year.

23. Investigations in relation to pedestrian connectivity and safety concerns are also underway for the intersection of Victoria Street and Montague Road, West End. This investigation is exploring a number of options, such as restricting vehicle movements from Montague Road into Victoria Street to left-in only, indenting bus stops on Montague Road to allow for a pedestrian refuge island, or installing traffic signals. Once these investigations are complete, Council intends to discuss recommended options with Councillor Jonathan Sri, local Councillor for The Gabba Ward. Options will be listed and prioritised in future Council budgets and considered in line with other citywide priorities of this type.

24. Investigations have also been carried out to assess the opportunities for additional pedestrian refuge facilities along Montague Road. Pedestrian refuge facilities help to improve pedestrian connectivity and safety by enabling pedestrians to cross roads in two parts, while only having to judge gaps in one direction of passing traffic at a time.

25. Locations for pedestrian refuge facilities must be considered carefully, and can be impacted by existing infrastructure such as cross streets, driveways, stormwater drains, kerb build outs and bus stops. Council is currently investigating possible locations for pedestrian refuges and is also in the process of undertaking area-wide consultation with residents and retailers in West End to identify potential improvements to the local road network.

26. Council intends to discuss the outcome of this consultation, including possible locations for pedestrian refuges, with the local Councillor and if these options are supported, works will be listed and prioritised in future Council budgets and considered in line with other citywide priorities of this type.

27. It is recommended that the draft response, as set out in Attachment A, be sent to the head petitioner advising that Council will retain the existing 60 km/h and 50 km/h speed limits on Montague Road between Jane Street and Orleigh Street, and continue with investigations to identify potential pedestrian connectivity and safety improvements for Montague Road.

Consultation

28. Councillor Jonathan Sri, Councillor for The Gabba Ward, has been consulted and does not support the recommendation.

29. Accordingly, the Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed, with Councillor Shayne Sutton abstaining from the vote.

30. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER ADVISING THAT COUNCIL WILL RETAIN THE EXISTING 60 KM/H AND 50 KM/H SPEED LIMITS ON MONTAGUE ROAD BETWEEN JANE STREET AND ORLEIGH STREET, AND CONTINUE WITH INVESTIGATIONS TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS FOR MONTAGUE ROAD.

Attachment A Draft Response

Petition Reference: CA16/746288

Thank you for your petition requesting Council to reduce the speed limit on Montague Road, West End, to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

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

Council will retain the existing 60 km/h and 50 km/h speed limits on Montague Road between Jane Street and Orleigh Street, as an assessment by an independent third party has found they are currently appropriate where they maintain a balance between motorist perception of the speed environment, and an acceptable level of safety and environmental amenity for other road and land users.

Council will also continue with investigations to identify potential pedestrian connectivity and safety improvements for Montague Road. Any identified improvements will be listed, and funding for detailed design and construction work will be considered for inclusion in future Council budget, in line with citywide priorities of this type.

The other petitioners will be informed of this decision.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr Taelor Jorgensen, Senior Transport Network Officer from Council’s Transport Planning and Strategy, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3403 8888. ADOPTED

CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE

Councillor Julian SIMMONDS, Chairman of the City Planning Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Vicki HOWARD, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 21 March 2017, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS, any debate? I will now put the report.

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

ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Julian Simmonds (Chairman), Councillor Vicki Howard (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Adam Allan, Angela Owen, Jonathan Sri and Shayne Sutton.

A DEVELOPMENT APLICATION UNDER SUSTAINABLE PLANNING ACT 2009 (SPA) – DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR A SHOWROOM AND UNDEFINED USE (ELECTRIC VEHICLE SERVICE CENTRE) – 1058 AND 1062 ANN STREET, FORTITUDE VALLEY – THE TRUST COMPANY (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED A004559916 479/2016-17 1. The Acting Team Manager, Development Services North, Development Services, City Planning and Sustainability, reports that a development application was submitted on 12 January 2017 by Cardno on behalf of Geyer Pty Ltd. The application was properly made on 18 January 2017.

Development aspects: Material change of use – development permit General description of proposal: Showroom and undefined use (Electric vehicle service centre) Land in the ownership of: The Trust Company (Australia) Limited Address of the site: 1058 and 1062 Ann Street, Fortitude Valley Described as: Lot 1 on SP143532 and Lot 2 on SP151111 Containing an area of: 15,795 m².

2. This impact-assessable application is over land currently included in the Mixed use (Inner city precinct) zone under Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan). The site is included in the Valley gateway precinct of the Fortitude Valley neighbourhood plan.

3. The proposal involves the re-use of an existing building over 1058 and 1062 Ann Street, Fortitude Valley.

4. Details are summarised below: - showroom (324 m²) – ground floor - electric vehicle service area (443 m²) – ground floor - office/amenity/storage (341 m²) - no increase in gross floor area as the use is located within an existing building - twenty-four exclusive use car parking spaces (including four supercharging stations).

5. The site has street frontages to Ann Street (east), Wickham Street (west) and Murri Way (south). Vehicle access is via existing crossovers from Ann Street and Wickham Street with no new crossovers proposed. Car parking will be provided at the basement and ground levels. The proposed development provides car parking compliant with City Plan.

6. The subject site is located on an entire block between Ann Street, Wickham Street and Murri Way. The site contains the existing ‘homemaker centre’, which is comprised of three buildings made up primarily of commercial/retail uses within the Mixed use zone.

7. The land surrounding the site is located within the Mixed use (Inner city) zone of City Plan. The surrounding land to the north, west, and south is comprised of a mix of uses, primarily commercial/retail in nature. Residential uses are located opposite the subject site fronting Ann Street, within the Emporium development to the south, and within the Light Street precinct to the west. The subject site is within close proximity to the Gasworks development to the north-east, James Street precinct to the south-east and Brunswick Street Mall to the south.

8. The proposal is considered consistent with the overall outcomes of the Mixed use zone code and the Fortitude Valley neighbourhood plan in that it will facilitate an internationally recognised company within the city and will enhance and provide growth to the economy. The low impact electric vehicle servicing use does not conflict with the surrounding locality uses and will provide a showroom for the

display of high quality goods which is consistent with the Valley gateway precinct. The proposal is consistent with the form and scale relative to the Valley gateway precinct.

9. The proposal was subject to impact assessment and public notification was carried out between 9 February and 6 March 2017 in accordance with the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA). No submissions were received.

10. The Councillor for Central Ward, Councillor Vicki Howard, supports the proposal.

11. No referrals were required as part of this application.

12. The Acting Team Manager advises that relevant reports have been obtained to address the assessment criteria and decision process prescribed by SPA appropriately justifying the proposal and outlining reasonable and relevant conditions of the approval.

13. It is recommended that the application be approved, subject to the approved plans and conditions included in the attached Development Approval Package. The Committee agreed unanimously.

14. RECOMMENDATION:

(i) That it be and is hereby resolved that whereas-

(a) A properly made development application was made on 18 January 2017 to the Council pursuant to section 260 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, as follows:

Development aspects: Material change of use – development permit General description of Showroom and undefined use (Electric vehicle proposal: service centre Land in the ownership of: The Trust Company (Australia) Limited Address of the site: 1058 and 1062 Ann Street, Fortitude Valley Described as: Lot 1 on SP143532 and Lot 2 on SP151111 Containing an area of: 15,795 m².

(b) The Council is required to assess the application pursuant to Chapter 6, Part 5, Division 3 and section 314 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, and decide the application under section 324 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.

The Council—

(c) upon consideration of the application and those matters set forth in section 314 and section 324 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 relevant to the application considers that: i. the site is within the Urban Footprint of the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031, and the use is consistent with an Urban Activity ii. the proposal does not cause conflict with the State’s planning policies, planning regulation provisions or regional plan iii. .the proposal is consistent with the general intentions of Brisbane City Plan 2014 iv. the proposal would not create an unreasonable traffic problem, increase a traffic problem or detrimentally affect the efficiency of the road network v. the proposal would not detrimentally affect the amenity of the surrounding area vi. the development can be accommodated within the existing essential infrastructure networks.

(d) Accordingly considers that were reasonable and relevant conditions imposed on the development, it would be appropriate that the proposed development be approved on the subject land

(e) considers that a Brisbane City Council Infrastructure Charges Notice should be issued for the development pursuant to the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 and

Brisbane Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution (No. 5) 2015, for the transport, community purposes and stormwater trunk infrastructure networks.

(ii) Whereas the Council determines as in (i) hereof, THE COUNCIL APPROVES THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION referred to above and subject to the conditions in the attached Development Approval Package and directs that: a) the applicant be advised of the decision b) Queensland Urban Utilities be advised of the decision c) the Councillor for Central Ward, Councillor Vicki Howard, be advised of the decision. ADOPTED

ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE

Councillor David McLACHLAN, Chairman of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Norm WYNDHAM, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 21 March 2017, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor McLACHLAN. Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Three items before us. At item A, the Committee presentation last week was on the Hydrometric Telemetry Network that is an important element, in fact crucial element of our flood preparedness. These are the telemetry stations and repeater stations that provide the raw data, the information that goes through to the Bureau of Meteorology about the volumes of water in our creeks and streams, which is crucial to determining the flood information. So, the activating the early warning alert systems, the flashing warning light systems and the backflow management systems. So, the crucial elements that are required to activate that technology, plus the actions that are taken out on the field, all stems from being able to get accurate information about the volumes of water that are coming down following rain events in the creeks and streams. So that was what the presentation was about, to make sure that our Committee was aware of that data that's provided. A great network across the city, and indeed is replicated beyond our city limits as well in other Council areas. But this is crucial information that's provided to the Bureau of Meteorology that helps us deal with the impacts of flooding and planning the works that are required, both anticipating flooding in the future, and in response to flooding when it occurs. So, it does inform all actions that are taken in the LDCC, the Local Disaster Coordination Centre, during a disaster event, and then for recovery operations after the event. So crucial data, not necessarily terribly exciting but crucial raw data that's provided to make sure that we know, our Council officers know, when to activate equipment and actions to take following a major rain event. There were two petitions considered by the Committee. One requesting that Council not relocate a toilet block in the Downey Street Park. That was a petition that was not supported. The petitioners did not want that toilet block relocated. It makes infinite sense to relocate the toilet block to both modernise it and to provide greater visibility of the toilet. So the petitioners will be so advised. Also a petition requesting the renaming of a park to Packer Place, which is recognising a longstanding family's industrial commitment to that particular area. The business that was run in that area for a long period of time and I think this pays due recognition to the contributions that that family made in this particular area of Brisbane. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Further debate? Nothing further?

I will now put the report.

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

ATTENDANCE:

Councillor David McLachlan (Chairman), Councillor Norm Wyndham (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Steven Huang, Nicole Johnston and Andrew Wines.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE:

Councillor Steve Griffiths.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – HYDROMETRIC TELEMETRY NETWORK 480/2016-17 1. Brany Iezzi, Senior Officer – Engineer, Flood Policy and Planning, Water, Energy and Environmental Systems Team, Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability, City Planning and Sustainability, attended the meeting to provide a presentation on Council’s Hydrometric Telemetry Network (the network). He provided the information below.

2. Council adopts a proactive risk-management approach to dealing with natural hazards including flooding, bushfires and landslides. Risk management balances the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits to the city. The network was established to mitigate the risks of floods and other natural hazards for residents, businesses and properties.

3. The network provides ‘real-time’ data, 24 hours/seven days a week, transmitted by radio signals to FloodWise, which maintains Council’s real-time rainfall and creek water level data for the city.

4. The network consists of 75 self-powered telemetry stations and three repeater stations to strengthen the radio transmission signals; and uses the Enviromon software, provided by the Bureau of Meteorology, which converts the radio signals to simplified digital data.

5. Typical information captured by the network includes rainfall and stream height data for major creeks and the Brisbane River within the city and surrounding Council areas.

6. The information is shared with the Bureau of Meteorology and Council use the real-time data on flood levels for their Early Warning Alert System, Flashing Warning Lights System and Backflow Management System.

7. The network enables Council to obtain and maintain information about the size of a flood event, the amount of rainfall and the frequency of such events. This helps in calibrating real data with flood model output to improve the reliability of model predictions of flood levels.

8. The data from the network also enables historical flood mapping, for example the 2011 flood event levels, which is then used for Council’s Temporary Local Planning Instruments.

9. This information is also provided to Council’s Local Disaster Coordination Centre for use during a disaster event, to enable real-time decisions for disaster operations and recovery.

10. Council has an Asset Management Plan in place to maintain the network’s assets in good working condition. The gauges are maintained once yearly, prior to the storm season and continuous improvements are implemented when necessary. Council has dedicated resources for reactive works; and growth and demand management as needed for the network.

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

12. RECOMMENDATION:

B REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL NOT RELOCATE THE TOILET BLOCK IN DOWNEY STREET PARK, WINDSOR, TO THE STREET-VIEW SIDE OF GREEN TERRACE/NORTHEY STREET, WINDSOR CA16/962405 481/2016-17 13. A petition from residents, requesting that Council not relocate the toilet block in Downey Street Park, Windsor, to the street-view side of Green Terrace/Northey Street, Windsor, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 22 November 2016, by Councillor Andrew Wines, and received.

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

15. The petition contains 14 signatures.

16. The petitioner states that the surrounding properties and security to homes would be negatively impacted as a result of the relocation of the toilet block (Attachment B, submitted on file).

17. Consultation was undertaken with Council’s Connected Communities and the Safety Officer from Lifestyle and Community Services, who advised there was evidence of drug usage in the old Downey Park toilet block. The Safety Officer also advised criminal activity in public spaces occurs more often when the offenders cannot be seen. The repositioning of the new toilet block will provide much more casual surveillance from the playground on Green Terrace and from park visitors.

18. Council’s Asset Services secured funding in Council’s 2016-17 capital program to replace the old toilet block. The old toilet block did not meet Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) guidelines and with the increasing usage of Brisbane Women’s Hockey Association and Downey Park Netball Association to the area, the new toilet block will be a welcome addition.

19. The new toilet block will have six cubicles, two disabled and four ambulant. This will assist with catering for the netball and hockey clubs’ extra patronage.

20. It is recommended to advise the head petitioner that Council will proceed with the relocation of the toilet block to the street-view side of Green Terrace/Northey Street, Windsor, as it will benefit the local community and clubs by moving it to a more safe and accessible location.

Funding

21. Funds are available in Council’s 2016-17 capital program.

Consultation

22. Councillor Andrew Wines, Councillor for Enoggera Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

Customer impact

23. The recommendation will provide a more safe and accessible location for residents.

24. The Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.

25. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER, ADVISING THAT COUNCIL WILL PROCEED WITH THE RELOCATION OF THE TOILET BLOCK TO THE STREET-VIEW SIDE OF GREEN TERRACE/NORTHEY STREET, WINDSOR, AS IT WILL BENEFIT THE LOCAL COMMUNITY AND CLUBS BY MOVING IT TO A MORE SAFE AND ACCESSIBLE LOCATION.

Thank you for your petition requesting that Council not relocate the toilet block in Downey Street Park, Windsor, to the street-view side of Green Terrace/Northey Street, Windsor.

Council has completed an on-site investigation and considered your request.

As part of this investigation, Council took into account the impact of the placement of the new toilet block on surrounding residents and their homes and ensured that it complied with Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) guidelines to discourage criminal activity.

Criminal activity in public spaces occurs more often when the offenders cannot be seen. The repositioning of the new toilet will provide more casual surveillance from the playground on Green Terrace and from park visitors.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Brian Lowe, Regional Coordinator Parks, Asset Services Central Region, Field Services Group, Brisbane Infrastructure on (07) 3403 8888.

Thank you for raising this matter. ADOPTED

C PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL RENAME BENEKE STREET PARK, ON THE NORTH-EAST CORNER OF THE HAMILTON AND WEBSTER ROADS ROUNDABOUT, TO ‘PACKER PLACE’ CA17/97818 482/2016-17 26. A petition from residents, requesting that Council rename Beneke Street Park, on the north-east corner of the Hamilton and Webster Roads roundabout, to ‘Packer Place’, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 7 February 2017, by Councillor Adam Allan on behalf of Councillor Fiona King, and received.

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

29. A map showing the section of land adjoining Beneke Street Park as road reserve is available on file as Attachment B. Council’s Roads and Drainage section, Asset Services North Region, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, is supportive of this petition.

30. For 80 years and four generations, the Packer families were involved in the wool scour and tannery business at Downfall Creek, Chermside. During this time they expanded their property, and for the last 30 years owned three sides of the intersection of Hamilton and Webster Roads. The north-eastern

section of the Packer property is now known as ‘Beneke Street Park”. In 1891, when the Packers first opened their Downfall Creek wool scour and tannery, there were dozens of similar businesses throughout the Brisbane area. In the early 1970s, they were one of the last tanners in Brisbane, relocating to Narangba in 1972.

31. As well as being significant local employers, the Packer families were heavily involved in local organisations in the early 20th Century, such as the Chermside Bicycle Club. Additionally, Joseph Packer was an elected representative, serving on the Kedron Shire Council. While the naming of this park would honour the Packer families, it would also be a tribute to the many employees who helped make Packer’s tannery a success. According to Lindsay Packer, most of them lived in the surrounding area.

32. This petition has the support of the Chermside and District Historical Society as well as the Packer families.

33. It is recommended that the draft response, as set out in Attachment A, be sent to the head petitioner, advising that Council supports their request to rename Beneke Street Park at 583 Hamilton Road, Chermside, to ‘Packer Place’.

Funding

34. Funds are available for the park name sign from Asset Services North Region, 2016-17 recurrent budget

Consultation

35. Councillor Fiona King, Councillor for Marchant Ward, has been consulted and supports the recommendation.

36. The Executive Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.

37. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER, ADVISING THAT COUNCIL SUPPORTS THEIR REQUEST TO RENAME BENEKE STREET PARK AT 583 HAMILTON ROAD, CHERMSIDE, TO ‘PACKER PLACE’.

Thank you for your petition requesting that Council rename Beneke Street Park to ‘Packer Place’.

Council has completed an on-site investigation and considered your request.

I am pleased to advise you that Council supports your request to rename Beneke Street Park to ‘Packer Place’.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr Chris Barralet, Parks Officer, Asset Services North Region, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, on (07) 3403 8888.

Thank you for raising this matter. ADOPTED

FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE

Councillor Peter MATIC, Chairman of the Field Services Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Kim MARX, that the report of that Committee held on 21 March 2017, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor MATIC, any debate? I will now put the report.

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

ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Peter Matic (Chairman), Councillor Kim Marx (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Nicole Johnston, Ian McKenzie, Charles Strunk and Steven Toomey.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – QUALITY FACILITY MANAGEMENT 483/2016-17 1. Brad Wilson, Acting Manager, Asset Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure; and Shane MacLeod, Manager, Construction Branch, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on quality facility management. They provided the information below.

2. Council’s facility management involves attending to day-to-day operational issues, working on maintenance programs for more than 300 Council assets and leased sites, and completing projects that align with organisational goals.

3. Facility management involves Council’s Facility Services and Trade Services working closely together.

4. Facility Services’ scope of works includes coordinating and managing programmed maintenance work, identifying and implementing energy efficiency and emission reduction measures, overseeing contract management and delivery, handling asset owner liaison and scoping of works.

5. Trade Services delivers trade-related works with a multi-trade approach, and offers constructability advice to Facility Services.

6. Between July 2016 and January 2017 approximately 8,000 jobs were completed at Council’s assets and leased sites. These sites and assets included: Brisbane Square, Green Square, City Hall; and Council’s entertainment venues, libraries, community halls, golf courses, swimming pools, community housing, suburban depots and ward offices.

7. All work requests come through the Trade Services helpdesk, and are processed within an average 1.2 hours; the KPI for Trade Services is two days. Work requests are classified based on Council’s risk matrix and are attended to by internal staff wherever possible to ensure optimal use of trade staff while excess work and specialist services are delivered through external service providers.

8. Facility Services also manage the annual maintenance program for compliance work, including testing air quality, fire safety, lifts, and electrical and security systems. It also ensures Council buildings maintain their NABERS (National Australian Built Environment Rating System) ratings (Green Star rating).

9. Examples of work delivered by the teams include: - replacement of air-conditioners at Brisbane Powerhouse - upgrade of mercury halide lighting to energy efficient LED lighting at Acacia Ridge Sports Complex - refurbishment of heritage-listed Spring Hill Baths - installation of remotely programmable multicolour lighting at Mt Coot-tha Botanic Gardens - painting of the Sir Thomas Brisbane Planetarium dome using an elevated work platform - upgrade of lighting in King George Square Car Park - upgrade of the irrigation system at City Botanic Gardens, delivering a more efficient watering solution.

10. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Mr Wilson and Mr MacLeod for their informative presentation.

11. RECOMMENDATION:

LIFESTYLE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE

Councillor Matthew BOURKE, Chairman of the Lifestyle and Community Services Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Steven HUANG, that the report of that Committee held on 21 March 2017, be adopted.

Chairman: Any debate? Councillor CASSIDY. Seriatim - Clause B Councillor Jared CASSIDY requested that Clause B, PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL BAN SMOKING IN KING GEORGE SQUARE, be taken seriatim for voting purposes. Chairman: Thank you. Councillor CASSIDY: I'll just briefly speak on B. It's a petition calling on smoking to be banned in King George Square. I think it's a pretty simple issue and I think one in which all levels of government should play an active role in, in promoting a reduction in the smoking rates of our city. Just over 10 years ago, the smoking rates in Queensland were around 30% or higher, at least 30% and over the last decade, after a concerted effort by government and interested community groups, that has fallen to as low as 13%. So, largely the community accepts measures taken such as banning smoking in particular outdoor areas. We of course already ban it in the Mall and the Albert Street areas of the Mall as well. It's effectively been banned in a lot of streets surrounding King George Square now, with the rules around five metres around the entries to buildings, which has essentially made King George Square the ashtray of the CBD, Madam Chair, as the last place in which people can come and smoke. This is supposed to be a public square. This is supposed to be the people's place, and the doors of that are out into the people's square, and we think it's only appropriate that Council should do anything it can on this health front, and that's what it is. It is an effort to increase our community's health. It's not just about the people smoking themselves. It's about passive smoke and we're encouraging families to come to King George Square for lots of different events, whether they're food truck events or ice skating events or other events that are hired out, and of course Christmas events that people come to this public square, and we think it's appropriate that we lift our game there. There are very simple things that Council Administration could have done, which is outlined in paragraph 21. None of those steps were taken in investigating this. It was all dismissed out of hand, so we will not be supporting the recommendation on this and we Labor Councillors certainly support a ban on smoking in King George Square. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor RICHARDS. Councillor RICHARDS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak today on the Lifestyle and Community Services presentation regarding cemeteries. Madam Chairman, the Brookfield Historical Cemetery and Memorial Gardens currently covers four acres on the corner of Brookfield Road and Gold Creek Road at Brookfield, which is unmanned, yet managed from the Toowong Cemetery.

In terms of when the cemetery opened, it varies from approximately 1868 to some history sites saying it opened in 1882, with the earliest recorded burial found to be that of Emma Logan in October 1876. This cemetery is a burial place with many of the pioneering families in the area, including John Anstead, after whom the suburb of Anstead is named. Also a number of Chinese goldminers of the late 1800s were buried there as well. So the Brookfield Cemetery is significant to the community, which needs to be preserved and maintained in a way that retains our history for many years to come, and this Council in December last year procured an additional 1.3 hectares of land adjacent to the Brookfield Cemetery, which will now support this cemetery with its historical connections to the local pioneers of the western area of Brisbane, and that will continue thanks to this Council. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor BOURKE. Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Just on the petition that we have before us. Look, classic Labor party style—‘let's rush out nanny state. Let's rush out, ban everything’, like they did with the curfew that they then had to backflip on, Madam Chairman. The petition very clearly says that the State has introduced a lot of changes recently when it comes to smoking. There is a lot more smoking bans across the city, and we have diligently to put in place the appropriate signage, we've done education and we've done enforcement, Madam Chairman, to make sure that we're working with those provisions under the legislation, but with this petition before us, it is a wait-and-see. Unlike the Australian Labor Party who like to stop people from doing everything, every time, like it's that old, you know, if it moves, tax it. If it happens, ban it. That's the way, the party way. Madam Chairman, we said we want to see what the impacts of the legislative changes are, and the measures that we've implemented, and then respond as we need to. We don't do knee-jerk reactions like the Labor party do, Madam Chairman. It is a considered and thought-out process. There are already a number of locations in King George Square where you cannot smoke, so around the two restaurants that are there, Madam Chairman, outside the doors of City Hall, near the bus stops, Madam Chairman. There are already a number of restrictions on where people can and can't smoke in King George Square, and the petition response says we want to see what the impacts are, we want to understand those before we do a knee-jerk reaction like Councillor CASSIDY is proposing through his speech that he just made in this place, Madam Chairman. That is the right thing to do, is the considered approach. These people who do choose to smoke, Madam Chairman, are doing so legally. I mean, the government legally allows you to buy cigarettes, the government legally allows you to smoke, Madam Chairman. If the State was so keen to stop people smoking in totality, they would ban it across the whole of the city. Maybe you can talk to your Labor mates and you can implement your ban, Councillor CASSIDY, through your mates in George Street, but we would rather make sure that we're not doing a knee-jerk reaction, and we do understand the full implications before we implement any further restrictions on smoking in the CBD. Chairman: I will now put item A of the report.

Clause A put

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

Chairman: I will now put item B.

Clause B put

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

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

NOES: 5 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Peter CUMMING, and Councillors Jared CASSIDY, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, and Shayne SUTTON.

ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Matthew Bourke (Chairman), Councillor Steven Huang (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Jared Cassidy, Fiona King, Kate Richards and Jonathan Sri.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BRISBANE CITY CEMETERIES 484/2016-17 1. Kent Stroud, Manager, Community Facilities and Venues, Lifestyle and Community Services, attended the meeting to provide a presentation on Council’s Cemeteries. He provided the information below.

2. In October 2015, Council’s Community Facilities and Venues presented to the Lifestyle and Community Services Committee about their vision to activate Council’s cemeteries, particularly the historic cemeteries as cultural and creative precincts.

3. This process began within the Toowong Cemetery, with the introduction of Canon David Garland Place. Toowong is the largest of Council’s historic cemeteries, covering approximately 48.5 hectares, and with 120,000 people believed to be buried within the grounds. Approximately 140 burials take place at the Toowong Cemetery each year.

4. This financial year, work commenced to provide information signage and marketing materials for the cemetery. An example of work that was completed includes the Toowong Cemetery Visitor Map that is now available at the cemetery office. This map assists visitors in exploring the cemetery in general and locating gravestones.

5. Another example of work that was completed is the inclusion of cemetery symbolism signage. These signs were developed following excavation of a variety of headstones that was undertaken during the last two years of Archaeology Week. They provide general information about the types of symbolism used on headstones during the Victorian era.

6. This year, Council will again participate in Archaeology Week, which is the last week of May. The Toowong Cemetery will once again be open to local students as well as the public during an open grave dig on the Saturday of that week.

7. Other signage that will be established at the Toowong Cemetery includes large notable internments and historical sites information maps, new walking tour guided maps, and information signage in one of the historic pavilions located within the cemetery.

8. Council has recently formed a partnership with Ipswich City Council to create a heritage trail for the ‘Babies of Walloon’, the young sisters Bridget and Mary Broderick, who drowned in a waterhole at Walloon and were immortalised in Henry Lawson’s poem The Babies of Walloon, written in 1891. This trail will link the locations of the deaths of the children and the burial locations of their family members, telling the story from the famous poem. As both the children’s parents are buried within the Toowong Cemetery, a small memorial will be established and information signage will be dedicated to this heritage trail. A rendition of the poem, The Babies of Walloon, was recited by Mr Stroud.

9. This year, for the first time Council’s cemeteries will also be hosting a series of events across the Anzac Day period from 21 to 29 April. Primarily this will involve a light installation in Portion 10 or the Soldiers Corner of the Toowong Cemetery, aiming to create a lit immersive space in a significant area of the cemetery. Council’s cemeteries are working with Council’s City of Lights program to deliver this installation.

10. Information about events and activities in the other historic cemeteries along with images was shared.

11. A new memorial to those who served at the Battle of Long Tan was unveiled at the Hemmant Cemetery during the fiftieth anniversary celebrations of the battle in August 2016. Extensions to this memorial are currently being planned, which include a new flagpole and information signage. A new plaque and reflection space will also be finalised at the Mount Gravatt Cemetery by the end of June 2017.

12. In December 2016, Council purchased 1.386 hectares of land adjacent to the Brookfield Cemetery, to increase its options for burial, interment and memorial offerings.

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

14. RECOMMENDATION:

B PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL BAN SMOKING IN KING GEORGE SQUARE CA17/15586 485/2016-17 15. A petition from residents, requesting that Council ban smoking in King George Square, was received during the Summer Recess 2016-17.

16. The Acting Divisional Manager, Lifestyle and Community Services, provided the following information.

18. Smoking in Queensland is regulated under the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Act 1998 (the Act). On 1 September 2016 the Queensland Government amended this legislation to include bans on smoking at a number of outdoor areas, including public transport waiting points, hospital facilities and outdoor pedestrian malls. The changes to the Act created a number of new offence provisions and powers for authorised persons. The new offence provisions are primarily enforced by Environmental Health Officers from the Queensland Government’s Department of Health.

19. Under Brisbane City Plan 2014, King George Square is classified as a park. As such, smoking is not prohibited in King George Square under the Act, other than smoking within five metres of the restaurant lease spaces and the entrance to City Hall, as shown in Attachment A, available on file.

20. When the Act amendments commenced, Council repealed the Smoke Free Places Local Law 2011. The Act provided Council with the ability to self-determine enforceable areas. Following the implementation of the Act, Council’s position was that officers would only enforce smoking bans in extended areas of the Queen Street Mall. This included Adelaide Street (Queen Street Mall side) and Burnett Lane, in addition to Queen Street and Albert Street.

21. The Act now permits local governments to make local laws prohibiting smoking at other outdoor public places and Council will continue to monitor the impact of the new legislation to better understand the implications for the community. If Council decided to pursue the implementation of a local law banning smoking in King George Square in the future, several factors would need to be considered including: - consultation with the Queensland Government - the impact on commercial operating agreements - the impact on commercial lease spaces - the financial impact on Council due to enforcement requirements - relocation of smokers and possible increase in litter, cleaning and congestion.

22. It is recommended that the head petitioner be advised that under the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Act 1998, smoking is prohibited within five metres of the restaurant lease spaces and the entrance to City Hall in King George Square. Further, Council will continue to monitor the impact of the new legislation to better understand the implications for the community.

Consultation

23. Councillor Vicki Howard, Councillor for Central Ward, was consulted and supports the recommendation.

Customer impact

24. The response will not address the petitioners’ concerns.

25. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed, with Councillor Jonathan Sri abstaining from the vote and Councillor Jared Cassidy dissenting.

26. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE HEAD PETITIONER BE ADVISED THAT UNDER THE TOBACCO AND OTHER SMOKING PRODUCTS ACT 1998, SMOKING IS PROHIBITED WITHIN FIVE METRES OF THE RESTAURANT LEASE SPACES AND THE ENTRANCE TO CITY HALL IN KING GEORGE SQUARE. FURTHER, COUNCIL WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE IMPACT OF THE NEW LEGISLATION TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE COMMUNITY. ADOPTED

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Councillor Krista ADAMS, Chairman of the Finance and Economic Development Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Ryan MURPHY, that the report of that Committee held on 21 March 2017, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor ADAMS. Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just briefly on the Committee report last week, we had the feedback from our very first Local Business Partnership Initiative that we've been doing in Stones Corner business strip, which was our pilot area and it's going very, very well. This is a part of our commitment in the last election to roll this out across eight local precincts, Stones Corner, Sandgate, Moorooka, Wynnum, St Lucia, Nundah, Spring Hill and Sunnybank. We have now 12 Wi-Fi hotspots located in Stones Corner. We've been working with the local business groups to come up with ways to invigorate the centre, from increased activation, visitor signage and visual appeal, brand strategy and

digital marketing, and looking forward to the outcomes in future years and working with our other groups across the city. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor ADAMS, anything further? I will now put the report.

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

ATTENDANCE:

Councillor Krista Adams (Chairman), Councillor Ryan Murphy (Deputy Chairman), and Councillors Charles Strunk, Steven Toomey and Norm Wyndham.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE:

Councillor Peter Cumming

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – STONES CORNER: FREE PUBLIC WI-FI AND LOCAL BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE 486/2016-17 1. Shawn Day, Manager, Economic Development, City Planning and Economic Development, City Planning and Sustainability, attended the meeting to provide an update on the Stones Corner free public Wi-Fi and Local Business Partnership Initiative (LBPI). He provided the information below.

2. Council identified the Logan Road, Stones Corner business strip as the pilot area for the LBPI, which is part of Council’s commitment to expand free public Wi-Fi to eight local precincts (Stones Corner, Sandgate, Moorooka, Wynnum, St Lucia, Nundah, Spring Hill and Sunnybank). The LBPI outcome is to build local precincts as destinations for business and employment. Sandgate is the next area identified for an LBPI.

3. The Stones Corner LBPI is driven by the objective of supporting local businesses, creating productive precincts and building a smart, connected Brisbane which is part of the Brisbane 2022 New World City Action Plan.

4. There are twelve public Wi-Fi spots located in Stones Corner. Users get a limit of four hours or 250MB for each time they log in. The number of unique users recorded in February 2017 was 1,251, which is an encouraging result.

5. As part of the Stones Corner LBPI, an online business survey was undertaken with local businesses. Results showed the precinct is in transition and has massive potential. Initially seen as a modest retail and food business area, there is a growing population of professionals in Stones Corner. There is also rapid residential growth, with approximately 2,000 dwellings under construction or approved for construction. There are more than 250 businesses in the Logan Road precinct comprising professional, technical and scientific services, health and social services, finance and insurance. The area only has eight per cent vacancy rate.

6. Through a follow-up workshop, local business owners agreed upon ‘Stones Corner – a vibrant, diverse urban village’ as a destination statement.

7. The workshop and survey also pointed to the need for increased activation, visitor signage, visual appeal (wayfinding signage and shopfronts), community engagement (cross promotion and loyalty offers), brand strategy and digital marketing.

8. Stones Corner’s destination plan implementation has begun and include: - foreign wayfinding signage

- a digital activation workshop facilitated by Telstra - a digital presence workshop led by Brisbane Marketing - activations in the area led by Our Stones Corner (local business group) - a public and personal safety workshop led by Queensland Police Service - an opportunity for tree bud lighting funding.

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

10. RECOMMENDATION:

CONSIDERATION OF NOTIFIED MOTION – PLAYER STREET CONNECTION: (Notified motions are printed as supplied and are not edited) 487/2016-17 The Chairman of Council (Councillor Angela OWEN) then drew the Councillors’ attention to the notified motion listed on the agenda, and called on Councillor Steven HUANG to move the motion. Accordingly, Councillor Steven HUANG moved, seconded by Councillor Amanda COOPER, that—

I move:

That this Council reiterates its call for the State Government to commit to joint funding of the Player Street connection onto Kessels Road, Upper Mt. Gravatt, to enable the project to be progressed in the 2017/18 financial year.

Chairman: Councillor HUANG. Councillor HUANG: Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in here today to ask all Councillors in this Chamber to join me in calling for the State Government to commit to joint funding of the Player Street connection onto Kessels Road, Upper Mount Gravatt, to enable the project to be progressed in the 2017-18 financial year. Madam Chair, it is a very straightforward motion. This motion is aimed at addressing one of the biggest challenges this city and this State are facing, and that is the growing traffic in our major transport corridors. We know that Council allocated money to this project in the budget this year, at least 50% of the funding provided in the future years to deliver this project. Now for Councillors in this Chamber who are not aware, Kessels Road is a State Government-controlled road, and the connection of Player Street is an outcome of the neighbourhood plan which was done in consultation with the State Government. They have been aware of this upgrade project for quite some time, and I would also like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation for the continual support and effort by Mr Ian Walker MP, who is the State Member for Mansfield. Yes, Madam Chair, there are more than 50,000 vehicles using Kessels Road daily, moving people and goods between the airport and the Port of Brisbane to the industrial estates on the westside of our city, including destinations such as Coopers Plains and Acacia Ridge. Residents living along Kessels Road and this corridor have long suffered from the impacts brought to them by the excessive traffic and lack of infrastructure investments on these State-controlled roads. This intersection is one of the major intersections servicing the Garden City Shopping Centre, one of the largest shopping centres in our city and used by thousands of residents and businesses each day. Madam Chair, while the Labor State Government sit on their hands on progressing this project, this

Administration has demonstrated the leadership on making the first step towards addressing the traffic issue that is demanded by our road users and residents. Madam Chair, the Player Street connection proposed by Council will provide an effective solution to ease the traffic on Kessels Road, Mount Gravatt, Capalaba Road and Logan Road intersection, and help improve the efficiency and safety for pedestrians and motorists, and most importantly, for local residents of Upper Mount Gravatt who are having difficulty getting into their local streets. This project will facilitate improved access for motorists and pedestrians. This also gives the State Government an opportunity to make a real contribution to this State's long overdue infrastructure shortage. Madam Chair, any improvements on this corridor will also boost the economic performance of our city and our State. I am advised that the business case on this project shows a BCR, that is benefit-cost ratio, of 5.6. That is well above any infrastructure proposed by the State Government. It is really a win-win solution for all of us. Considering the overwhelming benefits of this project, I urge all Councillors in this Chamber to support this motion. Thank you. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor GRIFFITHS. Councillor GRIFFITHS: Yes, thanks, Madam Chair, and I rise to speak against this motion. What a ridiculous— Councillors interjecting. Councillor GRIFFITHS: What a ridiculous motion. This is just purely a political motion put up to prop up a poor performing State LNP Member, Ian Walker. He has obviously not done anything in his electorate for a long time, and he's finally got some competition and the LNP are worried. So this is the second motion we've seen in as many weeks from Councillor HUANG, and it's about time that he moved some motions and tried to get some resources for his actual community. What we've seen today is a bragging from this Administration they're going to be saving $54 million for infrastructure. Then spend it on infrastructure. You have $54 million in your pocket. Spend it on infrastructure. The piece of infrastructure that needs to be built here is Player Street connection. That is a Council road. Yes it joins a State road, but that is a Council road, a Council connection. What we've had there is significant development that has been approved by this Council. Councillors interjecting. Councillor GRIFFITHS: Why aren't you putting the money that you're taking from those developers who are building those high rises in Mount Gravatt into the community of Mount Gravatt? Why don't we have a strong Councillor there who can actually get this Administration to actually deliver something in the community of Mount Gravatt? This is a really poor performance. This is just a political game. It's not really about taking the issue seriously. This is purely about blaming. We need to see the Councillor, Councillor HUANG, stand up and deliver infrastructure for his community from this Council. I would encourage the Councillor and the LNP Administration to stop playing games, stop standing up for their slack State members and actually get out there and do something for the local community. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor ADAMS. Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. I stand in support of this motion as the former Councillor for this area for eight years and who worked on the neighbourhood plan very closely with the more than competent local State member. If we need to speak about slack State members, it is the Minister for TMR who has

backflipped on this 100%, saying that there was a program in place to make sure that this was fixed, and surprise, surprise, when Council comes with the money, he is missing in action. He— Councillor interjecting. Councillor ADAMS: —wrong email address, that is correct. Maybe it got deleted by accident in the last couple of weeks. This is an absolutely vital infrastructure program that needs to be delivered for the people of Upper Mount Gravatt. I went to these residents seven years ago with a neighbourhood plan. They were comfortable with the rezoning of the principal regional activity centre around Garden City, on the back of the assurance that there would be an intersection upgrade between Player Street through to MacGregor Street. That is across an intersection on the Brisbane Urban Corridor. This is not just a State-controlled road. This is the Brisbane Urban Corridor. What we hear from Councillor GRIFFITHS is that the ratepayers of Brisbane should suck it up and spend their own money on a State Government road to get the job done. Well, we're standing here with our money, and how dare he say that the State should not come to the work that is on their road for the residents of Upper Mount Gravatt. Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Order, order! Councillor GRIFFITHS! Councillor ADAMS: I can't wait to see the responses from the local residents when they're told that Labor are just telling them that they're playing politics. They are caught in their estate. They cannot get out of their homes and their streets. There is a large growing population at Upper Mount Gravatt State School and this is their main way in and out. It is a disgrace that the State Government won't meet the negotiated outcome that we had for this neighbourhood plan. Mark Bailey, MP said he would get this plan supported. When we turned off the turn-right signs into Cremin Street, we blocked in all those residents because it was a State Government condition on the neighbourhood plan. He promised us, ‘this will only be temporary, we would be there to fix up the roads’, and guess what? The people of Upper Mount Gravatt have been let down by the Labor party and this slack State Government that yet again, are not doing enough on infrastructure to deliver on a plan that is less than what they are suggesting in the current South East Queensland Regional Plan. It's a disgrace. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor SUTTON. Councillor SUTTON: Madam Chair, I rise to enter the debate into this. Look, I jumped on PD Online —it's an amazing tool—to have a look at what exactly was said by both parties, because of course, as we all know and hopefully we all acknowledge, that the reason why this intersection upgrade, or this intersection change has occurred is because Council approved a development application over 1-5 Cremin Street, Upper Mount Gravatt and they are right, the State Government did exercise its concurrency agency rights and stipulated conditions on this development approval. Yes, they did condition the no right turns. I can see that, but I'm also interested in this stipulation made by the State Government as a concurrency agency and I quote, ‘the intersection upgrade must be provided by the applicant at no cost to the Department of Transport and Main Roads’. Councillors interjecting. Councillor SUTTON: So, my question right back at you, Councillor HUANG, Councillor SIMMONDS, Councillor ADAMS, through you, Madam Chair, what happened to our development approval conditions package that stipulated that the applicant had to provide this intersection upgrade at no cost to the residents of Brisbane or the State Government? What happened? Well

Councillor SIMMONDS? Sitting there feverishly typing away on your Surface there? Anyone want to give an explanation to that? Madam Chair, with the greatest respect to the Honourable Mr Ian Walker, I do think that this is a political ploy. I do think Mr Walker, who is a very smart man, has found himself a puppet in Brisbane City Council, whose strings he can pull as hard and fast as he likes, and that puppet will dance to whatever tune he gives him. May I suggest, before you try these types of politically loaded stunts here again in this place, that you actually get to know the facts. Now my understanding is the right hand turn is not at all times. It's only in peak periods, or at least that is what the condition the State Government stipulated was for, and I suggest that if there are any future upgrades along this connection to re-establish any kind of road network issues, that you do, this Administration does look at conditioning future development as they are entitled to do under the Sustainable Planning Act, to actually pay and cover the costs of these necessary infrastructure charges. That is why the infrastructure charges regime has been set up and that is what it is there for, and Councillor HUANG, I would like to know whether or not you supported this development application being approved with this condition. My challenge to you is for you to get up and tell the Chamber in your summing up, is whether or not you supported your LNP Council approving this development application with that condition, and whether or not you're prepared to tell your community that that is what you supported. Because when you supported the application, you supported the condition. So don't try to backpedal on that right now. If this Council needs money for infrastructure upgrades that are a consequence of development in the local area, we have an infrastructure charges regime in place. That is the appropriate way that you should seek additional funds and not go after and score cheap political points in the lead up to a State election, where the local LNP State member has got a reduced margin thanks to the redistribution, and has got a very, very good, high profile, local Labor candidate going to give him a run for his money at the next election. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor COOPER. Councillor COOPER: Madam Chair, I'll actually speak to the motion rather than playing silly games as we've heard from the Councillors— Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Order! Councillor COOPER: From the Australia Labor Party. So let's actually look at the matter before us because—and I know, off Councillor CUMMING goes, mumbling away, looking to demolish another house in traditional building character zone. Let's be super clear about what's going on in this city. Okay, we have a lot of roads, a lot of roads. About 5,700 kilometres of those roads—who looks after those? That would be Brisbane City Council. Who has a very tiny, tiny percentage of the roads in our city that they are responsible for? That would be the State Government. So they've got a huge—let's see, we've got about 5,700. They've got about 215 kilometres. So not exactly a huge enterprise for them to maintain, and I would suggest to you that we do more than our fair share. When you look at the expenditure that we undertake each and every day in this city, we are kicking the goals. We are making it happen for the people of Brisbane, and we are delivering infrastructure. Now I note that we've had some commentary and I really do appreciate Councillor ADAMS' commentary about the Mount Gravatt corridor neighbourhood plan. It went out there to the community, extensive consultation, and it was endorsed by the State Labor Government, or by the

State Government. Certainly, they were very clear about their expectations as to what should happen and that included a new road connection from Kessels Road to Player Street. So Kessels Road, State-controlled road, there's currently access through Cremin. The whole position was that Cremin would close, ultimately, long-term objective, and there would be a new road created at Player Street. Now that necessitated land to be acquired. Can developers acquire land for road purposes? No, they cannot. So that premise is absolutely nonsensical as you'd expect from the Australian Labor Party. So in order to do the work that needs to be done, it must be undertaken by either State Government or Council, and Council, because we are, I think, doing the right thing by the community, we've said ‘hey, we'll work together, 50-50. Let's do a deal because let's look at this particular corridor’. There's more than 40,000 vehicle movements on average per day in this corridor. This road has been identified by both the Federal and the State Government as a key freight route in the regional and national road freight network, so not an inconsiderable thing. So the benefits of this upgrade, it's an $11 million upgrade, so significant investment. So, to Kessels Road, this will be to the tune of over $70 million over 20 years. So, considerable benefit to the State Government corridor. So in terms of safety and operational benefits, there will be improvements in travel time. There will be whole range of benefits. There are the WebCrash data, and I note that it's not as current as we'd like, but between 2007 and 2011, there were 17 reported right-turn vehicle accidents to and from Cremin Street, 29 crashes at Kessels Road and MacGregor Street intersection, and 44 crashes at Kessels Road and Logan Road intersection. So Council has got a business case that says if this upgrade goes ahead, up to 75% of those crashes for Kessels and Cremin Street would be prevented, 75%. An extraordinary result in Council's business case. So, we're saying by having safer, more fully controlled right turn to and from Player Street, so not an existing road, a future road to be created based on a land resumption that must occur, this would make a whole range of safety improvements for all users. So cyclists and pedestrians would benefit as well. I note that Councillor SUTTON, she raised, what I say is, a red herring. She talked about an intersection that was required as a condition of development. Councillors interjecting. Councillor COOPER: Yes it was, and it was done because it was Cremin and Kessels. So perhaps you should pay a little bit more attention to detail, because we're talking— Councillors interjecting. Councillor COOPER: She got it wrong, Madam Chair. She got it wrong. We're talking about a new— with respect through you, Madam Chair, to the Councillor who made that comment, I hope that she doesn't make these mistakes again but it's seeming to be a bit of a pattern of behaviour, so she should perhaps read PD Online more accurately because— Councillors interjecting. Councillor COOPER: Because this is a different road we're talking about. So this a project that has significant benefits. All we're asking for the State is to go 50-50. So I think we're doing a fair enough commitment that we are prepared to do. So we've had Council officers write to the Minister's department asking them to jointly fund this safety and traffic upgrade on 22 November, on 27 February, and on 24 March. So we've written and written and written. We have also undertaken a whole range of work. So we've got a preliminary design. We've got a cost estimate. We have got our business case with the BCR and I have to correct Councillor HUANG. It's actually a BCR of 5.9, so even better than the 5.6. So a fantastic outcome and we've got a feasibility case. What more could you possibly want Council to do to try and get this project

undertaken? I think Council has clearly gone above and beyond to try and get this particular project on the radar of the State Labor Government, and I thank the State member who I think is doing a phenomenal job on behalf of his constituents. He is a gentleman and not only is he doing that, but he shows what politicians should be. They are delivering for their community and I'm disappointed to hear the outrageous comments by the Australian Labor Party, but what can you possibly expect from them unfortunately. This is an upgrade that is very much needed. If fact, Minister Bailey himself said on the record, he said in the Southern Star and I quote, on 22 February, so very recently said, I quote, “I understand first-hand the congestion and high traffic volumes at this location, so any proposal will be looked at with priority.” So he's not in any way, shape or form denying that they have certainly a commitment to undertake this project with Council. So Councillor GRIFFITHS' debate was wrong. Councillors interjecting. Councillor COOPER: I hate to disappoint you, Councillor ADAMS, through you, Madam Chair, but yes, again, a bit of a pattern of behaviour that we see. So there is no doubt that the State Government have said that they will work with Council to deliver this project. All we want to know is, we want a written commitment, because we've been stung before by the State Labor Government committing and then all of a sudden, a handshake apparently isn't good enough for those people, so we want in writing, a written commitment to deliver this project. Get it done for the people of Brisbane. We have done everything you could possibly think of to demonstrate the legitimacy of this project. The value of this project is absolutely clear. All we want them to do is get on with it. Get this project up and running so we can deliver what we think needs to be done for the people of Brisbane, particularly the people of Mount Gravatt. This is a Minister who says he knows first-hand how important it is. Well, get your hands out, write a little letter to Council, say we're prepared to do this and stop talking about it. Stop promising the world and delivering nothing for the people of Brisbane. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chairman: Further debate? Councillor HUANG. Councillor HUANG: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to thank all the Councillors who have participated in this debate, especially to Councillor ADAMS and Councillor COOPER, for providing a very detailed background on why this project is so important and why it is so desperately needed for the local residents and the support that has been offered by the State Minister before, but unfortunately we've seen some political element in this debate from Councillor SUTTON, also Councillor GRIFFITHS. To Councillor SUTTON, I must say, it's probably difficult for the other side of the Chamber, probably other than Councillor SRI, to actually acknowledge the right street. We keep seeing that the Councillors on the other side of Chamber have been acknowledging the wrong street in their speeches and yes. Look, I don't think they do that wilfully but if you can double check before you speak next time, that would be good. To Councillor GRIFFITHS, actually when Councillor GRIFFITHS was speaking, I thought he must be running for State Parliament or he's been a State member, because also Councillor GRIFFITHS is not the most thorough Councillor in this Chamber, but he has been much more effective than his counterpart in State Parliament, especially the member for Sunnybank. Yes, but unfortunately he has made his argument political, because this motion is simply to ask the State Government to support a project that is going to provide benefits not only to this Council, but also to this State. As I mentioned, this is a major arterial road that bring businesses to our city, to our State. It's connecting the Port of Brisbane, it's connecting the airport, to places like

Coopers Plains and Acacia Ridge, where that is the heartland of Councillor GRIFFITHS. That's why I thought it should be a bipartisan support that is going to show our strength in this Chamber, that we are united in one voice to make Brisbane a better place and to promote a better economic performance of this State. Unfortunately I saw it has been turned into a political debate by the other side. However I can understand you want to do that for political purposes. Perhaps we will see a new candidate for the State seat of Toohey with Councillor GRIFFITHS and I'm sure that Councillor GRIFFITHS will be a valuable addition to the Labor Party State team because they are so mediocre that you know, we just can't work with. However bringing back to the subject itself, I would like to in here very sincerely ask for the support of all Councillors in this Chamber because by doing this, as Councillor COOPER says, there is a BCR of 5.9. Every dollar we invest in this project is going to bring back 5.9 dollars back to this city, this State. So I would like to end by asking all Councillors to support this motion. Thank you. Chairman: I will now put the motion.

As there was no further debate, the Chairman submitted the motion to the Chamber and it was declared carried on the voices.

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:

Chairman: Councillors, are there any petitions? Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY. Councillor CASSIDY: Thanks, Madam Chair. I have a petition requesting rat running in Aberdeen Parade, Normanhurst Road, Rostrevor and Lyndhurst Roads, Boondall, be addressed by Council. Chairman: Councillor GRIFFITHS. Councillor GRIFFITHS: I present a petition on behalf of Councillor JOHNSTON for lights to be installed at Hyde Road and Cansdale Street, Yeronga. Chairman: Councillor SUTTON. Councillor SUTTON: Thank you, Madam Chair. I present a petition in support, requesting that Council reconstruct the Vectis Street Park Sports Field. Chairman: Councillor SRI. Councillor SRI: Madam Chair, I present a petition from residents of Highgate Hill against the relocation of a bus stop. Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS. Councillor SIMMONDS: Madam Chairman, I present two petitions, one on 2 Holmes Street, Toowong and the other regarding traffic congestion in Jackson Street, Indooroopilly. Chairman: Councillor ADAMS. Councillor ADAMS: Madam Chair, I present a petition from the residents at Caggera House wishing us to clean up a vacant site that is across the street from them in Mount Gravatt. Chairman: Councillor COOPER. Councillor COOPER: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two petitions, one relating to rogue street pods in our street and one relating to—I know—and one relating to an issue within Bald Hills asking for toilets in one of our parks. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chairman: Thank you.

Councillor McLACHLAN. Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I present a petition from residents of Clayfield in relation to a development application in Drane Street, Clayfield. Chairman: Councillor ALLAN. Councillor ALLAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have a petition requesting Council remove a eucalyptus tree in Taylor Street, Virginia. Chairman: Thank you. Councillor MURPHY. Councillor MURPHY: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I present a petition of residents from Murarrie opposing a dog off-leash area being constructed in that area. Chairman: Councillor WINES, may I have a motion for receipt of the petitions please?

488/2016-17 It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Andrew WINES, seconded by Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS, 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 CA17/278196 Jared Cassidy Requesting Council for funding in the 2017-18 budget to address rat running in Aberdeen Parade; Normanhurst, Rostrevor and Lyndhurst Roads, Boondall CA17/278150 Steve Griffiths for Requesting Council install traffic lights, including a green walk Nicole Johnston signal as a priority in the 2017-18 budget, at the intersection of Hyde Road and Cansdale Street, Yeronga CA17/266154 Shayne Sutton Requesting Council to build Vectis Street Park Sports Fields, Norman Park CA17/265267 Jonathan Sri Objecting to the proposed amalgamation of bus stops 1144 and 1145, and relocation of bus stop 1145 in Highgate Hill CA17/254262 Julian Simmonds Objecting to Development Application A004407195 – 2 Holmes Street, Toowong CA17/277959 Julian Simmonds Requesting that Council resolve traffic congestion in Jackson Street, Indooroopilly CA17/265310 Krista Adams Requesting Council for a clean-up of the vacant site at 12 Bothwell Street, Mount Gravatt East CA17/278095 Amanda Cooper Requesting Council to replace nine seedpod bearing non-native trees with non-seedpod bearing native trees in Hartree Court, Bracken Ridge CA17/250277 Amanda Cooper Requesting Council for facilities in the Bald Hills area within Bracken Ridge Ward CA17/260233 David McLachlan Requesting that Council save Mundumburrah, 39-41 Drane Street, Clayfield, and place it on the Heritage Register CA17/254448 Adam Allan Requesting that Council remove a Eucalyptus tree near 19/19A Taylor Street, Virginia CA17/278017 Ryan Murphy Objecting to the off-leash dog park in Evergreen Place Park, Park Hill Estates, Murarrie

GENERAL BUSINESS:

Chairman: Councillors, are there any statements required as the result of a Councillor Conduct Review Panel order? There being no Councillors rising to their feet, Councillors, are there any matters of general business?

Councillor RICHARDS. Councillor RICHARDS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak today about the upcoming Anzac Day Shell Green cricket match held at the Brookfield Showground cricket pitch which has occurred for the past six years. Madam Chairman, while the Pullenvale Ward Anzac Day annual Shell Green game of cricket has become a cornerstone event of our local calendar, our community's links to the Anzac Shell Green cricket game goes all the way back to 1915, inspiring subsequent generations ever since. Hero is a term we increasingly hear associated with our modern day sporting professional. With ever decreasing margins of error separating triumph from disaster, the stakes have never been considered higher for contemporary sporting teams. As such, exceptional sporting performances by our sporting elites are now frequently described as courageous, resilient and tough in the face of competition that is an all-out struggle between teams. Yet nearly 102 years ago, you may be aware of a famous image that was taken of a game of cricket being played at Gallipoli on 17 December 1915. It was some ordinary Australians who decided to play a very ordinary game of backyard cricket. They were not professionals and they were certainly not what you would consider to be sporting elites. Nevertheless, due to the circumstances of this particular game of cricket, the benchmark for using words such as courage, resilience, toughness and indeed heroes, used to define sportsperson is set very high indeed. This game of cricket was played at Gallipoli by members of the Australian Light Horse at the site that was known as Shell Green. It was the only flat piece of dirt at Gallipoli, and was thus denoted as the village green. As a result of the Turkish forces often lobbing the odd bit of ordinance that goes bang into that said green, it was soon baptised as Shell Green. So this original game was played as a diversionary tactic during preparations for the evacuation from the peninsula, but was abandoned due to the Turkish artillery shellfire becoming too intense and landing too close. It is this image of the Gallipoli Shell Green cricket game that has for the past six years come to be traditionally remembered as part of a very special Brisbane Anzac Day commemoration cricket match, that is played at the site of where over 100 years ago, Brookfield locals donated over 1,000 horses to the 2nd Light Horse Regiment that congregated on the oval of the Brookfield Showgrounds where the cricket pitch is now located. In complete contrast, the modern Shell Green game is quickly becoming an important stepping stone by Army Service level cricketers, who often use it as a rite of passage as they strive towards selection in the national Australian cricket team. Madam Chairman, it is this year that the Army Service XI cricketers will be up against their most fierce and determined opposition—the Lord Mayor's XI. As the patron, the LORD MAYOR of Brisbane's team will field six local Brookfield United players, two players from the men's Queensland team, and two women from the Queensland team, and two celebrity players of the LORD MAYOR'S choosing. The awarding of the baggy Shell Green cricket cap to members who play on this day is now a cherished memento of the heroes of the game that was played at Gallipoli, and who fought for our freedom. There is no doubt, Madam Chairman, that on Tuesday 25 April 2017 at 10am at the Brookfield Showgrounds, the community will gather to connect with our returned service persons to share a meal and a tale. I invite all here, and to all in Brisbane to join and celebrate the Lord Mayor's XI and Army Service XI Shell Green cricket match from 11am with the local Sri Lankan community, Cricket Queensland, the 2nd/14th Light Horse Regiment, members of the Queensland Mounted Infantry Historical Re-enactment Group, horses and members of the Brookfield Pony Club, the cricketers and the bugler who plays the Last Post in honour and recognition of the service people who sacrificed their lives, and to the current serving men and

women, it is for you, the courageous resilient heroes that we stand and thank for our freedom. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

489/2016-17 Councillor Kate RICHARDS, moved, seconded by Councillor Steven TOOMEY, that the meeting conclude. Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion was declared carried on the voices.

Councillor SUTTON: Division. Councillors interjecting. Chairman: Division called by Councillor SUTTON—I didn't hear a seconder. Councillors interjecting. The division motion lapsed for want of a seconder. Chairman: So the meeting has now been closed. Councillors, that ends this—order! Councillors, that now ends this session. We will see you all back here after recess. Thank you.

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

Submitted by Councillor Nicole Johnston on 23 March 2017 Q1. How many letters and or flyers did Cr Matic send out in Tennyson Ward in March 2017? Please provide a list by suburb and number?

Q2. What was the cost of Cr Matic’s letter and or flyer’s production including paper, postage and or other distribution costs?

Submitted by Councillor Steve Griffiths on 23 March 2017 Q1. How many complaints about mosquitos were received by Brisbane City Council in 2015/16?

Q2. How many complaints about mosquitos have been received by Brisbane City Council in the current year to date?

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

Submitted by Councillor Steve Griffiths (from meeting on 21 March 2017) Q1. How many complaints about construction noise has Brisbane City Council received in relation to the Kingsford Smith Drive upgrade project.

A1. Please refer to the answer in question two below.

Q2. What is the total number of complaints Brisbane City Council has received in relation to the construction phase of the Kingsford Smith Drive upgrade project.

A2. There have been 27 complaints in relation to the construction phase of the project.

15 of the 27 complaints related to noise specifically.

11 of the 27 complaints have been from the one individual.

Q3. Please provide the top five suburbs from which complaints about the construction phase of the Kingsford Smith Drive upgrade project have come from.

A3. Note: There are only two suburbs where complaints have come from where complainants have chosen to give their suburb information.

1. Hamilton 2. Bulimba

RISING OF COUNCIL: 7.10pm.

PRESENTED: and CONFIRMED

CHAIRMAN

Council officers in attendance:

Robert Southwood (Acting Senior Council and Committee Officer) Emily Blake (Acting Council and Committee Officer) Billy Peers (Personal Support Officer to the Lord Mayor and Council Orderly)

[4522 (Ordinary) Meeting – 28 March 2017]