Docstoc

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Brisbane City Council-ag

Document Sample
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Brisbane City Council-ag Powered By Docstoc
					                                    MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

                                  THE 4344 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL,
                                            HELD AT ROY HARVEY HOUSE,
                                              157 ANN STREET, BRISBANE,
      Dedicated to a better Brisbane            ON TUESDAY 3 MAY 2011
                                                        AT 2PM




MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
The 4344 meeting of the Brisbane City Council,
held at Roy Harvey House
157 Ann Street, Brisbane
on Tuesday 3 May 2011
at 2pm




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



                                                            [4344 (Post Recess) Meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                                   MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

                              THE 4344 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL,
                                        HELD AT ROY HARVEY HOUSE,
                                          157 ANN STREET, BRISBANE,
  Dedicated to a better Brisbane            ON TUESDAY 3 MAY 2011
                                                    AT 2PM



                                                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

MINUTES: ............................................................................................................................................................ 1
   ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (SPECIAL REPORT) ..................................... 1
     A APPROVAL TO APPOINT STEVEN HUANG AS COUNCILLOR FOR THE WARD OF
        MACGREGOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 166(3) OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE ACT 2010
        ................................................................................................................................................................ 3
DECLARATION OF OFFICE – COUNCILLOR STEVEN HUANG: .......................................................... 4

MOTION FOR SUSPENSION OF RULES OF PROCEDURE: ..................................................................... 5

QUESTION TIME: .............................................................................................................................................. 6

NOTATION OF DECISIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE AS
DELEGATE OF THE COUNCIL: ................................................................................................................... 19
   ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (INFORMATION REPORT) ......................... 19
MOTION FOR SUSPENSION OF RULES OF PROCEDURE: ................................................................... 22
       ARESUMPTION OF LAND AT 83, 87 AND 95 TRISTANIA ROAD, CHAPEL HILL; AND 795
        MOGGILL ROAD, KENMORE, FOR THE CUBBERLA CREEK BIKEWAY PROJECT .................... 26
     B UPDATE OF BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL’S PROSECUTION POLICY ............................................ 29
     C VICTORIA PARK GOLF CLUBHOUSE LEASE - SCHIZOPHRENIA FELLOWSHIP OF
        QUEENSLAND ..................................................................................................................................... 30
     D REVIEW OF SENIOR OFFICERS REMUNERATION FRAMEWORK ............................................... 31
   ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE ................................................................... 33
     A RESUMPTION OF LAND SITUATED AT 38 TO 46 FUSCHIA STREET, HEMMANT, FOR PARK
        AND RECREATION GROUND PURPOSES ....................................................................................... 35
     B DELEGATION OF POWERS IN RELATION TO COMMERCIAL LEASES (UNDER SECTION 238
        OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE ACT 2010) ........................................................................................... 37
CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION
COMMITTEE: ................................................................................................................................................... 40
   ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (ADOPTION REPORT)................................ 40
NOTATION OF DECISIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE AS
DELEGATE OF THE COUNCIL: ................................................................................................................... 74
   PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE .............................................................................. 74
     A PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL RE-ROUTE THE 425, 426 AND 428 BUS SERVICES ........ 77
     B PETITION – CALLING ON COUNCIL FOR LOW-KNEELING BUSES TO BE ASSIGNED TO BUS
        ROUTES 326 AND 327......................................................................................................................... 78
   NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE................. 79
     A PETITION – REGISTERING CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE
        PROPOSED CHERMSIDE CENTRE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN ..................................................... 93
     B PETITION – OBJECTING TO THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 64 THIESFIELD
        STREET, FIG TREE POCKET ............................................................................................................. 94
     C PETITION - REQUESTING COUNCIL TO HALT THE RENOVATION WORKS TO THE HOUSE
        LOCATED AT 10 KENILWORTH STREET, SHERWOOD .................................................................. 95




                                                                                                                     [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                               MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

                              THE 4344 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL,
                                        HELD AT ROY HARVEY HOUSE,
                                          157 ANN STREET, BRISBANE,
  Dedicated to a better Brisbane            ON TUESDAY 3 MAY 2011
                                                    AT 2PM


   ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE ...................................................... 97
     A PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL CONSIDER PURCHASING 124 MAUNDRELL
        TERRACE, CHERMSIDE WEST, FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PURPOSES ......................................... 101
     B RENAMING OF PART OF THE PARK COMMONLY KNOWN AS CATALINA PARK LOCATED AT
        MACQUARIE STREET (OPPOSITE BEESTON STREET), TENERIFFE, AS “MACQUARIE STREET
        STEPS” ............................................................................................................................................... 103
   CITY BUSINESSES AND LOCAL ASSETS COMMITTEE ................................................................... 104
     A PETITION – CALLING ON COUNCIL TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY AND CLEANLINESS OF
        FAIRFIELD SKATE PARK ................................................................................................................. 104
     B PETITION – REQUESTING THE REMOVAL OF A EUCALYPTUS TREE AT 34 SALFORD STREET,
        SALISBURY ........................................................................................................................................ 105
   FAMILIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE ................................................................. 106
     A PETITION – REQUESTING THE REMOVAL OF THE BILLBOARD AT 324 VULTURE STREET,
        WOOLLOONGABBA .......................................................................................................................... 112
     B THREE PETITIONS – REQUESTING COUNCIL TO ENFORCE PUBLIC SAFETY AT THE
        DERELICT PROPERTY AT 54 SERVICETON AVENUE, INALA (OLD INALA SKATE RINK) ....... 115
     C PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL TO REDUCE ITS MICROCHIPPING FEES FOR CATS AND
        DOGS AND OFFER LOW-COST MICROCHIPPING DAYS ............................................................ 118
PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS: .............................................................................................................. 122

GENERAL BUSINESS: ................................................................................................................................... 124

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: ..................................... 130




                                                                                                                [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                           MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

                             THE 4344 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL,
                                       HELD AT ROY HARVEY HOUSE,
                                         157 ANN STREET, BRISBANE,
 Dedicated to a better Brisbane            ON TUESDAY 3 MAY 2011
                                                   AT 2PM



PRESENT:
The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Graham QUIRK) – LNP
The Chairman of Council, Councillor Krista ADAMS (Wishart) – LNP

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



OPENING OF MEETING:
The Chairman, Councillor Krista ADAMS, opened the meeting with prayer, and then proceeded with the
business set out in the Agenda.


MINUTES:
                                                                                             835/2010-11
The Minutes of the 4342 and 4343 meetings of Council, held on 29 March 2011 and 7 April 2011, respectively,
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 Fiona KING.

Alteration of order of business in agenda
In accordance with the Meetings Local Law 2001, section 11(2) the LORD MAYOR altered the order of
business set out in the agenda by bringing forward items 4 and 5 (Establishment and Coordination Committee
special report of 27 April 2011 and Declaration of Office for the new councillor for Macgregor Ward) to be the
next items of business.


      ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Special report)

The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Graham QUIRK), Chairman of the Establishment and
Coordination Committee, moved, seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR (Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER), that
the special report of the meeting of that Committee held on 27 April 2011, be adopted.



                                                                           [4344 (Post Recess) Meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                          -2-

Chairman:          LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:        Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. This report represents an historic day for
                   Brisbane. It means that the appointment proposed in this recommendation today
                   will be to introduce Mr Steven Huang as the Councillor for Macgregor Ward.
                   Steven’s appointment, should it be adopted here today by this full Council, will
                   represent the first Asian background-person representative in this Chamber. It is
                   historic in the sense that the City of Brisbane is made up of a very diverse
                   community. I believe that Steven’s appointment here today will better reflect, in
                   a representative sense, that community of a whole that makes Brisbane.
                   As I said before, the City of Brisbane is a place where one in four of our
                   residents was born overseas, and that one in seven, when they go home at night,
                   speak a language other than English. So Steven’s appointment here today will
                   mean that there will be a much more representative Chamber. But he brings to
                   this Chamber representation which will be quintessential Macgregor Ward. It is
                   without doubt, together with Karawatha Ward, the most multiculturally diverse
                   area of this city.
                   Steven Huang is no newcomer to the Macgregor Ward. He has lived at Eight
                   Mile Plains for more than 20 years. He attended the Runcorn State High School
                   and the Runcorn Heights Primary School. He then attended Brisbane Grammar
                   School for the latter part of his education, and went on then to undertake a
                   Masters in Public Administration at the University of Queensland. He has had a
                   diverse background as an editor of the multicultural newspaper, Multicultural
                   Times. He has been engaged with a multiple number of local community
                   organisations over a long period, and has also been very effective in terms of his
                   directorships of the family company businesses for Steven’s family. I trust that
                   this Chamber today will adopt the appointment of Steven Huang as the new
                   Councillor for Macgregor.
Chairman:          Further debate; Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:   Thanks, Madam Chair, and I, too, would like to offer my remarks regarding the
                   appointment of the new Councillor for Macgregor Ward. I note that we did not
                   have a by-election. Here in this case, the LNP was to choose the candidate to
                   become the Councillor in line with the City of Brisbane Act.
                   I recognise the significance of Mr Huang’s appointment. I note that Councillor
                   QUIRK spoke of his long involvement within the LNP and Liberal Party. It has
                   been a long road for him, firstly as a candidate in 1998 for the state seat of
                   Sunnybank, and then also as a state candidate for Mansfield in 2001, and also
                   seeking pre-selection for the federal seat of Ryan in 2004. So, I recognise the
                   considerable experience at other levels of government and other levels of
                   government that he has sought to represent. In 1998, which Councillor QUIRK
                   did not mention, I do want to pay tribute to the fact that he was the only
                   candidate at that election that was given dispensation to preference against One
                   Nation, which is something that, as the only Liberal candidate in the state who
                   was given that dispensation, should be recorded.
                   Of course, I should also note that that was the election where the current LORD
                   MAYOR was also a candidate for the state seat of Mount Gravatt, and I know
                   there must be something in the water with the Lord Mayors of this city in
                   seeking state seats.
Chairman:          Councillor DICK, back to Councillor Huang.
Councillor DICK:   Yes, Madam Chair, and in that election, Councillor QUIRK chose to preference
                   One Nation.
Chairman:          Councillor DICK, as I have just mentioned, back to the report at hand please.
Councillor DICK:   Yes, Madam Chairman, which was a blight obviously on his career.
                   Madam Chair, as Councillor QUIRK said, Mr Huang has had a long
                   involvement on the southside of Brisbane, and I know is well represented by
                   Councillor MacPHERSON, as he resides in the Karawatha Ward and has strong
                   representation on behalf of her. So, Madam Chair, on behalf of Labor


                                                                  [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                      -3-

                               Councillors, we recognise the significance of his appointment, and just like all
                               new Councillors to this place, I know it is a special day for him and his family;
                               and I certainly look forward to working with him as part of the Brisbane City
                               Council team.
Chairman:                      Further debate? Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:           Yes, Madam Chairman, I also rise to welcome the new Councillor for
                               Macgregor Ward, Councillor Huang, to the Chamber today. I have had the
                               pleasure of getting to know the new Councillor over many years through my
                               involvement in the Liberal Party, and it is with some pleasure that, at the time I
                               used to work for the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and the former
                               Attorney-General of Queensland, and at that time, Denver Beanland, also a
                               former Deputy Mayor of this place, spent a bit of time with Steven supporting
                               him and encouraging him to pursue his political goals and aspirations.
                               In my experience, Councillor Huang is a very smart, a very determined and a
                               very capable person. I certainly believe that he brings not only a great deal of
                               hard work and no doubt commitment to the party that he represents to this
                               place—I certainly believe that he is an experienced campaigner, and it is I think
                               finally time that he has been given the opportunity to represent the party after
                               many years of trying. I welcome him to this place today, and I note this morning,
                               when I entered the Parks, Sustainability and Environment Committee, we
                               greeted each other with smiles and happiness, and I certainly hope that, on a
                               personal level, that is something that can continue as long as I am here and he is
                               here.
                               I welcome the new councillor; I wish him every success with his responsibilities
                               on behalf of the constituents of Macgregor Ward. I know that he will be fearless
                               in representing those residents, and I know he will do his very best for them and
                               for our city.
Chairman:                      Any further debate? LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:                    Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I could not help but detect the sarcasm
                               from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I thought it was unwarranted,
                               uncalled for on what ought to be a ceremonial event here today.
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR:                    Madam Chairman, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I close this debate and I
                               hope that this Chamber will give a very warm welcome to Steven Huang, and I
                               wish him a long, fruitful and strong representation life in the ward of Macgregor.
Chairman:                      I will now put the motion.

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

The report read as follows

ATTENDANCE:

The Right Honourable the Lord Mayor (Councillor G Quirk) (Chairman); the Deputy Mayor
(Councillor A Schrinner) (Deputy Chairman); and Councillors A Cooper, G Knapp, P Matic,
D McLachlan, M de Wit and J Simmonds.

         A        APPROVAL TO APPOINT STEVEN HUANG AS COUNCILLOR FOR THE
                  WARD OF MACGREGOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 166(3) OF
                  THE CITY OF BRISBANE ACT 2010
                  137/225/37/1
                                                                                               836/2010-11
1.       The Chief Executive Officer provides the information below.



                                                                              [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                  -4-

2.      Upon the appointment of Councillor Graham Quirk as Lord Mayor at the special meeting of
        Council on 7 April 2011, the office of councillor for MacGregor Ward became vacant.

3.      In this situation, where:
        -        the office of the councillor became vacant in the final part of the Council’s term
                 (more than 36 months after the last quadrennial elections); and
        -        the former councillor was the nominee of a political party,
        the City of Brisbane Act requires Council to seek the nomination of a suitably qualified
        nominee from that political party, and appoint that nominee.

4.      Therefore, on 7 April 2011 the Chief Executive Officer wrote to the State Director of the
        Liberal National Party requesting advice of the name and address of a qualified nominee to
        fill the vacant office.

5.      By letter dated 18 April 2011 (a copy of which is submitted on file), the Liberal National
        Party advised of the nomination of Mr Steven Wen-Yi Huang to fill the vacancy in
        MacGregor Ward.

6.      Mr Huang has provided the CEO with a completed Statutory Declaration confirming his
        qualifications for the position of councillor as per the City of Brisbane Act.

7.      It is therefore recommended that Steven Huang be appointed to fill the vacant office of
        Councillor for MacGregor Ward, in accordance with the provisions of section 166(3) of the
        City of Brisbane Act 2010.

        Implications of proposal

8.      The filling of the vacancy of Councillor for MacGregor Ward will meet the requirements of
        the City of Brisbane Act and ensure that there is continuity of representation for the
        constituents of the Ward.

9.      Accordingly, the Chief Executive Officer submits the following recommendation and the
        Committee agrees.

10.     RECOMMENDATION:

        THAT STEVEN WEN-YI HUANG BE APPOINTED TO FILL THE VACANT
        OFFICE OF COUNCILLOR FOR MACGREGOR WARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH
        THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 166(3) OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE ACT
        2010.
                                                                                             ADOPTED

DECLARATION OF OFFICE – COUNCILLOR STEVEN HUANG:
Chairman:                   Clerk, could you ask Mr Huang to come to the Chambers please?
                            Mr Huang, could you take your seat please beside Councillor
                            OWEN-TAYLOR? Thank you. Congratulations on your appointment. If you
                            could just stand at your place there, I will now call upon the Chief Executive
                            Officer, who is authorised under the City of Brisbane Act, to take the new
                            Councillor’s declaration of office. CEO.
Chief Executive Officer:    Thank you, Madam Chairman. In accordance with the provisions of section
                            169(2) of the City of Brisbane Act 2010, and section 56 of the City of Brisbane
                            Operations Regulation 2010, I will now ask Councillor Huang to make his
                            declaration of office. Councillor, could you please read the declaration?



                                                                         [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                      -5-

Councillor Huang:              I, Steven Wen-Yi Huang, having been appointed as a councillor of the City of
                               Brisbane, declare that I will faithfully and impartially fulfil the duties of the
                               office, in accordance with the local government principles under the City of
                               Brisbane Act 2010, to the best of my judgment and ability.
                               [Applause]
Chief Executive Officer:       Thank you, Councillor. Congratulations on your appointment as the Councillor
                               for the Macgregor Ward. Could you please sign the declarations on your desk?
Chairman:                      Thank you, CEO; congratulations, Councillor Huang. You can now take your
                               rightful place in the Chamber.


MOTION FOR SUSPENSION OF RULES OF PROCEDURE:
                                           837/2010-11
At that juncture, Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON moved, seconded by Councillor Shayne SUTTON, that the
Rules of Procedure be suspended to allow the moving of a motion requiring the CEO of Council, Mr Colin
Jensen, to provide a briefing for Councillors on the proposed flood mini-budget to enable all Councillors to seek
additional information and ask questions about the changes, and defers the third budget review for 24 hours to
allow this briefing to occur.

Chairman:                      Three minutes for urgency, please, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:           Yes, Madam Chairman. In the three minutes I have to show cause why these
                               rules should be suspended to debate this motion, I draw to this Council’s
                               attention that, after receiving the budget papers—late on Thursday afternoon—
                               on Friday morning I asked the CEO of Council, Mr Colin Jensen, for a briefing
                               on the impact of the flood mini-budget on Tennyson Ward, and I thought that it
                               may be of interest to other Councillors. There is a provision in the City of
                               Brisbane Act where the CEO is required to consider requests made by
                               Councillors who are asking for additional information about matters pursuant to
                               issues in their ward. That is under section 171(3) of the City of Brisbane Act.
                               Earlier today, I received an unsigned, impersonal response of about 10 words
                               from the CEO’s office saying it was not normal to give a briefing about these
                               matters. I am astonished that, given the most significant issue that this Council
                               has had to consider in this term, and for a generation, that this Council cannot
                               provide a briefing to all Councillors, or to me, in one of the most flood-affected
                               wards, about the impacts of this flood mini-budget that we are due to consider
                               here today.
                               I believe that it is critically important that this Council ensures that the
                               obligations of the City of Brisbane Act are upheld, and pursuant to
                               section 171(11) that requires the CEO to take all reasonable steps to provide a
                               briefing upon request, that he does so. He has not. This is a reasonable request to
                               ask for further information about one of the most significant matters that this
                               Council will consider. I am appalled that has been rejected out of hand, and that
                               we will have to debate this important matter in Council today with unanswered
                               questions, with a lot of unanswered questions, Madam Chairman.
                               I am flagging that I have referred this matter to the Local Government Minister
                               and I have also referred it to the Ombudsman. It is an offence under the City of
                               Brisbane Act to fail to comply with these sections. I find it outrageous that a
                               simple request for additional information about a critical matter has not even
                               been considered, and that we have to debate it today. I believe that we should be
                               suspending Standing Orders as a matter of urgency today, and this Council, all
                               elected representatives, should be ensuring that the CEO of Council complies
                               with the City of Brisbane Act provisions, and ensures that all councillors who
                               have to debate the financial impacts of the flood budget are given the important
                               information they need to make an informed decision.
Chairman:                      Thank you. Any further debate?


                                                                              [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                        -6-

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

Thereupon, Councillors Nicole JOHNSTON and Shayne SUTTON immediately rose and called for a division,
which resulted in the motion being declared lost.

The voting was as follows:

AYES: 11 -                   The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Shayne SUTTON, and Councillors
                             Helen ABRAHAMS, John CAMPBELL, Peter CUMMING, Milton DICK,
                             Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS, David HINCHLIFFE, Gail MacPHERSON,
                             Victoria NEWTON, and Nicole JOHNSTON.

NOES: 16 -                   The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY
                             MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS,
                             Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Margaret de WIT, Steven HUANG,
                             Fiona KING,    Geraldine KNAPP,    Peter MATIC,        Ian  McKENZIE,
                             David McLACHLAN,         Angela OWEN-TAYLOR,      Julian   SIMMONDS,
                             Andrew WINES, and Norm WYNDHAM.


QUESTION TIME:
Chairman:                       Councillors, are there any questions of the LORD MAYOR or a Chairman of
                                any standing committees? Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR.
                                                                                                          Question 1
Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My question this afternoon is to the LORD
                        MAYOR. In view of the recent announcement by the Queensland Premier
                        concerning the distribution and pricing of water in South East Queensland, what
                        response has Brisbane City Council made to the proposal that councils should
                        once again take responsibility for retail water distribution?
LORD MAYOR:                     Thanks very much, Madam Chairman,                 and    thank     you     Councillor
                                OWEN-TAYLOR. If there is one issue that—
Councillor JOHNSTON:            Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:                       Point of order; Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:            I do not think the new LORD MAYOR has his microphone on.
LORD MAYOR:                     Thank you. If there is one issue that—
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR:                     It is very funny, yes; it is very funny.
                                If there is one issue that all South East Queensland mayors are absolutely united
                                on, it is the issue of water. This Council Chamber also has stated its view over
                                and over again in respect of water. Our concern is the fact that there is a game of
                                blame, which is being carried out and redirecting that blame to local councils in
                                South East Queensland. I might just say that, in the last few days, there have
                                been calls made to CEOs, not only of this Council but of all councils in South
                                East Queensland, in relation to some legislation that is being drafted over water
                                price capping.
                                Councils have not been provided with that legislation. There has been a short
                                briefing and then the legislation was taken away to goodness knows where. The
                                reality is the real cost driver of water in South East Queensland is that of bulk
                                water. There was a substantial cost associated with the setting up of water
                                entities. Some $31 million to set up the water entity of QUU (Queensland Urban
                                Utilities). That was the Brisbane component of that cost. To dismantle it—some
                                would say to unscramble the egg—would be a further cost of $20 million to
                                ratepayers of Brisbane. We—and when I say ‘we’, I am talking about the
                                Council of Mayors—have written to the Premier setting out a number of


                                                                               [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                -7-

                         questions seeking further information around the whole issue of water, and the
                         water retail entities, and we are yet to hear back in relation to those questions.
                         Also, we have, I believe, been promised a meeting with the Premier some two
                         weeks ago, and no further follow-up has taken place in relation to that meeting.
                         We are keen to meet, because we believe that there are things that the State
                         Government can do to mitigate against the enormous increases in bills that
                         consumers in South East Queensland are faced with. One of those, which has
                         been agreed to by this Chamber, is the longer-term repayments on the water
                         assets. We know that the bulk water charge has increased by 141 per cent in the
                         last three years alone. That has been the significant cost driver.
                         The State Government decided to set up a whole range of water entities less than
                         a year ago. Now it seems that they are determined, or at least putting on the
                         table, the dismantling of those very entities that they set up. That will only add to
                         the cost to consumers at this time as I see it. We wait to see what response the
                         State Government gives us in terms of the detail around the questions that we
                         have put forward. I do know this: the one measure that can reduce the cost of
                         water to consumers is by the lengthening of the payback period. That is one
                         thing that can be done today, which will, of course, mean a reduction in cost.
                         The big cost increases in water bills are not in relation to the retail component.
                         They are fairly and squarely for that 141 per cent increase in the bulk water
                         charge. Madam Chairman, and Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR, in particular, I say
                         to you that the Mayors of South East Queensland are absolutely united on this
                         front. We are not going to let go of this issue, and we are asking the State
                         Government to do the fair and reasonable thing. The giving, or the providing of
                         that draft legislation to South East Queensland councils would not be a bad start
                         if they are fair dinkum about an engagement, about a genuine partnership with
                         local government in relation to this issue.
                         The legislation—I do not know why it is that they will not provide a copy. They
                         hand a copy over for half an hour and then take it back. That just seems to me to
                         be a bizarre way of doing things. There was a further meeting this morning at
                         10am in relation to the same issue.
Chairman:                LORD MAYOR, your time has expired. Further questions; Councillor
                         BOURKE.
Councillor BOURKE:       Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. My question is to Councillor de WIT.
Councillor JOHNSTON:     Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Councillor SUTTON:       I was on my feet.
Councillor JOHNSTON:     Point of order—
Chairman:                You were not on your feet before Councillor BOURKE.
Councillor SUTTON:       I was on my feet, Madam Chair.
Councillor:              Point of order.
Chairman:                Councillor SUTTON had the point of order first. Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:       I did not hear—
Chairman:                I suggest you listen to the LORD MAYOR’s questions so you know when they
                         finish. Councillor BOURKE, you have a question?
Councillor JOHNSTON:     Point of order Madam Chairman.
Councillor HINCHLIFFE:   Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:                Point of order; Councillor JOHNSTON. Do not yell at me, please.
Councillor JOHNSTON:     Madam Chairman, I am on my feet calling for a point of order. I refer you to the
                         Meetings Local Law which require you to accept questions going from one side,
                         the Administration side, to the other side, the Opposition side. I refer you to the
                         fact that that is the way you have administered the rules for the past, however
                         long you have been there, and even a matter of weeks ago you refused to allow


                                                                         [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                       -8-

                                me the call because you said you had to go from side to side. That is a law under
                                the Meetings Local Law, and I ask you to respect it.
Chairman:                       Yes, the rules in the Meetings Subordinate Law are that it needs to go from side
                                to side, but you need to be on your feet—
Councillor SUTTON:              Madam Chair, I was—
Chairman:                       —to be recognised. Councillor SUTTON was speaking to Councillor DICK; was
                                not on her feet. Councillor BOURKE had his light on for the question. I have
                                given the question to Councillor BOURKE.
Councillor NEWTON:              Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:                       Listen to the question, Councillor SUTTON; you will know when the LORD
                                MAYOR is finished.
Councillor NEWTON:              Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:                       Point of order, Councillor NEWTON.

Dissent motion
                                                                                                838/2010-11
 Councillor Victoria NEWTON moved, seconded by Councillor Gail MacPHERSON, that the Chairman’s
 ruling be dissented from. Upon being submitted to the meeting the motion of dissent was declared lost on the
 voices.
Thereupon, Councillors Steve GRIFFITHS and Shayne SUTTON immediately rose and called for a division,
which resulted in the motion being declared lost.

The voting was as follows:

AYES: 11 -                   The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Shayne SUTTON, and Councillors
                             Helen ABRAHAMS, John CAMPBELL, Peter CUMMING, Milton DICK,
                             Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS, David HINCHLIFFE, Gail MacPHERSON,
                             Victoria NEWTON, and Nicole JOHNSTON.

NOES: 16 -                   The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY
                             MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS,
                             Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Margaret de WIT, Steven HUANG,
                             Fiona KING,    Geraldine KNAPP,    Peter MATIC,        Ian  McKENZIE,
                             David McLACHLAN,         Angela OWEN-TAYLOR,      Julian   SIMMONDS,
                             Andrew WINES, and Norm WYNDHAM.

Councillor JOHNSTON:            This clearly breaches the rules. You can correct this now, but you know there’s a
                                code of conduct complaint coming this time.
Chairman:                       Yet again, Councillor JOHNSTON, I ask you not to threaten with code of
                                conducts. If you believe there is a breach, put one in. Again, councillors must be
                                on their feet to be recognised for a question. Councillor BOURKE, you—
Councillor CAMPBELL:            Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:                       —were clearly on your feet and there was no one else on their feet.
Councillor CAMPBELL:            Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:                       Would you like a point of order, Councillor CAMPBELL?
Councillor CAMPBELL:            Point of order, Madam Chair. I ask you to refer to the rule that says that they
                                must be standing before you actually obey the rule that says you must take from
                                side to side. Where does it say, in the rule—please quote to me the rule that says
                                you have to be standing to do that, Madam Chair.
Chairman:                       Councillor CAMPBELL, if it wasn’t the recognised tradition in this place to be
                                standing, you would not all jump as soon as somebody was finished. Councillor
                                BOURKE.
Councillor SUTTON:              Point of order, Madam Chair.


                                                                               [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                   -9-

Chairman:                   Councillor SUTTON, I have made my ruling.
Councillor SUTTON:          Point of order, Madam Chair. For clarification, can you please refer to the rule
                            that Councillor JOHNSTON and Councillor CAMPBELL are asking you, for the
                            purposes of clarity in your ruling. Can you please read the rule to the entire
                            Chamber which talks about how questions are meant to be taken in Question
                            Time?
Chairman:                   I accept your argument. What the rule says in the Meetings Subordinate Local
                            Law, but as a Chairman, I select the person who was—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:                   There was no one standing when Councillor BOURKE had his light on except
                            for Councillor BOURKE. Therefore I have called him for the next question.
                            Councillor BOURKE, ask your question please?
Councillor JOHNSTON:        Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:                   Point of order; Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        Just in relation to your ruling then, Madam Chairman, because the CEO has
                            made it clear that you have to put on the record if you do not believe it is correct,
                            I observed Councillor SUTTON on her feet.
Councillor HINCHLIFFE:      Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:                   Point of order; Councillor HINCHLIFFE.
Councillor HINCHLIFFE:      I wish it to be recorded that I also saw Councillor SUTTON on her feet.
Chairman:                   Councillor SUTTON did eventually get to her feet, but not in the time that I had
                            called another Councillor to ask their question. Councillor BOURKE.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:        Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:                   Point of order; Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:        Madam Chair, I would also like it recorded that I saw Councillor SUTTON on
                            her feet and ready to ask the question.
Councillor MacPHERSON:      Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:                   Councillors, I recognise you have already moved dissent in my ruling. Therefore
                            it is on the record that you do not believe me. I take offence that you think I am
                            lying. I have given the question to Councillor BOURKE. Resume your seats.
                            Councillor BOURKE, ask your question please.
Councillor SUTTON:          Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:                   Point of order; Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:          I have another point of clarification about your ruling. You have just ruled that,
                            despite the Meetings Local Law and Subordinate Local Law, and all of the
                            conventions in this place, you have just said that it does not matter what the local
                            laws and the local subordinate laws say in this place, you will choose to rule this
                            meeting in any way you see fit, despite the fact that these local laws are in
                            existence. I just want to clarify that is what you have just ruled?
Chairman:                   You may not make that clear, what you said I have ruled, because you have
                            totally verballed what I have said in this place. As the Chairman, I accept
                            questions from side to side. If there is no further questions from one side, you go
                            to the other side. Councillor SUTTON, in my judgment as chair, I looked at you,
                            you were talking to Councillor DICK; no one else stood. I then turned to
                            Councillor BOURKE who was ready for the question. I offered him the
                            question. You were not on your feet at the time I asked for the question. Then
                            you called out at me. That is how I have made the ruling, and that is how—
Councillor JOHNSTON:        Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:                   —it is staying. Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        Are you aware that you have not applied that same discretionary ruling that you
                            have just told us about when the situation was reversed just a few weeks ago and

                                                                             [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                  - 10 -

                           Councillor McKENZIE, I believe it was, was not on his feet, you ignored me and
                           ignored Councillor SUTTON and waited for Councillor McKENZIE. Madam
                           Chairman, I draw to your attention that not only are you in breach of the
                           Meetings Subordinate Local Law section 1(3), that you are now making an
                           inconsistent discretionary decision against a previous ruling that you have made
                           in this place for the benefit of members of your own political party.
Chairman:                  Councillor JOHNSTON—
Councillor MacPHERSON:     Point of order—
Chairman:                  —I take offence—one point of order at a time, Councillor MacPHERSON. I take
                           offence at the motive that you are imputing in my ruling in this chair. Week after
                           week I come to this place for seven-hours-plus to rule on every little thing that
                           happens in this Chamber—
Councillor interjecting:   That’s your job.
Chairman:                  —and it is my job. Let me finish. If you speak—
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:                  If you continue to speak over me, you will be warned.
Councillor MacPHERSON:     Point of or—
Chairman:                  I am not finished Councillor MacPHERSON, resume your seat.
Councillor MacPHERSON:     You weren’t speaking.
Chairman:                  Resume your seat. I am waiting for silence. Week after week I make the ruling to
                           the best of my ability under the laws and what happens at that point of time. At
                           this point of time, there was no one on their feet; I had called for the question for
                           Councillor BOURKE. That is my ruling. You have moved dissent already.
                           Please let us move on to the question.
Councillor MacPHERSON:     Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:                  Point of order; the next one was Councillor MacPHERSON.
Councillor MacPHERSON:     Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like it recorded in the Minutes that I saw
                           Councillor SUTTON on her feet ready to ask a question.
Councillor JOHNSTON:       Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:                  Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:       Given your clear statements to this Council today that you feel out of your depth
                           and unable to handle this meeting—
Chairman:                  Again—
Councillor JOHNSTON:       I move: that you are removed as Chairperson—
LORD MAYOR:                Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Councillor JOHNSTON:       —of this meeting.
Chairman:                  I refuse—one point of order at a time, thank you, LORD MAYOR; I refuse to
                           again accept the verballing of imputing motive that is coming from those on my
                           left-hand side. It is absolutely outrageous. I have made my ruling. Resume your
                           seat.
Councillor CAMPBELL:       I second the motion.
Chairman:                  Councillor BOURKE.
Councillor JOHNSTON:       Are you saying, Madam Chairman, I cannot move a procedural motion in this
                           place to remove you from the chair—
Chairman:                  Not without a seconder, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:       —as is my right under the Meetings Local Law?
Councillor CAMPBELL:       Seconded, Madam Chair.
Chairman:                  Not without a seconder.

                                                                           [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                   - 11 -

Councillor CAMPBELL:        Seconded, Madam Chair.
Chairman:                   Now it has been seconded.

Motion that the Chairman Leave the Chair
                                                                                             839/2010-11
 Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON moved, seconded by Councillor John CAMPBELL, that the Chairman leave
 the Chair. Upon being submitted to the meeting the motion was declared lost on the voices.


Chairman:                   Councillor BOURKE.
Councillor:                 Division.
Chairman:                   Yet again, too late to your feet. Councillor BOURKE.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor BOURKE:          Madam Chairman—
Chairman:                   Please, ask your question.
                                                                                                       Question 2
Councillor BOURKE:          I have a question for the Chairman of the Infrastructure Committee, Councillor
                            de WIT. What improvements have this Administration undertaken in relation to
                            the construction of footpaths across the city, and are there any alternative
                            approaches to providing this important community infrastructure?
Councillor de WIT:          Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you to Councillor BOURKE for that
                            question. There are two parts to this question: one being what improvements has
                            this Administration undertaken, and the second about alternative approaches.
                            The improvements that this Administration has undertaken have seen a massive
                            increase in the spending on new footpaths in recent years. It has more than
                            doubled between 2008-09 and 2010-11 to where we are now spending
                            $26.6 million in this current financial year on footpaths.
                            We can compare that to our former Labor Administration who, in a five-year
                            period, between 1999 and 2004 spent a grand total of $42 million, half of which
                            was spent in the two years leading up to an election. That means that they only
                            really spent about $6 million a year. Other improvements: former Lord Mayor
                            Campbell Newman and then Deputy Mayor Councillor Graham QUIRK
                            introduced a footpath trust fund for local Councillors. This allows local
                            Councillors to use their local knowledge to best determine where these new
                            footpaths should go. Never happened previously, Madam Chairman.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:                   Order!
Councillor de WIT:          Each Councillor gets an equal amount. When in any previous Administration did
                            that ever happen, that every ward gets an equal amount for the expenditure on
                            new footpaths? This year it is around $320,000. Again, the proof of the
                            improvements in how we have been administering footpaths comes through the
                            footpath injury claims which, in 2003, totalled 460, and they have been
                            progressively falling to only 157 in 2010. So there has been a massive decrease
                            in the number of injury claims across the city.
                            In terms of how we construct the footpaths, the AustRoads standard—that is the
                            Australian standard for footpaths—is a minimum of 1.2-metres wide, and that is
                            quite adequate for your average suburban street. Of course, where you are
                            getting into more built-up areas for your major sports grounds, et cetera, of
                            course with new footpaths, the width of the footpath increases. For example,
                            1.8 metres is the minimum standard in busy built-up areas and shopping
                            precincts, and busy footpaths on main roads now have a minimum width of
                            1.5 metres.
                            If we look at what other approaches have been made, we have heard the Labor
                            Party’s policy on this in recent weeks, and it is quite astounding. First of all they
                            are going to ignore the Australian standards and have minimum footpath width

                                                                            [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                              - 12 -

                       of 1.5 metres, which in some cases is more than is required, but they are going to
                       build $70 million worth of new footpaths at 1.5-metres wide which they say
                       would take you from Brisbane to Rockhampton. It is a pity, Madam Chairman,
                       that they did not do their sums, because at 1.5-metres wide at the current cost per
                       metre of footpath, to go from here to Rockhampton, 646 kilometres, would cost
                       them $121.1 million, somewhat more than the $70 million that they were
                       suggesting.
                       When we look at alternative approaches to building footpaths, I think that is an
                       alternative approach that maybe needs to be re-thought, particularly given that
                       the Labor Party policy is: we are going to reduce debt; we are going to spend
                       more money, but we are going to reduce debt.
                       There is no doubt that the proof is in the pudding. It is not in the words. The
                       proof is there. Under the Newman-Quirk Administration, we have seen a huge
                       improvement in the construction and maintenance of footpaths across this city.
                       There can be no greater proof than looking at those numbers in terms of footpath
                       injury claims, which have seen an absolutely massive decrease over the last
                       seven years. I congratulate my predecessor, now LORD MAYOR
                       Graham QUIRK, in this portfolio, and former Lord Mayor Campbell Newman,
                       for their initiative in vastly improving the footpaths across this city. Thank you.
Chairman:              Further questions; Councillor SUTTON.
                                                                                                  Question 3
Councillor SUTTON:     Thank you; my question is to Councillor QUIRK. At the last Council meeting,
                       Councillor SCHRINNER said it would be up to you to honour the commitment
                       of Campbell Newman that he made to The Courier-Mail on 9 February when he
                       said, ‘This Council had “ruled out rates increases above inflation in the coming
                       years.”’ This was after he knew how much the flood recovery would cost.
                       Councillor QUIRK, was this a genuine promise from your Administration, or
                       will you raise rates above inflation and try to blame someone else like your
                       predecessor?
Chairman:              LORD MAYOR, one moment. I know that you have been in this place for a very
                       long time and everyone knows you as Councillor QUIRK, but he is now LORD
                       MAYOR. Thank you. LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:            Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. The budget will be brought down in June,
                       as it always is, and that will be the time when any decisions will be announced in
                       relation to rate increases. I congratulate the Opposition Leader on having a go. I
                       would probably be doing the same if I was in her position. Can I just say that I
                       am not going to be making any announcements today in relation to rates.
                       I will say this—and I have said this previously: I am very conscious of the fact
                       that the community out there at the moment are doing it tough. That relates not
                       only to the residential community but also some significant components of the
                       business community, small business in particular. Again, I am not going to be
                       making any announcements or giving any indication today what might happen in
                       the budget this year. That will be for another time, another day, and that day will
                       be in June. But again, I certainly do not mind the question; I think it is a question
                       that an Opposition Leader can legitimately ask, but also that the LORD MAYOR
                       of the day can legitimately say that all will be revealed when the budget is
                       brought down.
Chairman:              Further questions; Councillor JOHNSTON.
                                                                                                  Question 4
Councillor JOHNSTON:   Thank you, Madam Chairman. My question is to the new LORD MAYOR. I
                       refer to news reports that Council officers have been threatening to fine flood-
                       affected residents up to $2000 for undertaking urgent and essential repairs to
                       their family homes. Do you support their actions, and if not, and in your own
                       words, as this community is doing it tough, as the new LORD MAYOR of
                       Brisbane, will you give a commitment today that no flood-affected resident will
                       be fined for organising or undertaking repairs in the flood-damaged homes?


                                                                       [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                  - 13 -

LORD MAYOR:                 Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I thank Councillor JOHNSTON for the
                            question. I know the issue that Councillor JOHNSTON raises, and I think it is
                            fair that the Chamber ought to be given some of the facts and circumstances
                            around that. Did Council officers just happen to go out to those particular houses
                            and supposedly, and allegedly, threaten a fine? Well, no, they did not. This
                            matter came about as a result of a complaint from some of Councillor
                            JOHNSTON’s constituents. They were complaints in relation to her neighbours.
                            I am sure that Councillor JOHNSTON—
Councillor JOHNSTON:        Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:                   Point of order; Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        The new LORD MAYOR has just said that these were complaints from my
                            neighbours. I do not believe that my neighbours have complained at all.
Chairman:                   No, Councillor JOHNSTON, I think it was neighbours of the person concerned.
                            LORD MAYOR, is that correct?
LORD MAYOR:                 Madam Chairman, they were constituents of Tennyson Ward; they were
                            neighbours of the people whom the complaints were made in relation to. The
                            Council received complaints from some of Councillor JOHNSTON’s
                            constituents about building work being carried out on the weekend. The strict
                            letter of the law says building working ought not be carried out on the weekends.
                            What I have said in relation to this is that, from my point of view, the way we do
                            things is for one neighbour to have a chat to another neighbour if they have a
                            problem. That is the best, and always the first, recommendation that I make to
                            people. If they cannot work it out between themselves as a local community,
                            then of course Council is brought into the equation.
                            In this case, I understand that the complaining neighbours did not raise the
                            matter with those neighbours that they had a problem with. They came directly
                            to Council. Could Council have issued a fine? Yes, I guess we could have. Did
                            we? No, we did not. I think that the concerns raised by Councillor JOHNSTON
                            are reasonable ones. I think it would have been unreasonable to have fined those
                            residents, and I would hope that we would not see any fining of residents
                            carrying out flood recovery work on weekends occur.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        Thank you.
LORD MAYOR:                 So what happened, the officers did absolutely the 100 per cent right thing in this
                            case. They received a complaint from Councillor JOHNSTON’s constituents;
                            they acted on that complaint by drawing it to the attention of the neighbours that
                            had had the complaint lodged against them, and they did not issue a fine.
                            Council could not have done anything differently in those circumstances. If we
                            had not followed up on the complaint, I am sure that had those people would
                            then have approached Councillor JOHNSTON; Councillor JOHNSTON would
                            have been raising in this Chamber matters of why did not the Council—
Councillor JOHNSTON:        Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:                   Point of order; Councillor JOHNSTON.
LORD MAYOR:                 —follow up her constituents’ complaints?
Councillor JOHNSTON:        Under the Meetings Local Law, it is not appropriate to speculate and to cast
                            adverse imputations about another’s character.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:                   Order!
Councillor JOHNSTON:        The new LORD MAYOR is—
Chairman:                   One moment, Councillor JOHNSTON. Order, Councillors! Thank you,
                            Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        —is suggesting that I might do something to take some sort of punitive action
                            against residents. It is untrue, and it is casting an adverse motive. I would ask
                            that you ask him to withdraw it in line with the Meetings Local Law.

                                                                           [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                              - 14 -

Chairman:              LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:            Madam Chairman, the point I am making is this: on the—
Councillor JOHNSTON:   Madam Chairman, in line with the Meetings Local Law, I would ask that you
                       make a ruling as you are required to do on each point of order that is raised in
                       this place. You are required to rule on it, Madam Chairman, and I would like a
                       ruling.
Chairman:              Thank you, Councillor JOHNSTON. LORD MAYOR, could you clarify your
                       position, please, in light of that point of order?
LORD MAYOR:            Yes, absolutely delighted to, Madam Chairman. The point that I am making is
                       that if this Council receives a complaint, it is duty bound to follow up in relation
                       to the complaint. I think in this case it has handled the matter appropriately and
                       with sensitivity. It has done the right thing. It has not issued a fine. It has simply
                       drawn to the attention of those people undertaking the work that Council had
                       received a complaint, and those people were advised of the legal position in
                       relation to the matter.
                       What I am saying is that any Councillor here would be entitled to get up in this
                       place if Council had received a complaint from residents and it had not been
                       acted upon in some way. That is called customer service, Madam Chairman.
                       That is something that we pride ourselves on. I conclude where I started by
                       saying that my view always is that the best way of dealing with neighbourhood
                       matters of this sort is for neighbours to talk to neighbours. That is always the
                       best way. That, in my view, is the Australian way, and then if it cannot be
                       amicably resolved, certainly government bodies such as this Council can get
                       involved at that stage. We did the right thing. We handled it appropriately, and
                       there were no fines issued.
Chairman:              Councillor WYNDHAM.
                                                                                                   Question 5
Councillor WYNDHAM:    Thank you, Madam Chairman. My question is to Councillor MATIC, the Chair
                       of Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee. In view of the extensive
                       damage to the large number of Brisbane parks in the January flood, what
                       progress has been made in restoring these valuable community assets, how
                       many parks have been repaired and reopened?
Councillor MATIC:      Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor WYNDHAM for the
                       question and the opportunity really to outline to the Chamber the significant
                       progress that Council has undertaken in repairing literally the hundreds of local
                       parks that were damaged in the January flood event. As many Councillors would
                       know, there were round about 406 parks around our city that suffered some
                       degree of damage, and of those, 194 were completely inundated. They suffered
                       major inundation, and they were significantly damaged.
                       We all know within our wards, and for those Councillors that were affected by
                       the flood, the extent of that damage, and that included a significant bank
                       erosion, instability, loss of fencing, loss of bollards, power loss—and when you
                       think about power loss, you think that it might be a small cost. But when you
                       look at Rocks Riverside, for example, just to restore the switchboard in that one
                       park cost $100,000. Those are the kinds of costs that this Council faced in
                       relation to the flood and the damage to our parks.
                       This Administration prioritises our parks. This Administration wanted to make
                       sure that it got on with the job of restoring those parks because they are
                       important hubs to our community. They are an important example of this city
                       getting back to business, of residents being able to get back to their normal lives
                       and having some opportunity to enjoy a park faced with the incredible
                       inundation and damage that residents faced. That is why we threw everything at
                       it. That is why we made the tough decisions to put money towards these
                       projects, because it was our position that we needed to fix the parks that had to
                       be fixed.



                                                                        [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                 - 15 -

                           Rather than fix new parks, we needed to focus our attention in those areas that
                           needed attention right now. That is the tough decision that we made. As the
                           Chairman for Environment, Parks and Sustainability, I do not withdraw from
                           that at all. I am proud to say that this Administration is getting on with the job;
                           this Administration is focused on restoring services to Brisbane residents, and
                           we are doing that.
                           Now, of all of those parks that suffered loss and damage, 79 per cent of those
                           parks are now fully open. That is an enormous tick to this Administration and
                           the Council officers that have dedicated themselves to that task. We have spent,
                           to date, $33 million on bringing those parks up to date. There are still some
                           parks unfortunately that need to be addressed, but we are dealing with those
                           effectively and efficiently. Seven parks at the moment still remain closed—three
                           in Walter Taylor, one in Pullenvale, two in Tennyson and one in Jamboree
                           Ward. Can I say, when I addressed this Chamber on 22 February—
Councillor JOHNSTON:       Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:                  Point of order; Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:       Councillor MATIC is misleading this Chamber. Under the Meetings Local Law,
                           it is disorderly to do that. There are still dozens of parks in Tennyson Ward that
                           are closed when I drove through this morning.
Chairman:                  Councillor MATIC.
Councillor MATIC:          Thank you, Madam Chairman—and the beat goes on. What can you say? We
                           come to this Chamber and we talk here about the serious business of addressing
                           the concerns of residents, and of dealing with the flood in our city, and we get
                           spurious points of order from Councillors who are only here for the sake of
                           politics, opposition for the sake of opposition. We have seen no finer example
                           from Councillors opposite that they have no views, no policies and no position
                           when it comes to dealing with the real issues of this city. We have wasted—
Councillor CAMPBELL:       Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Councillor MATIC:          —vital time today on dealing with—
Councillor CAMPBELL:       Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:                  Point of order, Councillor MATIC; Councillor CAMPBELL.
Councillor CAMPBELL:       Madam Chair, the current speaker is in breach of the local law in that he is
                           arguing the point. He has to actually answer the question according to the local
                           law.
Chairman:                  Councillor CAMPBELL, there was a point of order made against Councillor
                           MATIC which was an incorrect point of order, because there is no such thing as
                           an act of disorder for misleading the Chamber. I think he was responding to
                           further accusations made at him, and I am allowing him to continue at this time.
Councillor CAMPBELL:       Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:                  Point of order; Councillor CAMPBELL.
Councillor CAMPBELL:       Could you please refer to the rule that allows you to do that? There is in actual
                           fact a rule that says you can only address the question; you cannot debate points
                           of order. I ask you to point to which—
Councillor MATIC:          Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:                  One at a time, thank you, Councillor MATIC.
Councillor CAMPBELL:       —rule are you allowing the Councillor to breach that other rule?
Chairman:                  Councillor MATIC was clarifying what had been brought up by Councillor
                           JOHNSTON, so I was allowing the question to continue.
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:                  Councillor MATIC, if you could—



                                                                          [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                - 16 -

Councillor CAMPBELL:     Madam Chair, is that your ruling, that he is allowed to do so. If you do rule in
                         that way, I dissent from your ruling.
Councillor HINCHLIFFE:   And I’ll second the motion.
Chairman:                I am asking Councillor MATIC to continue answering the question. Thank you,
                         Councillor MATIC.
Councillor MATIC:        Thank you, Madam Chairman. Just for the sake of the Chamber and for those
                         who were so confused by the antics of the Councillor opposite, a point of order
                         was made, some preposterous point of order was made. I was not actually
                         specifically asked a question.
Councillor CAMPBELL:     Point of order. When were you allowed—
Chairman:                Point of order; Councillor CAMPBELL.
Councillor CAMPBELL:     Madam Chair, point of order. How is it then keeping with the rules at all,
                         Madam Chairman? He is talking about a point of order; he is not answering the
                         question which he is required to only address under the rules. I ask you actually
                         apply the rules for a change.
Chairman:                Councillor CAMPBELL, the question was about the parks and the recovery in
                         the parks during the flood, and that is clearly what Councillor MATIC is talking
                         about. There was a point of order discussing parks that may not have been
                         recovered so far in Tennyson, and I think he is continuing with his question, and
                         is answering both the question and the point of order as they were made.
                         Councillor MATIC.
Councillor MATIC:        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Councillor CAMPBELL:     Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:                Point of order; Councillor CAMPBELL.
Councillor CAMPBELL:     I refer you to the rule, that in answering a question, the following general rules
                         shall apply: “Neither the Lord Mayor nor the Chairperson shall debate the
                         subject of the question, and the answer will be relevant and succinct.” Madam
                         Chair, his debating the point of order is not allowed under the local laws. Please
                         apply the local law. Please.
Chairman:                Councillor CAMPBELL, I will make it very clear so you can please understand
                         my ruling. I believe he is answering Councillor WYNDHAM’s question. I am
                         ruling him to continue his answer. Thank you, Councillor MATIC.
Councillor MATIC:        Thank you, Madam Chairman. Just for the record, how much time do I have
                         left?
Chairman:                A minute and a half.
Councillor MATIC:        Thank you. As I said before, there are seven parks fully closed within Brisbane,
                         and those are the ones that we are addressing now. But what is important about
                         those particular parks is that they are not only being repaired, but we are looking
                         at modifying them, re-scoping the parks so that when the situation arises at some
                         point in the future and these parks are inundated by floodwaters again, they will
                         be more sturdy in order to be able to deal with it.
                         There still continue to be some parks within our city that are partly closed; that
                         is a reality. But the key to it is that they are being dealt with, and that the parks
                         are being opened as quickly as possible, and even those that are partially closed,
                         it is important to make sure that there is still space within those parks available
                         for users. That is occurring, and that is an important point.
                         The restoration of these facilities within our parks is being prioritised according
                         to the issues of public safety and the amount of work required, and of course, the
                         level of use. These are just examples of the works that this Administration is
                         undertaking in dealing with the flood inundation around our parks, and being
                         able to make sure that we give a clear indication to all Brisbane residents that,
                         yes, we have had challenging times, yes, there is a great amount of work to be
                         done, and still a great amount of work to be done in the future, but we are
                         getting on with that. That is why this Administration is prioritising this work.

                                                                         [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                              - 17 -

                       That is why this Administration is making sure that it gets on with the job of
                       getting these parks back in order.
                       With all the effort that has been done, I think it is important to say to all of those
                       Council workers and the volunteers that have given so much of their time in this
                       flood effort, thank you; on behalf of ourselves, you have done a fantastic job.
Chairman:              Councillor MATIC, your time has expired. Councillor CAMPBELL.
                                                                                                   Question 6
Councillor CAMPBELL:   Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to Councillor SCHRINNER. How
                       much money has your Administration’s secret fundraising committee raised
                       towards the cost of restoring City Hall? It has been revealed today that budgeted
                       fundraising is down by $5 million, and you have delayed $80 million worth of
                       City Hall restoration work. Don’t you agree it is time you publicly explained
                       how the project is going to be funded?
DEPUTY MAYOR:          Madam Chairman, I thank Councillor CAMPBELL for the question. The first
                       thing I want to clarify though is that I am not aware of any secret fundraising
                       committee. No such committee exists. If Councillor CAMPBELL is referring to
                       a committee on which people like Con Sciacca serve, then maybe that is what he
                       is on to. But certainly having people who were formerly of the Labor Party on a
                       committee is not certainly a secret committee.
                       This committee is a committee of public figures around the city. The patron of
                       that committee is the Governor herself, and they have been doing a fabulous job
                       in getting community support for fundraising for City Hall. This is a vital
                       project for our city. Obviously a lot of fundraising effort has gone in, in recent
                       times, to flood recovery, and that is perfectly understandable. We have been
                       asking people to support the flood recovery efforts, and that has meant that
                       money that in some cases would have gone towards City Hall may not be going
                       to City Hall at present. But we are confident that the community will continue to
                       support the City Hall restoration project.
                       We have received more than 100,000 individual donations, which is a great
                       level of support for this project, and it shows that the ratepayers of Brisbane, the
                       people of Brisbane, the businesspeople of Brisbane, are keen to see this
                       community facility restored to its former glory. Importantly, it is a project that
                       we are getting on with. It is something that Labor left for many, many years.
                       Despite numerous reports saying that work needed to be done on City Hall, they
                       did nothing. We have taken a proactive approach. We are getting on with the
                       job.
                       Of course, there are a lot of other things that we would like to be able to spend
                       that money on, but the reality is that this work needs to be done. It has to be
                       done, and it is an important project. If you ask anyone in the public out there in
                       the suburbs of Brisbane, they will tell you that it is an important project. So we
                       will continue fundraising for City Hall, and we ask that the people who have
                       generously supported this project in the past will continue to do so through
                       mechanisms such as the rates donations, and we are confident that this project
                       will be delivered at the end of 2012, as we have said, and that it will be
                       delivered in a way that we have previously announced. I do not have anything
                       further to add to that.
Chairman:              Councillor WINES.
                                                                                                   Question 7
Councillor WINES:      Madam Chairman, my question is to Councillor SIMMONDS, the Chair of the
                       Public and Active Transport Committee. Councillor SIMMONDS, with
                       Brisbane having suffered its most devastating flood in 37 years, and with this
                       Administration having undertaken to restore Brisbane’s CityCat and ferry
                       services within three months, what success has there been in meeting this
                       commitment and bringing this valuable transport infrastructure back into
                       operation?



                                                                        [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                             - 18 -

Councillor SIMMONDS:   Thank you very much for the question, Councillor WINES, a very timely
                       question. As Councillors in this place would know, many, many Brisbane
                       residents were affected by the January flooding event, but not only that, also our
                       iconic CityCat and city ferry infrastructure. But the good news, and in answer to
                       your questions, Councillor WINES, just 90 days after that event CityCat
                       services were back up and running, with six temporary terminals. That is an
                       incredible achievement in just a 90-day period. It really is a fantastic example of
                       this can-do Administration getting on with the job.
                       We very, very early on recognised that this is an iconic service, the CityCat
                       service, that getting these terminals up and running was an important step in the
                       road to recovery for Brisbane residents, and getting life back to normal for them.
                       I am incredibly proud that LORD MAYOR Graham QUIRK has continued to
                       hold us to the very ambitious timetable of 90 days to get these terminals back up
                       and running, and that that was achieved with the help of many, many
                       hardworking Council officers. So I congratulate them.
                       As I said, I was very pleased to re-open the Sydney Street ferry terminal on
                       Sunday 17 April with LORD MAYOR Graham QUIRK and the LORD
                       MAYOR’s representative in the Central Ward, Vicki Howard. That was a
                       very—
Councillor JOHNSTON:   Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:              Point of order; Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:   It is a breach of Council procedure and regulations relating to ratepayer funds to
                       promote party political candidates. I know that this is a matter that the CEO,
                       Colin Jensen, cares deeply about, because he has written to me about it, and I
                       would ask you to ensure that every other Councillor ensures that Council
                       resources, like the Chamber, are not used for party political purposes, as they
                       clearly just were by the Councillor for Walter Taylor.
Chairman:              Councillor SIMMONDS, if you can resume with your answer please?
Councillor SIMMONDS:   Thank you, Madam Chairman. I was simply stating a fact.
Councillor JOHNSTON:   Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:              Point of order; Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:   I ask for a ruling as you are required under the Meetings Local Law to make a
                       ruling after a point of order has been raised.
Chairman:              Councillor JOHNSTON, it is not my place to decide how moneys are used to
                       fund functions in other parts of the city. I am asking Councillor SIMMONDS to
                       resume answering his question, please.
Councillor SIMMONDS:   Thank you, Madam Chairman, because I am conscious that I am running out of
                       time. In just 90 days, Council was able to salvage and repair six of the hardest
                       hit ferry terminals. This includes the University of Queensland, Regatta
                       terminal, North Quay, QUT Gardens Point, Holman Street and Sydney Street.
                       This was no easy task. It included removing and replacing 15 damaged piles,
                       rescuing and refurbishing five pontoons and creating a brand new one,
                       fabricating and installing six new gangways, replacing the ceilings of the
                       waiting areas, replacing all the electrical wiring and over 150 light fittings.
                       Even on their own, these are no small tasks. For example, having rescued the
                       pontoons from the Fisherman Island salvage area, they were transported to our
                       fabrication yard in Hemmant where the balustrades were removed, the existing
                       paint was removed and replaced, new balustrades and new roofing were
                       installed, and new wiring and light fittings were installed, before they were then
                       transported down the river to be installed.
                       Just to understand how incredible it is that this work was done in just 90 days by
                       this Administration, I brought some photos. I am a big fan of props, as was my
                       predecessor Councillor de WIT, and Councillor Prentice. This, for example, is
                       Sydney Street. In this case, the gangway was salvageable. The pontoon, which
                       weighs about 50 tonnes, was also salvaged and was able to be reused with a lot


                                                                      [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                     - 19 -

                               of refurbishing work. Holman Street, you can see the incredible damage here. In
                               this case, we only found about a third of the gangway, and it required the
                               pontoon to be refurbished and new piles.
                               Queensland University of Technology, you can see it got right up to the name
                               plate for the CityCat terminal. In this case, this was one of the worst hit, we
                               never found the pontoon or the gangway. It is lost, never to be recovered. So this
                               has a brand new pontoon, made from scratch, using plastic and aluminium, and
                               brand new lights in the lead-up to the terminal so pedestrians can find their way.
                               This is North Quay here, where again the gangway was lifted so high that it
                               damaged the terminal name sign. Again, we have got new lighting and electrics,
                               but the pontoon was refurbished and reused. Regatta, a very, very iconic stop on
                               Coronation Drive, where the gangway was completely lost, so we replaced that.
                               But we found the pontoon and reused it. Finally, the University of Queensland,
                               very, very close to my heart, we only ever found half the gangway which was
                               found in Councillor ABRAHAMS’ Davies Park up at West End.
Chairman:                      Councillor SIMMONDS, your time has expired.
Councillors interjecting.

Alteration of order of business in agenda
In accordance with the Meetings Local Law 2001, section 11(2) the LORD MAYOR altered the order of
business set out in the agenda by bringing forward item 7 (Establishment and Coordination Committee
information report) to be the next item of business.


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

    ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Information report)
                                                                                                840/2010-11
The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, Chairman of the Establishment and
Coordination Committee, moved, seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, that
the report setting out the decisions of the Establishment and Coordination Committee as delegate of the Council
during the Autumn Recess 2011, on matters usually considered by that Committee, be noted.

Chairman:                      LORD MAYOR.
Councillor JOHNSTON:           Point of order. Sorry, Madam Chairman. Is the LORD MAYOR changing the
                               order of the agenda?
Chairman:                      Yes. This will be the one that has A, B, C and D. So it starts with the Cubberla
                               Creek Bikeway project, prosecution policy, and so on. LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:                    That is it. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I just want to make comment
                               on five issues, if I may, prior to moving to the substantive report. The first issue
                               I wanted to raise today was the issue regarding the way in which this Chamber
                               conducts itself in terms of the time that we spend here. It is a fact that we have
                               increased the amount of time that is spent in this Chamber considerably. In fact,
                               it has doubled what it was in the period around 2000 to 2007. During that period
                               of time, we spent over the course of a year about three-and-a-half to four hours
                               for each Council meeting in this Chamber. That increased in 2008 to five hours,
                               in 2010 it was six hours, and this year so far we have spent just six minutes short
                               of eight hours on an average time in this Chamber.
                               I would not mind if the quality of the debate was such that it was debating things
                               of interest and importance to the people of this city. I just implore the Chamber
                               today—
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:                      Councillor CAMPBELL!

                                                                               [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                  - 20 -

LORD MAYOR:                 Thank you very much, Councillor. I just implore this Chamber to consider what
                            it is that the people of Brisbane want from us. Do they want us to be spending an
                            inordinate amount of time raising points of order on matters of local law, on
                            matters of meeting laws, on matters of procedure, on interjections, or do they
                            want us to get on and debate the real issues? It is my solemn view that this
                            Chamber ought to focus on the things that are of importance to the people of this
                            city.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:                   Councillor JOHNSTON!
LORD MAYOR:                 If I had thought that the quality of debate around issues was strong, then seven
                            hours would be fine. But Madam Chairman, it is not. This Council, week after
                            week, wastes an inordinate amount of time. From my point of view, now as
                            LORD MAYOR of this city, I am determined that that will change.
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR:                 If there are repetitive speeches being made, I put people on notice today that that
                            will not be allowed to continue. You can scrutinise me all you like—
Councillor JOHNSTON:        Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:                   Point of order; Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        The only person under the Meetings Local Law who can make rulings on
                            whether or not a speech is relevant and in accordance with the law is you. The
                            new LORD MAYOR does not have the right to make rulings or direct you to
                            make rulings, and I would ask that you acquaint him with the rules that give you
                            that power, not him.
Chairman:                   Councillor JOHNSTON, any Councillor in this place has the ability to move that
                            a motion be put. LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:                 Precisely the point I was about to make. Now we have Councillor JOHNSTON
                            imputing motive on me, and you, more importantly, Madam Chairman.
                            I just want to say that, if there are repetitive speeches occurring, they will be
                            dealt with because the people of this city expect us to debate the issues of
                            importance to them. I do not mind in terms of the scrutiny of Opposition, but I
                            say this: we are now 11 months away from the people of this city deciding who
                            their Administration will be from 2012 onwards. It is time that the Opposition
                            were also scrutinised. It is time that we had some detailed and legitimate debates
                            on public policy, not on rules of procedure in this place. I will leave it at that.
                            The second item that I want to discuss today is that of CityCat terminals. On
                            Saturday, I had a voice mail message from the Premier. That message was to
                            advise me, as LORD MAYOR of this city, that a condition of payments being
                            made in relation to eight CityCat terminals in this city was that an international
                            and national design competition be undertaken for those terminals. Part and
                            parcel of that message was to indicate, and certainly the press release indicated,
                            what those eight terminals were.
                            As a matter of course, I do not have a problem with international or national
                            design competitions, but I would say that at this time, given that we are well on
                            the way to the construction of the West End terminal—in fact, it will be
                            completed in July—that it seems to me to be a little bit superfluous to go and
                            have an international design competition at this stage. That is what the Premier
                            has announced that she wants for the West End terminal—an international and
                            national design competition, so together with the Federal Treasurer, they have
                            now made that a condition of the NDRRA (Natural Disaster Relief and
                            Recovery Arrangements) funding being provided to this Council.
                            So today I have written to the Premier seeking clarification around that. I do not
                            want to see, as LORD MAYOR of this city, these projects delayed because of an
                            international and national design competition. I have no problems as a general
                            principle of having design competitions. I do know, however, that I also just
                            very recently launched a Together Brisbane campaign. That campaign was all


                                                                           [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                               - 21 -

                         about telling people that Brisbane is open for business. It was about promoting
                         local business. Perhaps the design of these ferry terminals could also be carried
                         out by local designers. We have some very, very good local designers, and again
                         I just say that what I will not compromise on is the delays and the timing of
                         these important pieces of infrastructure for our city.
                         This Council, I think, has demonstrated in the months that have proceeded the
                         flood that we are able to get on and undertake flood recovery works at a pretty
                         good pace. So again I say that we will be seeking some clarification around what
                         is again, I make it clear that the words were that these payments are conditional
                         upon the international and national design competition occurring.
                         I just want to comment briefly that last Saturday night we saw the Buddha
                         Birthday Festival held in Brisbane. It was the 15th anniversary of the Buddha
                         Birthday Festival being conducted at the South Bank piazza. I was pleased to
                         see several of our Councillors there at that event, including Councillor Angela
                         OWEN-TAYLOR, Councillor ABRAHAMS, Councillor McKENZIE and our
                         newest Councillor today in Councillor Steven HUANG. It was a very good
                         event.
                         Yes, I did apologise to Councillor ABRAHAMS. I can hear the little things
                         happening over there. I did apologise to Councillor ABRAHAMS that I had not
                         recognised her. I did not know that she was sitting behind me. I did not see her
                         at the event, prior to that, and I was a bit disappointed that she did not seem to
                         want to accept my apology after the event. I might remind Councillors that
                         Councillor Soorley repeatedly failed to recognise me as a Councillor over many,
                         many years, at many, many events. There is no skin off my nose, but I just say
                         that that is what used to occur, and I did not hear any objections coming from
                         the Opposition at that time, or what was the Administration at that time.
                         Madam Chairman, donations—it has been a practice in this place to list
                         donations that we have received for the Lord Mayor’s Community Disaster
                         Flood Appeal, and today I am keen to announce that Mr Rod Wiley and Bridge
                         Toyota have both been contributors to that fund, which has now received a total
                         of $729,105.25—I am not sure where the 25 cents came from, but anyway, we
                         are continuing to disperse those funds quickly, and each week we make a range
                         of dispersals to community based not-for-profit organisations, to assist them
                         getting on with their job of flood recovery.
                         The final point that I want to make is that we have undertaken a report through
                         GHD, associated with engineering solutions for flood mitigation in Brisbane. I
                         am not sure whether councillors have been provided with a copy of this report.
                         If not, there will certainly be one. They are available. So each councillor today
                         will receive a copy of that report. You are welcome to hand those out,
                         Committee Clerk, and I thank you for doing that. This report basically looks at a
                         range of options that could be examined in terms of a flood event occurring in
                         the future. In summary, it says that there are no silver bullets. There are a
                         number of options which are put up. They include things like flat valves and
                         possibly duck bill valves in tidally affected areas, levees around specific high
                         value infrastructure for instance here we see the Brisbane Markets, but not along
                         waterways itself. Flood mitigation dams on the Bremer River, the Lockyer
                         Creek upstream of Ipswich has also been put forward as suggestions. Again I
                         reiterate that the conclusion of the discussion paper is that there are no silver
                         bullets. Often one measure will result in a negative effect on others. So it is the
                         ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’ syndrome.
Councillor HINCHLIFFE:   Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:                Point of order; Councillor HINCHLIFFE.
Councillor HINCHLIFFE:   I wonder if Councillor QUIRK, the LORD MAYOR, would take a question in
                         view of the release of the report just now, and because of the importance of the
                         issue?
Chairman:                LORD MAYOR, will you take a question?



                                                                        [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                       - 22 -

LORD MAYOR:                     I am happy to take a question, Madam Chairman. I will not make a habit of it.
                                We have Question Time.
Chairman:                       Councillor HINCHLIFFE.
Councillor HINCHLIFFE:          No, I will not make a habit, Madam Chair, and I thank the LORD MAYOR for
                                taking a question. I and other Councillors have been very keen to meet with
                                officers to talk through the range of options that might be available. I am pleased
                                now that there is a discussion paper, but I do hope on behalf of all of my
                                constituents, and I am sure all of the flood affected communities represented by
                                Councillors JOHNSTON, ABRAHAMS, DICK, SUTTON and other
                                Councillors on the other side that we will be able to have a briefing with Council
                                officers to discuss the detail of this discussion paper. Could he please comment?
LORD MAYOR:                     Well, Madam Chairman, perhaps before you decide on that, you might want to
                                have a read of the report. That would be my first advice. The other thing that I
                                would say in relation to this report is that it will go through to the flood inquiry
                                for their examination as well. So, it is information which has been gathered.
                                There is some international information contained in the report as well. Let us
                                just everyone have a read of it first. It is a pretty self-explanatory report. It is a
                                fairly easy read, and that may resolve any issues.
Councillor SUTTON:              Point of order.
Chairman:                       Point of order; Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:              Yes, point of order, Madam Chair, and similar to what Councillor
                                HINCHLIFFE has just said, given the importance of this report that has just
                                been tabled, I just have a question relating to its status as a discussion paper.
Chairman:                       LORD MAYOR, will you take a question from Councillor SUTTON?
LORD MAYOR:                     Yes, I do not want to—
Councillor SUTTON:              It is just a quick question.
LORD MAYOR:                     It is a report which Council has commissioned. It is a discussion paper. That is
                                what it says; it is a discussion paper. Have a look at it first, and then we can
                                have a look and see whether or not we have any briefing session ordered on it, if
                                it is needed at that time.
Chairman:                       LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.

                                                                                                  841/2010-11
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.
Councillors HINCHLIFFE:         Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:                       Point of order; Councillor HINCHLIFFE.


MOTION FOR SUSPENSION OF RULES OF PROCEDURE:
                                           842/2010-11
At that juncture, Councillor David HINCHLIFFE moved, seconded by Councillor Helen ABRAHAMS, that the
Rules of Procedure be suspended to allow the moving of a motion calling on the LORD MAYOR to convene a
briefing of all Councillors as a matter of urgency in relation to options to deal with flood and flood mitigation.

Chairman:                      Councillor HINCHLIFFE, three minutes on why now.
Councillor HINCHLIFFE:          Madam Chair, yes, as we have said on many occasions, the issue of flooding and
                                flood mitigation is perhaps the most preeminent concern, particularly in those
                                communities that are represented in low-lying areas close to rivers and creeks.
                                There are at least 10 electorates out of the 26 where this is the most critical

                                                                                 [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                       - 23 -

                                 issue. We are coming up to an urgent situation at the moment because the
                                 special commission of inquiry in relation to the flood response by Brisbane City
                                 Council is meeting in secret, and will be delivering its deliberations very shortly.
                                 We have now, minutes before that review is to deliver its conclusions, received
                                 a discussion paper without councillors having the opportunity to discuss with
                                 Council experts in the area of hydraulics, engineering and flood mitigation the
                                 full extent of these options.
                                 I hope that the appointed LORD MAYOR has the good will to agree now and
                                 today, before that report from the commission of inquiry is concluded to allow
                                 councillors a briefing with those experts so we can provide further commentary
                                 to the flood inquiry. That is why it is so urgent. I am sure there are councillors
                                 who perhaps privately, on the other side of the Chamber, are very keen also to
                                 have a briefing with those Council officers. I am sure, because the LORD
                                 MAYOR would not want Council officers to meet with one side of the Chamber
                                 and not with the other side of the Chamber, that those Councillors similarly
                                 would have been told, as I have been, as Councillor JOHNSTON has been, and
                                 Councillor ABRAHAMS has been, that we cannot speak to those officers about
                                 these options.
                                 It is absolutely vital. I heard the LORD MAYOR say he wants to have debate
                                 about substantive issues. He is happy to meet for hours to talk about substantive
                                 issues. This is not an insubstantial issue. It is a substantive one. It is absolutely
                                 urgent that we deal with it today, now, before we deal with a report that is a
                                 conclusion based on inadequate information. This discussion paper is dated
                                 February 2011. We are getting it in May minutes before the inquiry delivers its
                                 conclusions. That is why it is urgent, Madam Chairman, and that is why I entreat
                                 the newly appointed LORD MAYOR of this city to deal with the most important
                                 issue for tens of thousands of his residents, to deal with it today, now. It is
                                 urgent. I long to hear the LORD MAYOR respond affirmatively in saying that
                                 Councillors on both sides will be able to receive expert advice from Council
                                 officers.
Chairman:                        Councillor HINCHLIFFE, your time has expired. I will now put the motion

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

Thereupon, Councillors David HINCHLIFFE and Helen ABRAHAMS immediately rose and called for a
division, which resulted in the motion being declared lost.

The voting was as follows:

AYES: 11 -                   The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Shayne SUTTON, and Councillors
                             Helen ABRAHAMS, John CAMPBELL, Peter CUMMING, Milton DICK,
                             Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS, David HINCHLIFFE, Gail MacPHERSON,
                             Victoria NEWTON, and Nicole JOHNSTON.

NOES: 16 -                   The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY
                             MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS,
                             Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Margaret de WIT, Steven HUANG;
                             Fiona KING,    Geraldine KNAPP,    Peter MATIC,        Ian  McKENZIE,
                             David McLACHLAN,         Angela OWEN-TAYLOR,      Julian   SIMMONDS,
                             Andrew WINES, and Norm WYNDHAM.

Continuation of debate on committee report
Chairman:                    LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:                      Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Isn’t it amazing? You give people a
                                 report—
Councillor MacPHERSON:           Dated February.
Chairman:                        Councillor MacPHERSON, if you continue to interject, I will warn you!



                                                                                 [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                  - 24 -

LORD MAYOR:                 If this was the Labor days in administration, this report would never have seen
                            the light of day.
Councillors interjecting.
LORD MAYOR:                 We remember the trolley full of files that ended up having to be dragged—
Chairman:                   Order!
LORD MAYOR:                 —into the Chamber at the 11th hour, because they were forced into it. You have
                            a copy of the report. I suggest, councillors, that you read that report and to
                            suggest that Council officers are not available to you is a nonsense.
                            The report before us today is firstly a resumption of land at 83 to 87 and
                            95 Tristania Road, Chapel Hill. The second item is that of the update on the
                            Brisbane City Council prosecution policy. I might just say in relation to that
                            prosecution policy that it does not change the policy itself; what it does do is to
                            update some of the language contained in it. There have been, for example,
                            changes to the name of certain acts of Parliament, and there is some minor
                            changes there only. They are very, very minor, and there is certainly no change
                            to the policy or intent.
                            The third item, item C, is the Victoria Park Golf Clubhouse lease to the
                            Schizophrenia Fellowship of Queensland. This, Madam Chairman, is a very
                            significant and good recommendation to this city. It provides for the
                            Schizophrenia Association to have a 30-year lease. There will be a significant
                            investment on the part of the Mental Illness Fellowship of Queensland. They
                            will be contributing $1.9 million towards the renovation costs of the building
                            concerned. That is why it ought to be amortised over a period of time. As part
                            and parcel of that, there will be some commercial subleases provided in that
                            facility, and that over time will also provide a return to Council. So there is a
                            win-win situation in this, a very, very important facility for those schizophrenia
                            sufferers within our city. As well, it will provide an important resource, and
                            restoration of an important facility in Brisbane as well.
                            The final matter is that of a review of senior officers’ remuneration framework.
                            This is some work that was carried out by Mercer. They are an organisation that
                            have long been involved with remuneration of Council officers—that is Mercer
                            Human Resource Consulting. Their involvement goes back I think through the
                            Soorley years as well. What is essentially happening here is an alignment of the
                            various pay scales associated with not the very senior officers but the SO2 and
                            ES1 pay points. It provides a streamlining and market assessment of these
                            payments compared to the open market.
Chairman:                   Thank you, LORD MAYOR. Further debate; Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:          Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to enter the debate on this report.

Seriatim – Clauses B and D
Councillor Shayne SUTTON requested that Clauses B and D - UPDATE OF BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL’S
PROSECUTION POLICY and REVIEW OF SENIOR OFFICERS REMUNERATION FRAMEWORK,
respectively, be taken seriatim for voting purposes.

                            I will be speaking on item D in particular, which is the review of senior officers’
                            remuneration framework. Anybody who believes that this item is not about
                            increasing pay for bureaucratic fat cats is guilty of believing their own spin.
                            Clearly, the new LORD MAYOR’s four-person media unit has already got to
                            him. Clearly they have already got the spin wheels in motion, working in
                            overdrive to be at pains to paint this as nothing out of the ordinary.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor SUTTON:          In fact, I actually heard that they are hard at work writing a new series for the—
Chairman:                   Councillor SUTTON, there is nothing in this report about any media unit. This
                            is a remuneration framework. Back to the item, please.
Councillor SUTTON:          Yes, Madam Chair, and I just draw your attention to paragraph 40 where it says
                            that, ‘The pay scales have fallen below the 25th percentile benchmark of the

                                                                           [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                  - 25 -

            market, potentially making remuneration offers to new executive appointees not
            competitive.’ It goes on to talk right throughout this report, about the fact that
            the pay scales as Mercer currently considers they are not competitive. Well,
            Madam Chair, when I first joined Council, I remember we asked the former
            CEO, Jude Munro, to speak at an engagement, and she acknowledged that we
            could not afford to pay the prices that the private sector could. But she saw it as
            a great strength of Brisbane City Council to be able to offer other incentives for
            people to come and work for our organisation.
            She prided herself and this organisation on being an employer of choice.
            Clearly, Madam Chair, if we are having to bump up bureaucratic pay scales,
            then we are no longer the employer of choice we used to claim to be and as the
            former CEO prided herself on being. How far we have come since we those
            days Madam Chair.
            This is about restructuring pay scales which will ultimately mean higher pay for
            the most senior bureaucrats, for the middle and upper management of Brisbane
            City Council, not for the people out there filling potholes, not for the people
            building our parks, not for the people who are at the frontline of our flood
            recovery.
            These are for people who are in upper and middle management of this
            organisation. Madam Chair, that is what we are doing today, we are endorsing
            pay increases that what will ultimately mean pay increases for middle to upper
            management. At a time Madam Chair, when, in the next report we see this
            Council cutting support for apprentices, for cadets, and for our graduate
            recruitment program.
            So more money for middle and upper management, less money, less support for
            apprentices, for cadets, and for the graduate recruitment program Madam Chair,
            the day after Labour Day.
            How far we have come from being an employer of choice. The timing of this
            item coming to Council and the way has been brought here is significant. This is
            an information report. It's not for decision. You know what that means? We
            don't get access to the Mercer Report upon which this recommendation is based
            on.
            We do not get access to it. It is not attached to the file. We don't get to read it.
            We don't get to scrutinise it. We don't get to have a look at the substantive
            policy issues Councillor QUIRK, that you so dearly want to debate in this
            Chamber. I challenge you throw open your secretive doors, and give us the
            Mercer Report. Give it to us in full so that we can have the substantive policy
            debate that you want to have Councillor QUIRK. Because we believe you have
            the wrong priorities for Brisbane and the wrong priorities for this organisation.
            If you think it is acceptable to increase the salaries of upper and middle
            management at the expense of support for apprentices, cuts to cadets, cuts to
            graduate programs. That is not right, we do not need a top heavy bureaucracy, in
            fact we need anything but.
            We know that the employee costs of this Council are already spiralling out of
            control. The Queensland Treasury Corporation (QTC) has told us that time and
            time and time again. This Administration has no idea how to manage its greatest
            asset and that is the people, the people that serve us every day on Council's
            frontline; in the call centres, out mending the roads, out fixing the footpaths
            Councillor de WIT, which you seem to think are an expensive luxury Madam
            Chair.
            You need to look after the people who are out there doing the hard yards on the
            coalface of this Administration, not taking care of the middle and upper
            management which sees more and more resources sucked in to higher
            bureaucratic pay scales at the expense of, as I said, our apprentice, cadet and
            graduate programs. It's not right and we don't support it.
Chairman:   Further debate? LORD MAYOR.



                                                            [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                       - 26 -

LORD MAYOR:                      Well, Madam Chairman, let me just say talking about information again - these
                                 reports, as I recall it Madam Chairman, never ever came to Council. I can't
                                 remember in the past where there has been a salary report of this sort ever come
                                 to this place.
                                 They talk about secrecy. Where were they when they had their opportunity?
                                 Nowhere to be seen, nowhere to be seen.
                                 Madam Chairman, I like the way Councillor SUTTON does it. She wants to call
                                 them bureaucratic fat cats on the one hand and then us to be an employer of
                                 choice. I tell you what, they won't want to be an employee of choice under you.
                                 That's for sure.
                                 Now, Madam Chairman, look, the other items are pretty straightforward I would
                                 have thought. I note that we're voting on two of these items.
Chairman:                        Councillor SUTTON, can I just ask if you wanted B and D separate as well, or
                                 them seriatim together?
Councillor SUTTON:               We can do them seriatim together.
Chairman:                        Seriatim - okay. So we'll put the motion, initially for items A and C.

Clauses A and C put
The LORD MAYOR then closed the debate, following which the Chairman put the motion for Clauses A and C
of the report and upon being submitted to the Chamber, it was declared carried.

Clauses B and D put
The Chairman put the motion for Clauses B and D of the report and upon being submitted to the Chamber, it
was declared carried.

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

The voting was as follows:

AYES: 17 -                   The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY
                             MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS,
                             Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Margaret de WIT, Steven HUANG,
                             Fiona KING,     Geraldine KNAPP,     Peter MATIC,     Ian  McKENZIE,
                             David McLACHLAN,         Angela OWEN-TAYLOR,      Julian  SIMMONDS,
                             Andrew WINES, Norm WYNDHAM and Nicole JOHNSTON.

NOES: 10 -                   The Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Shayne SUTTON, and Councillors
                             Helen ABRAHAMS, John CAMPBELL, Peter CUMMING, Milton DICK,
                             Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS, David HINCHLIFFE, Gail MacPHERSON and
                             Victoria NEWTON.

The report read as follows

        A        RESUMPTION OF LAND AT 83, 87 AND 95 TRISTANIA ROAD,
                 CHAPEL HILL; AND 795 MOGGILL ROAD, KENMORE, FOR THE
                 CUBBERLA CREEK BIKEWAY PROJECT
                 112/20/216/84

1.      The Executive Manager, Major Infrastructure Projects Office, provided the following
        information.

2.      Approval is sought for the completion of land resumptions at 83, 87 and 95 Tristania Road,
        Chapel Hill; and 795 Moggill Road, Kenmore, for the Cubberla Creek Bikeway project.




                                                                                [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                               - 27 -

3.    The proposed Cubberla Creek Bikeway extends from Moggill Road (adjacent to Kenmore
      Plaza) north to Brushbox Court, Chapel Hill. The planned works will provide a three-metre
      wide off-road shared pathway designed for use by both pedestrians and cyclists. The project
      comprises an offroad link between Chapel Hill Primary School, Kenmore Plaza and local
      parks. It also forms a section of bikeway in the overall plan linking the Mount Coot-tha Forest
      pathways with the Centenary Highway bikeway.

4.    The benefits expected from the construction of the Cubberla Creek Bikeway include:
      -      improved safety for cyclists and pedestrians
      -      improved bicycle and pedestrian access to local destinations
      -      an attractive recreational route for weekend and early-morning training
      -      improved access to the Mount Coot-tha pathways.

5.    While the majority of the bikeway traverses Council parkland, it is not possible to achieve all
      the above objectives within publicly accessible land.

6.    On 28 October 2010, the Divisional Manager, Brisbane Infrastructure, gave authority to issue
      Notices of Intention to Resume in respect of the properties listed in Schedules A, B and C
      (hereunder). Subsequently, on 5 November 2010, Council issued the notices to the affected
      property owners and all registered interested parties.

7.    No objections to the proposed resumptions were received from the property owners listed in
      Schedules A and B. The property owner listed in Schedule C lodged a written objection to the
      proposed resumption. Council’s resumption agent considered the objection and found there
      were no valid objections to the scheme. The objection, the agent’s report and Council’s
      response are set out in Attachment 2, submitted on file.

8.    Upon completion of the formal resumption process, all interests in the resumed land are
      converted to a claim for compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Acquisition of Land
      Act 1967. Negotiations concerning compensation will continue concurrently with the formal
      resumption process.

      Financial impact

9.    Funds are allocated in the 2010-11 Budget under 3.1.3.1 Providing Cycling Infrastructure:
      Connecting and Expanding the Bikeway Network - Cubberla Creek Bikeway, Chapel Hill.

10.   It was therefore recommended that Council complete the land resumptions at 83, 87 and
      95 Tristania Road, Chapel Hill; and 795 Moggill Road, Kenmore, for the Cubberla Creek
      Bikeway project. The Executive Manager recommended accordingly and the Committee
      agreed at its meeting of 4 April 2011.

11.   DECISION:

      THAT THE DRAFT RESOLUTION SET OUT AT ATTACHMENT A, HEREUNDER,
      BE APPROVED.

                                            Draft Resolution
                                             Attachment A

      THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE, AS
      DELEGATE FOR COUNCIL IN RECESS, APPROVE THAT—

      1.      As:

              (a)     on 9 December 2010, Council, in accordance with the provisions of the
                      Acquisition of Land Act 1967, issued Notices of Intention to Resume the

                                                                     [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                    - 28 -

                           private land set out in and identified in Schedules A, B and C (hereunder) to
                           this resolution; and
                 (b)       an objection in writing was received from the property owners identified in
                           Schedule C, hereunder; and
                 (c)       Council has duly considered the objection and made recommendations for the
                           treatment of the objection as set out in Attachment 2, submitted on file

                 then Council is of the opinion that:

                 (i)       the private land described in Schedules A and C is required for recreation
                           ground (bike path) purposes; and
                 (ii)      the easement described in Schedule B is required for public access purposes;
                           and
                 (iii)     IT IS NECESSARY TO TAKE THE SAID LAND.

      2.         As Council is of the opinion specified in 1, it directs that application be made for the
                 approval of the Governor in Council to the taking of that land under the Acquisition of
                 Land Act 1967.


                                         Schedule A
            Private property required for recreation ground (bike path) purposes
                 (Shaded yellow on the plan at Attachment 1, submitted on file)

                                                                         AREA
                                                                    REQUIRED FOR
                                                   REAL
                                                                      BIKEPATH
    OWNER                    LOCATION            PROPERTY                                              PLAN
                                                                      PURPOSES
                                                DESCRIPTION
                                                                       (SQUARE
                                                                       METRES)
Ian Scott and              87 Tristiana
                                                Part of lot 2 on
Suzanne                    Road, Chapel                             1256                        SP241994
                                                RP903020
Everingham                 Hill
                           95 Tristiana
Eduardo Xavier                                  Part of lot 3 on
                           Road, Chapel                             665                         SP241993
and Irene Xavier                                SP182846
                           Hill


                                                Schedule B
                              Easement required for public access purposes
                         (Shaded pink on the plan at Attachment 1, submitted on file)

                                                                      EASMENT
                                                                    REQUIRED FOR
                                                   REAL                 PUBLIC
    OWNER                    LOCATION            PROPERTY               ACCESS                         PLAN
                                                DESCRIPTION           PURPOSES
                                                                       (SQUARE
                                                                       METRES)

Jen Retail                 795 Moggill          Part of lot 22 on
                                                                    936                         SP241991
Properties Ltd             Road, Kenmore        RP805855




                                                                           [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                               - 29 -

                                          Schedule C
       Private property required for recreation ground (bike path) purposes - objection
                  (Shaded yellow on the plan at Attachment 1, submitted on file)

                                                                    AREA
                                                               REQUIRED FOR
                                              REAL
                                                                 BIKEPATH
      OWNER             LOCATION            PROPERTY                                             PLAN
                                                                 PURPOSES
                                           DESCRIPTION
                                                                  (SQUARE
                                                                  METRES)
                      83 Tristiana
 LB and JS French                         Part of lot 18 on
                      Road, Chapel                             258                        SP244088
 Pty Ltd                                  RP89216
                      Hill
                                                                                               NOTED
      B        UPDATE OF BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL’S PROSECUTION POLICY
               109/800/286/139

12.    The Divisional Manager, Families and Community Services, provided the information below.

13.    Approval was sought for an updated version of Council’s Prosecution Policy.

14.    Council’s Prosecution Policy was recommended and approved by Council in 2006. In
       October 2009 Council further approved an updated version of the Policy (by Council
       resolution number 175/2009-10).

15.    Since its initial recommendation to Council by Mr Brendan Butler SC in 2006, and
       subsequent updating in 2009, the Prosecution Policy has been applied on hundreds of
       occasions. It still proves to be a robust and useful tool in ensuring Council exercises its
       prosecutorial functions appropriately and to the desired standards.

16.    The following alterations to the Prosecution Policy are now proposed to ensure that it remains
       relevant and contemporary while taking into account legislative changes:
       1.      The Prosecution Policy has been updated from 2009 to 2011.
       2.      Reference to repealed legislation (Integrated Planning Act 1997) under sections 1.1,
               6.1(a), 6.2(a) and, 6.4(a) of the Prosecution Policy have been updated to the
               Sustainable Planning Act 2009, that became effective on 18 December 2009;
       3.      Footnotes within the policy referring to sections of repealed legislation Integrated
               Planning Act 1997 have been updated to the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, now in
               force:
               (a)     IPA s.4.4.14 to SPA s.624 (page 8)
               (b)     IPA s.4.4.3 to SPA s.611 (page 8).

17.    Council approval is sought to adopt the updated version of Council’s Prosecution Policy as
       set out in Attachment A, submitted on file.

18.    The Divisional Manager therefore recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its
       meeting held on 27 April 2011.

19.    DECISION:

       THAT APPROVAL BE GRANTED TO ADOPT THE UPDATED VERSION OF THE
       PROSECUTION   POLICY,     ENTITLED          “BRISBANE        CITY       COUNCIL
       PROSECUTION POLICY 2011” as set out in Attachment A, submitted on file.
                                                                                               NOTED

                                                                     [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                              - 30 -

      C       VICTORIA PARK GOLF CLUBHOUSE LEASE - SCHIZOPHRENIA
              FELLOWSHIP OF QUEENSLAND
              364/48/2-D0083(11/P1)

20.   The Divisional Manager, Families and Community Services, provided the information below.

21.   Approval was sought for a 30-year lease at the Victoria Park Golf Clubhouse for the
      Schizophrenia Fellowship of Queensland.

22.   The Mental Illness Fellowship of Queensland (MIFQ, incorporated as the Schizophrenia
      Fellowship of Queensland) is a not-for-profit support organisation for people with mental
      illness and their carers.

23.   On 5 June 2006, following an Expression of Interest process, the Establishment and
      Coordination Committee endorsed MIFQ as the preferred lessee of the heritage-listed Old
      Victoria Park Golf Clubhouse at 309 Herston Road, Herston. The MIFQ wished to use the
      building as its new headquarters and a hub for its target community. MIFQ accepted a 10-year
      lease which expires on 21 January 2017.

24.   In June 2009, MIFQ obtained all necessary development and building approvals. (This was
      almost three years since being approved as the lessee). The delay was due to complexities
      connected with the building’s State heritage listing and it being on trust land. The building
      had been in an increasing state of disrepair and its future had been unclear since a previous
      lessee surrendered its lease in 2001. Further, between 2006 and 2009 the building suffered
      fire damage, irreparable damage to its plumbing hydraulics and extensive vandalism,
      including breakage of all windows.

25.   In its first 2010-11 Budget Review, Council approved the provision of $750,000 towards the
      capital works, following requests from MIFQ for financial assistance, citing escalation of
      costs during the approval period.

26.   For both parties to take advantage of the current situation, Community Services branch is
      recommending that the existing lease be terminated and be replaced with a 30 year lease. This
      will allow for the extensive restoration needed and to secure the partnership with MIFQ to
      ensure that the “sunk costs” from both parties are not wasted. Council will retain
      responsibility for structural maintenance, charging a lease rental to offset those costs.

27.   It is planned that work commence on the site as soon as an Agreement for Lease is signed.
      MIFQ plans to sub-lease the excess space in the building to other community-based
      organisations or commercial entities that complement the purpose of the head lease. This
      option is the subject of a separate development application, currently under preparation. Rent
      charged will reflect the status of the sub-lessee according to the current policy, that is
      community-based organisations will pay reduced market rent and further reductions will be
      applicable for community service space.

28.   In the event of a commercial sub-lease, any eventual rent surplus from commercial
      arrangements will be used to promote the purpose of the trust land and to support MIFQ and
      other community-based organisations.

29.   The lease and any proposed sub-lease of the premises is subject to Ministerial approval.

      Implications of proposal

30.   Approval of the recommendation below would:
      -     confirm Council’s commitment to resolving the long-running uncertainty around the
            future use of a well-known heritage building; and
      -     enable MIFQ to provide valuable community services in an excellent location.

                                                                     [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                              - 31 -

      Not approving the recommendation risks MIFQ having to walk away from the project,
      leaving Council with the responsibility for rehabilitating the building, with costs rising and
      the building’s condition deteriorating further.

31.   MIFQ has proved to be an excellent partner, prepared to make a financial contribution of
      $1.9 million towards the renovation costs, and having negotiated the complexities of the
      Heritage Act, and development application and building approval processes over three years.

      Customer impact

32.   MIFQ will offer services to people suffering mental illness including information and referral,
      a drop-in centre, rehabilitation, and support for carers, families and friends.

33.   The clubhouse building’s proximity to the Royal Brisbane Hospital and its mental health unit
      is ideal, enabling MIFQ to provide convenient access for sections of its target community and
      take advantage of networking opportunities with the hospital’s services.

      Financial impact

34.   The rent model, allowing MIFQ the maximum rent offset, provides Council with positive net
      income of $24,128 in Year 1, projected to increase to around $280,000 after 20 years and
      $416,214 after 30 years. Total revenue would be $4,378,735 over the life of the lease.

35.   The Divisional Manager therefore recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its
      meeting held on 27 April 2011.

36.   DECISION:

      THAT APPROVAL BE GRANTED FOR COUNCIL TO:

      (i)     rescind the current lease to Schizophrenia Fellowship of Queensland of the whole of
              the land at 309 Herston Road, Herston; and

      (ii)    GRANT A NEW LEASE TO SCHIZOPHRENIA FELLOWSHIP OF
              QUEENSLAND, OF THE WHOLE OF THE LAND AT 309 HERSTON ROAD,
              HERSTON, FOR A TERM OF 30 YEARS, as outlined on the terms and conditions
              as set out in Attachment A submitted on file, and otherwise on terms and conditions
              satisfactory to the Manager, Healthy and Vibrant Communities and the Chief Legal
              Counsel, Brisbane City Legal Practice.
                                                                                               NOTED
      D       REVIEW OF SENIOR OFFICERS REMUNERATION FRAMEWORK
              164/285/291/2

37.   The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.

38.   On 20 December 2010, the Establishment and Coordination Committee considered a
      memorandum outlining the outcome of a review of senior officer remuneration undertaken by
      Mercer Human Resource Consulting. The Committee noted the proposal and directed that a
      formal submission be made to Council for approval.

39.   During the Annual Executive Remuneration Review 2009/2010, Mercer outlined a number of
      emerging problems with Council’s Executive Remuneration Framework, which provides that
      Council align its remuneration entry levels for executives between the general market
      25th percentile and 15 per cent from those levels.



                                                                     [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                - 32 -

40.   During that review Mercer noted that the entry levels for the senior officer level one (SO1)
      and the senior officer level two (SO2) pay scales had fallen below the 25 th percentile
      benchmark, potentially making remuneration offers to new executive appointees, not
      competitive. Additionally, the existing SO1.4 ($156,523) pay point overlaps the existing
      SO2.1 ($155,614) pay point and the SO2.2, SO2.3 and SO2.4 pay points ($162,847 to
      $177,311) overlaps the executive service scale ES1 pay point range ($160,323 to $183,483).
      The existing senior officer and executive service pay scales are outlined at Attachment B
      submitted on file. This positioning in the market is regarded as unsustainable and
      uncompetitive and the overlap of pay points causes confusion in administration when
      remuneration offers are made to new executive appointees in Council.

41.   When the senior officer pay points were originally established in 1997 the SO1 and SO2
      scales were used to recruit officers with commercial and technical skills to pay points more in
      keeping with market rates. Over time the usage of the pay scales has become blurred with
      SO1 and SO2 pay points being used to pay officers with general managerial skills as well as
      commercial and technical skills.

42.   Mercer have now recommended a new set of pay points for senior officers that realign the pay
      points within the established Remuneration Framework Policy of not less than 25th percentile
      of the general market and 15 per cent from those levels, and provide a proposal for dealing
      with the overlapping pay points.

43.   Extracts of the Mercer analysis of the senior officer and executive service pay points are set
      out in Attachment B. Their findings are summarised as follows:
      -       there is blurring between the SO2 and the ES1 pay points (as outlined in
              Attachment C, page 3, submitted on file)
      -       general market pay data suggests that:
              -       positions at the bottom of the work value band (eg. 555 points) would be well
                      remunerated even at the lowest pay point ($151,600 versus $137,800, and
                      substantially above general market Q1 (25th percentile), as indicated in
                      Attachment C, pages 4 and 5 submitted on file)
              -       positions at highest work values (eg. 750 points) would be poorly
                      remunerated even at the highest pay point (180,000 versus $198,000) or
                      10 per cent below the median (50th percentile), as indicated in Attachment C,
                      pages 4 and 5, submitted on file).

44.   Mercer propose a new Remuneration Framework for senior officers, which combines the
      senior officer pay points for the SO1 and SO2 pay scales and the executive service ES1 pay
      scales. Their analysis accommodates work values between 540 work value points and
      720 work value points, around traditional remuneration benchmarks, grouping them in
      30 point bands around a mid-point, with a lowest pay point being $143,300, and the highest
      $182,000. (This is outlined in Attachment C, page 18).

45.   Mercer propose to collapse the current 12 pay point pay scales across SO1 and SO2 and ES1
      into one senior officer pay scale with six pay points separated by $7740. This new positioning
      of the senior officer pay scale places the senior officer pay scale at between the 35th percentile
      and 38th percentile, and is well within Council’s originally approved market positioning,
      between the general market 25th percentile and 15 per cent from those levels.

46.   This six point pay scale is the preferred option. In developing this pay scale consideration was
      given to transitional arrangements for existing senior officers and senior executives ES1.
      Consideration was also given to a new framework which had four and five pay point ranges,
      but initial analysis indicated that the best pay transitions for existing senior officers and
      executives occur in the six point scale.




                                                                       [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                  - 33 -

47.    It is not proposed to make automatic pay point translations. Mercer’s advice and the Chief
       Executive Officer’s preferred view is that such adjustments are best made at the time of
       appointment of a new senior officer and at the time of contract renewal.

48.    No changes are proposed to be made to the pay points of the executive service ES2 and ES3
       pay scales. However, the proposed redesign of the senior officer pay scale foreshadows that
       the ES1 pay scale will fall into disuse as the new senior officer pay scale is implemented. The
       proposed changes mirror actions taken by the Queensland Public Service Commissioner,
       where the equivalent ES1 scale in the Queensland Public Service was abolished and the
       two-tiered senior officer pay scale was collapsed into one three pay point scale.

       Implications of proposal

49.    These new senior officer pay arrangements will ensure that Council remains a competitive
       employer for jobs in the senior office pay range.

       Financial impact

50.    The impact will be within existing budget allocations.

51.    The Chief Executive Officer therefore recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at
       its meeting held on 27 April 2011.

52.    DECISION:

       THAT COUNCIL APPROVE:
       (a)  THE REVISED SENIOR OFFICER REMUNERATION FRAMEWORK SET
            OUT IN ATTACHMENT B, submitted on file; and
       (b)  THE TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS to be implemented at appointment
            and at contract renewal.
                                                                                                      NOTED

               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 28 March 2011, be adopted.

Chairman:                  Is there any debate?
LORD MAYOR:                Well, Madam Chairman, just the two items there, the first one being the
                           resumption of land in Fuschia Street, Hemmant for park and recreation ground
                           purposes, Madam Chairman, that's another plus for the city. It should be well
                           received by local residents, with 2680 square metres coming under parkland.
                           Madam Chairman, the other item is the change to the register of administrative
                           arrangements with respect to the delegation of powers for commercial leases.
Chairman:                  Further debate? Councillor SUTTON.

Seriatim - Clause B
Councillor Shayne SUTTON requested that Clause B, DELEGATION OF POWERS IN RELATION TO
COMMERCIAL LEASES (UNDER SECTION 238 OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE ACT 2010), be taken
seriatim for voting purposes.

Councillor SUTTON:         We're not supporting this. This is further watering down of the power of Council
                           to make decisions. It is a further request for additional secrecy in this place. It is
                           a once again limiting the ability of this Council and this Council Chamber to

                                                                            [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                             - 34 -

                       scrutinise decisions being made by this Administration and we will not support
                       it. We all know that this Administration is now the most secretive council
                       administration in Australia.
                       This is another step towards additional secrecy and a further hindrance on the
                       ability of the public to openly scrutinise the decisions being made by this LNP
                       Council Administration.
Chairman:              Further debate? Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:   Yes, Madam Chairman, I rise with respect to Item B and I also had noticed what
                       was happening in Item B.
                       Madam Chairman, I will not be voting for this matter either. I take a slightly
                       different approach though to Councillor SUTTON.
                       Madam Chairman, this Council has 27 elected representatives; the people of
                       Brisbane elect someone to represent them in this Council and to make decisions
                       for them on behalf of them in the interests of the city.
                       Today what we are seeing is a major step away from that. It is a step that allows
                       unelected bureaucrats to make major financial decisions. These are not low
                       value leases, these are not small leases. These are million dollar commercial
                       leases. They could be hundreds of millions of dollars as some commercial leases
                       in this place are.
                       Now Madam Chairman, it is a massive concern that elected representatives are
                       being asked to delegate this power to a Council officer. That Council officer
                       also has powers to delegate. We are delegating our right away to ensure that the
                       financial decisions of this Council are made in an open, transparent and
                       accountable way.
                       I'm extremely concerned that this may lead to some adverse outcomes for our
                       Council. They are not matters where we can come and make decisions as elected
                       representatives and I certainly have concerns.
                       Madam Chairman, in particular, I note under point 14 it allows the Chief
                       Executive Officer to terminate leases, to accept surrender of leases, to make any
                       decision regarding the exercising of power or authority where approval is
                       required by Council.
                       We're redundant. This decision here is saying we don't need elected
                       representatives, we'll just run it down there to Brisbane Square.
                       Well Madam Chairman, that's not what democracy in this city is about.
                       Democracy in this city Madam Chairman, is about making sure the people who
                       are elected to represent residents come in here and are held responsible for their
                       decisions. Today we are throwing that out the window, if this motion is passed.
                       Madam Chairman, the only thing that should be delegated, in my view, is
                       making minor amendments. Now I can understand why we might delegate
                       issues about managing those leases, if they're about maintenance or payments or
                       overdue monies. They are not substantial financial decisions. They are in the
                       same way that a real estate agency may make decisions on behalf of an owner.
                       But Madam Chairman, it is wrong, it is wrong to simply hand this power to
                       delegate millions and millions of dollars and lock Council into long-term leases
                       without any scrutiny by this Council.
                       Madam Chairman, this is an appalling motion that we are considering today, it
                       has major long-term implications for how the city of Brisbane is run. There are
                       major governance impacts for the city and most importantly what it does, is say
                       to residents that their elected representatives aren't here to make decisions for
                       them, bureaucrats are.
Chairman:              Further debate? LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:            Well, Madam Chairman, this has got a beat up of some extreme I have to say.
                       Madam Chairman, can I just say that this is very much about the day to day
                       dealings of these leases. It is about termination, an acceptance of a surrender of


                                                                      [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                       - 35 -

                                 a lease, and it is about the authority in terms of doing the day to day things,
                                 minor amendments to the use committed under the terms of the lease, referral of
                                 disputes to a dispute resolution mechanism, demands for payment, demands for
                                 interest on overdue monies.
                                 Now if we listen to the Opposition and to that of Councillor JOHNSTON you
                                 know we would be having to authorise through this place every time they fell
                                 behind in their rent for goodness sake. Talk about a seven-hour meeting, we'd be
                                 here until what, all night perhaps, debating whether or not we should send the
                                 letter out this week or next week.
                                 Give me a break, Madam Chairman. This is very much at the forefront of
                                 putting into place those mechanisms that allow the managers to manage.
                                 We are the policy mechanism of this place. New leases, they will come here, but
                                 termination of leases, Madam Chairman, surrender of leases, and those day to
                                 day disputes, Madam Chairman, ought to be dealt with in a delegated fashion
                                 and that's what this recommends.
Chairman:                        I'll now put the motion with respect to 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.

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 David HINCHLIFFE and Shayne SUTTON immediately rose and called for a division,
which resulted in the motion being declared carried.

The voting was as follows:

AYES: 16 -                   The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY
                             MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS,
                             Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Margaret de WIT, Steven HUANG,
                             Fiona KING,     Geraldine KNAPP,     Peter MATIC,     Ian  McKENZIE,
                             David McLACHLAN,         Angela OWEN-TAYLOR,      Julian  SIMMONDS,
                             Andrew WINES, and Norm WYNDHAM.

NOES: 11 -                   The Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Shayne SUTTON, and Councillors
                             Helen ABRAHAMS, John CAMPBELL, Peter CUMMING, Milton DICK,
                             Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS, David HINCHLIFFE, Gail MacPHERSON,
                             Victoria NEWTON, and Nicole JOHNSTON.

The report read as follows

ATTENDANCE:

The Right Honourable the Lord Mayor (Councillor C K T Newman) (Chairman); the Deputy Mayor
(Councillor G M Quirk) (Deputy Chairman); and Councillors A Cooper, G Knapp, P Matic,
D McLachlan, M de Wit and A Schrinner.

        A        RESUMPTION OF LAND SITUATED AT 38 TO 46 FUSCHIA STREET,
                 HEMMANT, FOR PARK AND RECREATION GROUND PURPOSES
                 112/20/439/166
                                                                                                    843/2010-11
1.      The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provides the following
        information.

2.      Approval is sought to resume land situated at 38 to 46 Fuschia Street, Hemmant, for park and
        recreation ground purposes.

                                                                                   [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                             - 36 -


3.   The subject properties (listed in Schedule B, below) are situated at 38 to 46 Fuschia Street,
     Hemmant, and are contained within the parkland area of the Brisbane City Plan 2000. The
     properties are described as lots 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 on registered plan 32957 and comprise
     an aggregate area of 2680 square metres as outlined in red on the survey plan at Attachment
     1, submitted on file. The properties are currently vacant.

4.   The properties have Bulimba Creek frontage to the south, and Council-owned parkland to the
     west. This acquisition has been identified in the Australia Trade Coast South Infrastructure
     Contributions Planning Scheme Policy and the draft Priority Infrastructure Plan. A number of
     properties have been acquired by Council in recent years in this location (the location and
     context map at Attachment 2, submitted on file, refers). The development of these acquired
     properties into parkland will increase available parkland for residents and employees in
     Hemmant and provide future opportunities for city-wide water recreation activities on
     Bulimba Creek.

5.   Following negotiations, on 7 April 2010, the owner offered the properties to Council in the
     amount of $200,000 inclusive of professional fees and GST (if applicable). However, despite
     signing a transfer document, the owner has not agreed to settle with Council, despite
     numerous reminders. On 26 October 2010, the owner advised Council that a ‘non-profit’
     entity was interested in purchasing the properties. Brisbane City Legal Practice (BCLP)
     indicated that, under the circumstances, it was prudent to commence resumption action.

6.   On 24 November 2010, the Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, approved
     the issue of Notice of Intention to Resume for the subject properties. Subsequently, on
     1 December 2010, the notice was issued. The owner had until 20 January 2011 to lodge an
     objection to the Notice of Intention to Resume and have it duly heard. No objection was
     received.

     Financial impact

7.   Funding for this resumption is available in the 2010-11 Parks Infrastructure Program budget.

8.   In these circumstances it is best practice, and the recommendation of this submission, for
     Council to pursue the completion of the formal resumption process in order to ensure timely
     acquisition of the land. Approval was now sought to resume land situated at 38 to 46 Fuschia
     Street, Hemmant, for park and recreation ground purposes. The Divisional Manager
     recommends accordingly and the Committee agreed.

9.   RECOMMENDATION:

     THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE DRAFT RESOLUTION SET OUT AT
     ATTACHMENT A, HEREUNDER.


                                           Attachment A
                                          Draft Resolution

     THAT—

     (1)     As:

             (a)     on 1 December 2010, Council issued Notice of Intention to Resume the
                     private land set out in Schedule “B” (hereunder) to this resolution;
             (b)     objections were sought by 20 January 2011 and none were received;



                                                                   [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                  - 37 -

                 then Council is of the opinion that:

                 (i)      the land shown in Schedule “B” and shown as lots 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 on
                          the plan listed in that schedule is required for park and recreation ground
                          purposes;
                 (ii)     IT IS NECESSARY TO TAKE THE LAND.

         (2)     As Council is of the opinion specified in (i) and (ii), it directs that application be
                 made for approval of the Minister for the taking of that land for the purpose stated in
                 (i), in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Acquisition of Land Act
                 1967.

                                             Schedule “B”
                Private property required for park and recreation ground purposes
                  (outlined red on the survey plan at Attachment 1, submitted on file)


        OWNER           LOCATION             REAL              AREA REQUIRED                    DESIGNATION
                                           PROPERTY             FOR PARK AND
                                          DESCRIPTION            RECREATION
                                                              GROUND PURPOSES
                                                              (SQUARE METRES)


      Walter H
                        38, 40, 42, 44
      Carpenter and                       Lots 14, 15,
                        and 46                                2680 square          metres       Parkland     under
      Helen M                             16,17 and 18 on
                        Fuschia Street,                       (whole take)                      City Plan 2000.
      Carpenter, as                       RP32957
                        Hemmant
      joint tenants

                                                                                            ADOPTED
         B       DELEGATION OF POWERS IN RELATION TO COMMERCIAL LEASES
                 (UNDER SECTION 238 OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE ACT 2010)
                 109/105/219/13
                                                                                         844/2010-11
10.      The Acting Chief Operating Officer provides the following information.

11.      Approval is sought to delegate powers in relation to the day-to-day running of the commercial
         lease for City Reach Boardwalk and for the day-to-day running of commercial leases
         generally. A resolution is required under Section 238 of the City of Brisbane Act 2010.

12.      On 1 June 2010, the primary land tenure of the Port of Brisbane Corporation Limited (POBC)
         at City Reach Boardwalk was transferred to the Department of Public Works (DPW). On
         9 July 2010, DPW transferred the Boardwalk perpetual lease (primary land tenure and
         secondary tenant leases) to Council in accordance with the deed of agreement between the
         State Government and Council. Registration of the transfer to Council occurred on 4 October
         2010 which enabled Council to pursue formalised management and administration of the
         Boardwalk.

13.      Council is the perpetual lessee of a series of river leases comprising the Brisbane River and
         reclaimed land on which certain structures and improvements have been constructed. Council
         subleases to a number of major national property firms/trusts such as General Property Trust
         (GPT) (Riverside Centre) and Stockland (Waterfront Place and Eagle Street Pier) who, in
         turn, sublease the land to various commercial entities. These subleases require Council’s
         consent from time to time.

                                                                        [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                               - 38 -


14.   Under the current Register of Administrative Arrangements, there is no delegation to consent
      to commercial subleases at City Reach Boardwalk. In addition, it is proposed that the Chief
      Executive Officer be appointed as delegate for the day-to-day running of commercial leases,
      for example:
      -       deciding to terminate the lease
      -       deciding to accept the surrender of the lease
      -       doing any act or making any decision regarding the exercise of a power or authority
              for which consent or approval is required by Council
      -       doing any act or making any decision for the exercise of a power or authority for or
              incidental to management issues including:
              -       minor amendments to the use permitted under the terms of the lease
              -       referral of disputes to a dispute resolution mechanism
              -       demand for payment
              -       demand for interest on overdue monies.
      Similar powers in relation to community leases have already been delegated by Council.

15.   Section 238 of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 provides Council with the power to, by
      resolution, delegate its powers to the Chief Executive Officer (among others).

16.   Section 239 of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 allows the Chief Executive Officer to (further)
      delegate a power to an appropriately qualified employee or contractor of the Council, unless
      specifically directed by Council not to further delegate the power. The sub-delegate is
      proposed to be the Manager, City Property.

      Implications of proposal

17.   The proposal will provide sustainable administrative efficiencies in regards to the approval, or
      otherwise, of all aspects of commercial leases and subleases that will arise from time to time
      at City Reach Boardwalk and over land on which Council has tenure.

18.   It is therefore proposed that Council delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the powers that
      are set out in the resolution at Appendix A, hereunder. The Acting Chief Operating Officer
      recommends accordingly and the Committee agrees.

19.   RECOMMENDATION

      THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE RESOLUTION SET OUT AT APPENDIX A,
      HEREUNDER.

                                            Draft Resolution
                                              Appendix A

      THAT IT BE RESOLVED THAT—

      UNDER SECTION 238 OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE ACT 2010, BRISBANE CITY
      COUNCIL—

      DELEGATES to each delegate specified in Column 2 of Table 1:
      (a)  the powers under the City of Brisbane Act 2010 specified in Column 1 of Table 1
      (b)  on the special conditions stated in Table 2 and the general conditions stated in Table
           3.

      REVOKES any previous delegation of the powers to the delegate specified in this resolution
      in respect of these powers.



                                                                      [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                              - 39 -


                                           TABLE 1
                              Column 1 - Power                              Column 2 - Delegate
 Section
11           In relation to commercial leases, to:                Chief Executive Officer
             (a)      decide to exercise Council’s power to
                      terminate the lease
             (b)      decide to accept the surrender of the lease
             (c)      do any other act to make any decision for
                      the exercise of a power or authority for
                      which consent or approval is required by
                      Council; and
             (d)      do any act or make any decision for the
                      exercise of a power or authority for or
                      incidental to management issues including:
                              -        minor amendments to the
                              use permitted under the terms of
                              the lease
                              -        referral of disputes to a
                              dispute resolution mechanism
                      -       demand for payment
                              -        demand for interest on
                              overdue monies.


                                             TABLE 2
                                     SPECIAL CONDITIONS
 1.        The exercise of this delegation is conditional upon Council having fulfilled its
           requirements to go to tender or auction for a disposal of land in accordance with the
           requirements of the City of Brisbane (Finance, Plans and Reporting) Regulation 2010.

 2.        The term commercial lease for the purposes of this delegation means a lease that
           permits the lessee to use the premises for a business or commercial purpose and
           includes, but is not limited to, leases for office, retail, warehouse or industrial leases,
           or leases over vacant land and leases for other non-residential purposes.



                                               TABLE 3
                                    GENERAL CONDITIONS
      1. Each of the functions and powers delegated by this resolution includes:
         (a)      doing any act and making any decision;
         (b)      giving or causing to be given any notice, notification, statement of reasons;
         (c)     issuing or causing to be issued, and endorsing, any certificate, permit, or other
                 instrument of authorisation, and any copy thereof,
         if doing so is incidental to or entailed by the exercise of the functions and powers.

      2. This resolution takes effect from the date it is made until:
         (a)     the delegation is revoked; or
         (b)     such time as Council may determine,
         whichever is earlier

      3. A reference to a law includes such a reference to
         (a)     the law is originally made, and as amended from time to time since it was
                 originally made
         (b)     if the law has been repealed and remade (with or without modification) since

                                                                      [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                     - 40 -

                       the reference was made—–the law as remade, and as amended from time to
                       time since it was remade;
               (c)     if a provision of the law has been omitted and remade (without modification
                       and whether in the law or another law) since the reference was made—–the
                       provision as remade;
               (d)     the renumbered law, as renumbered from time to time.

            4. In this resolution:
            “delegate” in relation to a position, means the person holding or acting in that position
            from time to time;
            “law” includes a provision of a law
            “position” means a position as designated in this resolution or as re-designated under a
            different title while the delegation to that position remains in force.

                                                                                                 ADOPTED

CONSIDERATION    OF   RECOMMENDATIONS                                                         OF             THE
ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE:

     ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Adoption report)

The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, Chairman of the Establishment and
Coordination Committee, moved, seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, that
the report setting out the recommendations of the Establishment and Coordination Committee during the
Autumn Recess 2011, on matters usually considered by that Committee, be adopted.

Chairman:                     Is there any debate?
Councillor JOHNSTON:          Point of order Madam Chairman.
Chairman:                     Point of order Councillor JOHNSTON.

Seriatim – Clauses B and C
At that time Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON rose and requested that Clauses B and C, QUARTERLY
FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 2011; and 2010-11 BUDGET – THIRD
REVIEW ‘FLOOD MINI-BUDGET’ CITY OF BRISBANE ACT 2010 AND CITY OF BRISBANE (FINANCE,
PLANS AND REPORTING) REGULATION 2010, respectively, be taken seriatim for debating and voting
purposes.


Debate on Clause A
Chairman:                     Thank you. The LORD MAYOR is allowed to speak on all of those items, so
                              please ensure that if it's a conflict of interest or MPI that you notify if you are
                              going to leave the Chamber.
                              LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:                   Yes, thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, the Item A is in
                              relation to the appointment of committees. Those committees will be the
                              Neighbourhood Planning and Development Assessment Committee and that of
                              Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee.
                              So, Madam Chairman, they are two important areas of Council, and I am sure
                              that Councillor HUANG will find them both interesting and rewarding and I
                              look forward to the contribution that he will make as a member of those
                              committees.
                              Madam Chairman, the other two items we have before us today are with regard
                              to the third budget review for the 2010-11 financial year.


                                                                             [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                   - 41 -

                            Madam Chairman, the overall position of this Council at the start of the
                            financial year the original budget we were looking at an operating capability of
                            $124 million. Under this third budget the view that operating capability goes to
                            $119 million.
                            We have seen a very substantial increase in our expenses over the course of that
                            time. Madam Chairman, the original budget was $1782 million and that goes to
                            $1847 million under this review process and that's against revenue which has
                            increased from $1.906 million to $1.966 million.
                            Madam Chairman, the debt has been has been subject of some interest today.
                            Can I just say that the debt, the net debt at the start of the financial year was
                            $1 billion and $8000; that was the original budget projection for debt was
                            $1 billion and $8000 dollars. Under this third budget review, debt will sit at
                            $886.6 million.
                            The, interestingly that compares with the QTC credit assessment of $1 billion
                            and $7000. So, Madam Chairman, we are in a positive position vis-à-vis the
                            QTC credit assessment.
                            Madam Chairman, there are a number of components, if you like, in summary in
                            relation to this quarter financial review. The first of those is that rates revenue is
                            down $12 million and that's due to a couple of things. It's due to the land
                            revaluations and it's a result of lower than expected growth within our city.
                            Fees and fares are also down $30 million, and that's due to reduced parking fees
                            and PINs, Madam Chairman, that's down $12 million and reduced fees. The
                            ownership transfer fee is also at $5.6 million, as a part and parcel of that.
                            Interestingly bus and ferry fees are down $15.7 million.
                            Madam Chairman, the interest on loan borrowings, Queensland Urban Utilities
                            (QUU) are down $23 million, due to the loan base and rates being established at
                            amounts less than anticipated in the approved budget.
                            On the other side of the equation, Madam Chairman, we have seen donations
                            and grants above budget of $103 million due to infrastructure charges being up.
                            Also we have received a payment from Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery
                            Arrangements (NDRRA) of $54 million.
                            I should say while we've received a payment of $54 million from NDRRA we
                            have spent in excess of $100 million, it's somewhere in the $110 million to
                            $120 million range that we have spent in terms of the flood recovery effort.
                            Madam Chairman, on the expenses side, labour costs have increased due to the
                            provision of $10 million for organisational restructure and flood related costs
                            including approximately $8 million of overtime during that January and
                            February period. We obviously had a need to have a substantial overtime base
                            during that flood recovery period.
                            Madam Chairman, we also see other expenses increase by around $45 million,
                            largely due to increased subsidies associated with increased infrastructure
                            charges.
                            So, Madam Chairman, overall, I believe that this is a good position, particularly
                            given the fact that we have suffered a significant flood event.
                            The position, obviously, is that this Council has some cash flow issues, there is
                            no question about that - I don't know why you'd be laughing, we just had one of
                            the most serious events for 40 years and - yes, as if it's nothing for Councillor
                            GRIFFITHS. Yes, he says and, Madam Chairman—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:                   Order.
Councillor GRIFFITHS:       Councillor QUIRK give us a briefing.
Chairman:                   Order.
LORD MAYOR:                 We just saw—


                                                                             [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                              - 42 -

Councillor GRIFFITHS:   Councillor QUIRK can we get a briefing—
Chairman:               Councillor GRIFFITHS if you would—
Councillor GRIFFITHS:   —on this budget?
Chairman:               —like to make a point of order you move a point of order, otherwise resume
                        your seat.
Councillor GRIFFITHS:   Like to make a point of order.
LORD MAYOR:             It's the sort of Opposition I—
Chairman:               LORD MAYOR, point of order Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor GRIFFITHS:   Would Councillor QUIRK, or the LORD MAYOR, take a question?
LORD MAYOR:             No, Question Time has finished, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:               No questions thank you.
Councillor GRIFFITHS:   Just wanted to get a briefing—
Chairman:               Councillor GRIFFITHS—
Councillor GRIFFITHS:   —on that budget.
Chairman:               —no questions. Resume your seat.
LORD MAYOR:             Madam Chairman, it's the very Opposition that I'm talking about. You know
                        they want to pretend, they want to pretend that this flood event did not occur.
                        Did not occur.
Councillor JOHNSTON:    Point of order Madam Chairman.
Chairman:               Point of order Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:    Madam Chairman, it is an act of disorder under this place to cast adverse
                        reflections upon councillors and Madam Chairman, that is not the case and
                        Councillor QUIRK knows that every councillor who has had a flooded ward is
                        upset and disappointed by the impact of that natural disaster, and every single
                        councillor who has a flood affected ward wants to see this city recover.
                        His implications—
Chairman:               What is your point of order Councillor JOHNSTON?
Chairman:               —on my motives and other flood affected councillor motives are offensive and
                        disorderly under the meetings local law and I would ask that you ask him to
                        withdraw.
Chairman:               I do not uphold your point of order. I believe he was saying in respect to the
                        quarterly financial review. LORD MAYOR.
Councillor CAMPBELL:    Point of order Madam Chair.
Chairman:               Point of order Councillor CAMPBELL.
Councillor CAMPBELL:    Madam Chair, the LORD MAYOR clearly said that we were trying to pretend
                        that it didn't happen. Madam Chairman, I am not and have never pretended, I
                        take that as an undue aspersion on my character and I demand that it be
                        withdrawn.
Chairman:               Councillor CAMPBELL. LORD MAYOR, I'll ask you to clarify your position
                        in those comments please. I do not believe it was imputing motive, I understood
                        it to be in relation to the financial report. LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:             Madam Chairman, let me put it into context. I was giving an accurate account of
                        the affects of the floods on the financial base of this city. That's pretty serious
                        stuff. I was not giving any inaccuracy around that report; I was saying that the
                        flood had had a significant impact on the finances of this Council and that it had
                        also presented a cash flow issue in relation to this Council.
                        Now Madam Chairman, why would those comments receive scorn from
                        Opposition councillors? Why? Why would any—


                                                                       [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                  - 43 -

Chairman:                   Councillor CAMPBELL you will have your chance to speak.
LORD MAYOR:                 —logical, thinking person—
Chairman:                   If you continue to interject I will warn you.
Councillor CAMPBELL:        Point of order Madam Chair.
Chairman:                   Oh, it was Councillor FLESSER. Sorry Councillor CAMPBELL.
LORD MAYOR:                 Why, Madam Chairman, would any sensible person want to cast scorn on those,
                            what were harmless comments? I wasn't having a go at the Opposition at the
                            time.
                            But I made the point that I did because they seemed to think, based on the
                            scornful interjections, that the flood should not have made any difference to the
                            finances of this city and clearly they have.
                            Madam Chairman, I've given an outline, I've given a summary as to where this
                            third budget review sits, and, Madam Chairman, I'll let my comments go on that
                            given the nature of the response from the Opposition.
Chairman:                   Further debate on Item A only?
                            Yes Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        Just briefly, Madam Chairman, as I said earlier today, I welcome the new
                            councillor to the Chamber and I wish him every success on the committees that
                            he's been appointed to.
                            Madam Chairman, in debating this item I note that you have expressed some
                            concern about your workload today and as a result of that, Madam Chairman,
                            while we're making amendments

MOTION FOR AMENDMENT TO CLAUSE A:
                                                                                             845/2010-11
 It was moved by Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON, seconded by Councillor David HINCHLIFFE that Clause A -
 APPROVAL TO APPOINT THE NEW COUNCILLOR FOR MACGREGOR WARD TO COUNCIL
 STANDING COMMITTEES, of the report be amended as follows:
         That Councillor Krista Adams be removed from her role of Deputy Chairman for the Neighbourhood
         Planning and Development Assessment Committee and replaced with Councillor Matthew Bourke.



Chairman:                   Debate?
Councillor JOHNSTON:        I'll be very brief Madam Chairman, because I do think that this is important. I
                            understand that you've expressed concern today about your workload.
Chairman:                   Councillor JOHNSTON I think you should be very careful on imputing motive
                            on me during this debate.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        I think it's a matter of public record about your concerns Madam Chairman.
                            But what I would say is that Councillor BOURKE is clearly keen to do more
                            and Madam Chairman, I would think that it would be of assistance to you, in
                            carrying out the important duties of Chairman, that this very onerous
                            responsibility as the Deputy Chairman of Neighbourhood Planning and
                            Development Assessment is taken off your hands, that another young councillor
                            is given the opportunity to step up and make a contribution in this space.
                            Certainly I believe that this would be a change that would give you some relief
                            from the problems you're experiencing.

Motion that the amendment be now put
                                                                                             846/2010-11
It was moved by the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, seconded by Councillor
Andrew WINES, that the motion for the amendment be now put. The motion was declared carried on the
voices.


                                                                            [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                    - 44 -

Chairman:                     Councillor JOHNSTON. You can reply.
Councillor JOHNSTON:          I'll waive that.
Chairman:                     We will now put the amendment.

Amendment put:
The Chairman put the motion for the amendment to Clause A to the Chamber resulting in its being declared lost
on the voices.

Chairman:                     Any further debate on Item A? LORD MAYOR? I will now put the motion for
                              Item A.

Clause A put
The Chairman put the motion for Clause A of the report to the Chamber and it was declared carried.

Debate on Clause B
Chairman:                     Item B. LORD MAYOR, you've already discussed. Any further debate on Item
                              B? Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:          Yes, Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on Item B which is the quarterly financial
                              report for March for this city.
                              Madam Chairman, I too read the same report that Councillor QUIRK did and I
                              agree completely with his assessment of the city's finances.
                              We are in a poor financial position and this is a poorer financial review of the
                              city's finances and in his own words we do have some cash flow issues. Those
                              are very clear.
                              One of the issues in this report that is of greatest concern to me, Madam
                              Chairman, is the graph number six on page six which is at the bottom of the
                              page, it is a graph that gives a summary of our operations and our capital
                              funding.
                              What that shows Madam Chairman, is that our operating expenses and our
                              capital expenditure are rapidly climbing, in particular our capital expenditure
                              has more than doubled since the end of the last quarter.
                              Madam Chairman, as we've heard, revenues are remaining fairly stagnant and in
                              the last quarter we experienced some decline which hopefully is situational.
                              But Madam Chairman, what this says, and what this does, is indicate that there
                              is a very substantial problem. We cannot continue to spend more than what we
                              have in the kitty. This is a situation that any household in this city would
                              understand; one has to adjust a budget to reflect the situation with revenues at
                              hand. Madam Chairman, if this situation continues the poor financial
                              circumstances that the new LORD MAYOR has outlined today will become
                              dire, they won't just be poor they will be dire.
                              Now Madam Chairman, there are a number of issues in here which are quite
                              surprising. Firstly there are two things in here that show that this Council has
                              had access to unexpected revenues, but this has not appeared to assist our
                              financial position.
                              Firstly, Madam Chairman, we've had higher than anticipated donations of
                              around $12 million and we've received the first payment in the funds that
                              Council has asked for from the State and Federal Government for disaster relief
                              payment. Now Madam Chairman, that is good news for our city, but this has not
                              even made a dent on the financial situation of this Council budget.
                              But what troubles me greatly Madam Chairman, is the repeated statement that is
                              constantly through this document—
Councillor de WIT:            Point of order Madam Chairman.
Chairman:                     Point of order Councillor de WIT.



                                                                            [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                    - 45 -

Councillor de WIT:            A point of clarification, Councillor JOHNSTON, are we on item B the quarterly
                              financial report or the third budget review?
Chairman:                     Well we're on Item B which is the quarterly financial report.
Councillor de WIT:            Yes, I thought so, thank you Madam Chairman.
Chairman:                     Thank you Councillor de WIT.
Councillor de WIT:            Yes.
Councillor JOHNSTON:          That's what I'm referring to.
Chairman:                     Yes.
Councillor JOHNSTON:          Now, Madam Chairman, constantly through this report we read a particular line
                              that says lower than anticipated expenditure. Madam Chairman, what this means
                              is we have got to this quarter and we have not done the things that we have
                              budgeted to do as a city. There are massive underspends in areas as basic as
                              street cleaning, drainage, flooding, foot paths, roads, it is widespread.
                              I am concerned that the level of economic management is declining, not just
                              because of the floods, but because we seem to have problems in delivering what
                              this Council promises it will deliver at the budget.
                              If we think back to the budget in June last year there were commitments made
                              for large increases in things like libraries, for example. Each budget review
                              since that announcement which was given a headline by the LORD MAYOR,
                              there has been cuts to basic library expenditure.
                              So what I'm concerned about, Madam Chairman, is that the LORD MAYOR
                              giveth in his annual budget and the thereby taketh away in each subsequent
                              quarterly review. That is very clear the way in which this city's finances are
                              being managed and we can see that today in this third quarter budget review
                              before us.
                              Madam Chairman, I certainly feel that we should be looking further at how we
                              can better manage and allocate funds. I have serious concerns that we are not
                              allowing this to happen in a way where councillors can make contributions to
                              Council programs and I have serious concerns Madam Chairman, that we are
                              not getting value for money from the delivery of some of these programs and
                              that the Council officers who have carriage of those programs don't appear to be
                              able to complete them.
                              So, Madam Chairman, I have some real concerns with the current state of the
                              city’s finances. It is of great concern and I certainly will be abstaining today,
                              simply because I have been unable to get a briefing on the third budget review. I
                              believe there is important information that we need to know to make informed
                              decisions as councillors in this place.
                              So, Madam Chairman, I don't feel that I can necessarily vote against this, but I'm
                              certainly not going to be voting for it.
Chairman:                     Yes. Councillor WINES.

ADJOURNMENT:
                                                                                              847/2010-11
 At that time, 4.05pm, it was resolved on the motion of Councillor Andrew WINES, seconded by Councillor
 Fiona KING, that the meeting adjourn for a period of 15 minutes, to commence only when all councillors have
 vacated the chamber and the doors have been locked.

UPON RESUMPTION:

Debate on Clause B continued
Councillor CAMPBELL:        I rise to address the quarterly financial report and Madam Chair, the first
                            quarterly financial report that Graham Quirk as LORD MAYOR has brought
                            down as the appointed LORD MAYOR, he’s hit the jackpot. Not only has he,
                            during this last quarter, overseen an increase in QTC debt alone of $100 million,
                            that’s increased the total amount of debt. But first let’s remember, back just

                                                                             [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                             - 46 -

                       1 July 2009, a little bit more than a year ago, we were debt free, completely debt
                       free thanks to the State Government’s payments, as a transfer for our bulk water
                       assets - so Madam Chair, completely debt free.
                       So what’s happened now? Where are we now? Total QTC debt is over
                       $1 billion. An absolute record in our history, in less than two years, an absolute
                       trend-breaking record. Even taking into account CPI increases since then, a
                       massive completely extraordinary blowout in debt to $1,049,000,000.
                       $1,049,000,000 in the old parlance Madam Chair, and what else? We just have
                       to look.
                       You will remember when we were promised that there will only be less than
                       $300 million borrowed for Clem7. Well in fact what it is out of that $1 billion
                       debt? There’s $444,008,000 for Clem7 with no revenue. Maybe $200 million
                       was the promise that we got from the former LORD MAYOR with Councillor
                       QUIRK standing beside him supporting him all the way saying yes, yes
                       TransApex that’s ours, it’s Clem7, waving as people walked by, as people drove
                       into the tunnel. This is ours.
                       Remember the last election campaign Councillor QUIRK and the former LORD
                       MAYOR there saying—
Chairman:              Councillor CAMPBELL can you bring us back to the report or identify where
                       the CLEM7’s in the quarterly financial?
Councillor CAMPBELL:   Yes Madam Chair, it’s part of the debt borrowing which I will refer you to page
                       17. Yet another record that is shown on page 17 when we look at principal loan
                       repayments. Loan repayments - it’s $198 million. Now that’s a point that we go
                       on about debt Madam Chair, is that you actually have to pay it off because when
                       you compare to what we were paying a year ago with this helpful comparison
                       there on page 17 of this report, it’s gone up 100 per cent? Now do I hear a bid of
                       200 per cent? No it couldn’t have gone 300 per cent; 400 per cent even? No, no.
                       Madam Chair, but in actual fact it’s a 1228 per cent increase. 1228 per cent
                       increase. Over 13 times increase in our loan repayments in the space of one year
                       compared to the same time last year.
                       So Madam Chair, this is the situation, the financial situation, that this LORD
                       MAYOR brings to us, brings to the table along with the new DEPUTY MAYOR
                       who’s been complicit in all this because he’s been Chair of Finance all along.
                       So we have a $183 million increase in loan repayments; a massive increase in
                       loan repayments compared to what was paid last year and when you take into
                       account that we had zero debt a little over a year ago, well on 1 July 2009. So in
                       less than two years we have had this increase, this dramatic increase, and what’s
                       part of the reason? The $100 million that is identified in this report - increase in
                       debt? It includes $68.9 million for the Legacy Way Tunnel. $68.9 million for the
                       Legacy Way Tunnel and that’s just the start, just the start of yet another well
                       over a billion dollar program.
                       So Madam Chair, we also see what’s included in that debt, that billion dollar
                       debt. We’ve got the Go Between Bridge which was going to be a big fat cheque,
                       but what is it? It’s a $262.6 million debt. $262.6 million debt and of course
                       we’ve got Legacy Way coming up with a bullet. With a bullet approaching the
                       next financial year.
                       So we’re talking about a bullet with the overall debt heading to $2.2 billion by
                       2015 according to the QTC and we’ve just seen what impact that has on our
                       capacity to pay for services and projects because that’s the impact of the way in
                       which this Administration has gone.
                       When the last quarterly report came here we were saying well this is showing an
                       organisation in stress, even before the flood. That’s what we said Madam Chair,
                       even before the flood. But what’s happened since then? Well we’ve seen that
                       there have to be extra calls on borrowings. From the point of view of cash, where
                       do we get our cash from? They had to go and borrow the cash. They had to go
                       and use the redraw facility. I think at the end of the quarter it was $25 million,
                       but they were saved from it being a whole lot more.


                                                                       [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                      - 47 -

                                They had to borrow just to actually pay as working capital. Who were they saved
                                by? Who do we hear Councillor QUIRK congratulate? He congratulated no one
                                but it was the $54 million upfront without strings because they realised that we
                                were under stress and certainly this Administration is under stress. They are
                                clearly under stress because they’re down $100 million down in cash Madam
                                Chair, but that’s even taking into account $54 million that the Federal
                                Government with the cooperation of the State Government, very kindly provided
                                upfront. Without the paperwork because they realised the situation and they said
                                you can do the paperwork later.
                                Also Madam Chair, there was a $50 million contribution to Legacy Way from
                                the Federal Government. Did we hear any thanks for that? But that’s what saved
                                their bacon. That’s what saved their bacon because they are skint from a point of
                                view of cash. Of course they can go and borrow more and that’s always their
                                solution and I know that’s what they’ll say; oh no, no, Councillor CAMPBELL’s
                                being outrageous or we’re fine we can get more cash. Of course they can. They
                                can go and use the redraw facility with QTC and expose us to even more debt,
                                when we’re already $1 billion just less than two years after being debt free.
                                So Madam Chair, this is yet another example of the parlous state of the
                                Council’s finances. This organisation was under stress last quarter. This quarter,
                                of course when you bring in the budget when you’re already in stress, we’re in
                                ‘diabolicals’. But of course you can go more into debt and that’s what they’re
                                doing. More and more into debt and they were extended so we received a report
                                before the last recess. We had a report giving them the ability to borrow more
                                from QTC using the redraw facility and obviously that’s what they needed. They
                                obviously use a whole lot more but were saved by the $54 million that came in
                                just before the end of the quarter so it would have been a whole lot more than the
                                $25 million that is identified in this report from the redraw for working capital.
                                So where are we faced with? We’re faced with a situation that we are in very
                                difficult circumstances and I know I can’t talk about the response that comes in
                                the next item where we actually have to see what is the result of that and it’s
                                very plain to see. Why? It’s because the approach, the financial responsibility of
                                this Administration have been lacking and it’s just we’ll borrow our way out,
                                she’ll be sweet, no worries for the future. Thank you.
Chairman:                       Further debate? LORD MAYOR? I will now put Item B the quarterly financial
                                report.

Clause B put
The Chairman put the motion for Clause B of the report to the Chamber and it was declared carried.

Thereupon, Councillors WINES and KING immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the
motion being declared carried.

The voting was as follows:

AYES: 16 -                   The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY
                             MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS,
                             Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Margaret de WIT, Steven HUANG,
                             Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David
                             McLACHLAN, Angela OWEN-TAYLOR, Julian SIMMONDS, Andrew WINES,
                             and Norm WYNDHAM.

NOES: 10 -                   The Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Shayne SUTTON, and Councillors
                             Helen ABRAHAMS, John CAMPBELL, Peter CUMMING, Milton DICK,
                             Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS, David HINCHLIFFE, Gail MacPHERSON,
                             Victoria NEWTON.

ABSTENTIONS: 1 -             Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON.




                                                                               [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                           - 48 -

Debate on Clause C
Chairman:            LORD MAYOR any further debate yourself on Item C, the third budget review?
LORD MAYOR:          Madam Chairman, the third budget review—
Chairman:            The flood mini-budget.
LORD MAYOR:          —the mini-budget, Madam Chairman. This particular report outlines a three-year
                     program. It covers this financial year 2010-11 as represented in section B,
                     2011-12 in section C and 2012-13 in section D.
                     Now, Madam Chairman, this report demonstrates how the gap will be funded.
                     Now it is true that the Federal Government have said that they will fund certain
                     things under the NDRRA arrangements and I’ve indicated that as funds become
                     available we will be able to bring projects back online, but we at this stage have
                     taken a conservative approach given the cash that we have available, given the
                     position that until we see those funds that this is before us today as mini-budget
                     review.
                     So, Madam Chairman, it does have in this report an impact in all three financial
                     years. It does reflect that there will be a significant gap also between the amount
                     we receive back under NDRRA (Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery
                     Arrangements) and that of the actual costs to Council.
                     So, Madam Chairman, there is going to be a substantial gap, those items which
                     for example are not refundable under the Federal and State arrangements.
                     So it’s there, the detail is comprehensive, it’s line by line for all councillors to
                     see and debate here this afternoon.
Chairman:            Further debate? Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:   Thank you Madam Chair. I rise to speak to this item and I just need to raise a
                     few key points.
                     Councillor JOHNSTON’s request for a briefing on this item is justified because
                     as Councillor QUIRK has just said, this is a mini-budget. It is not just your stock
                     standard third budget review, it is a mini-budget and as in keeping with the title
                     of that document, it deserves some further advice and information to all
                     councillors. Third budget reviews, your stock standard third budget reviews, do
                     not deal with three financial years worth of changes in general Madam Chair.
                     This is a mini-budget, it deserves the higher scrutiny.
                     I am disappointed that this Council and Councillor QUIRK have refused to
                     provide all councillors in this place the opportunity to be fully briefed and to ask
                     questions as would be the case under any budget arrangement. These are
                     substantial changes to Council’s budgetary position yet this Administration has
                     not been open and honest enough to allow itself to be properly questioned and
                     properly scrutinised. The LORD MAYOR was only calling, for not only an hour
                     ago, for substantive debate on public policy matters, yet when the requests come
                     through that would allow that debate to take place in a well-informed way, then
                     he refuses.
                     Now the next question I have for Councillor QUIRK is tell us what the non-
                     refundable items that the Federal and State Governments are not going to refund
                     under the NDRRA arrangements are. Tell us what the non-refundable aspects are
                     because under the current arrangements every piece of publicly provided
                     infrastructure is being reimbursed. All of your roads, all of your footpaths, all of
                     your parks, all of your lighting, everything is being covered under the traditional
                     National Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements (NDRRA).
                     Madam Chair, so too are the ferry terminals. There were two question marks: the
                     ferry terminals and the Riverwalk. Back in February the Deputy Prime Minister
                     and the Premier made it very, very clear that the Riverwalk would be funded and
                     the ferry terminals would be funded. They also made it clear that labour costs
                     would be funded as well. So tell us tonight what the non-refundable aspects are
                     because as we can’t see any non-refundable aspects and you have not provided
                     us with the details of what are these non-refundable aspects that are going to see
                     us out-of-pocket.

                                                                     [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                              - 49 -

                     Madam Chair, the reality of this is that this budget review is the financial bad
                     news story for this LNP Administration that was developing well before the
                     floods, and it continues to unfold despite substantial Federal and State funding
                     for our flood recovery. It is a story of massive cuts to Council core services, and
                     yet despite the heart being ripped out of our services, Council’s cashflow
                     continues to go backwards by more than $100 million and debt continues to
                     spiral upwards. This quarter alone, we see a debt increase of $133 million
                     towards record levels of debt that are putting upward pressure on rates and
                     charges.
                     Our debt continues to climb skyward, caused by Campbell Newman’s fixation
                     on expensive toll tunnels that are not working Madam Chair. This review and
                     mini-budget is proof positive that this LNP Administration has the wrong
                     priorities for Brisbane and let me give you some examples of that just to prove
                     the point. Let me start with footpaths and the outrage and the indignant tones of
                     Councillor de WIT over there in question time. What did she say? She said the
                     proof is in the pudding she said Madam Chair. She said, look at the numbers.
                     Those are her words. She said, look at the numbers. Well let’s look at the
                     numbers, Councillor de WIT. Let’s look at the fact that you have cut $500,000
                     out of the footpaths’ budget this financial year for the rest of the financial year.
                     Half a million dollars in footpaths promised by the LNP Administration that will
                     not be built this financial year.
                     Madam Chair, this document says the funds are unallocated. That is not true.
                     That is simply not true. As per the new procedures, the footpaths to be built have
                     been prioritised and allocated by local councillors. I know all of my footpaths
                     were prioritised and allocated and endorsed for expenditure back in July, Madam
                     Chair. I signed off on every single footpath to be constructed and built in
                     Morningside Ward. Guess what? They have not been built. I’ve done what I
                     needed to do, what my responsibilities were as the local councillor. This
                     Administration has not kept their word. They have not kept their word and no
                     wonder Councillor de WIT then goes on saying footpaths are an expensive
                     luxury. They’re her direct words. Expensive luxury is how the Chairperson of
                     Infrastructure, who doesn’t want the job; she told us that in infrastructure this
                     morning; she doesn’t want the job. That is what she sees and thinks of footpaths
                     in this city.
                     Madam Chair, the people of Brisbane have a clear choice. They have a choice
                     between an LNP Administration that over-promises and under-delivers, that has
                     lost the capacity to build even the most basic council infrastructure that are
                     footpaths in our city, and a choice between Ray Smith the Labor lord mayoral
                     candidate who will spend $150 million on footpaths in his first term in office—
Chairman:            Councillor SUTTON, back to the third budget review please.
Councillor SUTTON:   —It is a clear choice.
                     Madam Chair, the wrong priorities continue across a multitude of areas in this
                     budget review. We see $200,000 blowout to cover the cost of a blowout in the
                     failed CityCycle project that nobody is using, but also cutting $400,000 from a
                     program to fix cycling and pedestrian black spots; a program that is needed to
                     enhance safety and fix cycling and pedestrian black spots, gets cut by $400,000
                     but we can pour more money - $200,000 - into your failed CityCycle program
                     that is not being used by Brisbane residents.
                     Madam Chair, of course we’re still rolling out parking meters. Is that not what
                     the flood affected areas of Brisbane need, more parking meters? Come on, these
                     are the wrong priorities for this city; $300,000 more for additional parking
                     meters in this city. Madam Chair, surely there are bigger priorities than rolling
                     out these revenue raising cash grabs from an administration that is cash strapped.
                     What was the LNP Administration’s response to making sure the city has
                     adequate drainage in a year that Brisbane floods? What is their answer to that? A
                     cut of $2.4 million in spending on major on local drainage construction. So what
                     happens, Brisbane floods and we stop building drainage. You know, it’s not
                     rocket science Madam Chair. Gee I wouldn’t want to be part of the brains trust
                     of the LNP. I think most people will see with common sense that drainage is not

                                                                     [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                  - 50 -

                            an area that should be cut while we’re dealing with the ramifications of a major
                            flooding event.
                            Now Madam Chair, this is what gets me: we can find $800,000 to represent
                            ourselves at the Flood Commission of Inquiry; $800,000 to represent ourselves
                            at the Flood Inquiry. What are you trying to hide? What are you trying to hide by
                            spending so much? That is a lot of money for dealing with something that should
                            be pretty straightforward particularly when we have already got our own
                            Brisbane City Council legal practice (BCLP) and we have already done—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:                   Councillor KNAPP and Councillor JOHNSTON, if you continue to interject, I
                            will warn you. Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:          Forty-one solicitors in the BCLP; forty-one was not enough. $800,000—
Chairman:                   Councillor KNAPP.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        Point of order Madam Chairman?
Chairman:                   Point of order Councillor JOHNSTON?
Chairman:                   One moment Councillor SUTTON. Councillor JOHNSTON?
Councillor JOHNSTON:        Madam Chairman, you just said that the next councillor who interjected would
                            be warned. You did not warn Councillor KNAPP in line with your earlier ruling.
                            Are you not now going to enforce your own rulings?
Chairman:                   Councillor JOHNSTON there are a lot of councillors who have not been warned
                            tonight. Do not speak back at me or make juvenile faces like that. If I ruled
                            everybody warning here for interjections tonight everybody would be on a
                            warning. I’ve asked Councillor KNAPP to stop interjecting and I did it again.
                            I’ve given you way more leeway this evening Councillor JOHNSTON.
                            Councillor SUTTON resume your speech.
Councillor SUTTON:          Thank you and I take Councillor KNAPP’s interjection. She says it’s for
                            barrister’s fees. Why do we need a barrister Madam Chair? What are we trying
                            to hide? $800,000 to protect this Administration with barristers about what we
                            have done during the floods. We’ve already done our own flood inquiry—
LORD MAYOR:                 Point of order Madam Chair?
Chairman:                   Point of order LORD MAYOR?
LORD MAYOR:                 Madam Chair, would the Opposition Leader take a question?
Chairman:                   Will you take a question Councillor SUTTON?
Councillor SUTTON:          I always take questions, thank you.
Chairman:                   Yes LORD MAYOR?
LORD MAYOR:                 Madam Chair, I just wonder whether the Opposition Leader believes that the
                            State Government ought to be using the Crown Law offices to run the Inquiry?
Chairman:                   Councillor JOHNSTON, Councillor SUTTON was asked the question not you.
Councillor SUTTON:          What I believe is that we should be using our in-house legal support to pay for
                            our legal bills and the fact that this Council, at a time when they are cutting
                            projects and services in Brisbane suburbs to spend $800,000 on barristers to
                            represent us at a commission is obscene.
DEPUTY MAYOR:               Point of order Madam Chair?
Chairman:                   Point of order Councillor SCHRINNER?
DEPUTY MAYOR:               Madam Chairman, I clearly heard Councillor KNAPP and she did not say it was
                            $800,000 for barristers, she said BCLP has no barristers. Let the record show—
Chairman:                   Thank you Councillor SCHRINNER it’s not a point of order. Councillor
                            SUTTON?
Councillor SUTTON:          But perhaps the Finance Chair might like to read his own budget documents
                            because it’s $800,000 in the budget document—

                                                                          [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                             - 51 -

Chairman:             Councillor SUTTON your time has expired. Further debate? Councillor
                      FLESSER?
Councillor FLESSER:   Thank you Madam Chair.
                      When I look at this document what do I see? Poor and reckless financial
                      management.
                      Madam Chair, this Administration has got their priorities all wrong and they’ve
                      had those priorities long for seven long years and these tunnel debts are starting
                      to hurt. They’re going to start hurting ratepayers not only in how their hip
                      pockets are affected, but also in services and we see today in this budget review
                      cuts of $85 million in projects out in the suburbs mainly in Councillor QUIRK’s
                      former portfolio roll in road projects.
                      Madam Chair, we should be spending more money on road projects to reduce
                      traffic congestion out in the suburbs not less. We’re wasting money on toll
                      tunnels that just are not working and this budget review that’s come here today
                      shows all that very clearly.
                      Madam Chair, I will go through some of the points in the budget review to make
                      sure that all councillors are well aware of what’s going wrong here and to make
                      it clear to them why should they be voting against this budget review.
                      But I’ll start by saying there is actually a cut in here that I agree with and that’s
                      in future Brisbane. The Administration has decided to cut $1.3 million in
                      expenses and $119 million in capital from the plans for suburbs and other
                      development areas’ neighbourhood plans. Madam Chair, what a great idea. What
                      a great idea to take money out of the costs of neighbourhood plans because what
                      happens with the neighbourhood plans is what we’re seeing is sardine suburbs
                      that people just don’t want. That’s what they’re getting as a result of
                      neighbourhood plans so what a great idea to cut the project right here and now
                      and taking all that money and Madam Chair, I absolutely agree with that.
                      And we start to look at some of where the Administration has got their priorities
                      wrong and their priority certainly is right cutting the money from neighbourhood
                      planning. But look at some of the items in Program 10 Madam Chair. This
                      morning a question was asked of Councillor SCHRINNER about a $10 million
                      blowout in the Organisational Realignment Project; $10 million. Well where’s
                      the explanation for that? $10 million - so that’s almost a 50 per cent increase in
                      the costs of that project. Madam Chair, why and I hope that Councillor
                      SCHRINNER might explain this afternoon why ratepayers are paying an extra
                      $10 million for a project that is supposed to be savings this Council money. An
                      extra $10 million for a project; we’re supposed to be saving money.
                      We also see in Program 10 that recognition of securing 2026 benefits are not
                      being realised and there’s $3.105 million extra cost to Council because of that.
                      Now this morning Councillor SCHRINNER said oh that’s because of the flood.
                      Well Madam Chair, that would fund for the six months between when this
                      budget review was made and the financial year, 62 staff. How do you work that
                      out? What has the flood got to do with not realising those benefits that we were
                      promised in the budget, the then LORD MAYOR promised in the budget, to be
                      delivered in the securing of the 2026 project.
                      And we also see as Councillor SUTTON has mentioned, we’re cutting the
                      programs for apprentices, we’re cutting the programs for cadetships, at the same
                      time we’re increasing fat cat wages in salaries in this Council Madam Chair.
                      That is absolutely wrong priorities.
                      One of my pet subjects of course is about mosquitoes and biting insects. Now
                      what I see in Program 7, mosquito and pest services, remember there was a
                      $282,000 cut to the budget in December last year that Councillor McLACHLAN
                      was very proud of and he’s been doing a great job defending his position in the
                      local paper recently, what we’ve seen is that there has been an acknowledgement
                      that that cut was much, much too deep. More money’s been allocated to spraying
                      the mosquitoes but Madam Chair, it’s not enough; it’s just not enough. People
                      are still getting bitten by mosquitoes. Mothers are still bringing their children

                                                                      [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                      - 52 -

into my ward office with the welts on their arms, the children who were allergic
to mosquitoes. It’s not enough.
I’ve mentioned before many times that the Council is not doing enough for
mosquito control and that’s been the case for many, many years.
It’s interesting that in other places the priorities are wrong. The Administration’s
decided to cut $30,000 from the Midge Control Advocacy and Research Project.
I have some areas in my ward where biting midges are a real problem. I know
that Councillor NEWTON does as well.
So is this the right priority: taking money out of biting insects and in my view
mainly to prop-up the huge tunnel debts that this Council is facing and on
barristers of course.
Now Madam Chair, as Councillor SUTTON said before, $500,000 cut out of
new ward footpaths and she spoke clearly about that but I want to add something
else that Councillor SUTTON overlooked. Madam Chair, for footpath and
bikeway reconstruction, this is fixing the broken footpaths, the broken bikeways
out in the suburbs, what this budget review is doing is taking $1.8 million out of
expenses, that’s workers out there fixing up the broken footpaths, fixing up the
broken bikeways, taking that out of the budget, another $367 million out of
capital in the same project. These are the sorts of things we should be spending
money on. Not $800,000 for barristers, not $200,000 for the CityCycle project, a
blowout in that project as well, so clearly the wrong priorities there.
If we go to another one of my pet hates I suppose is all the rhetoric that’s been
around the Go Between Bridge. Remember when the then LORD MAYOR said
that this bridge is going to deliver a big fat cheque to this Council? Not that long
ago he said that. What do we see in this budget review? We see that revenue is
down by $866,000 less than what was budgeted for. So we’ve had Councillor
QUIRK saying how fantastic the bridge is, it’s going ahead in leaps and bounds,
lots more cars are using it. Well Madam Chair, if that’s the case, how come
revenue is down by so much?
I notice that in answer to one of the questions in the meeting papers today we see
that when the bridge was open, it was about June last year to February this year
we’ve collected $3.79 million in tolls, but during that same period the cost for
the toll revenue collection service provider contract is $1.55 million. So
motorists have been using that bridge and they’ve been paying the tolls, have
been paying almost half of that toll money just to collect the tolls. How is this
bridge ever, ever going to deliver a big fat cheque to this Council? It’s just not
going to.
So we’ve had the big promises about the big fat cheque, it’s going to be a
fantastic bridge, the revenue is under-budget, it blew out more than twice what
was projected in the costs out to $340 million and it started off at $120 million.
That has been a financial disaster for this Council. This budget review is trying
to bring back some of the dollars to try and hide a disaster like that.
Another place that clearly there’s something gone wrong is in the Green Waste
Recycling Service and we saw The Courier-Mail the other day make a report
about how fantastic this service is. We’re not sure whether the journalists asked
any questions because what we see in here is that the anticipated revenue is
much less than what was anticipated. So the net costs and expenses is up by
$900,000. So maybe someone’s going to explain what’s going on. Then maybe
Councillor McLACHLAN might explain what’s gone wrong with this project. Is
it a lemon? Why is costing an extra $895 million dollars?
Madam Chair, I’ll go on to the Bikeway network and of course this is a subject
that affects my residents. I’ve got a need for bikeways in my area. Now I noticed
that in Moving Brisbane we’re going to reduce the capital budget by $6.8 million
for building bikeways, but what we’re going to do is spend an extra
$1.350 million on designing them. Madam Chair, why would we have bikeways
out there that are designed - I have one in my area; a very popular one that I
know is going to be very popular when it gets built - there’s no explanation in
here as to say whether it’s been cut from the budget, but why would we be

                                                [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                         - 53 -

                   cutting the money we’re actually spending on building bikeways but increasing
                   by $1.35 million what we’re spending on designing them.? We have bikeways
                   designed ready to go, why aren’t they being built? Why are we spending more
                   money on designing them rather than actually putting them in the ground where
                   people can use them?
                   So Madam Chair, overall when you look at this budget review we see disaster
                   after disaster, but one thing I’d like to finish on is the Jamboree Community Hub
                   design and construction. Now this is a project that was promised by Campbell
                   Newman in 2003. Out there at Jamboree he said there’s a desperate need for a
                   community hub out there and he was going to build it. Well what’s happened
                   since then? Where is the Jamboree Community Hub?
Chairman:          Councillor FLESSER, your time has expired. Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:   Well thanks Madam Chair, and I will have to finish where Councillor FLESSER
                   left off because as everyone knows Madam Chair, everyone knows in this
                   chamber and Councillor BOURKE knows it’s coming, under section 5.5.2.1.
                   community halls, my favourite part of the budget because I’ve been chucking
                   this end - what I can announce tonight is - what I can announce tonight is - this
                   document proves what I’ve been saying all along: the LNP had no intention of
                   building the Jamboree Community Centre right from the beginning because
                   tonight we are celebrating the 10th anniversary of when the centre will be open
                   because under 5.5.2.1. carry over capital: until 2013-14 $2.650 million.
                   Now I’ll have to wheel out a cake because that’ll be the 10th anniversary. I was a
                   bit concerned Madam Chair, because about this item in the budget review, in
                   March Councillor BOURKE said, I’ve worked with the community to design the
                   facility and get the location the community wants. Now we’re working on
                   finalising these details. The councillor said work was supposed to start in
                   January. Well I assume that was January this year, not in 2013-14 because the
                   people of Jamboree know that their Council has been cut loose by the
                   Administration. It was elected on the coattails of the LORD MAYOR and now
                   they are saying we’re not going to honour the commitments that they made to
                   the people of Jamboree.
                   Now I would think if I was the councillor getting pushed over and rolled up like
                   that I’d have something to say about it, but not down in sleepy hollow in the
                   back corner there where you don’t hear much from any of the councillors except
                   from Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR, I will point that out. We are seeing yet
                   another broken promise.
                   But Madam Chair, there are a whole range of issues in this budget review that I
                   am concerned about. The first thing, I’d like to seek some clarification about.
                   We heard Councillor KNAPP interject and say that there was $800,000 to assist
                   with barrister’s fees. Well I’d like a breakdown of exactly what that $800,000 is
                   anticipated to actually deal with, but there’s also something about our own
                   review. When our review was announced by the former LORD MAYOR, he said
                   it would cost $500,000, but what we didn’t hear from any media releases today,
                   maybe one’s gone out, to say that the costs have blown out to $750,000. That’s a
                   quarter of a million dollars more than what they told the media and I guess this
                   gets to a pattern of what we see with the Administration all the time: announce
                   one thing, say it’s great news and then quietly, quietly sometime after it either
                   gets cut, it gets wound up back or there’s a complete blowout.
                   This Administration is hopeless when it comes to sticking to its budget.
                   I do want to talk about Program 10 and that is of course the employee costs for
                   the Council and look I know that this has been a big issue for the LNP Council
                   and we’ve debated this before, but this report once again highlights the LNP’s
                   inability to appropriately manage the Council bureaucracy and of course we
                   know that that mismanagement is costing ratepayers. Now we’re seeing today in
                   cuts in services in the suburbs and also hard earned cash and I’ll tell you what
                   because what we’re seeing today is a cut to and to decrease this Council’s
                   commitment to employing apprentices, graduates and cadets by more than
                   $1 million.


                                                                  [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                           - 54 -

                     So I’d like the Chair of Finance to justify where those cuts are, why he is making
                     those cuts, to make sure that once again we’re seeing further cuts to areas in
                     Council that can least afford it.
                     On top of that the budget review sees a $10 million blowout for the Organisation
                     Realignment Project which I understand is supposed to be saving Council
                     money. Now this is supposed to be saving money by creating efficiencies, but a
                     $10 million blowout in the costs of this program is taking it from $23 million to
                     $33 million.
                     Now Councillor SCHRINNER was asked about this at the Finance Committee
                     this morning and he refused to answer it. He either didn’t know that this blowout
                     was happening or deliberately chose not to release that information.
                     Now I can only assume that this is caused by the need to pay out the
                     redundancies to Council’s staff and of course I believe if anyone is entitled to
                     certain benefits and entitlements they should receive them. Of course those
                     workers deserve what they are entitled to, but the black mark is against the LNP
                     Administration who allowed the employee costs to go unchecked for so long. To
                     inflate so much that the Council’s independent financial assessor, the QTC,
                     which recently downgraded our financial outlook to negative and issued very
                     clear warnings to Council: that we must bring employee costs back into line.
                     What’s the consequence of this ongoing management? People are now losing
                     their jobs they thought they had secured with Council and ratepayers are forking
                     out an extra $10 million in redundancy payments.
                     What we want to know Madam Chair, is where these jobs are being cut from. Is
                     it the frontline staff and we know that the Compliance and Regulatory Services
                     (CARS) office is understaffed and facing enormous pressures? We know the
                     Development Assessment (DA) teams are feeling the heat. Well certainly the
                     neighbourhood planning teams are feeling the heat. Leasing - we know the
                     stories. Certainly in my local area I’ve heard the heartache of teams basically
                     being decimated by staff not being employed. So we actually want to know
                     why? We want to know a breakdown of this.
                     It’s all very well for the new LORD MAYOR to come in here and say oh well,
                     you know, there’s a few cuts and a few cuts there, but these are important,
                     important, cuts that are going to have a major, major impact onto the residents of
                     Brisbane.
                     Madam Chair, Councillor SUTTON has already dealt with: the drainage cuts. I
                     know in my own local area people once I tell them that the Administration’s
                     planning to cut major drainage that they’re not going to be happy with that and
                     particularly the people who have been flood affected.
                     Look I won’t even touch the CityCycle issue. I mean it’s such a joke. I did have
                     to laugh, the latest advertising campaign come together. You saw the people
                     riding around on City - now that’s false advertising. That is absolutely false
                     advertising.
Councillor NEWTON:   Point of order Madam Chair?
Chairman:            Point of order Councillor NEWTON?
Councillor NEWTON:   Will Councillor DICK take a question?
Councillor DICK:     Of course.
Chairman:            Yes Councillor NEWTON?
Councillor NEWTON:   Councillor DICK do you think that these actors in the ads may have been used to
                     bump up the statistics for the CityCycle usage perhaps?
Councillor DICK:     Madam Chair, I’ll answer that by saying this: we have no idea because
                     Councillor de WIT and now Councillor SIMMONDS - isn’t that the poisoned
                     challis, that portfolio - three chairs in less than one year—
Chairman:            Councillor DICK answer the question and then back to the item.



                                                                    [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                  - 55 -

Councillor DICK:            Madam Chair, I wouldn’t know because we refuse to get month by month stats.
                            We’re refusing to get the details. We get a vague figure of the people who have
                            registered, but we never actually get - oh I haven’t seen Councillor de WIT on
                            the cycles so I don’t know maybe she’s had the first—
Chairman:                   Back to the item please. It wasn’t a relevant question.
Councillor DICK:            Thanks Madam Chair. So just onto some other issues that I do have. Madam
                            Chair, the issue of City Hall. Now in today’s question time Councillor COOPER
                            was asked for the financial plan of course. We got nothing again from the
                            Administration. We see a funding delay of $23 million. Now $5 million is
                            because of the lack of revenue. Now Councillor SCHRINNER was talking about
                            there’s not a secret fundraising committee. Well I think the secrecy part is we
                            have not been told what the donations are from that committee, but you can bet
                            if they were big - oh well wasn’t it a six figure cheque? A seven figure cheque?
                            A seven figure cheque? No one has any idea where those donations are.
                            Now I would have thought some of those people wouldn’t have minded their
                            name up in lights because they have—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor DICK:            —yes absolutely they deserve it. Some would be private donations of course, but
                            Madam Chair, when you see the city icons, when we’re seeing $23 million -
                            $743 million - in funding for the City Hall Project, I guess delay ratepayers who
                            have generously been donating have to ask where is their money going. What is
                            going on with City Hall? From day one we have asked - we have pleaded with
                            the Administration to release the financial plan. What is the detailed financial
                            plan?
                            I mean we heard last week Councillor QUIRK saying well the State Government
                            should kick in - oh Councillor SCHRINNER saying that the State Government
                            should kick in. Well we’ve got a State candidate Campbell Newman; how much
                            has he promised but I’ll get back to him in a sec Madam Chair, because I need to
                            look at how the LNP is now undermining Campbell Newman because when you
                            look at the future programs, this Administration is delaying funding for some of
                            their pet projects: the rail overpasses.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:            Absolutely, can you believe it? Once again this time Councillor KING’s been
                            hung out to dry. Absolutely, the promise has been made and now we’re seeing a
                            delay in the Geebung rail crossing.
                            I mean we had on the one hand candidate Newman out there saying yes I will
                            build it, now we’re seeing the LNP secretly winding back their support for it.
                            That’s what’s happened. That’s what happened because the documents today
                            reveal very, very clearly that we are seeing huge delays now in this project
                            which leads me also to—
Chairman:                   Councillor DICK your time has expired. Councillor SCHRINNER?
DEPUTY MAYOR:               Madam Chairman, I rise to speak in relation to the third budget review, the flood
                            mini-budget Madam Chairman.
                            From the debate we’ve heard today, it seems apparent that Labor thinks this is all
                            a game. It’s almost with glee that they come in here and they talk about this
                            budget. They can hardly wipe the smirks off their faces and I think it is
                            absolutely disgraceful because as the LORD MAYOR said, we have just been
                            through the biggest natural disaster this city has seen in 40 years and potentially
                            longer and I have to say, this budget that comes through is the only budget out of
                            the three levels of government that is still balanced; the only out of the three.
                            Federal Government in deep deficit, State Government in deep deficit, Council
                            budget balanced Madam Chair; balanced.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:                   Order.


                                                                            [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                      - 56 -

DEPUTY MAYOR:   To get it into a balanced position was a challenge and no one on this side of the
                chamber will deny that. It has been a challenging budget review and these are
                challenging times which we are living in at the moment. Not only have we had
                the impacts of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC); we’ve had devaluations in
                property in recent years, particularly CBD property; we’ve had projects—
Chairman:       Councillor NEWTON.
DEPUTY MAYOR:   —like City Hall that Labor neglected for years and years and we’ve had to fix
                and on top of that, we’ve had a flood which, as we know, will cost this city
                $440 million over a three-year period—
Chairman:       Councillor FLESSER if you continue to interject you will be warned.
DEPUTY MAYOR:   —and so Madam Chairman, we have put our heads down and we have got down
                with the job of sorting this budget out and keeping it balanced and that process
                started some time ago.
                On 5 February the previous LORD MAYOR Campbell Newman announced the
                costs of the flood would be $440 million. They’re based on the best estimates
                that we had at that time and no doubt those figures will change over time
                because when we do the work, the work that needs to be done, in some cases we
                will come in under-budget, in some cases it’s probably the opposite. That is the
                nature of doing a recovery process which involves so much unprecedented work.
                The $440 million is the best estimate we have at this point in time and so what
                we did is we went a week after announcing that in February we announced that
                we would be making cuts and deferrals to certain projects in order to keep the
                budget balanced. We were upfront right from day one Madam Chairman. We
                called the media together and we had an unprecedented briefing for this type of
                budget review. We do this sort of thing at budget time each year, we brief the
                media. We did it again for this particular budget review in the lead up to it
                because we knew how important it was and we wanted to make sure that the
                community was informed on the challenges that we face.
                So we approached it in an open and transparent way and we told the community
                we would need to tighten the belt internally and we were upfront about that
                Madam Chairman.
                So in this document that we have in front of us today we’ve seen that costs
                associated with the floods—
Chairman:       Councillor NEWTON if you continue to interject you’ll be warned.
DEPUTY MAYOR:   —costs associated with the flood are well over $100 million. That’s extra costs
                in addition to anything that was loaded in the previous budget as per the second
                budget review.
                So there’s been a $114 million hit to the budget as a result of the flood. Labor
                and in particular Councillor CAMPBELL said the Federal Government has
                bailed us out. We’ve been rescued by the Federal Government. Madam
                Chairman, we have received a payment of $54 million from the Federal
                Government and you know what, I appreciate that payment and I acknowledge
                that payment, but it goes nowhere near funding that $114 million of costs that
                we’ve had to incur this financial year.
                So we’ve had to take the responsible approach and keep the budget balanced in
                the way that we said we would do some time ago.
                But let me deal with a couple of issues in this report; firstly, debt. Labor has
                continued to repeat their same tired lines. Those lines were false last time they
                said them; they are still false today Madam Chairman.
                When we brought down the budget in June last year we projected that by the end
                of this financial year borrowings would be around $1 billion. The budget has
                been revised down for borrowing and we project now that the level of borrowing
                will actually be $120 million less than we originally anticipated. So the
                borrowings will come in at around $887 million net debt.



                                                              [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                      - 57 -

So in relation to what we told the public in June last year and what we told QTC
our borrowings are lower Madam Chairman. That is a fact and it is indisputable.
In relation to the so-called costs blowout of $10 million in organisational
restructure, let me explain. Next week in this chamber a document will come
through, a Civic Cabinet document will come through which will involve a
reorganisation of the departments of this Council Madam Chairman. It has been
something that is being spearheaded by the CEO with the full support of Civic
Cabinet and that is designed to help this Council save money.
We have said we will deal with the issue of employee costs and we are serious
about that. As part of this reorganisation, we will be offering to certain areas of
Council, back office areas, the opportunity for voluntary redundancies. People in
those back office areas such as finance, administration and IT will be offered the
opportunity for redundancies.
Now the CEO will drive this process, but it will certainly not be a process of job
losses or sackings in any way, shape or form. The key word here is voluntary
and it is the same type of program which the State Government recently
announced when they said they will offer 3500 voluntary redundancies for the
State Government. Now obviously we’re not talking about anything like that
number, but it is consistent with what the State Labor Government is doing.
We have been open and upfront about the fact that we are determined to reduce
employee costs. We will do that Madam Chairman. We will do that without any
sackings, contrary to what Labor would like to scaremonger about. This will be
entirely voluntary and we believe that there will be employees in this
organisation that will willingly take up that offer and by the same token, they
will help this organisation restructure.
In relation to Councillor SUTTON question about what items will be funded by
the Federal Government and State Government and what items won’t be, I can
say that is not exactly clear at this point and that is one of the reasons we are
taking a conservative approach. We know that we have to spend the money first
and then send that application to the Federal and State Governments for
reimbursement. Now we don’t want to be in a position where we’ve spent
money which we then do not get reimbursed for Madam Chair, so we’re taking a
cautious approach and we are doing so with constant contact with the State
Government Reconstruction Authority. But we know that there is a very strong
possibility of a significant gap in our expenses.
The initial costs of the flood response included a whole range of things which
may or may not be reimbursed by the State and Federal Governments and as I
said, as a result, we’re taking a very conservative approach.
The initial costs for example included $7.49 million of overtime payments to
staff and they were those frontline staff that were there working hard day in day
out in the initial period of the flood recovery. We had to make sure that those
staff were paid for the work that they were doing in helping the community with
the flood recovery process. That was vital.
I have to say as of the end of April, we have submitted grant applications totally
$25 million to the State Government for the Reconstruction Authority and as yet
we have not received a single cent of that $25 million. Now we’re hopeful that
the funds will start to flow soon, but we do have an issue with the timing. As
I’ve said, we have to spend the money upfront and then wait for reimbursement
and that reimbursement could take time Madam Chairman, and that is the reason
we are being conservative.
There was a mention of the Go Between Bridge toll revenue. I can say that there
were toll free days. It may have been a week. It was a period of time during the
flood where we offered toll free driving on the Go Between Bridge and that is
one of the key reasons why revenue is down for that item.
Madam Chairman, in relation to some of the other issues here, I will say that as
Councillor QUIRK has said on numerous occasions, when we’re in a position to
bring back projects, bring forward deferrals, we will certainly do that, but for the


                                                [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                             - 58 -

                       time being we have to do the right and responsible thing and that is exactly what
                       this budget review is all about. It’s about keeping council the only level of
                       government with a balanced budget, it’s about keeping borrowings lower than
                       what we said at the last budget, it’s about doing the responsible thing and trying
                       to tackle our employee costs and operational expenses—
Chairman:              Councillor SCHRINNER your time has expired. Councillor JOHNSTON?
Councillor JOHNSTON:   Yes Madam Chairman, I rise to speak to the flood mini-budget in Item C.
                       I’m astonished by what Councillor SCHRINNER has just said and I’m
                       embarrassed that this man represents this Council as our DEPUTY MAYOR.
                       Madam Chairman, what he has said today is he knows how important it is that
                       these matters are discussed openly and transparently. Today though and last
                       week this Council refused to provide elected representatives with a briefing
                       about this document. Councillor SCHRINNER has stood up in here and he has
                       said how important it is and with one slight of hand for the media he says this is
                       what we’re going to do and for another, in a democratic chamber where all
                       councillors have to understand and explain the impact of this budget to our
                       constituencies, he says no, you can’t have that information. It is shameful. It is
                       shameful—
Chairman:              Councillor JOHNSTON, this debate has been ruled out of order—
DEPUTY MAYOR:          Point of order Madam Chair?
Chairman:              —one moment Councillor SCHRINNER. I ask you get back to the third review
                       flood mini-budget and now is your opportunity to debate that budget.
Councillor JOHNSTON:   Thank you Madam Chairman. I note that you allowed—
Chairman:              Point of order Councillor SCHRINNER?
DEPUTY MAYOR:          Madam Chairman, I claim to be misrepresented.
Chairman:              Thank you.
Councillor JOHNSTON:   I wrote it down and I quoted it, Madam Chairman. I know how important it is
                       that community are informed. Well, obviously that doesn’t include elected
                       representatives.
                       The third budget review, the flood mini-budget as it is entitled, does not add up.
                       There are very serious problems with this budget review and I am very
                       disappointed that I will not be able to have the opportunity to ask questions
                       about this flood budget review, to understand why funds are being moved
                       between programs, to clarify which programs that have been cut having an
                       impact on my ward and to be able to ask and have those questions answered. It is
                       very disappointing that a request to this effect has not been noted. I then have to
                       rely on what is in writing in this budget report.
                       What I’ve noted is that the nice to haves, the things that are not essential or core
                       services for this city appear to have priority over essential core services and I
                       refer to a number of things, Madam Chairman. First of all $17 million for the
                       Moggill Road roundabout resumption. I have objected week after week to
                       millions of dollars worth of resumption projects being brought forward in this
                       budget review period and we have seen $12 million for a road project in
                       Kingsford Smith Drive and $17 million for a project in Indooroopilly. If these
                       projects had not been brought forward they would have almost made up the
                       difference between what the State Government and Federal Government have
                       handed over and that gap that Councillor SCHRINNER has identified is about
                       $50 million.
                       Now, Madam Chairman, what it shows is that the LNP are prepared to put
                       certain projects ahead of other essential core projects in our budget. Why, why
                       and I don’t know why and I note The Australian’s been speculating as to why.
                       Well, I would have liked the opportunity to ask why to the Council officers. Are
                       those projects being rushed through that require major capital outlays in this
                       third budget review that have no benefit at all for flood recovery? None.
                       $17 million for a road project that is not important at this time; at this time.

                                                                       [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                 - 59 -

                           $12 million for a resumption that’s not needed at this time because the road
                           project’s not happening.
                           Madam Chairman, there are serious questions about the priority of this
                           administration and it is no wonder that they do not want to brief us and it is no
                           wonder that they do not want any scrutiny and they do not want any questions.
                           I have serious concerns with the $800,000 that is being added for Council legal
                           services in this budget review. I note that the budget report before us specifically
                           talks about the experience and capabilities of the Brisbane City Legal Practice
                           and we know the DEPUTY MAYOR, the LORD MAYOR previously have all
                           got up and praised David Askern’s experience, how clever he is, how good he is.
                           He’s an expert in - and these Council officers, who are legally qualified are
                           experts, as this budget says, in administrative law, in a number of other areas.
                           And that’s stated in the budget review.
                           We spend millions of dollars running the Brisbane City Legal Practice, Madam
                           Chairman. In total, there are 50 staff in that program area, of which 41 are either
                           solicitors or paralegals. Forty-one solicitors and paralegals represent this
                           Council. Yet we want to give another $800,000 out of money that we don’t have
                           to fund legal services.
                           Madam Chairman, that is a nice to have. It is not an essential or a core service.
                           And I’m embarrassed for Mr Askern that the LNP administration does not have
                           any confidence in him, because that $800,000 of extra funding for outside advice
                           shows that they don’t have any.
                           I’m also concerned, Madam Chairman, very much about footpaths. And I think
                           Councillor SUTTON said it best. Not a single footpath in Tennyson Ward has
                           been built. And I’ve been asking questions for months.
                           Not one, not one. And then the question on this notice paper just a few weeks
                           ago. Despite the fact that all of these footpaths were approved many months and
                           months ago, not a single one has been built. What I don't know now, Madam
                           Chairman, is are they amongst those that are being cut?
                           Now I would have liked to have asked somebody that question, a Council officer
                           who knows, but I haven’t been able to get an answer because no-one will brief
                           us. Are you cutting this funding out of the Tennyson Ward footpaths? It says in
                           here it’s because you couldn't get value for money for their delivery. Well how
                           has it got value for money for Councillor WYNDHAM’s footpaths but not on
                           the southside? And I know it is mainly southside councillors who have not had
                           their footpaths built.
                           Serious questions need to be asked about how this money is being spent and why
                           footpath funding that has been allocated and there is a pipeline of projects that I
                           know in my ward are waiting to be built, including I can see a Chelmer resident
                           out there, in Crawford Road, where the residents came to me and asked for one.
                           Is that going to be funded? We don’t know.
                           There have been major cuts to drainage programs. There's been major cuts to
                           libraries. There's been major cuts to playgrounds. There's been major cuts to kerb
                           and channelling, to parks, to memorials. I don't know if an election commitment
                           of the former Lord Mayor Campbell Newman and mine for Yeronga Memorial
                           Park has been cut. Is it one of the programs that has been cut? I don't know
                           because I haven’t been able to get my question answered. The CEO of Council
                           has refused to answer those questions and provide me and other councillors with
                           a briefing. So, Madam Chairman, I’m just appalled.
                           Madam Chairman, I’m particularly concerned about a few other matters in here
                           and the cracker. The cracker is in here, the Sherwood Road Bus Depot. Let me
                           tell you, Madam Chairman, I did not miss it. I note that there's been a blowout in
                           that as well, $1.1 million extra. For what? Design. Do we know what those
                           design costs might actually be?
Councillor interjecting.



                                                                           [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                   - 60 -

Councillor JOHNSTON:        Could be. Could be, Councillor NEWTON. They have done three separate DAs
                            (development applications) on the bus depot. The major change - Councillor
                            COOPER knows all about this. I’ve got her little hand prints all over a great
                            letter - is fill. They’re going to fill it. They’re going to raise the Sherwood Bus
                            Depot up. They’re going to put tonnes of extra earth in there to raise it up,
                            Madam Chairman, $1.1 million extra.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:        Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:                   Point of order, Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:        Would Councillor JOHNSTON take a question?
Chairman:                   As long as it’s relevant to the item at hand, Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:        Councillor JOHNSTON, do you think the issue of flood and the possible need
                            for fill was raised repeatedly when the Sherwood Bus Depot was brought to
                            Council? Do you think there was an opportunity to prevent this requirement and
                            this blowout?
Councillor JOHNSTON:        Absolutely and I thank Councillor ABRAHAMS for her question. There is no
                            doubt that she is spot on with that. And would you think that maybe there’d be
                            some additional drainage coming? Not under this budget review because they’re
                            cutting basic drainage services. They’re cutting them, Madam Chairman.
                            They’re not changing a single thing to do with drainage on that site, despite the
                            fact they’re going to fill it.
                            Well, Madam Chairman, I also noticed City Hall too. And I can only note what
                            must be a typo. And I refer you to it in the program. Yes, Madam Chairman, I
                            know how serious you are about making sure that commercial-in-confidence
                            matters are not actually revealed. And this budget review refers to the City Hall
                            project being finished in 2013.
                            Now I know, Madam Chairman, that you’d be very, very unhappy with that. And
                            I suspect that you need to ensure this record is corrected because, as we all
                            know, that project is due to finish by 2012.
Chairman:                   Councillor JOHNSTON, nothing in this item has been said to me is commercial-
                            in-confidence.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        Oh, excellent, Madam Chairman. Well I know that’s the case and I know you’ve
                            been told that’s the case too. But nevertheless there is a mistake in here. Unless it
                            is true that the cost of the City Hall project has blown up by an additional year
                            by 2013.
                            We don’t know because we haven’t been able to get our questions answered
                            because we haven’t been able to get a briefing. Is it a typo? Or is it a change in
                            the timing in which this project is going to be delivered? We don’t know,
                            Madam Chairman.
                            I have big problems with additional funding for Brisbane—
Chairman:                   Councillor JOHNSTON, your time has expired.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        I have big problems with funding for CitySmart being continued and I—
Chairman:                   Councillor JOHNSTON, your time has expired.
DEPUTY MAYOR:               Madam Chairman, claim to be misrepresented.
Chairman:                   Yes. Councillor SCHRINNER, you claim to be misrepresented.
DEPUTY MAYOR:               Yes, Madam Chairman. Councillor JOHNSTON said that I refused to provide a
                            briefing on the budget. At no time have I ever been asked to provide a briefing.
Councillors interjecting.
DEPUTY MAYOR:               If I had been asked—
Chairman:                   Councillor MacPHERSON, if you continue to interject, you’ll be warned.




                                                                            [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                   - 61 -

DEPUTY MAYOR:               Madam Chairman, if I had been asked, I would refer the councillor to the pages
                            and pages and pages of detail that have been provided in the budget review,
                            which is an unprecedented level of detail, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:                   Thank you, Councillor SCHRINNER. Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor GRIFFITHS:       Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to also speak to the third budget review,
                            the flood-mini budget. And I suppose I want to draw attention not to the bigger
                            issues that have been raised but to the massive cuts that we’re going to see across
                            our suburbs.
                            And while Council has to deal with the flooding issue, it also has to provide
                            services to our residents. There has to be business as usual.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor GRIFFITHS:       Yes, they do need them. And it’s disappointing that in Your Brisbane the capital
                            program has been cut by $17 million. These are items in the Your Brisbane
                            budget that have been cut. City Entertainment has had a decrease of $40,000.
                            What for? Due to operating savings. Creative Cities Initiative has been cut by
                            $150,000. The Chinese Museum has been cut by $150,000.
                            Kenmore Community Centre has had a carryover of $45,000 due to
                            reprioritisation. Forest Lake Community Hall has had a carryover of $80,000 due
                            to works not being able to be completed. We’ve had the City Hall rebuilding,
                            which was mentioned earlier, a carryover of expenditure of $18 million. And
                            this, they say, will not affect the final delivery date.
                            But what about our Public Health and Safety program? Our local laws review
                            have been cut by $100,000. Our Brisbane Water Safety program has been cut by
                            $30,000. Our Safe Pools program has been cut by $15,000.
                            And as Councillor FLESSER was drawing to our attention before, we have had a
                            minor increase in mosquito control, but we’re still $130,000 short of where we
                            were in December last year. Similarly, midge control and advocacy and research
                            has been cut by $30,000. Our FIDO (Finding Irresponsible Dog Owners)
                            program has been cut by $50,000. Our animal shelters have also been cut by
                            $50,000 and our licensing compliance are actually going to have a decrease in
                            revenue of $9000.
                            But this is what I found particularly interesting is that, following the flood, we
                            have decided to put an additional $100,000 into our early warning system. Of
                            course, in the lead-up to the flood, which the Lord Mayor at the time, Campbell
                            Newman, was warning us about, we couldn't find that $100,000 to put in for the
                            early warning system. And during the flood, we had many residents saying that
                            they didn’t receive warnings. So I think that’s a little ironical that we’re a little
                            bit too late, spending $100,000 on the SMS early warning system.
                            And what about our promoting community safety? Well that’s also been cut by
                            $100,000. And this is interesting because I know how much the administration
                            go on about this. And I suspect this might be a bit of a snub to the previous Lord
                            Mayor, but the Taskforce Against Graffiti, how much has that been cut by?
Councillor interjecting.
At that time, 5.37pm, the Deputy Chairman, Councillor Angela OWEN-TAYLOR, assumed the Chair.
Councillor GRIFFITHS:       Yes, it was a pet project. It’s been cut by $250,000. Similarly in customer focus,
                            we’ve had our pix-o-grams cut by $5000 and we’ve had our contact centre
                            emergency reduction hotline cut by $100,000.
                            These are all very important projects to our suburbs. These are projects about
                            where it matters. And that isn’t in here. It’s about out there delivering for the
                            suburbs. And I know we’re hiding behind the veil of, yes, we need to cut these
                            projects because we had flooding, but we also need to provide for the many
                            residents who weren’t affected by flooding and continue to provide services to
                            those residents who were affected by flooding.
                            I did find it interesting, under WaterSmart City, that a review and an update of
                            the Lord Mayor’s Suburban Taskforce was cut by $250,000. The very important

                                                                            [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                     - 62 -

                              report that identified what we needed to do has actually been cut. I also find it
                              ironical that, in that very document where we called for more money for buy-
                              back and where the LNP voted against additional money for buy-back, an
                              additional $2 million raised by myself, that the LNP voted against that. And yet
                              they’ve provided $17 million for property resumptions for a roundabout.
                              We seem to have our priorities wrong. We seem to be really in the doldrums.
                              And over there, there seems to be a bit of a flatness in the air, a bit of tiredness in
                              the air. Certainly what this budget is showing is that we really aren’t committed
                              to the suburbs, that the suburbs are really missing out under this administration
                              and that really our priorities are wrong with what we’re doing with this budget.
Deputy Chairman:              Further debate? Councillor KNAPP.
Councillor KNAPP:             Thank you, Madam Chair. What an absolute load of codswallop. That is the
                              most pathetic explanation I have ever heard in interpretation of a budget review.
                              He’s been here long enough to know that that is absolutely and utterly pathetic.
                              And if that’s the best he should do, he should go and take some lessons
                              somewhere from somebody about how to read a budget review.
                              Madam Chair, as you well know that I sat with the Lord Mayor on the Lord
                              Mayor’s Disaster Recovery Group. I was there the day the first meeting was
                              called, as Brisbane flooded. Madam Chair, what are we to do? And you can see
                              within my program there was program seven, there’s $32 million that we spent
                              in program seven that nobody mentioned that said $32,850,000 was 31.75 as a
                              result of the January flood event. It costs us.
                              What part of, Madam Deputy Chair, don’t they understand, as Councillor
                              SCHRINNER explained, that we have to spend the money before we get it back?
                              Madam Chair, it’s like saying, isn’t it, that I have been saving for a swimming
                              pool in my house and then all of a sudden my house floods and the insurance
                              doesn’t cover it. Am I going to go ahead and build a swimming pool which is a
                              nice to have thing or am I going to start rebuilding the kitchen and the laundry
                              and the bathroom and all the other things that make my life essential for me to
                              live in that house?
                              Madam Chair, there is no difference to that to what we are doing in this budget.
                              And shame on them, shame on them for getting up and basically imputing
                              motive in relation to why we are doing these things.
                              Madam Chair, for program 5, nobody willingly gave up money that we wanted –
                              We would have liked to have spent. But the reality is, for my program, there
                              were two swimming pools flooded, to the tune of $4 million. There was the
                              Fairfield Library. There were all of the community facilities, the sporting
                              facilities across all of those areas in their wards. Not in my ward, not in
                              Councillor WYNDHAM’s ward, not in Councillor KING’s ward, but in the
                              flood-affected areas.
                              Well we can stand by and say, ‘tough titties’, it’s your responsibility. Well
                              Madam Chair, we didn’t do that. We didn’t do that. What we did is we said,
                              where can we find the money? Now even if I cancel—
Deputy Chairman:              Just a moment, please, Councillor KNAPP. Councillor NEWTON, you have
                              previously been cautioned.

 Warning – Councillor Victoria NEWTON
 The Chairman then formally warned Councillor NEWTON that unless she desisted from interjecting she
 would be suspended from the service of the Council for a period of up to eight days. Furthermore, Councillor
 NEWTON was warned that, if she were suspended from the service of the Council, she would be excluded
 from the Council Chamber, ante-Chamber, public gallery and other meeting places for the period of
 suspension.
Councillor HINCHLIFFE:        Point of order, Madam Chair.
Deputy Chairman:              Point of order, Councillor HINCHLIFFE.
Councillor HINCHLIFFE:        Madam Acting Chair, I just point out for the record that Councillor NEWTON
                              was concerned about the language being used and whether the expression ‘tough


                                                                                [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                              - 63 -

                       titties’ was an appropriate expression to be used in this Chamber. And she was
                       only commenting, in the absence of a comment from the Chair.
Deputy Chairman:       There were multiple comments which came from Councillor NEWTON,
                       Councillor HINCHLIFFE, and she was interjecting. She has previously been
                       cautioned for an interjection. My ruling stands. Councillor KNAPP.
Councillor KNAPP:      I think, Madam Chair, you actually look into—
Deputy Chairman:       Point of order, Councillor KNAPP.
Councillor KNAPP:      —into the dictionary, tough titties has become one of those sayings—
Deputy Chairman:       Colloquialisms. Yes.
Councillor KNAPP:      —Madam Chair.
Deputy Chairman:       Point of order, Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:   Point of order, Madam Chair. For the record, for clarification for your judgment
                       in future, I understood that Councillor NEWTON was talking to me. She didn’t,
                       nor I, understand it was an interjection.
Deputy Chairman:       Please continue, Councillor KNAPP.
Councillor KNAPP:      So Madam Chair, all of the sporting pontoons were damaged. When we totalled
                       it up, there was close to $14 million done to community facilities, besides the
                       Fairfield Library, besides the two swimming pools, which are an essential part of
                       our community facilities.
                       So Madam Chair, did I blissfully go on and say, oh no, I’m sorry to clubs you’re
                       going to fund all these repairs. No, we did not. And the officers sat down and we
                       agonised over what we had to give up, what was essential, what we could do and
                       what we needed to do to give those sporting facilities. So far, Madam Chair,
                       there's been close to $7 million handed out from the flood recovery for sporting
                       groups.
                       Now Madam Chair, I think that is absolutely - and it didn’t all come from my
                       area. Other officers, areas of Council, have offered up savings so that we can
                       spend where we need to spend.
                       Madam Chair, I’m ashamed and embarrassed that today the opposition have got
                       up and they have been absolutely nit-picking things when they know full well is
                       that, if they were in the position that we were in, they would do exactly the same.
                       Shame on them. What are we to do? Are we to sit there on our hands and not do
                       anything? Well, I think no.
                       We are about delivering, Madam Deputy Chair. I am not embarrassed, ashamed
                       in any way at the cuts that I had to make so that flood-affected communities,
                       could be restored, not my community is not getting a park for the next three
                       years and they all know that because I wrote to them and I said, I’m terribly
                       sorry, I couldn't possibly, couldn't possibly ask for a new park upgrade in this
                       ward while there are parks that need to be fixed up all across the city. It goes
                       with being responsible. It doesn’t go with us being totally irresponsible and
                       saying, oh dear, oh dear, I’m not getting anything in my ward. How ridiculous.
                       We act on behalf of the whole city.
                       So for the record, Madam Chair, in some of these programs, the Fairfield Library
                       is getting a 1.3285. And let’s not forget that Councillor JOHNSTON’s ward
                       office is also being outfitted in relation to that. So we didn’t have to do that,
                       Madam Chair.
Councillor JOHNSTON:   Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Deputy Chairman:       Point of order against you, Councillor KNAPP.
Councillor JOHNSTON:   Madam Chairman—
Deputy Chairman:       Councillor JOHNSTON, could you please wait until I call you. Point of order.
                       Councillor JOHNSTON.



                                                                      [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                   - 64 -

Councillor JOHNSTON:        Madam Chairman, this is not some nice to have. It was flooded by 1.1 metres
                            and you’ve got a big mess.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor KNAPP:           Exactly my point, Madam Chair.
Deputy Chairman:            Order.
Councillor KNAPP:           Exactly my point. Thank you, Madam Chair. Exactly. So Madam Chair—
Deputy Chairman:            Just a moment, please, Councillor KNAPP. Councillor JOHNSTON, if you
                            continue to interject, I will warn you. There will be order and decorum in this
                            Chamber. Councillor KNAPP.
Councillor KNAPP:           So Madam Chair, I know there was $12,500 given to all the councillors within
                            those flood-affected areas to have a community recovery event. It’s part of my
                            responsibility as Chair of community recovery, not just physical recovery, but
                            emotional recovery, the Lord Mayor decided that it would be a terrific idea to
                            actually give everybody a chance to have them.
                            Will we look at some more? I think there is a lot of grieving going on in
                            communities and it’s hidden. And the trauma, we understand.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Deputy Chairman:            Point of order against you, Councillor KNAPP. Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        Given that we haven’t been given a briefing, will Councillor KNAPP take a
                            question?
Deputy Chairman:            Councillor KNAPP, will you take a question?
Councillor KNAPP:           No, Madam Chair, I’m on a roll. And really, to be perfectly honest, Madam
                            Chair, when I got elected, nobody spoon-fed me about how to read a budget.
                            And I went on budget reviews and all of that. We did the work ourselves and
                            worked it out. For heaven’s sakes. This is what this is, it’s a budget review. Get
                            over it is my position, Madam Chair.
                            In terms of public health and safety, for the record, the B-SAFE Taskforce
                            decided that they didn’t need this particular project. And the deferral for the
                            education program with the Taskforce Against Graffiti, well we actually funded,
                            if you don’t remember, we actually gave a $250,000 a year grant out of that to
                            Crime Stoppers—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor KNAPP:           No, the—
Deputy Chairman:            You can come back to it, Councillor KNAPP.
Councillor KNAPP:           Everybody in this program, my three programs, looked at what they could do,
                            what they could shave off, while still delivering effective programs. The money
                            that needs to be spent on the recovery through my program is nowhere near what
                            I could offer up. It’s come from other projects all across Brisbane. It’s the same
                            with Councillor MATIC and his parks.
                            This is responsible on our part. And as I said before, I am ashamed and
                            embarrassed, for the first time in my life, to come in here and have people
                            picking on something which is us trying, as a whole Council, to desperately fix
                            up the flood recovery, while trying still to maintain services that we need to
                            maintain.
                            Madam Chair, will we do it? Of course, we will. And Madam Chair, we are still
                            waiting for the Federal Government to decide whether the money we spend on
                            community facilities is even going to be given back to us. Did that deter us? No,
                            it didn’t. We said, we’re going to spend it anyway.
                            And if we don’t get it back - it’s a bit like City Hall, it was our responsibility to
                            do it. If we get some money from people to donate, that’s terrific. But at the end
                            of the day, it’s our responsibility. We managed the thing fiscally well. We are
                            going to have to spend the money. And it’s no good harping on about City Hall.

                                                                            [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                   - 65 -

                             We’ll do it. We’ve got to spend the money. We’ll do it for every day. Thank
                             you, Madam Chair.
Deputy Chairman:             Further debate? Councillor NEWTON.
Councillor NEWTON:           Yes, thanks very much, Madam Chair. I rise to speak on this report. And I was
                             relieved to hear clarification from Councillor KNAPP this evening that the
                             financial plan for City Hall’s restoration will be fully funded by the ratepayers of
                             Brisbane. So thank you for that clarification, Councillor KNAPP. We’ve been
                             seeking information for some time now about the funding strategies for the City
                             Hall restoration project. And we’ve heard it just this evening from Councillor
                             KNAPP. So thanks very much for that clarification, Councillor KNAPP.
Councillors interjecting.
Deputy Chairman:             You’ve had your opportunity to speak.
At that time, 5.49pm, the Chairman, Councillor Krista ADAMS, resumed the Chair.
Councillor JOHNSTON:         Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Councillor KNAPP:            Point of order, Madam Chair. I actually do claim to be misrepresented.
Chairman:                    Point of order. Thank you, Councillor KNAPP. Claim to be misrepresented.
                             Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:         Madam Chairman, that is the second time, since you said you will warn
                             Councillor KNAPP on the next occasion that she interjected. You have failed to
                             do so. That is twice more beyond the initial courtesy warning you gave her.
                             When are you going to enforce the rules fairly and issue a warning to Councillor
                             KNAPP, as you said you would do earlier today for her repeated acts of
                             disorder?
Chairman:                    I will make my rulings when and where I see necessary. Councillor NEWTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:         So Madam Chairman, you aren’t going to rule that Councillor KNAPP’s
                             interject was disorderly, as it is under the Meetings Local Law.
Chairman:                    Councillor JOHNSTON, I have got several councillors here on double cautions.
                             I will rule warnings when I see necessary. Resume your seat. Councillor
                             NEWTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:         But that is an—.
Chairman:                    I have made my ruling. Resume your seat. Councillor NEWTON.
Councillor NEWTON:           Thanks very much, Madam Chair. So I welcome that clarification from
                             Councillor KNAPP this evening on how the City Hall restoration works will be
                             funded. She said quite clearly, I heard in the Chamber, that we’re responsible for
                             it and we’ll fund it. So I’m not sure what misrepresentation there is. But anyway,
                             Madam Chair, that’s very welcoming.
                             I was interested to read through this third budget review. Because I know it
                             would have been tough, because we know, from the last budget review, just how
                             dire the Council’s finances were, what a dire financial situation this Council was
                             in, thanks to the poor and reckless financial mismanagement of this LNP
                             Council, Madam Chair.
                             And why? Because this Council, this LNP led Council has persisted in ploughing
                             money, ratepayers’ money into projects that simply don’t work. And that’s why
                             we’re in a dire financial situation, Madam Chair.
                             So I thought, well - and we knew that this report, the third budget review was
                             going to be tough because of that poor situation. What I was concerned about
                             though, I thought we were talking about rebuilding the city. We would be
                             focusing on those projects that would help us rebuild our city.
                             And that includes rebuilding communities as well, Madam Chair. It’s not just
                             about the bricks and the mortar and the concrete and the asphalt, Madam Chair.
                             It’s about rebuilding our community. And we’ve heard from Councillor KNAPP
                             tonight how distressed some people still are. We know some people still aren’t in
                             their homes. We need to be reinvesting money in those communities. Not just for

                                                                             [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                 - 66 -

                           a one-off party in those suburbs. It goes beyond that and this Council has a
                           responsibility to do that.
                           So I thought, when I saw this budget, we’d see some tough decisions made
                           around this Council’s priorities. But what I see, Madam Chair, is the priorities
                           are clearly wrong.
                           Councillor KNAPP spoke about putting some money aside to build a swimming
                           pool in your backyard as a bit of an analogy and then having your house flooded
                           and your priorities changing. Well, Madam Chair, what is actually happening in
                           the budget today is we’re seeing a household that’s planned to buy a lemon five
                           years down the track and start buying the parts for it in advance. And even
                           though the house has flooded, we’re still buying the parts for this lemon car that
                           we want to buy five years down the track.
                           That’s what this budget review represents, Madam Chair. If those opposite don’t
                           like it, they can get up and debate this, because they’re so passionate in support
                           of this budget review. This side of the Chamber is passionately in opposition to
                           this particular item, Madam Chair, because the priorities are wrong.
                           We understand that cuts have to be made. We understand that tough decisions
                           need to be made. There are people in our communities across Brisbane that are
                           hurting. I have not heard one speaker on this side of the Chamber saying, woe is
                           me, a pet project in my local community hasn’t been funded.
                           What we’ve heard tonight, Madam Chair, is that the priorities are wrong. We’re
                           spending money on CityCycle yet again. This is more good money after the bad.
                           The architects have gone AWOL on this, Madam Chair. First of all, it was Jane
                           Prentice. Campbell Newman’s gone. Councillor de WIT shifted sideways across
                           to infrastructure. No-one wants to touch CityCycle and I can completely
                           understand why.
                           And as Councillor SUTTON said, what is really concerning is that, instead of
                           spending money on important projects that help enhance safety for cyclists and
                           pedestrians in this city, we’re seeing money taken away from black spot funding
                           for pedestrian and cycling safety, taken away from safety for those people and
                           put towards the launch - well, $200,000 in consultancy fees and the launch for
                           CityCycle.
                           Now that is a serious sign of wrong priorities in my point of view. And if
                           Councillor KNAPP thinks that’s fair enough, that’s fair enough that we take
                           money away from safety in our suburbs and safety for cyclists and pedestrians
                           and put it towards consultancy fees and launching CityCycle, well, I’m sorry I
                           have to disagree. I have to disagree, Madam Chair. If anyone’s going to be
                           ashamed of—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor NEWTON:         It’s not me for making that criticism, I can tell you now. So at a time when funds
                           are tight and we’ve still got more money being put towards things like the bike
                           hire scheme, it’s just screaming wrong priorities, Madam Chair.
                           And what really concerns me, as has been highlighted by previous speakers, is
                           we’re spending serious dollars on projects that have been deferred. Okay, so I’m
                           a bit confused. This is the analogy. We want to buy a lemon five years down the
                           track. And we’ll start buying the parts for it now. We’re going to spend money
                           on property resumptions - $17 million towards resumptions at Toowong.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor NEWTON:         Madam Chair, I continue to be interrupted and experience unsupportive
                           interjections from the administrative councillors.
Councillor HINCHLIFFE:     Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:                  Point of order, Councillor HINCHLIFFE.
Councillor HINCHLIFFE:     Councillor NEWTON, who is the speaker, has been warned by you for
                           interjections or at least by the Acting Chair. I suggest that you warn councillors
                           to your right when they interject.

                                                                          [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                  - 67 -

Chairman:                  When I hear them, I will, Councillor HINCHLIFFE. Thank you. Okay.
                           Councillor NEWTON.
Councillor NEWTON:         Thank you, Madam Chair. So while we’re seeing money still being ploughed
                           into toll tunnels that clearly aren’t working because they are the pet projects of
                           Councillor QUIRK and his team, this administration, rather than putting money
                           towards important community infrastructure, rather than putting it towards the
                           footpaths.
                           We thought that the LNP was embarrassed into trying to increase some funding
                           in footpaths and now we’re seeing them pulled back on this money. What was
                           ironic though was opening the local papers in the last couple of weeks and
                           reading funding promises for Telegraph Road and Geebung open level crossings.
                           And I know Councillor FLESSER has touched on this. But I’ve seen photos and
                           comments from local councillors, Councillor COOPER, Councillor KING,
                           Councillor QUIRK, saying what a fantastic opportunity this is to hear that
                           Campbell Newman is going to start spending some money if he gets elected.
                           For the promise that he made back in 2003, mind you, Madam Chair, that it was
                           a priority, it was a priority for him, it was a priority. We all heard that, a priority
                           for him to deal with these open level crossings. Once again, they’re coming up
                           as election promises.
                           And Madam Chair, what’s his LNP mates here in Council doing? They’re
                           deferring the funding. They’re deferring the funding. It’s a bit embarrassing. It’s
                           a bit embarrassing, I think, to see that that’s happening. So Madam Chair, one
                           thing I did find interesting. I was reading through these documents.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor NEWTON:         Yes. Maybe Councillor WINES should take the Campbell Newman signs out of
                           his car because it is a bit embarrassing to be out there in the community. You
                           know, when you’ve got one—
Chairman:                  Back to the item, please, Councillor NEWTON.
Councillor NEWTON:         Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry. I was a bit distracted by one of my colleagues.
                           I guess, you know, it’s interesting to see though that we’re seeing funding cuts to
                           green initiatives in the suburbs. I saw that the Green Heart CitySmart events are
                           being cut back on.
                           But it doesn’t seem to be affecting the billboard advertising that I’ve seen around
                           the city, where the Council’s money is being spent. So I think it’s clear the
                           priorities here are for toll roads that don’t work, for infrastructure that is not yet
                           to be built, but they’re saying let’s start doing the work now.
                           I thought the priority was rebuilding the city. I thought this particular budget was
                           about rebuilding the city and rebuilding our communities. But we’ve seen it
                           being spent on projects like CityCycle that doesn’t work, the toll tunnels that
                           don’t work, and for things like marketing still. We haven’t seen cutbacks to
                           those sorts of expenditures.
                           So I’m disappointed. I cannot support this budget review. While there were
                           perhaps some increases in expenditure I could support, I just really think this has
                           been a missed opportunity by this administration, because the priorities are
                           wrong. The priorities are wrong, Madam Chair. And they’re wrong because this
                           administration’s more interested in spending ratepayers’ money on failed
                           projects like toll tunnels and CityCycle than getting it right and spending on our
                           community.
Chairman:                  Councillor KNAPP. Councillor KNAPP, you claim to be misrepresented.
Councillor KNAPP:          Madam Chair, I clearly said that, if it was our responsibility to build City Hall,
                           we took on the responsibility. In no way did I suggest that there weren’t people
                           that were willing to give a donation to City Hall. But at the end of the day, City
                           Hall in the towards shows quite clearly we are committed to building City Hall.
                           And what part of that don’t they understand?
Chairman:                  Thank you. Further debate? Councillor CAMPBELL.


                                                                             [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                               - 68 -

Councillor CAMPBELL:   Thank you, Madam Chairman. When I look at this document and I hear the
                       explanations from the administration, I hear that, yes, we have to make cuts
                       because we have to spend money on the floods. And Madam Chair, if that was
                       the approach, that is to be commended.
                       However, Madam Chair, what do we see? What we see is that there has been not
                       an increase in capital expenditure at all. There has been an $87.5 million
                       decrease. We hear that, oh well, we have to spend money now and the Federal
                       Government will be reimbursing it. But Madam Chair, they don’t know how
                       much. They’ve got $54 million and they give it no explanation of what they’re
                       applying that to.
                       Madam Chair, this is not financial competence. This is not a savvy
                       administration. This is incompetence. This is clear incompetence. They don’t
                       know what they spent the $54 million on. If there is such urgent things that have
                       to be spent on capital, they’ve cut it by 87.5.
                       Madam Chair, they’re not sure what money will be coming through, but that
                       didn’t stop them from making a total of $186.9 million or $187 million cuts
                       altogether, including future years. Next year they’re going to be cutting forward
                       commitments by $68.4. The following year, two years out, they say the
                       requirement is to cut now. To cut now, we are cutting $76.2. And in the
                       following year, 2013 to 14, $42.3 million.
                       Madam Chair, what they’ve done is used this as an excuse, a cover, used the
                       flood as a cover for getting out of embarrassing commitments that they’d made
                       to the community, that they have about level crossings, for example, about
                       projects particularly in Labor wards like my ward, where they’ve been made
                       much ado about the Tilley Road extension. But they’re using the flood as an
                       excuse to cut forward commitments.
                       And Madam Chair, I suspect when the money does flow - and as we’ve heard
                       from the Federal Government and the State Government, when the money does
                       flow, they’ll be re-announcing and trying to say, oh, aren’t we great? And we’ll
                       get a real kerfuffle and say, oh, we’re announcing a new expenditure. Where is
                       the sense of the right priorities? I do not get it, but I get a lot of using the flood as
                       a cover for other activities, as we lead up to an election next year.
                       The budget was being looked at. The flood was happening while the Lord Mayor
                       was planning his exit and being involved with discussions with Councillor
                       QUIRK and others about his going to State level. But Madam Chair, they clearly
                       took the eye of the ball.
                       There's been no explanation. We’ve heard, for example, talk about pathetic
                       explanations, Councillor SCHRINNER said, an $800,000 toll revenue shortfall
                       was because of one weeks’ toll being free on the bridge, on the Go Between
                       Bridge. Madam Chair, $800,000, I don't think so. That is just sloppy explanation,
                       not on top of the information, not giving the information that we require.
                       We heard that it is this conservative approach that Councillor SCHRINNER
                       refers to. But simply, that is clearly not what’s happening, not what’s happening.
                       It is basically an approach of trying to give certain projects, get away with them,
                       and having the wrong priorities while keeping a whole range of things, not
                       dealing with the debt situation. We’ve got a situation where we still, as a result
                       of this mini budget, we have a situation where we’re still going to be looking by
                       2015 at debt repayments of $200 million a year or $4 million because of their
                       persistence in their commitment to the toll tunnels that are going to - really, that
                       is the real story behind here.
                       Finally, Madam Chair, they say, great, we have an excuse to actually go and cut
                       all these commitments because we know, as a result of our debt situation, that
                       we are getting into a situation where we have to cut a whole range of other
                       activities because the debt impact from the TransApex projects, where we’re not
                       getting the revenue targets for the Go Between Bridge, where we’ve had
                       blowouts for the so-called Legacy Tunnel, where Clem7 is still hanging around
                       our necks with about $450 million of debt with no income at all. So we’re going


                                                                          [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                      - 69 -

                                to be ending up with $200 million debt repayments by 2015. And that is the real
                                story.
                                This flood has been used, Madam Chair, as an excuse to cut projects. But
                                because they can’t afford it, because of those debt situations that is coming
                                through, their obsessions with unsuccessful tunnels and bridges, Madam Chair,
                                as part of TransApex. And it’s hit home and we are seeing the evidence in this
                                mini budget.
                                But there will be some money. The good thing is then they’ll be saying, as the
                                Federal Government and State Government money comes through regarding the
                                flood reimbursements, then they’ll have some spare cash that lead up to the
                                budget. So there’ll be some of these projects that have been slashed which will
                                be re-announced and they’ll be able to say, aren’t we terrific?
                                Madam Chair, they shouldn't have been slashed in the first place. There is no
                                excuse for what they’ve done in regards to the forward slashings. That was
                                unnecessary because they’ve admitted themselves they don’t know how much
                                money they’re going to reimbursed. They’ve admitted that. Yet they made a
                                slashing two, three years out.
                                And why was that? Because they are embarrassed by those level crossing
                                replacements or they want to re-announce it. Those level crossing
                                announcements have got a long history now, that they want to either get out of it
                                or re-announce it in the future. And that is just not good enough.
                                We need to have honesty about what is really behind this. And the honesty could
                                have been made clear if we’d all had a briefing and been able to get behind these
                                figures and ask the officers the detailed information, which we have been denied.
Chairman:                       Councillor WINES.

                                                                                               848/2010-11
Motion be now put
It was moved by Councillor Andrew WINES, seconded by Councillor Fiona KING, that the motion be now put.
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion, that the motion be now put, was declared carried on the
voices.

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

The voting was as follows:

AYES: 16 -                   The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY
                             MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS,
                             Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Margaret de WIT, Steven HUANG,
                             Fiona KING,     Geraldine KNAPP,     Peter MATIC,     Ian  McKENZIE,
                             David McLACHLAN,         Angela OWEN-TAYLOR,      Julian  SIMMONDS,
                             Andrew WINES, and Norm WYNDHAM.

NOES: 11 -                   The Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Shayne SUTTON, and Councillors
                             Helen ABRAHAMS, John CAMPBELL, Peter CUMMING, Milton DICK,
                             Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS, David HINCHLIFFE, Gail MacPHERSON,
                             Victoria NEWTON, and Nicole JOHNSTON.

Chairman:                       LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:                     Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Well, we had 10 speakers on that
                                particular item. And let’s face it, Madam Chairman, the opposition were
                                repeating themselves in the end. There was no new material coming forward.
                                And in that circumstance—
Councillor ABRAHAMS:            Point of order, Madam Chair.
LORD MAYOR:                     In that circumstance, Madam Chair—
Chairman:                       Point of order. Councillor ABRAHAMS.

                                                                              [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                             - 70 -

Councillor ABRAHAMS:   Madam Chair, I’d like to ask Councillor QUIRK a question relating to the
                       environment and the budget.
Chairman:              Councillor ABRAHAMS. Don’t tell me what the question is. I’ve made that
                       clear before. LORD MAYOR, will you take a question.
LORD MAYOR:            I’d be delighted to in Question Time next week, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:              Thank you. LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:            Madam Chairman, the fact of the matter is that the opposition were simply
                       repeating what previous speakers had said. Councillor CAMPBELL had the
                       opportunity to introduce new material and it just was not there.
                       Madam Chairman, I’m always fascinated to hear the Labor Party. I mean, it’s
                       always a case of them losing their homework, that they want briefings. There are
                       no briefings happening before a budget is brought down. A budget is brought
                       down and then it is debated. Those information sessions certainly happen.
                       And in about five or six weeks’ time, there will be a budget. And there will be,
                       as part of that, information sessions for all the programs. And the opposition will
                       have their opportunity during those sessions to question Chairs and to hear
                       information of content in those budgets. But we have never, ever, Madam
                       Chairman, had briefings in relation to budget reviews and budgets of this sort.
                       So, Madam Chairman, can I just say that there's been claims made about the
                       heart being ripped out of services. Well, that is simply not the case. What we
                       have said is that there does need to be a cutting of the costs measure. We have
                       had a significant event in this city. And we have to be responsible in terms of the
                       way that those dollars are processed. And again, as dollars become available,
                       there will be projects which will come back online.
                       Now somebody asked the question. I can’t remember who it was, actually. But it
                       was asking where the $54 million had gone. Well, Madam Chairman, we have
                       spent $114 million in terms of flood recovery effort, up to the end of the third
                       budget review. So if we want to know where $54 million has gone, it’s gone to
                       that, to partly pay the recovery cost.
                       And, Madam Chairman, up to the end of March, there was a $60 million gap.
                       And that gap has subsequently grown during the month of April and will
                       continue to grow during the month of May. And the fact of the matter is we will
                       continue to put claims in. We only get the moneys back at the completion of
                       work and on payment, on once we’ve got receipts in relation to those works.
                       But Madam Chairman, but to talk about the heart being ripped out of services is
                       just frankly not true. I can show a series of graphs here of how this
                       administration has improved the services out there in the suburbs, whether you
                       want to talk about grass cuts, whether you want to talk about footpaths, whether
                       you want to talk about line-markings, whether you want to talk about road
                       maintenance and rehabilitation, not only grass cutting in parks but also grass
                       cutting in streets. It goes on and on. There's a whole series of areas where we
                       have substantially improved service delivery, the things that matter out there in
                       the suburbs.
                       So Madam Chairman, I would have hoped that, from today, that we would have
                       seen the Labor Party put up some alternatives. What would they have
                       specifically done? And they were very critical of things they’ve heard in terms of
                       this budget review, but in the circumstances what would they have done?
                       And that’s why I say, it’s a case of losing their homework every week here,
                       Madam Chairman. It is time, 11 months’ out, that they started to stump up as a
                       genuine alternative in this city. When are they going to start? I haven’t heard it
                       yet again today.
                       So Madam Chairman, it was right and proper, after 10 speakers, to draw that
                       debate to a conclusion because there was no new material coming forward.
Chairman:              I will now put the motion for item C in the E&C Committee report.



                                                                      [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                    - 71 -

Clause C put
The Chairman put the motion for Clause C of the report to the Chamber and it was declared carried.

Thereupon, the LORD MAYOR and Councillor Andrew WINES immediately rose and called for a division,
which resulted in the motion being declared carried.

The voting was as follows:

AYES: 16 -                   The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY
                             MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS,
                             Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Margaret de WIT, Steven HUANG,
                             Fiona KING,     Geraldine KNAPP,     Peter MATIC,     Ian  McKENZIE,
                             David McLACHLAN,         Angela OWEN-TAYLOR,      Julian  SIMMONDS,
                             Andrew WINES, and Norm WYNDHAM.

NOES: 10 -                   The Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Shayne SUTTON, and Councillors
                             Helen ABRAHAMS, John CAMPBELL, Peter CUMMING, Milton DICK,
                             Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS, David HINCHLIFFE, Gail MacPHERSON,
                             Victoria NEWTON.

ABSTENTIONS: 1 -             Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON.

The report read as follows

        A        APPROVAL TO APPOINT THE NEW COUNCILLOR FOR MACGREGOR
                 WARD TO COUNCIL STANDING COMMITTEES
                 109/800/286/125
                                                                                             849/2010-11
1.      The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.

2.      The appointment of Councillor Graham Quirk as Lord Mayor at the special Council meeting
        on 7 April 2011, resulted in a vacancy in the office of the councillor for the ward of
        MacGregor.

3.      In accordance with the provisions of S166(3) of the City of Brisbane Act 2010, the Liberal
        National Party nominated Mr Steven Wen-Yi Huang to fill this vacancy. The Act requires that
        Council appoint the Party’s nominee to the vacant office.

4.      At its special meeting on 7 April 2011, Council appointed Councillor Julian Simmonds as
        Chairman of the Public and Active Transport Committee. This resulted in vacancies on the
        Neighbourhood Planning and Development Assessment Committee and the Environment,
        Parks and Sustainability Committee.

5.      It is therefore proposed that Council resolve to appoint the new Councillor for MacGregor
        Ward, Steven Huang, to both the:
        -        Neighbourhood Planning and Development Assessment Committee; and
        -        Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee.

        Implications of proposal

6.      Approval of this submission will ensure that membership of these two standing committees is
        in accordance with current practice (six members plus the Lord Mayor), and that the new
        councillor can take part in committee deliberations at the earliest possible time.

7.      Accordingly, the Chief Executive Officer submits the following recommendation and the
        Committee agrees.




                                                                            [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                            - 72 -

8.     RECOMMENDATION:

       THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE RESOLUTION SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A
       BELOW.

                                       Attachment “A”

       THAT COUNCIL RESOLVES THAT:

       1. As from the rising of Council from the meeting at which this resolution is adopted:
          (a) The membership of each Standing Committee be as set out at Schedule 1 to this
              Resolution.

                                    SCHEDULE 1
                               COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT &                 INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Councillor Adrian Schrinner (Chair)             Councillor Margaret de Wit (Chair)
Councillor Ian McKenzie (Deputy Chair)          Councillor Matthew Bourke (Deputy Chair)
Councillor Andrew Wines                         Councillor Fiona King
Councillor Angela Owen-Taylor                   Councillor Norm Wyndham
Councillor John Campbell (Shadow Chair)         Councillor Shayne Sutton (Shadow Chair)
Councillor Kim Flesser                          Councillor Kim Flesser
8.30am Committee Meeting Room 2, 157 Ann St     10.30am Committee Meeting Room 2,
                                                157 Ann St

FAMILIES AND COMMUNITY                          ENVIRONMENT, PARKS &
SERVICES COMMITTEE                              SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE
Councillor Geraldine Knapp (Chair)              Councillor Peter Matic (Chair)
Councillor Fiona King (Deputy Chair)            Councillor Norm Wyndham (Deputy Chair)
Councillor Angela Owen-Taylor                   Councillor Matthew Bourke
Councillor Andrew Wines                         Councillor Steven Huang
Councillor Steve Griffiths (Shadow Chair)       Councillor Helen Abrahams (Shadow Chair)
Councillor Gail MacPherson                      Councillor Nicole Johnston
9am Committee Meeting Room 2, 157 Ann St        9am Committee Meeting Room 1,157 Ann St

CITY BUSINESSES & LOCAL ASSETS                  NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING &
COMMITTEE                                       DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT
                                                COMMITTEE
Councillor David McLachlan (Chair)              Councillor Amanda Cooper (Chair)
Councillor Angela Owen-Taylor (Deputy Chair)    Councillor Krista Adams (Deputy Chair)
Councillor Ian McKenzie                         Councillor Matthew Bourke
Councillor Norm Wyndham                         Councillor Steven Huang
Councillor Peter Cumming (Shadow Chair)         Councillor Milton Dick (Shadow Chair)
Councillor Nicole Johnston                      Councillor David Hinchliffe
9.30am Committee Meeting Room 2, 157 Ann St     9.30am Committee Meeting Room 1,
                                                157 Ann St

PUBLIC & ACTIVE TRANSPORT                       ESTABLISHMENT & COORDINATION
COMMITTEE                                       COMMITTEE (CIVIC CABINET)
Councillor Julian Simmonds (Chair)              Lord Mayor, Cr Graham Quirk (Chair)
Councillor Andrew Wines (Deputy Chair)          Councillor Adrian Schrinner (Deputy Chair)
Councillor Ian McKenzie                         Councillor Amanda Cooper
Councillor Fiona King                           Councillor Geraldine Knapp
Councillor Victoria Newton (Shadow Chair)       Councillor David McLachlan
Councillor Helen Abrahams                       Councillor Margaret de Wit

                                                                 [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                              - 73 -

                                                  Councillor Julian Simmonds
10am Committee Meeting Room 2, 157 Ann St         Councillor Peter Matic
                                                  (Meets Mondays 157 Ann St)
                                                                                         ADOPTED
      B       QUARTERLY          FINANCIAL        REPORT       FOR     THE        PERIOD          ENDED
              MARCH 2011
              134/695/317/24
                                                                                      850/2010-11
9.    The Acting Chief Operating Officer, Corporate Services, provides the following information.

10.   Council prepares quarterly financial reports for presentation to the Establishment and
      Coordination Committee and Council in accordance with the City of Brisbane Act 2010.

11.   The report separately identifies and reports the financial results of Council, Council’s core
      services (that is, Council excluding business units) and Council’s business units.

12.   The quarterly financial report is beneficial to users whether they need detailed information as
      low as activity level or are more interested in a summarised position at sub-program,
      program, corporate or business unit levels. The written commentaries provide explanation of
      the figures.

13.   Approval is now sought to present and table the quarterly financial report for the period ended
      March 2011. The Acting Chief Operating Officer recommends accordingly and the
      Committee agrees.

14.   RECOMMENDATION:

      THAT THE QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDING
      MARCH 2011 (SUBMITTED ON FILE), BE TABLED AND NOTED IN THE
      COUNCIL CHAMBER.
                                                                                         ADOPTED
      C       2010-11 BUDGET – THIRD REVIEW ‘FLOOD MINI-BUDGET’ CITY OF
              BRISBANE ACT 2010 AND CITY OF BRISBANE (FINANCE, PLANS AND
              REPORTING) REGULATION 2010
              134/135/86/16
                                                                                      851/2010-11
15.   The Acting Chief Operating Officer, Corporate Services, provides the following information.

16.   Approval is sought to adjust the 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 budget allocations
      for programs and business units and funds for the services of Council, following a review of
      requests for changes to approved budgets. A resolution is required under the City of Brisbane
      Act 2010 and Section 98 of City of Brisbane (Finance, Plans and Reporting) Regulation
      2010.

17.   This budget review considers emerging issues requiring funding, additional revenue and
      expenditure for 2010-11, requests to carry over project funding from 2010-11 to future years,
      the bringing forward of project funding to 2010-11 and other forward year budget adjustments
      as detailed in Part C of the report, submitted on file.

      Implications of proposal

18.   The anticipated accumulated surplus at 30 June 2011 for the budget approved by Council is
      $0.4 million. The sum of the proposed adjustments to the budget for 2010-11 will increase the
      anticipated accumulated surplus at 30 June 2011 to $0.5 million, after adjustments, for

                                                                     [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                 - 74 -

        transfers to/from reserves (the Budgeted Appropriations and Reserve Transfers Statement, set
        out in the report, submitted on file, refers).

19.     Changes to the 2010-11 budget are summarised as follows:

                                                Total change $million       Revised budget $million

         Expenses                               +75.3                       1,847.8
         Revenue                                +52.5                       1,966.1
         Operating capability                   -22.8                       118.3
         Non-current asset acquisition          -85.3                       901.4

20.     The net impact of this review on 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 is listed in Part C of the
        report and is summarised below:

         Year                                   Forward year budget commitments $million
         2011-12                                -68.4
         2012-13                                -76.2
         2013-14                                -42.3

21.     The Acting Chief Operating Officer recommends accordingly and the Committee agrees.

22.     RECOMMENDATION:

        THAT THE AMENDED BUDGET ALLOCATIONS FOR THE OPERATIONS AND
        THE PROJECTS FOR THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE COUNCIL BE
        APPROVED AND ADOPTED FOR 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, AND 2013-14 as required
        by the City of Brisbane Act 2010 and Section 98 of the City of Brisbane (Finance, Plans and
        Reporting) Regulation 2010 and in accordance with the budgeted financial statements
        submitted, and the recommendations submitted as Part A, Part B and Part C in the report
        entitled “2010-11 Budget – Third Review Flood Mini-Budget Report and Recommendations”,
        submitted on file.
                                                                                            ADOPTED

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

                    PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE
                                                                                         852/2010-11
Councillor Julian SIMMONDS, Chairman of the Public and Active Transport Committee, moved, seconded by
Councillor Andrew WINES that the report setting out the decisions of the Establishment and Coordination
Committee as delegate of the Council during the Autumn Recess 2011, on matters usually coming under the
jurisdiction of the Public and Active Transport Committee, be noted.

Chairman:                   Councillor SIMMONDS.
Councillor SIMMONDS:        Not at this stage, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:                   Thank you. Any further debate on items A or B? Councillor NEWTON.
Councillor NEWTON:           Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.


                                                                        [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                - 75 -


Seriatim – Clauses A and B
Councillor NEWTON requested that Clause A, PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL RE-ROUTE THE 425,
426 AND 428 BUS SERVICES, and Clause B, PETITION – CALLING ON COUNCIL FOR LOW-
KNEELING BUSES TO BE ASSIGNED TO BUS ROUTES 326 AND 327, be taken seriatim for voting
purposes.

Councillor NEWTON:       Is this the first report from Councillor SIMMONDS as Chair? Anyway.
Chairman:                Councillor NEWTON, speaking to the items, please.
Councillor NEWTON:       I’m just a bit in shock. Sorry, Madam Chair. I’m in shock. I’ve never seen a
                         chairperson on their first Council meeting get up and not speak to it, particularly
                         when one of the items is in his own electorate, Madam Chair.
Chairman:                Councillor NEWTON.
Councillor NEWTON:       With respect to—
Chairman:                [Unclear] have time to sum up as well. So continue with your debate or I’ll sit
                         you down.
Councillor NEWTON:       Well I hope he says something, Madam Chair. That would be lovely. But I
                         would have liked to have heard from Councillor SIMMONDS with respect to
                         item A, which I’ll talk about first of all, which is about some issues regarding the
                         424 and the 426 services.
                         Now I know that this was a decision made during the recess, but, Madam Chair,
                         I’m a bit concerned because the committee today also dealt with similar bus
                         services in the same vicinity, asking for something quite different. And I know
                         that Councillor ABRAHAMS was able to quiz Councillor SIMMONDS in the
                         committee meeting today regarding that. But I guess there's obviously concern in
                         that neighbourhood about improvements to bus services.
                         And I hope that the proposal put forward today adequately addresses those
                         concerns of those residents. I note that it does talk about putting forward some
                         improvements to one of the bus services. I think it’s the 425, from recollection,
                         from reading it in the recommendation. Putting that forward to the State
                         Government to make those amendments to the particular bus route to see if that
                         can be accommodated, so I hope that adequately addresses that particular issue.
                         The second issue - I think we've got the same cold, Madam Chair, - the second
                         issue I wanted to talk about is an issue in my own electorate which is Item B of
                         this report.
                         Now I note that this is for information purposes only, Madam Chairman, so by
                         voting against this I'm purely voting against noting it rather than being able to
                         vote against the report itself. Because, indeed, Madam Chair, if it had been
                         possible, and I just want to place this on the record, if it had been possible I
                         would have made some amendments.
                         I've had continuous representations from residents who catch the 326 and 327
                         bus service and I'm aware that perhaps Councillor COOPER also gets similar
                         representations from residents in her community.
                         It's not an express bus service, it's not a BUZ (Bus Upgrade Zone) route, it's one
                         of those bus services that stops every stop. But it's really critical to get people to
                         local shopping centres like Strathpine, Taigum, Toombul shopping centres and
                         so forth, so it's really important for people to get around.
                         It's a really popular service with those residents who are older in our community.
                         They find this service really important for them to get to places like Medicare for
                         example, and do shopping in the regional centres perhaps even go to the movies.
                         So while I acknowledge that Brisbane City Council has been able to supply a
                         couple of accessible buses and as it says, according to the report, that meet
                         Council's base requirements when it comes to meeting the disability access
                         standards, but, Madam Chair, I think that we need to be doing better than that.
                         We should be doing more than that.

                                                                          [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                             - 76 -

                       Now I know that people can ring up Hornibrook Buses and book an accessible
                       bus to get to the shopping centre, Madam Chair, but sometimes it's hard to make
                       those arrangements in advance when coming home. It could be a bit difficult to
                       try and book a bus to come home at a particular time as you might be delayed for
                       some reason, or you might even want to come home a bit earlier.
                       I'm disappointed that we're not able to accommodate these ongoing requests
                       from residents to have more accessible buses on their routes. They’d prefer to
                       see a fully accessible bus service and we're only talking about 10 buses to be
                       able to achieve this, so we're only needing an additional few buses to make this
                       possible.
                       So, Madam Chair, I appreciate the work that Hornibrook will be doing to make
                       sure that people who use the service are aware that they can book the bus and I
                       appreciate they'll be putting in extra signage. But I really think that Brisbane
                       City Council should be supporting Brisbane Transport to allocate more
                       accessible, low floor buses on these routes so that seniors in our community can
                       continue to get out and about, can enjoy independence, can continue to socialise
                       and do the things that they need to do on a day to day basis, whether it be their
                       shopping or conducting transactions with services available in those shopping
                       centres.
                       So Madam Chair, I'm disappointed that again these calls have been rejected, this
                       is not the first petition requesting this that has been rejected. So while there may
                       not be a huge number that have signed this particular petition, this is an ongoing
                       issue that continues to raise its head and I'll be continuing to advocate on behalf
                       of my residents to call for a fully accessible fleet of buses to be available on the
                       326 and the 327 routes so that we can support those people in our community.
Chairman:              Further debate? Councillor SIMMONDS.
Councillor SIMMONDS:   Thank you, Madam Chairman, and not to disappoint I will rise to say a few
                       comments in summation.
                       First of all can I thank Councillor NEWTON for her concern for my welfare, as
                       the local councillor for Walter Taylor where the first petition is from? She knows
                       very well, as we discussed in our committee this morning, that ultimately it's the
                       Translink Transit Authority, who we operate buses on a contract basis with, who
                       make the final decision in relation to route changes and the information that has
                       been compiled and investigated by Brisbane Transport officers will be sent to
                       them.
                       I just wanted to make another point, in relation to the second petition, regarding
                       DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) accessibility as I know this is an issue that
                       gets raised often, so as the new Chairman, I thought I might look at a little bit of
                       history of this issue for Councillor NEWTON.
                       I look back to 2003 - 2004 and I see that only 35.6 per cent of Brisbane
                       Transport's fleet was disability accessible and I asked myself why that was. Well
                       the answer is because they, Labor, the previous Labor Administration only
                       managed to purchase 60 new buses in a five-year period. That's not 60 buses a
                       year. That's 60 buses in a five year period. Their grand total, their wonderful
                       average over the length that they were in Administration was an average of
                       30 buses a year.
                       Well Councillor NEWTON, when your residents ask then why there isn't a
                       disability accessible bus when they want it you need look no further than
                       yourself. The fact is that Labor failed to buy these buses.
                       Thanks to the commitment of this can-do Administration, of the Newman and
                       the QUIRK Administration, we have seen the number of buses purchased go to
                       500 in just four years, 337 new buses in the previous term from '04 to '08 and
                       that has seen the percentage of disability accessible buses jump from 35 per cent
                       to 86 per cent.
                       So, Madam Chairman, in answer to Councillor NEWTON's concerns we will
                       continue to buy. This Administration will get on with the job of buying more
                       buses that will see the percentage of DDA compliant buses rise and rise and it

                                                                       [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                      - 77 -

                                will be thanks to this Administration that your residents, Councillor NEWTON,
                                have the option of catching a disability accessible bus.
                                But, in the meantime, while we make up for Labor's years and years and years of
                                inaction I suggest they contact Hornibrook 24 hours in advance to book a DDA
                                compliant bus.
Chairman:                       I will now put the motion with respect to Item A.

Clause A put
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the noting of Clause A was declared carried on the
voices.

Clause B put
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the noting of Clause B was declared carried on the
voices.

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

The voting was as follows:

AYES: 16 -                   The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY
                             MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS,
                             Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Margaret de WIT, Steven HUANG,
                             Fiona KING,     Geraldine KNAPP,     Peter MATIC,     Ian  McKENZIE,
                             David McLACHLAN,         Angela OWEN-TAYLOR,      Julian  SIMMONDS,
                             Andrew WINES, and Norm WYNDHAM.

NOES: 10 -                   The Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Shayne SUTTON, and Councillors
                             Helen ABRAHAMS, John CAMPBELL, Peter CUMMING, Milton DICK,
                             Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS, David HINCHLIFFE, Gail MacPHERSON,
                             Victoria NEWTON.

ABSTENTIONS: 1 -             Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON.

The report read as follows

        A        PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL RE-ROUTE THE 425, 426 AND
                 428 BUS SERVICES

1.      A petition from residents of Chapel Hill and Indooroopilly, requesting Council re-route bus
        services 425, 426 and 428, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 8 February 2011,
        by Councillor Julian Simmonds, and received.

2.      The Divisional Manager, Brisbane Transport, provided the information below.

3.      Although the TransLink Transit Authority, an entity of Queensland Transport, is responsible
        for the delivery of public transport services and infrastructure for South East Queensland,
        Council’s Brisbane Transport officers have investigated the request to re-route the
        425, 426 and 428 bus services.

4.      Routes 425, 426 and 428 currently travel along Fleming Road, Chapel Hill, and turn right
        onto Burbong Street, Chapel Hill. Stops in this area are located at Chapel Crest (Fleming
        Road near Marmindie Street) and Burbong West (Burbong Street, near Robyn Street).

5.      To re-route these services as requested would increase the running time of each trip on routes
        425 and 426 by approximately four minutes off-peak and eight to 10 minutes during the peak
        periods. This recommendation would also add an additional 1.2 kilometres to each trip.




                                                                              [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                              - 78 -

6.    Additionally, the alteration on the route 428 service would add an additional two kilometres
      and require an increase in running time of five minutes on each trip off-peak and eight to
      10 minutes during the peak periods. Increasing the running times on the three routes would
      significantly increase Brisbane Transport’s ongoing operational costs.

7.    For these reasons, Brisbane Transport cannot support the requested route alteration at this
      time.

8.    Brisbane Transport also has concerns with the intersection of Russell Terrace and Chapel Hill
      Road, which will cause difficulties and delays for buses turning right onto Chapel Hill Road
      during the peak period.

9.    The request would involve significant capital investment associated with the installation of
      new bus stops.

10.   Additionally, Brisbane Transport has submitted a business case and supporting timetable to
      the TransLink Transit Authority recommending an increase in running times on route 428 to
      reflect current traffic conditions in this area.

      Consultation

11.   Councillor Julian Simmonds, councillor for Walter Taylor Ward, has been consulted and
      supports the recommendation.

      Customer impact

12.   The impact to residents in Marmindie Street would be negative. The proposed re-routing of
      services would adversely affect the street by having:
      -       151 trips per day travelling down their street from 6.30am to 11.50pm Monday to
              Thursday and from 6.30am to 12.50am on Fridays
      -       78 trips per day travelling down their street between 7.45am and 11.45pm on
              Saturdays
      -       46 trips per day travelling down their street between 8.45am and 10.20pm on
              Sundays.

13.   Passengers already on the bus would also be adversely affected with up to an additional
      10 minutes added to the current running time of services during peak periods.

14.   Accordingly, the Divisional Manager recommends as follows and the Committee agreed at its
      meeting on 4 April 2011.

15.   DECISION:

      THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED
      IN THIS REPORT.
                                                                                              NOTED
      B       PETITION – CALLING ON COUNCIL FOR LOW-KNEELING BUSES TO
              BE ASSIGNED TO BUS ROUTES 326 AND 327

16.   A petition from residents of Brisbane, requesting low-kneeling buses be assigned to bus
      routes 326 and 327, was presented to Council at its meeting of 22 February 2011 by
      Councillor Victoria Newton, and received.

17.   The Divisional Manager, Brisbane Transport, provided the information below.



                                                                    [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                    - 79 -

18.     Routes 326 and 327 operate from the north-eastern suburbs of Strathpine, Bracken Ridge,
        Deagon, Taigum and Geebung, terminating at Toombul Shopping Centre. These services are
        provided by Hornibrook Transit Management (HTM), under sub-contract to Council.

19.     The buses currently used on these services are provided by Brisbane Transport, as part of the
        sub-contracted arrangement with HTM. Since December 2008, Brisbane Transport has
        supplied HTM with four low-floor buses to cater for the needs of those commuters with
        mobility difficulties, parents with prams or people with shopping trolleys.

20.     Under the Disability Standards for Access to Public Transport 2002, operators were required
        to be 25 per cent compliant with supplying wheelchair accessible buses by
        31 December 2007. Brisbane Transport has clearly met this requirement, with four of the
        10 buses (40 per cent) provided to HTM being wheelchair accessible.

21.     In order to guarantee that a service is allocated a low-floor bus, HTM has previously placed
        signage within each bus encouraging commuters to contact them at least 24 hours prior to
        travel. HTM has agreed to check that this signage still appears in each bus and replace it if it
        is missing.

        Consultation

22.     The Councillor for Deagon Ward, Councillor Victoria Newton, has been consulted and does
        not support the recommendation.

        Preferred option

23.     It is the preferred option that the petitioners be advised that, although Brisbane Transport is
        meeting the requirement of the Disability Standards for Access to Public Transport 2002 by
        providing HTM with four out of 10 (40 per cent) wheelchair accessible buses, commuters do
        need to contact HTM 24 hours prior to travel to guarantee that a low-floor bus is scheduled on
        a particular service. The HTM contact number is (07) 3284 1622 (extension 204).

24.     Accordingly, the Divisional Manager recommends as follows and the Committee agreed at its
        meeting on 4 April 2011.

25.     DECISION:

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

       NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT
                           COMMITTEE
                                                                                         853/2010-11
Councillor Amanda COOPER, Chairman of the Neighbourhood Planning and Development Assessment
Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Matthew BOURKE, that the report setting out the decisions of the
Establishment and Coordination Committee as delegate of the Council during the Autumn Recess 2011, on
matters usually considered by the Neighbourhood Planning and Development Assessment Committee, be noted.


Chairman:                    Is there any debate?
Councillor JOHNSTON:         Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Councillor KING:             Point of order, Madam Chairman.


                                                                        [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                   - 80 -

Chairman:                    Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON first. Councillor JOHNSTON, point of
                             order.
Councillor JOHNSTON:          Yes, thank you Madam Chairman.

Seriatim – Clauses A and C
Councillor JOHNSTON requested that Clause A, PETITION – REGISTERING CONCERNS ABOUT THE
PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE PROPOSED CHERMSIDE CENTRE NEIGHBOURHOOD
PLAN, and Clause C, PETITION - REQUESTING COUNCIL TO HALT THE RENOVATION WORKS TO
THE HOUSE LOCATED AT 10 KENILWORTH STREET, SHERWOOD, be taken seriatim for voting
purposes.


Declaration of potential conflict of interest- Councillor Fiona King
Councillor KING:               Thank you Madam Chair. I ask that Item A be taken in seriatim for debate and
                               voting purposes as I have a perceived conflict of interest.
Chairman:                    Okay.
Councillor JOHNSTON:         Point of order Madam Chairman.
Chairman:                    Point of order.
Councillor JOHNSTON:         Under the relevant rules Councillor KING has to state on the record what that
                             conflict is.
Chairman:                    Councillor KING, your conflict of interest?
Councillor KING:              Thank you Madam Chair. I am a patron of a club. It was in the vicinity of the
                              neighbourhood plan and also a member of a club in the area.
Chairman:                    Thank you. Councillor KING.

 At that time, Councillor KING, having disclosed a potential conflict of interest in Clause A, PETITION –
 REGISTERING CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE PROPOSED
 CHERMSIDE CENTRE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN, of the report, immediately retired from the meeting
 room and associated public places for the duration of the debate.

Declaration of potential conflict of interest- Councillor Norm Wyndham
Councillor WYNDHAM:           Madam Chair, I also ask that I be absented from the Chamber as I also have a
                              perceived conflict of interest.
Chairman:                    On Item A Councillor WYNDHAM?
Councillor WYNDHAM:          On Item A.
Chairman:                    Thank you. Councillor WYNDHAM. Councillors, can you please identify your
                             perceived conflict of interest.
Councillor WYNDHAM:          Amazing they didn't kick up a big stink.
Chairman:                    Councillor WYNDHAM.
Councillor WYNDHAM:           I'm also a member of a club.
Chairman:                    Thank you. Councillor WYNDHAM.

 At that time, Councillor WYNDHAM, having disclosed a potential conflict of interest in Clause A, PETITION
 – REGISTERING CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE PROPOSED
 CHERMSIDE CENTRE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN, of the report, immediately retired from the meeting
 room and associated public places for the duration of the debate.

Declaration of potential conflict of interest- Councillor Peter Matic
Councillor MATIC:             Madam Chairman, I have to excuse myself in respect of Item A as I have a
                              perceived material personal interest. My parents are the owners of a retail
                              business in the Westfield Shopping Centre.
Chairman:                    Thank you. Councillor MATIC?



                                                                           [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                   - 81 -

 At that time, Councillor MATIC, having disclosed a potential conflict of interest in Clause A, PETITION –
 REGISTERING CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE PROPOSED
 CHERMSIDE CENTRE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN, of the report, immediately retired from the meeting
 room and associated public places for the duration of the debate.

Debate on Clause A
Chairman:                    Councillors, if you are absenting yourself from the Chambers I ask that you do
                             that now, we will do Item A first; debate and vote in seriatim.
Councillor DICK:             Point of clarification, Madam Chair.
Chairman:                    Thank you Councillor DICK, yes?
Councillor DICK:             Given that we're noting the report, and the decisions already been made, under
                             the Act that's up to the councillor to determine?
Chairman:                    Yes, absolutely. I'm not telling them they have to leave, but if they feel they
                             want to leave that's their decision. So we'll debate on Item A first. Is there any
                             debate on Item A? Councillor FLESSER.
Councillor FLESSER:          Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I am not going to support Item A.
                             Now, Madam Chair, this is a petition that's been presented to Council by
                             Councillor KING. Unfortunately, the file over there on what the petition exactly
                             asked for has not been provided to the councillors today.
                             But Madam Chair, there is a bit of an explanation about what will give us some
                             hint what the petitioners were concerned about and I think it's important I read
                             that into the record.
                             The petitioners’ concerns are surrounding the proposed 15 storey building height
                             and the impact of parking and infrastructure. This is in the proposed Chermside
                             Centre Neighbourhood Plan. They believe that 12 storeys should be the limit.
                             The petitioners are also concerned that the roadwork and Northern Busway will
                             be insufficient to cater for the proposed 8000 extra people.
                             Well, Madam Chair, that is exactly my view. That is exactly the view of the
                             people who are on the Council's Neighbourhood Plan Pro-community
                             Consultative Committee, who were involved in the development of the
                             neighbourhood plan. That was their view and that is the view of the residents in
                             Chermside.
                             Madam Chair, that plan that came to this Council proposing an extra
                             8000 people live in the Chermside area is just ridiculous.
                             Madam Chair, the problems that we have there at the moment with traffic and
                             parking problems are going to be compounded many, many times by these extra
                             8000 people. Madam Chair, the Council did not do a good job in the Chermside
                             Centre Neighbourhood Plan and people are starting to get frustrated.
                             Madam Chair, I know that there is a candidate out there doorknocking in
                             Chermside and he tells me that almost every single person is saying the same
                             thing; that the Council is not planning properly the Chermside area and it is
                             ridiculous to suggest that we should be moving an extra 8000 people into an area
                             that, clearly, does not have the necessary community infrastructure in the way of
                             roads, and certainly parking problems as well.
                             Madam Chair, we remember when the neighbourhood plan came here, there
                             were some vague references to some improvements to local roads and I can tell
                             you that the way the finances of this Council are going those improvements are
                             not going to come forward for a very, very, very long time, if ever.
                             So we've got a candidate out there who's telling me that this is the view of the
                             residents. The petition we've got here the response is basically well these are the
                             facts, you've got to live with it.
                             Madam Chair, what should be happening is this Council should be going back to
                             square one with the Chermside Centre Neighbourhood Plan. We should be
                             starting again and doing some genuine consultation with the residents out there
                             and coming up with a plan that those residents support.

                                                                            [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                              - 82 -

                       Now, Madam Chair, I acknowledge that there's room for increased density there,
                       the residents acknowledge that, but not 8000 people. That's what the problem is.
                       So I certainly will not be supporting the response to this petition and I hope that
                       all other councillors join with me in rejecting it because, Madam Chair, it is just
                       not good enough.
                       What's being created out there is sardine suburbs in the Chermside area and,
                       Madam Chair, people out there are very concerned about these sardine suburbs
                       and the response to this petition is just not good enough.
Chairman:              Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:   Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak on Item A.
                       Madam Chairman, this is one of the most interesting committee reports that I've
                       ever seen in the three years that I've been a councillor and, in particular, Madam
                       Chair, I draw all councillors and the media's attention to paragraph 5 and I
                       believe it deserves to be quoted into the record: “The petitions been reviewed by
                       Neighbourhood Planning officers and the concerns of the signatories have been
                       taken on board. Neighbourhood Planning is supportive of the petitioners'
                       recommendation for a limit of 12 storeys in the heart of the Chermside centre.”
                       I'll say that again: They're supportive of a limit of 12 storeys. However,
                       Neighbourhood Planning supports 15 storeys on the Westfield Shopping Centre
                       as the site is capable of supporting such density.
                       Madam Chairman, this is a bob each way. This report is trying to say yes it
                       supports the petitioners, but then it is not reflecting their concerns as the petition
                       asks them to do.
                       It is a deceptive statement to say on one hand that Neighbourhood Planning
                       supports their request and on the other hand they don't and they're going to allow
                       15 storeys. It's one or the other. It's clear that this Council is intent on pushing
                       through its intention, not the community's, by continuing to allow 15 storeys. If
                       it was actually supportive of 12 storeys, as the petitioners have requested, that is
                       what would be in this petition response, but that is not the case. In fact, Council
                       is saying no we do not support the petitioners request for 12 storeys. We're going
                       to force you to have 15 storeys.
                       Now, Madam Chairman, many, many local communities around Brisbane are
                       now finding out what the residents of Chermside are finding out that it does not
                       matter what their views are, this Council will force greater densities on them and
                       that is the deceptive part of this report that is before us because it is trying to
                       have a bob each way.
                       Now, Madam Chairman, you would think on such an important matter that the
                       local Ward councillor would have a position, number one, and would be
                       standing up for her residents, number two.
                       But, Madam Chairman, paragraph 7 is most instructive, paragraph 7 says and I
                       quote: “The councillor for Marchant Ward, Fiona King, has been consulted.”
                       Now Madam Chairman—
Councillor DICK:       Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:              Point of order Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:       Will Councillor JOHNSTON take a question?
Councillor JOHNSTON:   I'd be delighted to.
Councillor DICK:       Councillor JOHNSTON, are you aware under the leadership of Councillor
                       QUIRK and also Councillor COOPER, in relation to petitions regarding
                       Councillor ABRAHAMS and myself that they demand the councillor take a
                       position yes or no and there has been countless examples where Councillor
                       COOPER and Councillor QUIRK has demanded this.
                       Do you think there are double-standards with the LNP councillors dealing with
                       their own on one side and Opposition councillors on the other?

                                                                        [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                   - 83 -

Councillor JOHNSTON:        Councillor DICK, I think you have exposed the hard truth of this matter.
Chairman:                   Councillors, can I just draw to your attention that Councillor KING is absent in
                            this debate—
Councillor JOHNSTON:        Yes.
Chairman:                   —because of a conflict of interest.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        Yes, I understand.
Chairman:                   She can't make a comment. She can't contribute to the debate. Therefore it would
                            be inappropriate for her to contribute to the consultation once she had discovered
                            she had a perceived conflict of interest.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        Madam Chairman, and I'm not commenting on what her position is. I'm
                            commenting on the fact that she doesn't have one, and under the processes of this
                            Council which have been set down by the LORD MAYOR, the new LORD
                            MAYOR, and Councillor COOPER herself, week in and week out in her
                            committee that there should be a declared position.
                            She does not have one, and Madam Chairman, it is not a fact that Councillor
                            KING is not allowed to have any position on a matter, she's simply not allowed
                            to participate in this debate if she feels she has a conflict of interest.
                            What this shows, Madam Chairman, is she's not prepared to put her cards on the
                            table at all, at all, and number 2 that the report itself is trying to have a bob each
                            way by saying it supports both petitions, when it doesn't, and it opposes the
                            residents’ position of 15 storeys.
                            I think this is one of the most poorly written reports that I've ever seen in that it
                            is not clear, that it does not support the petitioners’ request as per their position,
                            and it doesn't say what the recommendation is.
Chairman:                   Further debate? Councillor COOPER.
Councillor COOPER:          Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It's always enlightening, and I'm being
                            highly sarcastic, to hear Councillor—
Councillor JOHNSTON:        Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:                   Point of order Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        You previously ruled sarcasm as being out of order in this Chamber, particularly
                            when I've attempted to do so, and I'm asking that you enforce the rules fairly and
                            in a non-biased way—
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:                   Order.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        —and in Councillor COOPER's own Ward—
Chairman:                   Please let Councillor JOHNSTON get her point across clearly councillors; you're
                            being very rude. Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        Madam Chairman—
Chairman:                   Councillor SUTTON, I can't hear her.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        As you have previously ruled that sarcasm is disorderly in this place I ask that
                            you apply your ruling equally and rule Councillor COOPER out of order.
Chairman:                   I will not uphold that point of order, I will make my rulings when and where I
                            see fit. Councillor COOPER.
Councillor COOPER:          Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I know that Councillor
                            JOHNSTON, takes the rules to such a degree that no one can really see any
                            relation to them and the actual rules that exist in the rulebook.
                            So I'm happy to point out for the clarification of her and Councillor FLESSER
                            that they are, yet again, misguided and they are misinforming the Council
                            Chamber about what is in relation to this particular petition.
                            Now, Madam Chair, your ruling is absolutely correct.

                                                                             [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                 - 84 -

Councillor JOHNSTON:       Claim to have been misrepresented.
Chairman:                  Was that a point of order Councillor JOHNSTON?
Councillor JOHNSTON:       Apologies. Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:                  Follow the rules please. Claim to be misrepresented.
Councillor JOHNSTON:       Claim to be misrepresented.
Chairman:                  Thank you.
Councillor COOPER:         So thank you Madam Chair, but in relation to this petition the local councillor,
                           Councillor Fiona KING, is in a situation where she is obviously with a potential
                           conflict of interest and is unable to register a specific recommendation in relation
                           to this petition and she, quite rightly, withdrew from debate relating to this
                           petition.
                           So, of course, she is still offered the opportunity to have information relating to
                           the petition, but in terms of putting a position forward one way or the other I
                           don't think that it is appropriate due to her situation. Otherwise, of course, I
                           would have asked for a specific comment relating to her view with the
                           recommendation. I note that the recommendation itself is actually discussing
                           what is going on with this petition.
                           This plan is a draft document and despite the nonsense that we, yet again, get
                           from Councillor Kim FLESSER - and this is something he does repeatedly,
                           repeats mistruths over and over and over again in an attempt to make them
                           reality.
                           Madam Chairman, this Chamber, specifically when discussing the
                           neighbourhood plan, noted that there will not be, under this plan, an extra
                           8000 new residents. This is just Councillor FLESSER's attempt to try and verbal
                           the neighbourhood plan, so to speak, Madam Chair.
                           In fact, this plan has been drafted—
Councillor FLESSER:        Madam Chair, I claim—
Chairman:                  Point of order.
Councillor FLESSER:        I claim to be misrepresented.
Chairman:                  Thank you. Councillor COOPER.
Councillor COOPER:         Madam Chair, it is always point of order before you actually raise any item to
                           you. I apologise to you on behalf of those on the other side of the Chamber.
                           Madam Chair—
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:                  Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor COOPER:         Madam Chair, as we specifically discussed in this Council Chamber, this plan, as
                           it is currently drafted, will see an estimated increase of 5926 residents by 2031,
                           not the 8000 by 2031—
Chairman:                  Councillor KNAPP.
Councillor COOPER:         —so this is over a significant period of time.
Councillor JOHNSTON:       Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:                  Point of order Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:       Madam Chairman, that is the third interjection since your last ruling that you
                           would warn Councillor KNAPP for her continued points of disorder in this
                           Chamber. When are you going - and I ask you to enforce the rules that have been
                           enforced with respect to other councillors and that you warn her for her repeated
                           disorderly behaviour under the Meetings Local Law.
Chairman:                  I believe Councillor COOPER did not find that obstructive. Councillor
                           COOPER, can you continue.
Councillor COOPER:         Thank you very much, Madam Chair. So, Madam Chair—

                                                                            [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                  - 85 -

Chairman:                   It's the speaker; whether they find it obstructive, interjective or supportive.
                            Councillor COOPER.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor COOPER:          Despite the childish behaviour on the other side of the Chamber, Madam Chair, I
                            think it's important to actually understand the facts of the matter.
                            Madam Chair, the Labor Party, under the leadership at the time of Councillor
                            David HINCHLIFFE, prepared the City Plan document. The Local Growth
                            Management Strategy actually forecasted Chermside to having an additional
                            population to 2026, so shorter than our timeframe, of 5504 people and that,
                            Madam Chair, met with the support of those on the opposite side of the
                            Chamber.
                            Yet now, when they're in Opposition, now, Madam Chair, they're making up
                            numbers and they're saying it's an outrage. So I think perhaps they should look at
                            the history and look at what they themselves were proposing to implement for
                            Chermside.
                            So if council officers have looked at what has been put before us and they are
                            saying that there is certainly some justification that these 10 and, I note only
                            10 signatories to this petition have put forward.
                            But, Madam Chair, it is premature, at this point in time, to be making any
                            decisions until the State Government actually give us any kind of indication
                            about how the busway will be aligned through this plan area and certainly this
                            plan has been sitting with them since the 4th of November.
                            Until we actually get something from the State Government, until we get some
                            significant comments providing that plan back to us, this is premature to be
                            making any decisions about what will be happening in the plan because it will be
                            going through public consultation and that will shape the final plan to be
                            considered.
                            So, Madam Chair, yet again, we've got some wilful misinterpretation from
                            Councillor FLESSER. We've got Councillor JOHNSTON who doesn't like
                            anything pretty much known to man if it's proposed from this side of the
                            Chamber.
                            Madam Chair, this plan is a draft document and we will be working through the
                            issues and we will be considering them, legitimate issues not the spurious
                            nonsense that we get week after week from those on the other side of the
                            Chamber.
Chairman:                   Two claims to be misrepresented. Councillor JOHNSTON first.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        Yes, it should be two for me.
                            But, firstly Madam Chairman, in respect to the first one, Councillor COOPER
                            said that I was misleading the Chamber when I discussed the substance of this
                            report. Madam Chairman, I quoted directly from paragraph 5 of the report, what
                            I said was clearly what was in the report. Therefore if I'm misleading the
                            Chamber, as she has alleged, it is the report itself that is wrong and I would like
                            that recorded.
Chairman:                   Thank you Councillor JOHNSTON. I believe it is the petitioner's words that are
                            in paragraph 3, not the council officers. Councillor FLESSER.
Councillor FLESSER:         Thank you Madam Chair. Madam Chair, Councillor COOPER said that I was
                            wrongly claiming there is 8000 extra people coming into Chermside as a result
                            of this plan and that I was making it up.
                            Madam Chair, I didn't make it up. Madam Chair, that 8000 figure came from the
                            planning officers at the community planning team meetings. They said it was
                            going to be 8000 people and that was reflected in the minutes of the meeting.
                            So the 8000 of what the council planners are saying, 8000 people is what was
                            told to the people on that committee, not the 6000 that Councillor COOPER is
                            now claiming. In either case 6000 is too many.


                                                                           [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                      - 86 -

Chairman:                       I will now put the motion with respect to Item A.

Clause A put
The Chairman put the motion for adoption of Clause A of the report to the Chamber resulting in it being
declared carried.

Thereupon, Councillors FLESSER and CAMPBELL immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted
in the motion being declared carried.

The voting was as follows:

AYES: 13 -                   The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY
                             MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS,
                             Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Margaret de WIT, Steven HUANG,
                             Geraldine KNAPP,        Ian    McKENZIE,       David     McLACHLAN,
                             Angela OWEN-TAYLOR, Julian SIMMONDS, Andrew WINES.

NOES: 11 -                   The Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Shayne SUTTON, and Councillors
                             Helen ABRAHAMS, John CAMPBELL, Peter CUMMING, Milton DICK,
                             Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS, David HINCHLIFFE, Gail MacPHERSON,
                             Victoria NEWTON, and Nicole JOHNSTON.

Debate on Clauses B and C
Chairman:                       We will now debate Item B and C and they've been taken seriatim for voting
                                only. Thank you. Councillor COOPER, any debate?
                                Any further debate on B and C? Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:            Yes, Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on Item C.
                                Madam Chairman, let me place on the record that I am appalled that this
                                important petition has been rushed through in the recess so that all I can do, as a
                                matter of right today, is to vote against noting it.
                                This, Madam Chairman, is probably one of the worst decisions that I have seen
                                in our local area for some period of time. Madam Chairman, the first thing I can
                                see is that this petition was lodged 10 months ago, it has taken 10 months for it
                                to come forward to this Council to be noted only.
                                Madam Chairman, what has happened here in Kenilworth Street demonstrates
                                most clearly the failure of Council's heritage protection under the City Plan.
                                Madam Chairman, this was a beautiful pre-war house that was occupied it's
                                whole time by this wonderful elderly couple. Unfortunately, one of them passed
                                away and the other one went to a nursing home. It's not unusual, obviously, that
                                land of this size and significance in Sherwood would then be acquired, you
                                know, for another family to live in.
                                Madam Chairman, the sad part of this is that not only the existing City Plan
                                requirements but also the Sherwood/Graceville District Neighbourhood Plan was
                                put in place to protect houses of this heritage significance.
                                Madam Chairman, the sad fact is that the Sherwood/Graceville District
                                Neighbourhood Plan, which did include additional protections for character
                                homes, only applied to some homes on the high side of the rail line. Houses in
                                the corridors, such as this, were never ever given the protection that they should
                                have been under the Sherwood/Graceville District Neighbourhood Plan.
                                In all of my submissions to this Council and to the officers, it is Kenilworth
                                Street that I have lobbied to include within those protections. It is still a unique
                                and mainly intact character streetscape.
                                It is a great sadness that this home has been lost - and it's not funny, Madam
                                Chairman. I see you laughing and I'm sorry that you think—
Chairman:                       Not at you Councillor JOHNSTON



                                                                                [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                  - 87 -

Councillor JOHNSTON:        —the loss of heritage is funny because it's not, Madam Chairman. Not to the
                            residents who live in this street, not to the neighbourhood committees that fight
                            tooth and nail to protect this heritage and not to me.
                            Madam Chairman, not only have we lost the heritage but the process by which
                            this has happened is just one of the most appalling failures of Council's
                            regulatory system.
                            Madam Chair, as the report before you sets out, Council did originally refuse to
                            approve the demolition of this home. That decision was welcomed by myself and
                            by residents. We all opposed the demolition, we did so on very strong grounds
                            and we felt that Council had listened to us and there had been a very good
                            outcome given that this house was to be retained.
                            But what happened then, Madam Chairman, is symptomatic of what I'm now
                            finding is happening within this Council, is that once it goes into appeal, Council
                            negotiated, to do a deal, with the developer to allow them—
Councillor KNAPP:           Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:                   Thank you, Councillor KNAPP. I was about to—
Councillor KNAPP:           Of all the—-
Chairman:                   That was imputing motive on council officers.
Councillor KNAPP:           That's imputing motive of council officers.
Chairman:                   It's very, very—
Councillor KNAPP:           I ask you to withdraw that.
Chairman:                   Thank you Councillor KNAPP.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        Madam Chairman, I refer you to paragraph 31 which says that they did enter into
                            negotiations and that means they did a deal, Madam Chairman. That is exactly—
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor COOPER:          Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:                   Thank you councillors. Councillor JOHNSTON, doing a deal has motives
                            behind it which is very different to a without prejudice negotiation. I ask you to
                            choose your words more carefully. It is inappropriate what you are imputing at
                            the motive on development officers.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        Well, Madam Chairman, I'm quite surprised, I think that's layman's terms that
                            everyone understands. That after—
Chairman:                   Yes and the understanding of doing that deal with—
Councillor JOHNSTON:        That after—
Chairman:                   —development is imputing motive that is very adversely reflecting on council
                            officers.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        Madam Chairman, what I will say is—
Councillor COOPER:          Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:                   Point of order Councillor COOPER.
Councillor COOPER:          I seek that that comment be withdrawn unequivocally. It is outrageous and I
                            think it is disgraceful that Councillor JOHNSTON, who supposedly has some
                            legal training, would not know that this derogatory and should be withdrawn.
Chairman:                   Councillor COOPER, Councillor JOHNSTON is indicating that she did not
                            mean it to impute motive. I'm asking her to be very careful of her terminology
                            because it definitely sounded like that.
                            So please refer to the words that are in the report so that you're not stepping out
                            of line Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        I will, Madam Chairman, then. Madam Chairman, this Council, behind closed
                            doors, entered into negotiations with the developer and as a result of those

                                                                            [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                              - 88 -

                       negotiations the applicant altered the proposal from full demolition to partial
                       demolition.
                       Now, Madam Chairman, that included removing a number of the extensions, this
                       is a beautiful veranda that also contributed to the streetscape. Madam Chairman,
                       it might have been done after 1946 but it was still a very important part of that
                       house and the character of that house.
                       Madam Chairman, but what happened next is the real problem. The developers,
                       and in the words of the report in paragraph 32 before Councillor COOPER goes
                       berserk, jumped the gun and they knocked this house down.
                       Now, Madam Chairman, those of us who saw how they - and I will use this word
                       - butchered this house. It would absolutely, defy belief that these are the words
                       written in this report. This house was butchered and there is no other way to
                       describe what happened to this absolutely beautiful home, Madam Chairman. It
                       was reduced to a square box, it was cut in half, it was sliced and slid right across,
                       something I know the Lord Mayor, the previous Lord Mayor didn't like.
                       Now, Madam Chairman, Council did go out and I have to say they did the right
                       thing here. They went out, they issued a stop work notice and they fined the
                       developer, but what happened then, Madam Chairman? Council and the court
                       endorsed what they had done. I think this is where the very sad part of this
                       situation is.
                       They did an end run around our planning system and we have lost the heritage
                       streetscape in Kenilworth Street and as we all know, any councillor who has
                       heritage homes, this is where the rot starts. Once one goes then the next one
                       goes. The developers use that as an example.
                       I am very, very sad, Madam Chairman, that, number one, this petition is being
                       brought forward well after the fact. Number two, that Council officers agreed to
                       the modifications during the negotiation phase and I'm most sad of all that
                       despite what this Council had intended with the Sherwood/Graceville District
                       Neighbourhood Plan protections that they never extended the homes in
                       Kenilworth Street and other homes like it.
                       I'm very, very sad, Madam Chairman, that we have lost this beautiful character
                       home. Sad for the community that opposed it very strongly and sad that the best
                       Council can do is 10 months after they lodge a petition write a letter to them
                       saying sorry this has all happened now. It's too bad, so sad. It's appalling.
Chairman:              Further debate on Items B or C? Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:   Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I rise to enter the debate on Item C and
                       I, too, represent an area that has character residential and lots of character
                       dwellings that are under threat.
                       The story, as it is revealed in this response to the petitioner, is one in which
                       everyone in the Administration should hide their head in shame.
                       It is one that we have measures in the City Plan to prevent circumstances like
                       this occurring, and yet within the response going back to the petitioners there is
                       nothing at all to acknowledge that the legislation that they were relying on to
                       protect that dwelling, which was the exact intent of that legislation has been
                       thrown out the window and the destruction has occurred.
                       The 10 months that it has taken for this petition to be responded to is the critical
                       thing; in that Council did not act proactively, did not support the community, did
                       not go to that developer and say we have responded and we're supporting the
                       community and we do not want this house to be demolished. They waited, they
                       delayed, they, within that process, left the window wide open so the developer
                       could jump the gun.
                       Because if the response is immediate and urgent, in response to the petition then
                       there is absolute certainty, the developer knows exactly what's before them and I
                       would suggest, in those circumstances, many of the jump-the-gun developers
                       think twice. But when there is a petition before Council and it is ignored then the
                       scenario is completely different.

                                                                       [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                             - 89 -

                       So I suggest this loss of this house, this loss of the powers of our legislation,
                       whether or not it was the court in the final outcome that absolved the action or
                       not, is a direct consequence of Councillor COOPER not using the powers of the
                       plan appropriately and on her shoulders rest the loss of this character house, the
                       loss of the character in this street and the loss of others when this story gets
                       around the community.
Chairman:              Further debate? Councillor COOPER.
Councillor COOPER:     Well, Madam Chair, the Opposition strikes again really, doesn't it? Round 2 of
                       complete and utter misunderstanding of how the process works or perhaps that's
                       deliberate, Madam Chair. Perhaps really their strategy is to make up all these
                       sorts of things and just repeat them over and over and over—
Councillor SUTTON:     Point of order, Madam Chair.
Councillor COOPER:     —again.
Chairman:              Point of order Councillor SUTTON.
Councillor SUTTON:     I believe that's imputing motive. I'd ask that she'd withdraw those comments.
Chairman:              She's actually repeating things she believes you have done, it's not imputing
                       motive.
Councillor SUTTON:     Point of order, Madam Chair. It's talking about our motives for debate and our
                       motives for raising these issues in Council, it is imputing motive and I ask that
                       that be withdrawn.
Chairman:              I believe Councillor COOPER is suggesting that you are misleading Council.
                       She's not actually imputing motive, it's making a comment that she believes that
                       you are misleading Council. Councillor COOPER.
Councillor COOPER:     Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the political strategies, or
                       lack thereof, of those of the other side of the Chamber are not in any way, shape
                       or form actually being reflected.
                       We are seeing week after week after week, from those on the other side of the
                       Chamber, they create these sorts of stories. They make these things up. They
                       don't rely on any facts or any evidence—
Councillor JOHNSTON:   Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:              Point of order Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:   Point of order, Madam Chairman. Firstly, I claim to be misrepresented and,
                       secondly, Madam Chairman, Councillor COOPER has just clearly imputed
                       motive by saying Opposition councillors have made up this story.
                       Madam Chairman, that is clearly (1) imputing motive by saying we are lying and
                       making something up. That is a matter of factual record in this Council Chamber
                       and (2) it is an adverse reflection upon the character of Opposition councillors
                       and on both tenants it is disorderly and you should ask her to withdraw it please.
Chairman:              Councillor—
Councillor CAMPBELL:   Madam—
Chairman:              —COOPER, can I deal with that point of order first thank you, Councillor
                       CAMPBELL.
                       Councillor COOPER, I believe you are making comments on what you believe. I
                       ask you to carefully select your words so that you are not calling them liars, but
                       as we have said before you believe that they are speaking mistruths and I accept
                       that in this Chamber because the Opposition have said the same thing.
                       Councillor COOPER.
Councillor COOPER:     Madam Chair, I note that some of the—
Councillor CAMPBELL:   Point of order, Madam Chair.
Councillor COOPER:     —comments—
Chairman:              Point of order, Councillor CAMPBELL.

                                                                      [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                             - 90 -

Councillor CAMPBELL:   Madam Chair, I believe that there has been an act of disorder, by saying that
                       Opposition councillors purposely mislead and deliberately mislead the Chamber.
                       Madam Chair, I take offence at that and I demand that it be withdrawn.
Chairman:              Councillor CAMPBELL, I have made my ruling on the previous point of order
                       which is exactly the same thing. Councillor COOPER.
Councillor COOPER:     Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I quote from Councillor
                       ABRAHAMS who said that we, on this side of the Chamber, should “Hide their
                       heads in shame” and she says that City Plan has provisions that would prevent
                       this occurring, this case that we see before us in this petition under Item C.
                       Well, Madam Chair, that is not the case, because if these additions are post-1946
                       then they do not in any way, shape or form be considered assessable
                       development and if they're not assessable development then City Plan does not
                       apply.
                       So, Madam Chair, that is not the truth and I think that's clear demonstration that
                       those on the other side of the Chamber don't base their arguments in fact, they
                       base their arguments in—
Councillor JOHNSTON:   Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:              Point of order Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:   Claim to be misrepresented again.
Chairman:              Councillor COOPER.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:   Point of order, Madam Chair. I claim to be misrepresented.
Chairman:              Councillor COOPER.
Councillor COOPER:     Madam Chair, I think they're feeling a little bit sensitive. I think I might have
                       struck a nerve, perhaps the fact—
Councillor JOHNSTON:   Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:              Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:   Madam Chairman, I again draw to your attention that Councillor COOPER is
                       imputing motive, she is saying that we are making up stories; we are not
                       speaking the truth about these matters, Madam Chairman, that is a clear breach
                       of the Meetings Local Laws. Then she says we are sensitive for raising these
                       issues. That is an adverse reflection upon our characters and that also is imputing
                       motive.
                       I'm not sensitive I would just like the law that applies to all councillors in this
                       place applied equally.
Chairman:              Thank you Councillor JOHNSTON this is a political Chamber and comments
                       will be made as I have ruled before.
                       Councillor COOPER has clearly put into her debate where she believes
                       Councillor ABRAHAMS' argument was based on a mistruth or something that is
                       not a fact in the City Plan. It is not imputing motive if she clearly has given the
                       debated reason why not.
                       Thank you Councillor COOPER.
Councillor COOPER:     I note, Madam Chair, that Councillor JOHNSTON said that I potentially would
                       go berserk and I didn't leap to my feet in protest and say it's an outrage and my
                       character is being impugned because (a) I think that that is the spirit of this
                       Chamber we should be able to debate things. We should be able to be debating
                       these issues, but Councillor JOHNSTON is very precious when it comes to her
                       personal circumstances, yet she's keen to actually make other people's character
                       the subject of debate. I note her comments about Councillor KING which I think
                       are outrageous.
                       Madam Chair, I think it's important to debate the issues, the issues again we
                       have—
Councillor JOHNSTON:   Point of order Madam Chairman.

                                                                      [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                              - 91 -

Chairman:              Point of order Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:   Claim to be misrepresented again.
Chairman:              Councillor COOPER.
Councillor COOPER:     So, Madam Chair, Councillor ABRAHAMS made comments and said that
                       Council had “left the gate open and said it ignored the situation. It did nothing to
                       address the specific circumstances in relation to this matter.”
                       Madam Chair, the report itself actually makes it clear that Council officers did
                       everything that they could, everything within their power, every legal avenue
                       that they had they explored to deal with this issue.
                       So, Madam Chair, if there are flaws then certainly the Planning and Environment
                       Court is able to make decisions based on its own judgement and based on its
                       own interpretation of City Plan. If their interpretations do not concur with
                       Council officers then Council officers must accept the decisions of this court.
                       Madam Chair, it is, yet again, clear that Councillor ABRAHAMS with her
                       suggestions that Council officers were not doing the right thing is not in any
                       way, shape or form reflecting the truth of this matter.
                       Council officers sought to do all they could to address this issue and,
                       unfortunately, Madam Chairman, the situation that we operate within, the
                       existing rules and the decisions of the Planning and Environment Court are not
                       decisions that we can have any redress to unless they are not correct in a point of
                       law.
                       So, Madam Chair, Council officers were proactive. They did respond to what
                       they possibly could. Certainly it is disappointing to see the loss of a house that is
                       valued by the community. But unless it meets the requirements under the
                       existing codes or under the existing local area plan then Council officers are
                       constrained by the legislation under which we operate.
                       I think saying that Council officers didn't support the community, Madam Chair,
                       is totally contrary to the reality. Council officers were doing their very, very best
                       and I thank them for their hard work and effort, on behalf of our local
                       communities, while they do a job that is a tough one, Madam Chair, and as you,
                       yourself, would recognise there is a case where everyone seems to complain
                       about saying Council officers don't do enough when I think they're dedication to
                       our community is outstanding.
                       I totally reject the assertions made on the other side of the Chamber. Thank you.
Chairman:              Councillor ABRAHAMS, first claim to be misrepresented.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:   Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I spoke very clearly about the delay in the
                       petition response showing Council's support of the petitioners that they wanted
                       the house to be retained was, in fact, what left the door open.
                       I didn't talk about the legislation. I didn't talk about what Council officers were
                       doing. I didn't talk about the partial demolition and what happened in
                       negotiations.
                       I said if Council wanted to protect that building and gave a very timely quick
                       response, then the developer knew what was going on.
Chairman:              Thank you Councillor ABRAHAMS
Councillor ABRAHAMS:   It is completely different—
Chairman:              Thank you Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:   —from that—
Chairman:              Just brief and to the point. Councillor JOHNSTON, the same please for your
                       three.
Councillor JOHNSTON:   Yes, Madam Chairman, there is three points of misrepresentation that I'm rising
                       on.



                                                                       [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                      - 92 -

                                The first is Councillor COOPER's assertion that I was making up stories. Madam
                                Chair, I was debating the facts as they were presented in this report before us
                                today, unfortunately, this is not some story, it is the reality of the situation in
                                Kenilworth Street, Sherwood
                                Secondly, Madam Chairman, Councillor COOPER alleged I was misleading the
                                Chamber. Again, I was debating the facts that are presented in the report today
                                and talking about their impact on the residents of Kenilworth Street, Sherwood,
                                and surrounding residents who are concerned about heritage.
                                The third, and most outrageous one, was that Councillor COOPER alleged I'd
                                been saying derogatory things about Councillor KING when the only thing that I
                                said about Councillor KING was is she didn't have a position recorded in a
                                report. So I'm sorry that Councillor COOPER seems to think that's derogatory
                                because, clearly, that's not the case on her chairmanship of her own committee
                                which requires councillors to have a position.
Chairman:                       I now put the motion with respect to Item B.

Clause B put
The Chairman put the motion for adoption of Clause B of the Report to the Chamber resulting in it being
declared carried.

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

The voting was as follows:

AYES: 17 -                   The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY
                             MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS,
                             Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Margaret de WIT, Steven HUANG,
                             Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David
                             McLACHLAN, Angela OWEN-TAYLOR, Julian SIMMONDS, Andrew WINES,
                             Norm WYNDHAM and Nicole JOHNSTON

NOES: 10 -                   The Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Shayne SUTTON, and Councillors
                             Helen ABRAHAMS, John CAMPBELL, Peter CUMMING, Milton DICK,
                             Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS, David HINCHLIFFE, Gail MacPHERSON,
                             Victoria NEWTON.

Clause C put
The Chairman put the motion for adoption of Clause C of the Report to the Chamber resulting in it being
declared carried.

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

The voting was as follows:

AYES: 16 -                   The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY
                             MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS,
                             Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Margaret de WIT, Steven HUANG,
                             Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David
                             McLACHLAN, Angela OWEN-TAYLOR, Julian SIMMONDS, Andrew WINES,
                             Norm WYNDHAM

NOES: 11 -                   The Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Shayne SUTTON, and Councillors
                             Helen ABRAHAMS, John CAMPBELL, Peter CUMMING, Milton DICK,
                             Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS, David HINCHLIFFE, Gail MacPHERSON,
                             Victoria NEWTON and Nicole JOHNSTON.




                                                                               [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                  - 93 -

The report as follows

        A       PETITION – REGISTERING CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED
                BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE PROPOSED CHERMSIDE CENTRE
                NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
                CA10/175935

1.      A petition from the O.E.S. Project Fund Committee Limited, registering their concerns about
        the proposed building height in the proposed Chermside Centre Neighbourhood Plan, was
        presented to Council at its meeting of 31 August 2010 by Councillor Fiona King, and
        received.

2.      The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the information below.

3.      The petitioners’ concerns are surrounding the proposed 15-storey building height and the
        impact on parking and infrastructure. They believe that 12 storeys should be the limit. The
        petitioners are also concerned that the road network and Northern Busway will be insufficient
        to cater for the proposed 8000 extra people.

4.      The petition contained 10 signatures.

5.      The petition has been reviewed by Neighbourhood Planning officers and the concerns of the
        signatories have been taken on board. Neighbourhood Planning is supportive of the
        petitioners’ recommendation for the limit of 12 storeys in the heart of Chermside Centre;
        however, Neighbourhood Planning supports up to 15 storeys on the Westfield Shopping
        Centre as the site is capable of supporting such density. It should be noted that a final decision
        regarding heights in the Chermside Centre will be made by full Council.

6.      The draft Chermside Centre Neighbourhood Plan and draft Infrastructure Plan will address
        improvements to the road network to cater for the proposed growth. Car parking for the
        Chermside Centre is dealt with in another section of the Brisbane City Plan 2000. This is
        being addressed as part of the City Plan review process currently being undertaken by
        Council.

        Consultation

7.      The councillor for Marchant Ward, Councillor Fiona King, has been consulted.

        Customer impact

8.      The drafting of the Chermside Centre Neighbourhood Plan will take into consideration the
        petitioners’ concerns with respect to where higher density is supported.

9.      Accordingly, the Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at
        its meeting of 18 April 2011.

10.     DECISION:

        THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED OF THE RELEVANT INFORMATION
        CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT.
                                                                                                   NOTED




                                                                         [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                               - 94 -

      B       PETITION – OBJECTING TO THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION LOCATED
              AT 64 THIESFIELD STREET, FIG TREE POCKET
              CA11/27214

11.   A petition from Fig Tree Pocket residents, objecting to the proposed subdivision located at
      64 Thiesfield Street, Fig Tree Pocket, was presented to Council at its meeting of 22 February
      2011 by Councillor Julian Simmonds, and received.

12.   The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the information below.

13.   The petitioners are concerned about the proposed subdivision on the following grounds:
      -       A number of proposed lots were entirely or partially submerged during the January
              floods.
      -       Adjoining property owners were told this property was too low for residential
              development.
      -       The developer who purchased the site brought in substantial fill to lift the level of the
              land to make it suitable for building purposes.
      -       The fill may have distorted the flooding and resulted in increased flooding to
              adjoining properties.
      -       Sandringham Place was full of cars during the floods as residents in the area moved
              cars to higher ground.
      -       Any proposed fill will impact on existing properties possibly increasing flood
              impacts.

14.   A development application (A002696699) seeking approval for subdivision (1 into 15 lots)
      was lodged with Council on 17 December 2009. The application was deemed properly made
      on 29 January 2010.

15.   The subject site adjoins a tributary of Cubberla Creek, which is located within a defined
      waterway corridor. The proposal includes the dedication of approximately 3.5 hectares of
      land to Brisbane City Council (Council) as public parkland, in accordance with the Fig Tree
      Pocket Infrastructure Charges Plan. The developable portion of the site (the area outside the
      parkland area) has been recognised as being suitable for low density residential development
      (houses).

16.   The proposed development includes construction of a new esplanade road along the parkland.
      The applicant has, as requested by Council, removed proposed allotments from the waterway
      corridor; however, approximately half of the proposed esplanade road encroaches into the
      waterway corridor. During the assessment process, Council expressed in-principle support for
      this encroachment, and agreed to accept the Q100 waterway level of 5.5 metres Australian
      Height Datum (AHD) for the centreline of the proposed road. Tree protection zones were also
      established to protect mature vegetation including a 10 metre wide landscape buffer along
      Thiesfield Street.

17.   The application was publicly advertised from 25 June to 9 August 2010. Council received a
      total of 35 properly made submissions during this period. Key issues raised by submitters
      included the site’s location in a waterway corridor (and the impacts of development on the
      existing floodplain), the removal of native vegetation, increases in traffic, impacts on amenity
      and character, and stormwater pollution caused by run-off.

18.   Photographic evidence of the January 2011 floods, sourced through NearMap, suggests that
      the level of flooding at the site reached approximately 10 metres AHD. The initial proposed
      allotment building pad levels were to be at the Q100 defined flood level (Brisbane River) of
      nine metres plus 300 millimetres, equalling 9.3 metres AHD (and the habitable floor levels
      would have been at 9.5 metres AHD). However, the assessment team has reviewed the
      proposal in view of the 2011 flood levels and has required the applicant to improve the flood
      immunity for any proposed new residential lots.

                                                                      [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                 - 95 -


19.   The petition, containing a total of five signatories, was received after the timeframe for the
      receipt of submissions from the public. As such, the petition cannot be considered as being
      properly made under the provisions of the Integrated Planning Act 1997, thereby not
      conferring appeal rights and formal notification of the outcome of the application. Further, the
      concerns raised in the petition were considered in the assessment of the application as they
      were also raised by the formal submitters to the application.

      Consultation

20.   Councillor Julian Simmonds, Councillor for Walter Taylor Ward, has been consulted.

21.   Accordingly, the Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at
      its meeting of 18 April 2011.

22.   DECISION:

      THAT THE PRINCIPAL PETITIONER BE ADVISED THAT:
      (i)   the application is still being assessed in accordance with the requirements of the
            Brisbane City Plan 2000 and the Integrated Planning Act 1997
      (ii)  the concerns raised in the petition are being considered as part of the assessment
            process
      (iii) the petition is not considered to be a properly made submission under the provisions
            of the Integrated Planning Act, as the petition was presented outside the timeframe
            for the receipt of submissions from the public (25 June to 9 August 2010)
      (iv)  the principal petitioner was also a valid submitter to the application and will be
            formally notified of the outcome on the application.
                                                                                                NOTED
      C       PETITION - REQUESTING COUNCIL TO HALT THE RENOVATION
              WORKS TO THE HOUSE LOCATED AT 10 KENILWORTH STREET,
              SHERWOOD
              CA10/126349

23.   A petition from Sherwood residents, requesting Council to halt the renovation works to the
      house located at 10 Kenilworth Street, Sherwood, was received during the Winter Recess
      2010.

24.   The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the information below.

25.   The petition contained eight signatures.

26.   On 12 February 2010, an application was lodged with Council for the full demolition of the
      house at 10 Kenilworth Street, Sherwood. The house straddled three lots, meaning its
      demolition would have left three 400 square metres (small) lots vacant for development.

27.   The level of assessment for this development application was Notifiable Code. Notifiable
      Code allows Council to seek the views of neighbours and the surrounding community prior to
      making a decision; however, submitters do not have any appeal rights. Council received
      38 submissions from local residents objecting to the demolition.

28.   The application was assessed by the Development Assessment (DA) South Team against the
      requirements of the Brisbane City Plan 2000 and in accordance with the provisions of the
      Sustainable Planning Act 2009. On 16 March 2010 the application was refused on the
      grounds the proposed demolition was contrary to the requirements of the Demolition Code of
      the City Plan.


                                                                      [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                               - 96 -

29.   On 26 March 2010, the applicant lodged an appeal against the refusal in the Planning and
      Environment Court.

30.   A review undertaken by the Appeals Unit revealed that a significant portion of the dwelling
      had been constructed post-1946. The rear extension, garage and front patio were erected
      between 1951 and 1979. Under the City Plan planning approval is not required for the
      demolition of post-1946 houses or extensions.

31.   As a result of ‘without prejudice’ negotiations during the appeal process, the applicant altered
      their proposal from full demolition to only partial demolition. The modified proposal involved
      the removal of the post-1946 extensions, a two metre by seven metre portion of the eastern
      wall and a small portion of the front wall to create a new entry door. The modified proposal
      resulted in approximately 85 per cent of the original pre-1946 dwelling being retained on the
      middle lot, leaving the adjoining lots vacant for redevelopment.

32.   On 22 June 2010, in response to complaints that demolition work had begun, Council officers
      inspected the site and issued a ‘stop work’ notice and issued a $5000 fine for undertaking
      work without planning or building approval. The applicant admitted they ‘jumped the gun’,
      ceased work, paid the fine and lodged a building application for demolition approval.

33.   On 30 June 2010, the Planning and Environment Court approved the modified demolition
      application.

34.   The extent of demolition work that had already occurred on site complied with the extent of
      demolition approved by the court therefore reinstatement of the dwelling has not been
      necessary.

35.   On 21 April 2010, Council received an application for a new house to be built on one of the
      lots to be made vacant by the demolition work. The application was assessed against the
      requirements of the City Plan and in accordance with the provisions of the Sustainable
      Planning Act. A number of design changes were made to the proposal at the Assessment
      Team’s request, to ensure that it complied with the relevant provisions of the Residential
      Design – Character Code. The application was subsequently approved on 29 June 2010.

      Consultation

36.   Councillor Nicole Johnston, Councillor for Tennyson Ward, was consulted during the
      assessment period for the demolition application. Councillor Johnston indicated she did not
      support the removal of the house.

37.   Accordingly, the Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at
      its meeting of 18 April 2011.

38.   DECISION:

      THAT THE PRINCIPAL PETITIONER BE ADVISED THAT:

      (i)     The original development application for the full demolition of the house located at
              10 Kenilworth Street, Sherwood, was assessed by the Development Assessment (DA)
              South Team against the requirements of the Brisbane City Plan 2000 (the City Plan)
              and in accordance with the provisions of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. The
              application was subsequently refused by Brisbane City Council on 16 March 2010.
              The applicant then appealed Council’s decision in the Planning and Environment
              Court on 26 March 2010.




                                                                      [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                  - 97 -

        (ii)      AS A RESULT OF NEGOTIATIONS DURING THE APPEAL PROCESS,
                  THE APPLICATION WAS CHANGED FROM A FULL DEMOLITION TO A
                  PARTIAL DEMOLITION. This partial demolition includes part of the front walls
                  and eastern part of the house. The result was the retention of approximately 85 per
                  cent of the original pre-1946 house. The court approved the modified demolition
                  application on 30 June 2010.

        (iii)     Council records show that the garage, front patio and rear extension were constructed
                  between 1951 and 1979. As these extensions were constructed after 1946 planning
                  approval under the City Plan is not required for their demolition.

        (iv)      In response to earlier complaints about illegal demolition work at this property,
                  Council officers inspected the site on 22 June 2010. The owner was issued with a
                  ‘stop work’ notice and was also fined for undertaking work without planning or
                  building approval. The extent of the demolition that had already been undertaken
                  complied with the court approval. For this reason, Council will not be seeking the
                  restoration of the pre-1946 parts of the house which were removed prior to approval.

        (v)       The owner has admitted that they ‘jumped the gun’ by demolishing parts of the house
                  before receiving the Court approval, or obtaining the necessary building permits. The
                  owner has paid the fine issued by Council and is currently applying for a building
                  permit. Council’s ‘stop work’ order will remain in force until the owner receives the
                  necessary permits from a private building certifier.

        (vi)      Council received an application on 21 April 2010 for a new house on one of the lots
                  to be made vacant by the demolition work. The application was assessed against the
                  requirements of the City Plan and in accordance with the provisions of the
                  Sustainable Planning Act and was approved on 29 June 2010. A number of design
                  changes were made to the proposal at Council’s request, to ensure that it complied
                  with the relevant character requirements of the City Plan. The approved house plans
                  can be viewed online by visiting www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/pdonline and referencing
                  application number A002779009.
                                                                                                    NOTED
ADJOURNMENT:
                                                                                           854/2010-11
 At that time, 7.06pm, it was resolved on the motion of Councillor Andrew WINES, seconded by Councillor
 Fiona KING, that the meeting adjourn for a period of one hour, to commence only when all councillors have
 vacated the chamber and the doors have been locked.

 Council stood adjourned at 7.10pm.

UPON RESUMPTION:


                ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE
                                                                                           855/2010-11
Councillor Peter MATIC, Chairman of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, moved, seconded
by Councillor Norm WYNDHAM, that the report setting out the decisions of the Establishment and
Coordination Committee as delegate of the Council during the Autumn Recess 2011, on matters usually
considered by the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, be noted.

Chairman:                     Is there any debate? Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:          Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I rise to enter the debate on the issue
                              regarding the purchase of land at 124 Maundrell Terrace, using the
                              environmental levy.


                                                                          [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                  - 98 -


Seriatim - Clause A
Councillor ABRAHAMS requested that Clause A, PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL CONSIDER
PURCHASING 124 MAUNDRELL TERRACE, CHERMSIDE WEST, FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
PURPOSES, be taken seriatim for voting purposes.

                           I do not support the recommendation to this petition. We have just seen that
                           there are funds available, that the funds from the bushland levy expenditure have
                           been deferred to 2012-13. Therefore, there are funds available.
                           This is the most - and I realise I’m quoting Councillor JOHNSTON in that - this
                           is the most incredible report in terms of a petition regarding the acquisition of
                           bushland, because at no point in the report that we have before us does it actually
                           acknowledge or discuss or debate the environmental values of the land, which I
                           actually think is - and I know - the crucial criteria that are given for whether we
                           acquire land.
                           The second criteria is the level of threat. The report would indicate to us that
                           there is no threat because the land is in the waterway corridor. Unfortunately, I
                           have been in Council too long. I am very aware that land within a waterway
                           corridor has been developed, too long to accept that argument. Maybe that is a
                           more accurate statement. I have seen too often, too frequently, where land in a
                           waterway corridor that should have either 15 metres from both sides of the river
                           corridor or a total of 30 metres of corridor retained has not happened when the
                           development application has been lodged for that site.
                           Therefore, I believe that the acquisition of this site, if it has environmental
                           values, should be undertaken so that it does give the protection of that waterway
                           corridor. So as to assess those environmental corridors, I have assessed that this
                           land is linked with the Wayne Goss Reserve - John Goss Reserve - oh, sorry,
                           Wayne Goss.
Chairman:                  John Goss.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:       I think it should be the Wayne Goss. Perhaps we should change it at this point to
                           the Wayne Goss Reserve. However, unfortunately I think a man called
                           John Goss got in before Wayne and therefore it is called John Goss Reserve.
                           But it is linked to that reserve. That reserve is probably one more nature-based
                           reserve than there are in the north-western suburbs and only a short distance
                           from the Chermside bushlands.
                           So I believe it does have environmental values that are worth considering when
                           there are funds available, when the Liberal National Party administration had
                           much increased money there to acquire land. And I believe the argument that the
                           petitioners received, that the land is not under threat and that low residential land
                           is expensive, is an insufficient argument when money should be assessed on the
                           environmental criteria.
                           I believe this parcel of land should be acquired. It’s a unique opportunity. It is
                           linked to a major bushland. It has waterway values. It is meritorious and it
                           should be protected.
Chairman:                  Further debate? Councillor WYNDHAM.
Councillor WYNDHAM:        Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak on the property at 125 Maundrell,
                           not Mandrell Terrace. It pays to know the property before you debate the issues.
                           John Goss Reserve, yes, is a bushland reserve, yes. This property goes into that.
                           In fact, this property goes a little further up the hill. And what do we have there?
                           A cricket ground which I wouldn't say has great environmental credential, the
                           cricket oval.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor WYNDHAM:        Councillor ABRAHAMS, you’ve had your opportunity. It may also be noted that
                           the other two properties that abut this, both have had quite a significant amount
                           of restriction on development because of the waterway corridor. And the
                           predominate or the major part of this site is waterway corridor, if not waterway.

                                                                           [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                  - 99 -

                           So I don’t see the purchase of this land would make much difference. In fact,
                           through the DA (Development Assessment) process, this development,
                           whenever it has been lodged with Council, it’s been knocked back on these
                           grounds. And that is as far as I know for the past seven years.
                           But we won’t debate tin-tacks. It’s there on the report. It is well and truly
                           protected by the DA process. And I support that protection and I’m sure, when
                           we have listened this evening to the, I guess, almost verballing of how bad a
                           state we are supposed to be in, we now have a councillor standing up and saying,
                           well let’s spend.
                           I support the protection of this. And while that protection’s there, I’ll continue to
                           support it. And that’s what I think is extremely important, not so much the
                           purchase through the bushland levy. Thank you.
Chairman:                  Further debate? Councillor MATIC. Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:       I just have to pull this open, but I thought, Madam Chairman, that this was
                           recommending that we do not acquire the bushland. Is that right?
Chairman:                  Correct.
Councillor JOHNSTON:       So I’ll look forward to Councillor WYNDHAM’s crossing the floor then to
                           demonstrate that he does support this and does support funding for it. Because he
                           has just stated on the public record that he supports the protection of this land.
                           Yet and now, as I understand it, this is a recommendation that—
Councillor WYNDHAM:        Claim to be represented.
Chairman:                  Thank you. Point of order, Councillor WYNDHAM, please.
Councillor JOHNSTON:       That’ll be an interesting one, I think, Madam Chairman. But I listened very
                           carefully and I suspect again Councillor WYNDHAM is having a bob each way.
                           He’s saying he supports something. That is not what the response to this
                           committee says. It’s not recommending the purchase of this land. So I assume
                           that Councillor WYNDHAM has the courage of his convictions and he is going
                           to cross the floor tonight to demonstrate that he stands with his—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON:       Oh yes. He’s got the nod from Councillor QUIRK to cross the floor because it’s
                           not a matter that can be changed in here, is it? It’s a matter for noting. Because
                           when he had the chance to get up and say something about it weeks ago, it was
                           pushed through this Council in secret and a decision was made at that time.
Councillor KNAPP:          Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:                  Point of order, Councillor KNAPP.
Councillor KNAPP:          Madam Chair, it’s not appropriate to say that this petition was pushed through in
                           secret. It is done while Council is in recess. I ask her to withdraw that remark.
Chairman:                  Yes. Councillor JOHNSTON, again I ask you, I do not think it is appropriate that
                           you keep verballing that this is done in secret when it has come through recess. I
                           ask you to not make that comment in future, please.
Councillor JOHNSTON:       No, Madam Chairman. Thank you. I’ll take your direction. What I will say,
                           Madam Chairman, is this decision, which Councillor WYNDHAM does not
                           support, was taken by E&C (Establishment & Coordination Committee), behind
                           closed doors, without any opportunity for this Council to debate the decision and
                           to change it.
                           Furthermore, if you go over and look, there are no files at all here today that any
                           councillor can scrutinise because this decision was made by behind closed doors.
                           And the petition itself is not over there. And I know the door to the E&C room is
                           closed, because I used to see it. I can see you’re about to say something. Saying
                           something is happened behind closed doors is a statement of fact. So, Madam
                           Chairman—
Chairman:                  Councillor, I just would like to make this point and it was brought up before.
                           There's things that are not on the table there because these are files in the process

                                                                            [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                              - 100 -

                       of being worked on by Council officers. You know the Right to Information Act
                       and you can call on those files if you require them. But if they are working files,
                       as they are if they’re in recess, they’re not on the table before us.
Councillor JOHNSTON:   Well, this is astonishing because this is the first time in three years that files have
                       not been made available—
Chairman:              That is not the first time in three years, Councillor JOHNSTON. This is standard
                       operating procedures for all files during recess.
Councillor JOHNSTON:   Oh, well there you go, Madam Chairman. They’re not being made available for
                       us to scrutinise in this place during the debate today. Madam Chairman—
Chairman:              Councillor JOHNSTON, you had every opportunity to call for those files when
                       you knew what was coming to Council on Thursday afternoon.
Councillor CAMPBELL:   Point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:              Councillor CAMPBELL, I am not debating, I am just making it very clear
                       because a couple of other councillors have brought up this misleading
                       information concerning secrecy on files that are tabled in the Chamber this
                       evening.
Councillor CAMPBELL:   Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:              Point of order, Councillor CAMPBELL.
Councillor CAMPBELL:   Madam Chair, I believe your comments are in the form of commentary and
                       debate and are not appropriate for a chairperson of Council. And I ask that you
                       comply with the standard approach of a chairperson.
Councillor DICK:       Just a point of order, Madam Chair.
Chairman:              Sorry. I’ll just rule on that point of order. Councillor CAMPBELL, I wasn’t
                       debating, I was just making it clear to any misunderstanding about why things
                       may not be on the table as it was brought to my attention by clerks earlier when
                       the question came up from another councillor. Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:       Madam Chair, just with your indulgence on that issue, I have called for certain
                       files regarding this matter and I have not received them yet.
Chairman:              I believe there is a time lag with the working files in place. And you know the
                       procedures that come with those Right to Information and follow those
                       procedures.
Councillor JOHNSTON:   Well there you go, Madam Chairman. You should let Councillor
                       OWEN-TAYLOR take the chair, come down and properly state it. They have
                       not been made available to us here today. And that is a very sad situation. So I
                       honestly don’t know what to say. I look forward to Councillor WYNDHAM
                       crossing the floor. And guess what? I bet you he doesn’t get defended from the
                       party for doing that, Madam Chairman. I bet you.
Chairman:              LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:            Madam Chairman, we’ve just heard some of the time-wasting that I’ve been
                       talking about. Councillor WYNDHAM made it absolutely clear, when referring
                       to paragraph 10, Madam Chairman, that he felt that this land was important but
                       that it was adequately protected. He made that point very clear. We’ve just heard
                       a wasted speech which completely misrepresented what Councillor
                       WYNDHAM had to say.
Chairman:              Councillor WYNDHAM, does that cover your misrepresentation?
Councillor WYNDHAM:    That certainly does cover my misrepresentation, as you will note that I said
                       several times that I fully support the protection of this land through the DA
                       process and have for the past seven years.
Chairman:              Thank you. Further debate on items A or B? Councillor MATIC.
Councillor MATIC:      Madam Chairman, all I want to say is that for me to actually add any comment to
                       what I’ve just heard would only be an insult to the intelligence of those on my
                       side of the Chamber. Thank you.

                                                                         [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                      - 101 -

Chairman:                       I will now put the motion with respect of item A.
Councillor JOHNSTON:            Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:                       Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:            Madam Chairman, Councillor MATIC’s comments were clearly sarcastic. You
                                have previously ruled that sarcasm is disorderly in this place.
Councillors interjecting.
Chairman:                       Order, councillors. One point of order at a time.
Councillor JOHNSTON:            You have previously ruled that sarcastic comments are disorderly in this place,
                                Madam Chairman, and I would ask that you rule Councillor MATIC’s sarcastic
                                comments out of order.
Chairman:                        I will make my rulings where and when I see fit, Councillor JOHNSTON. I will
                                 now put the motion with respect to item A.

Clause A put
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the noting of Clause A was declared carried on the
voices.

Thereupon, Councillors Dick and Abrahams immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in the
motion being declared carried.

The voting was as follows:

AYES: 16 -                   The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY
                             MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS,
                             Matthew BOURKE, Margaret de WIT, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING,
                             Geraldine KNAPP, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN,
                             Angela OWEN-TAYLOR,         Julian SIMMONDS,         Andrew    WINES,
                             Norm WYNDHAM, and Nicole JOHNSTON.

NOES: 9 -                    The Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Shayne SUTTON, and Councillors
                             Helen ABRAHAMS, John CAMPBELL, Peter CUMMING, Milton DICK,
                             Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS, Gail MacPHERSON, Victoria NEWTON.

Clause B put
Upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion for the noting of Clause B was declared carried on the
voices.

The report read as follows

         A        PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL CONSIDER PURCHASING
                  124 MAUNDRELL    TERRACE,    CHERMSIDE    WEST,    FOR
                  ENVIRONMENTAL PURPOSES
                  CA11/32857

1.       A petition from residents of Chermside West and surrounding areas, requesting that Council
         consider purchasing 124 Maundrell Terrace, Chermside West, for environmental purposes,
         was presented to Council at its meeting on 15 February 2011 by Councillor Norm Wyndham,
         and received.

2.       The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the information below.

3.       The petition was signed by 47 signatories.

4.       The proposed site at 124 Maundrell Terrace (Lot 47 RP893999) covers 1.226 hectares and is
         within the Low Density Residential Area of the City Plan. The property supports a waterway
         corridor.


                                                                                [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                              - 102 -

5.    A development application seeking preliminary approval to construct multi-unit dwellings on
      the property was lodged in September 2007. The application was refused in October 2008,
      because it did not comply with various components of the City Plan. No development
      applications have since been lodged on the property.

6.    It is recommended that Council does not purchase this property under the Bushland
      Acquisition Program, for the following reasons:
      -       The majority of the property supports a waterway corridor (shown at Attachment 2
              submitted on file). Most of the mature vegetation on the property is within the
              waterway corridor. Assuming development proceeds on the property in the future,
              City Plan will require that the waterway corridor (including the vegetation) is
              protected and restored. Therefore, the key ecological values on the property will be
              protected at no cost to Council.
      -       The major focus of the Bushland Acquisition Program is to ‘consolidate and connect’
              Brisbane’s conservation reserve system. The property is surrounded by established
              low-density residential developments and community facilities and is not located in a
              significant ecological corridor.
      -       Low-density residential land is very expensive and the environmental values of the
              property would not justify such a cost.

7.    The property is not identified for future parkland acquisition, as there is sufficient parkland
      within the surrounding area to cater for the local community.

      Funding

8.    The Bushland Acquisition Program is funded from the Bushland Preservation Levy.

      Consultation

9.    Councillor Norm Wyndham, Councillor for McDowall Ward, has been consulted and is in
      agreement with the recommendation.

      Customer impact

10.   The ecological values on the property that the community want to preserve are adequately
      protected by City Plan and the Natural Assets Local Law.

      Preferred option

11.   The preferred option is to advise the petitioners that Council does not support the purchase of
      124 Maundrell Terrace, Chermside West, through the Bushland Acquisition Program and that
      the environmental values on the property will be protected by the provisions of City Plan and
      the Natural Assets Local Law, should a development application be made.

12.   Accordingly, the Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at
      its meeting of 4 April 2011.

13.   DECISION:

      THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED OF THE RELEVANT INFORMATION
      CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT.
                                                                                               NOTED




                                                                     [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                              - 103 -

      B       RENAMING OF PART OF THE PARK COMMONLY KNOWN AS
              CATALINA PARK LOCATED AT MACQUARIE STREET (OPPOSITE
              BEESTON STREET), TENERIFFE, AS “MACQUARIE STREET STEPS”
              161/540/567/49

14.   The Divisional Manager, Families and Community Services, has provided the information
      below.

15.   An application has been received from Councillor David Hinchliffe, Councillor for Central
      Ward, to rename part of Catalina Park at Macquarie Street, Teneriffe, to “Macquarie Street
      Steps”.

16.   Catalina Park is a beautiful Brisbane riverfront park in Teneriffe, which runs from the
      southern Merthyr Street Ferry Terminal end, along Macquarie Street past the Engine Room
      and the Macquarie Street steps, to the northern end of Sir Manuel Hornibrook Park.

17.   Catalina Park is a specialist high profile park with Brisbane River views with cycle and
      pedestrian access along the river frontage. The area has a rich heritage with the original wool
      stores along Macquarie Street converted into residential and commercial premises.

18.   The red brick Engine Room was constructed in the 1920s. There were originally railway lines
      that ran down Macquarie Street which are thought to have been constructed in the early
      20th century. The site is believed to have been developed by the Brisbane Stevedoring and
      Wool Dumping Company, which was the first shipping company to establish itself in the
      Newstead Reach area. A timber wharf and some sheds were also constructed initially on the
      site and by 1927 there were also large corrugated iron clad sheds.

19.   During World War II the site was used for an allied submarine and shipping dock. In 1942 the
      United States Navy took over the site as an important base for their shipping for the duration
      of the war. A number of sheds and an air raid shelter were constructed on the site.

20.   Councillor David Hinchliffe has undertaken public consultation with residents in the
      Macquarie Street area regarding a park name. The selection was from Peto Place,
      Submariner’s Place, Engine Room Park, Macquarie Street Steps, Catalina Park or Woolstores
      Park.

21.   It is recommended that approval be granted to rename part of the park currently known as
      Catalina Park (D1946) to “Macquarie Street Steps”. The area which is located at
      71 Macquarie Street, Teneriffe, should be renamed “Macquarie Street Steps” and the
      remainder of the park should remain Catalina Park. The reason for this is that “Macquarie
      Street Steps” is only relevant to the area immediately around the steps near the old engine
      room.

      Funding

22.   Councillor David Hinchliffe, Councillor for Central Ward, has agreed to fund costs for the
      park naming sign from the Central Ward Parks Trust Fund.

23.   Accordingly, the Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at
      its meeting of 11 April 2011.

24.   DECISION:

      (i)     THAT APPROVAL BE GRANTED TO RENAME PART OF THE PARK AT
              71 MACQUARIE STREET, TENERIFFE, CURRENTLY KNOWN AS
              CATALINA PARK (D1946) TO “MACQUARIE STREET STEPS” in
              accordance with policy OS03 Naming Parks, Facilities or Tracks within Brisbane

                                                                     [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                  - 104 -

                 Parks and Open Space Procedure. (The remainder of the park should remain Catalina
                 Park.)
        (ii)     It is also recommended that a park name sign be erected on the Macquarie Street
                 frontage of the park.
                                                                                                     NOTED

                 CITY BUSINESSES AND LOCAL ASSETS COMMITTEE
                                                                                            856/2010-11
Councillor David McLACHLAN, Chairman of the City Businesses and Local Assets Committee, moved,
seconded by Councillor Angela OWEN-TAYLOR that the report setting out the decisions of the Establishment
and Coordination Committee as delegate of the Council during the Autumn Recess 2011, on matters usually
coming under the jurisdiction of the City Businesses and Local Assets Committee, be noted.

There was no debate and upon being submitted to the Chamber, the motion was declared carried on the voices.

The report read as follows

        A        PETITION – CALLING ON COUNCIL TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY AND
                 CLEANLINESS OF FAIRFIELD SKATE PARK
                 CA11/34833

1.      A petition from residents of Fairfield and Yeronga, calling on Council to improve the safety
        and cleanliness of Fairfield Skate Park, was presented to the meeting of Council held on
        10 August 2010, by Councillor Nicole Johnston, and received.

2.      The Divisional Manager, Families and Community Services, supplied the following
        information.

3.      The petition requests maintenance improvements to the skate park at JF O’Grady Memorial
        Park including: additional garbage bins, signage, fencing and the involvement of Council’s
        Youth Team.

4.      The skate park at JF O’Grady Memorial Park is located along the eastern side of the park
        running parallel with Home Street, Fairfield. The skate facility is positioned in an area of the
        park that is approximately 50 metres away from surrounding residents. It currently has
        standard park bollard fencing surrounding it.

5.      There are three bins currently located within the skate facility precinct, one on the
        Home Street side of the park and another two attached to a fig tree on the Brougham Street
        side.

6.      The addition of garbage bins would not solely assist in keeping the park clean due to the
        attitude of some of the users of the skate park. Unfortunately, staff have noticed some regular
        users of the skate park do not dispose of their rubbish in a considerate or appropriate manner.
        It is proposed to install one additional bin.

7.      Currently, park staff service and monitor the park at least two times per week and this
        frequency increases during school holidays to three times per week.

8.      While suggestions of fencing the skate park with security fencing may seem like a solution to
        the associated problems currently being experienced at the skate facility, fencing will not
        necessarily stop inappropriate use.

9.      Fencing off of this facility could possibly cause greater problems to legitimate users of the
        skate park. Security fencing has the potential to significantly impede access including the
        possibility of entrapment.

                                                                           [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                               - 105 -


10.   It is recommended that any anti-social behaviour and drinking which is occurring at this
      location be referred to the Police Service for appropriate action. Council’s Local Asset
      Services (LAS) and Compliance and Regulatory Service branch will continue to liaise with
      Queensland Police, where appropriate to do so, to ensure any unsuitable, anti-social or illegal
      activities are addressed by the relevant enforcement agency.

11.   Council’s LAS officers will liaise with Council’s Youth Team to seek advice and strategies to
      improve the level of safety and cleanliness of the skate facility.

      Funding

12.   Minor works of this nature can be funded from the parks recurrent budget.

      Consultation

13.   Councillor Nicole Johnston, councillor for Tennyson Ward, has been consulted and agrees
      with the petitioners’ requests.

      Preferred option

14.   It is the preferred option that Council distribute bins evenly around the skate park and add
      another ordinance sign along with a facility use sign. The customers will benefit from having
      an even distribution of bins ensuring users of the skate facility have better access to dispose of
      their rubbish appropriately. The addition of Council ordinance signs (including expectations
      for facility use) will benefit users by giving them a clear indication of their responsibilities
      while using the facility.

15.   The Divisional Manager therefore recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its
      meeting held on 4 April 2011.

16.   DECISION:

      THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED THAT:
      (i)  COUNCIL WILL INSTALL ANOTHER ORDINANCE SIGN AND BIN TO
           SERVICE THE SKATE PRECINCT.
      (ii) Council’s Local Asset Services, Compliance and Regulatory Services and Youth
           Team will liaise to develop strategies to help facilitate appropriate use of the skate
           facility.
                                                                                                 NOTED
      B       PETITION – REQUESTING THE REMOVAL OF A EUCALYPTUS TREE
              AT 34 SALFORD STREET, SALISBURY
              CA11/14117

17.   A petition from residents of Salford Street, Salisbury, requesting the removal of a eucalyptus
      tree at 34 Salford Street was received during the Summer Recess 2010-11.

18.   The Divisional Manager, Families and Community Services, provided the information below.

19.   The tree was first bought to the attention of Council’s Vegetation and Pest Services on
      17 November 2009, by a resident of Salford Street. The resident was advised at that time that
      the tree is on private property and was not Council’s responsibility.

20.   On 10 January 2011, another Salford Street resident wrote to the Lord Mayor to have the tree
      removed.


                                                                       [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                   - 106 -

21.     An inspection of the tree was carried out on 3 February 2011, by one of Council’s technical
        arboricultural officers, and this confirmed that the tree is located on private property by 80 per
        cent (determined by the location of the water meter and the neighbouring property boundary
        line). As the tree is located 80 per cent inside the boundary of 34 Salford Street it is classed as
        privately owned.

22.     The petitioners and the Moorooka Ward office were advised on 3 February 2011 that the tree
        is a private matter and not Council’s responsibility therefore no further action would be taken.

        Consultation

23.     Councillor Steve Griffiths, Councillor for Moorooka Ward, has been consulted and is in
        agreement with the recommendation.

24.     Accordingly, the Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at
        its meeting held on 27 April 2011.

25.     DECISION:

        THAT THE PRINCIPAL PETITIONER BE ADVISED THAT COUNCIL HAS
        CONSIDERED THEIR REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF THE EUCALYPT SPECIES
        TREE LOCATED AT 34 SALFORD STREET, SALISBURY, AND AS THE TREE IS
        LOCATED 80 PER CENT INSIDE THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY, IT IS CLASSED
        AS PRIVATELY OWNED.
                                                                                                      NOTED
                 FAMILIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE
                                                                                             857/2010-11
Councillor Geraldine KNAPP, Chairman of the Families and Community Services Committee, moved,
seconded by Councillor Fiona KING, that the report setting out the decisions of the Establishment and
Coordination Committee as delegate of the Council during the Autumn Recess 2011, on matters usually
considered by Families and Community Services Committee, be noted.

Chairman:                    Is there any debate? Councillor KNAPP.
Councillor KNAPP:            Madam Chair, just a couple of things. There were some councillors who were at
                             the opening of the museum.
Councillor JOHNSTON:         Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:                    Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:         Yes, Madam Chairman, repeatedly you ask councillors to take discussions
                             outside. As you are the chair of this Council, you are responsible for the proper
                             conduct of this meeting and the enforcement of the rules. I believe you should
                             step down from the chair, rather than engage in a conference with Councillor
                             WINES at the front of the Chamber and let your Deputy Chairman have her full
                             attention on the administration of this meeting.
                             And Madam Chairman, I would ask that if you are to continue in the chair that
                             you do give us your full attention to the administration of the rules.
Chairman:                    Councillor WINES hadn’t even finished the sentence. I’m not sure why he’s
                             here, but if it does take a discussion, I will step down from the chair. Councillor
                             KNAPP, continue.
Councillor KNAPP:            Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I would just like to draw to the attention of the
                             councillors and some of them were at the opening of the Museum of Brisbane’s
                             exhibition with Robert Brownhall. If you haven’t seen it, go down and look at it.
                             It is the most terrific exhibition.



                                                                            [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                      - 107 -

There were those of us who were there that were absolutely disappointed that we
hadn’t had the eye, five years ago, to go down to the Doggett Street Studio and
pick up one of Robert’s paintings at a far reduced price than they are today.
It’s a marvellous perspective of Brisbane and the north coast and the south coast
and is again a credit to the Museum of Brisbane. We do own one Robert
Brownhall painting. And the museum, it is just a credit to all of those who
loaned their paintings. I’m looking forward to the next exhibition that we put on.
We’re going from strength to strength. There was a very good article in The
Courier-Mail about Robert Brownhall.
The other thing I would like to say, Madam Chair, is that, I’m not going to talk
about our presentation this morning that we had about the restoration of
community facilities.
But I would like to say that the officers have done an amazing job in dealing
with all of the sporting groups and the community groups. And there's a team
sitting up on the eleventh floor who have worked enormously hard with all of the
sporting groups. I am delighted that so far we’ve spent close to $4.5 million
worth of grants. And on top of that, there's money been given out also by the
Lord Mayor’s Community Trust to those people of 700, and so a token
$705,000. So we’re up to close to $5.5 million worth of money that’s been spent.
And I would like to acknowledge our great partnership with the State. We did
meet with sport and rec or whatever they’re called over there. And the State
Government, through Peter Cumminskey and QSports, recommended to the
Minister, Phil Reeves, that they probably should give some money.
And so clubs that we’ve given money up to now also the State Government gave
$60,000. And so, for instance, Western Districts Netball Association at Faulkner
Park was used to put flood rubbish on the courts which were destroyed, as well
as could be put to the clubhouse. There was a little line on the lights where the
flood went.
The Council agreed that it was our responsibility as part of the flood recovery.
So we worked with the peak body and the women and people from Western
Districts Netball and they were given $425,000 for them to actually redo their
courts. They also received $170,000 from us for their clubhouse. I recognise the
work of Leighton in working with them do that work. And also they received
$60,000 from the State Government and as well as $12,000 for facilities. So
between us, which we’ve given far more in terms of money, but the State
Government had to deal with everyone in the state and I recognise that.
Not only did we do that, but we factored a deal out at Salisbury in relation to
netballers being able to go out there. Now we had to do work on that facility as
well. But ultimately there will be two facilities that will now be available for
netballers because we recognise the need of women’s netball.
It’s a huge group of women that go and play and they’re not just young women.
There are some old chooks like me that turn up and play netball well in their 60s.
It’s one of those things that you start being a netballer. My sister was a netballer.
And you know, there are women still playing netball well into their 60s.
So, Madam Chair, there are still applications coming into us. But the work that is
being done. Why I'm talking today, is that I think that, between our Council
officers and negotiations with the State, our clubhouses and the community
facilities are being restored.
Now Councillor NEWTON said that we were only concerned with not restoring
the wellness of community. May I tell you, Madam Chair, that our community
development officers have been out on the group working with Red Cross,
working with the not-for-profits, basically looking at how you can help restore
the confidence in wellbeing within a community.
And that’s what happened after The Gap storm, Madam Chair. I’m well aware of
how people really live with adrenalin and then all of a sudden the adrenalin stops
and then they fall into a heap. And some of them aren’t even ready to address the


                                                 [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                 - 108 -

                           fact that their houses have been ruined. They haven’t even been able to go back
                           in and deal with it.
                           We’re well aware of that and there are some better resilient communities, some
                           people who have maybe the wherewithal or they have the money or whatever.
                           And even they, when you’ve had a trauma, as Professor Bob Gordon talks about,
                           it’s like living in a fog. And you’ve actually got to learn to deal with it.
                           Now the State Government’s given us some money, as part of a recovery, to
                           employ for two years two extra community development workers to go out and
                           work with flood-affected communities, to look at programs which can help the
                           community get confidence back in themselves.
                           For some people, it’s like a death almost. And people walk around almost
                           paralysed, not being able to help themselves. So in the next couple of weeks, we
                           will use that money that’s part of the State Government funding recovery for
                           specifically not hard stuff, but the wellness of the community. And we will be
                           coming out with community development workers to work with the small
                           organisations like the Sherwood Neighbourhood Centre, like down at Councillor
                           DICK’s area, down at Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS’ area, where our
                           community groups are still working with those people who have been flood-
                           affected.
                           To the report, Madam Chair. The billboard, whilst, you know, we would dearly
                           like to be able to say, well, it does - there's no doubt that as you’re going along it
                           hides the church for a while. But the reality is that it’s not within our power at
                           this particular stage to do that.
                           The safety, the derelict property at Serviceton Avenue, I know that old skate
                           arena, Councillor DICK. And we’ve gone out and we’re going to do some work
                           and get them to tidy it up because that needs to.
                           And the last one is - I’ve forgotten who put this in. Somebody asked me. Was it
                           you, Victoria? It was Councillor NEWTON. She asked - it was from one of her
                           residents, I think, saying why don’t we do some micro-chipping at the—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor KNAPP:          Was it? Oh you, John, was it. It was a terrific idea. No, no. And so we’re going
                           to file it. Alright. Because Peter Lumsdale, who knows everything about dogs,
                           when we looked at it and said, well, why not give it a go? So we’re going to trial
                           a free micro-chipping day and we’ve let everyone know that that’s what we’re
                           going to do. Thank you.
Chairman:                  Further debate? Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:           Thank you, Madam Chair. And I rise to speak on item B and item C, if I get the
                           time. Madam Chair, as Councillor KNAPP alluded to, the Inala Skating Rink at
                           54 Serviceton Avenue has had a long and rich history, first as a swimming pool
                           and a state-of-the-art swimming pool in its day and now, and a little later in the
                           reincarnation as a world-class indoor skating rink, where a lot of locals tell me
                           that they spent a lot of time when they were growing up in the local area and was
                           a real hub for the local community. And indeed, there's a number of champions
                           that I’ve spoken to who relayed their training there and some of their experiences
                           there.
                           But sadly, the skating rink has fallen into severe disrepair. This is an issue that
                           has been surrounding me as the local councillor for some time. It would
                           probably go a week or maybe at least once a week where a local resident would
                           complain to me about the state of the skating rink.
                           I am a little bit disappointed that it’s taken seven months to be able to deal with
                           this issue. But right from the get-go, I do want to acknowledge the work of the
                           local CARS (Compliance and Regulatory Services) officers, who have been
                           working alongside me to deal with this issue. I know that it’s not an easy fix. We
                           are dealing with private property.
                           But there is so much change happening in the Inala suburb and a lot of new
                           infrastructure and new facilities being built, it is disappointing that the local

                                                                            [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                      - 109 -

residents have to put up with such an ugly eyesore, as you travel along
Serviceton Avenue towards the Inala Civic Centre. I live nearby and I know that
a lot of local residents, who have lived in the area for some 20 and 30 years, just
want the site cleaned up.
Basically what’s happened over the years, the site has been allowed to become
derelict and the windows have been smashed. Kids have broken into it. There's
been some damage and it’s quite an unsightly area, but also a dangerous area as
well.
And for some time, after it ceased being a skating rink, it was a local business. I
think it was a restaurant for a time, an entertainment centre, a pool hall. But it
has not been used for about five years. And as the report indicates, residents
have been complaining, since around 2007. I have been diligently reporting on
behalf of local residents’ concerns.
One of the big concerns we’ve got at the moment is there’s about 1000 pigeons
living inside and you can imagine what it means to be living next to a building
that has 1000 pigeons. That would be the rough estimate that residents have
estimated. You can imagine the associated environment when you have pigeons
living on your doorstep. Residents are well and truly frustrated.
So, as a result of that, I did contact the CARS officers. I did make some
complaints and, as the report indicates, that, as a result of those complaints, an
enforcement order was given. Around about this time, I also did some local
media and conducted a public meeting regarding this and was overwhelmed with
the response from the local residents who attended. The petition had around
132 signatures supporting the clean-up.
In the report it then says that the enforcement order was withdrawn in paragraph
33. The owners demonstrated willingness to cooperate with Council and have
made public statements “that they are happy to work with Council” in The
South-West News of Wednesday 20 October. And the enforcement notice was
subsequently withdrawn on 3 November.
Now I wasn’t party to the Council’s decision to withdraw the order. If they’d
asked me, I would have said, no, not until it gets into a reputable state. Since
then, there has been further issues that the community have had to deal with.
And as such, a new enforcement order has been issued and I have been onsite a
number of times.
In the report, under the consultation, it doesn’t really list what my view is. It
basically sort of gives a bit of a history lesson there about what’s happened in
recent times. However, I do support the Council doing everything that we can to
work with the owners to get the site into an adequate presentation site. There's a
number of glass louvers there that I’m concerned about, with kids jumping into
there at night. If kids were to break in there and there was an accident, there
could be some dangerous issues getting medical assistance in there if someone
was injured. So I think there are a number of issues.
In the report, on section 45, it says, “an inspection of the property’s perimeter
facing revealed that it appeared to be secured.” However, the building itself is in
an insecure state. So one way or the other, I think the owners do need to do more
in securing the location to make sure that people can’t get onto the site.
I’ll be blunt, Madam Chair. And my comments are directed through you to
Councillor KNAPP. I think the long-term we are going to take some tough
action here and look at whether we can look at changing the zoning for this site
down the track because as it stands now, it is on the market. The owners I know
are doing everything they can to sell it.
However, it is such a disrepair, zoned sporting and rec, I seriously doubt there
would be an appetite in the market, at this particular economic juncture, to see an
improvement. Ideally, I would love a new sporting and recreation facility built
there. Obviously that’s a commercial decision. I have been speaking to a number
of operators to encourage them to look at the site. There was also a number of



                                               [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                  - 110 -

                           churches who were interested in using the site but I think the actual cost of either
                           demolition or repair would be too great.
                           So I just simply flag that down the track we may need to look at all options that
                           are available. It is great land. It’s close to a park. It’s near three schools, the Inala
                           State School, the Inala State High School and the special school up the road and
                           also indeed on a public transport route and also near a shop, namely the Inala
                           Civic Centre.
                           So I think there are some potential for that site. I want to do everything I can to
                           make sure that we keep cleaning up that issue. I hope that the Council officers
                           and I’ll certainly be following through as a result of this petition. I do want to
                           acknowledge a couple of the head petitioners in particular, who have done a lot
                           of work and was able to get some support for this petition.
                           And I know the members of the Blue Fin Fishing Club were also in support and
                           did a lot of work to gather those signatures. So I acknowledge the work that
                           they’ve done, acknowledge the history of the site and look forward to seeing the
                           site continually improved, secured, the amenity improved for those nearby
                           residents and long-term seeing dramatic improvements for that site.
Chairman:                  Further debate? Councillor GRIFFITHS.
Councillor GRIFFITHS:      Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just rise to speak on the issue of the
                           microchipping and just say that we welcome this particular initiative. It was
                           certainly one—and I just draw the Chamber’s attention to the fact that in August,
                           2008, the leader of the opposition, Councillor SUTTON, actually called for this
                           initiative to be undertaken by Council.
                           And it was interesting that, at the time, the LORD MAYOR Campbell
                           NEWMAN said there was no real need for Brisbane City Council to take part in
                           this particular initiative, which it was—yes, who? That was Lord Mayor
                           Campbell Newman, who has long since departed this Chamber.
                           But it’s interesting that, as soon as he departs this Chamber—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor GRIFFITHS:      —fled this Chamber, that this particular initiative surfaces. And basically the
                           idea of this initiative is to provide low-cost microchipping days. And the idea
                           would be that, with these microchipping days, we’re looking at overall—it’s a
                           State Government research that’s been undertaken by microchipping animals—
                           you’re more likely to have more responsible pet ownership. There's likely to be
                           people take more responsibility for their animals and hence it reduces the
                           number of dogs and cats, I suppose, but dogs in this case that actually end up
                           being euthanized in our pounds.
                           So the whole idea of this initiative is to actually reduce the number of unwanted
                           pets. So it’s a great initiative. It’s about time Council got on board. We’re two
                           years too late. But at least we’re looking at doing something. It will be
                           interesting to see how effective it is.
                           Just out of interest—and maybe this is the real reason we’re introducing it—but
                           the findings are that, where this has been trialled by Moreton Bay Regional
                           Council, is that it’s actually increased their annual revenue by about $120,000.
                           And so, to date, the initiative generates revenue well in excess of the program
                           cost for that particular Council. So maybe that’s actually what we’re looking at
                           here.
                           I hope, I hope that as a Council we’re doing it for the right reasons and that is to
                           reduce the number of animals that will be put down or euthanized in our pounds
                           and by getting better outcomes for the many pet owners out there in our city.
                           Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Chairman:                  Councillor ABRAHAMS.
Councillor ABRAHAMS:       Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to talk on the petition which was requesting the
                           removal of the billboard at 324 Vulture Street, Woolloongabba. Members of the



                                                                              [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                          - 111 -

                    Russian community, of the Russian Cathedral in Vulture Street, are distressed at
                    the scale of the oversized billboard at Vulture Street.
                    As one drives along Vulture Street, this huge highway-sized billboard
                    completely obscures the church and the cathedral at its best vantage point. And
                    unfortunately, all too often, the subject matter on that billboard relates to
                    nightclubs or other recreational or sexual innuendo subjects. I realise that is not
                    the subject of this submission, but really whether or not that oversized billboard
                    should be there.
                    The petition response is that, because the approved signage was greater than
                    25,000, it will not be automatically renewed each year, but is automatically
                    renewed each year for a maximum of 10 years. This means the local community
                    is completely disenfranchised. They have no say that there is an automatic
                    renewal for the next 10 years. And while they are increasingly aware of the
                    adverse impact of this billboard, to which their original objection was not
                    heeded, they are now in a situation of powerlessness.
                    I believe that we should be doing more. I believe it is an inappropriately sized
                    billboard in an inappropriate location and that more should be done on the
                    subject matter that is advertised on it. I don’t accept the submission which is
                    done and dusted, wipe the hands and ignore the community. That is what this
                    response tells the Russian community.
Chairman:           Any further debate? Councillor KNAPP.
Councillor KNAPP:   Madam Chair, with respect to the Russian Orthodox community, the content on
                    the billboard, as we went—and part of the objection to the billboard was, as
                    Councillor ABRAHAMS said, the content that was on the billboard.
                    You know, there are plenty of billboards across Brisbane City that a lot of us
                    look at that thing and it’s in poor taste. But we don’t control the advertising on
                    the billboard itself. And the reality is that, once approved, this billboard, which is
                    over a certain size, is it is 10 years before anything can be done about renewing
                    that billboard.
                    In regards to the petition, this petition was presented to us on 19 October 2010,
                    when Campbell NEWMAN was still the Lord Mayor of Brisbane. And it was
                    sent to the department for us to consider the implications of the cost of
                    microchipping. You will note, Madam Chairman, that in this that Moreton
                    doesn’t offer free microchipping days. It does it at cost. It does it for the cost of
                    the microchip.
                    Now, Madam Chair, it’s disingenuous of Councillor GRIFFITHS to imply that,
                    since Campbell NEWMAN is not here, that this petition then was given the go-
                    ahead when, as you are aware, Madam Chair, that dog registrations of the maybe
                    100,000 dogs that we have go nowhere near covering the cost of administering a
                    dog register and all of the things for the officers to go out and do an
                    investigation.
                    In fact, the ratepayers across Brisbane probably subsidise animal lovers, dog
                    owners and cat owners to the tune of about $3 million a year because that’s what
                    it effectively does. So money from registrations certainly does not go to towards
                    off-leash dog areas. That comes out of parks money, parks and environment.
                    And so I think microchipping is fantastic—and there are a lot of owners who
                    automatically microchip their dog. And part of the legislation, which we put up
                    to the State Government, was that we thought that you could get a far better
                    outcome in relation to dogs if they were automatically microchipped when they
                    were sold. However, the State didn’t necessarily agree with us on that.
                    So Madam Chair, we are more than happy to do this trial and look at the cost-
                    effectiveness of it. Most responsible dog owners do microchip their dogs, but
                    particularly the newer owners, because it’s a cheap, easy way of making sure
                    where their dog is. There are owners who have bought their dogs and maybe
                    they’re 10 years old. And at K9-Capers, there is a capacity also to be able to
                    offer this microchipping. We do want to look at it.


                                                                     [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                       - 112 -

                                To suggest that, simply because the previous LORD MAYOR has gone and
                                there is a new era, is just totally and utterly incorrect. And as I said, the option is
                                that we will look at trialling this free day, to see how we go, and then look at the
                                options available about the most effective way of delivering, having
                                microchipping days at either K9-Capers or at the two shelters.
                                It’s a journey that we’re happy to make. And whether the cost of it is for free or
                                a small charge for the microchip, I don't know. But that’s what the petition says.
                                And I support the recommendations of all the petitions.
Chairman:                        I will now put the motion.

The Chairman submitted the motion to the Chamber, resulting in its being declared carried on the voices.

Thereupon, the LORD MAYOR and Councillor Andrew WINES immediately rose and called for a division,
which resulted in the motion being declared carried.

The voting was as follows:

AYES: 25 -                   The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY
                             MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS,
                             Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Margaret de WIT, Steven HUANG,
                             Fiona KING,    Geraldine KNAPP,    Peter     MATIC,      Ian     McKENZIE,
                             David McLACHLAN,         Angela OWEN-TAYLOR,        Julian      SIMMONDS,
                             Andrew WINES, and Norm WYNDHAM, and the Leader of the Opposition,
                             Councillor Shayne SUTTON, and Councillors Helen ABRAHAMS,
                             John CAMPBELL,       Peter CUMMING,      Milton DICK,      Steve GRIFFITHS,
                             Gail MacPHERSON, Victoria NEWTON, and Nicole JOHNSTON.

NOES: Nil.

ABSTENTIONS: 1 -             Councillor Kim FLESSER.
Councillor interjecting.
Chairman:                       Councillor FLESSER walked out after the Division was called.

The report read as follows

         A        PETITION – REQUESTING THE REMOVAL OF THE BILLBOARD AT
                  324 VULTURE STREET, WOOLLOONGABBA
                  CA10/274167

1.       A petition from Brisbane residents, calling on the Lord Mayor to remove the billboard at
         324 Vulture Street, Woolloongabba, was received during the Summer 2010-11 recess.

2.       The Divisional Manager, Families and Community Services, provided the information below.

3.       There are 47 signatories to the petition. It states that the billboard obscures the view of the
         oldest Russian Cathedral in Australia and that the location of the billboard and the tone of
         some of the advertising material on the billboard causes distress to the congregation and local
         residents.

4.       The billboard is located in a Light Industry Area as defined in the Brisbane City Plan 2000.

5.       Local Law No 1 (Control of Advertisements) defines an “advertisement” as “an
         advertisement or sign that is visible from a road or other public place and includes a structure
         that forms part of the advertisement or sign, or to which it is attached, or on which it is
         exhibited.”




                                                                                  [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                               - 113 -

6.    The single panel billboard advertisement was assessed against the provisions of the Control of
      Advertisements Local Law, and the Advertisements Subordinate Local Law 2005. The sign
      was approved on 20 December 2007 as a replacement for an existing smaller billboard sign
      which has since been removed. The permit reference is AS01186139707. The current sign has
      been in existence for three years.

7.    The sign is permitted (licensable) in an Industry area classification. A licence was granted to
      Philip Usher Construction Proprietary Limited. On 16 April 2008 the sign licence was
      transferred to GOA Billboards.

8.    The sign complies with Council’s local law and the Advertisements Subordinate Local Law.
      Furthermore, the sign is deemed lawful and no legislation supports a decision to remove the
      billboard.

9.    The petition suggests that the sign is oversized. The sign measures 12.60 metres wide by
      3.30 metres high, is at a maximum height of seven metres above ground level and is a total of
      41.5 square metres in area. The size of the sign location is 1910 square metres in area. Under
      the Advertisements Subordinate Local Law the total allowable signage for the premises is
      114.6 square metres.

10.   The petitioners state that the sign totally obscures the line of vision to the heritage building;
      being the first Russian Cathedral in Australia. Local Law No 1, (Control Of Advertisements)
      states that “The local government may only approve the exhibition of an advertisement if:
      1)       the advertisement is structurally sound
      2)       the advertisement causes no significant obstruction of, or distraction to, vehicular or
               pedestrian traffic
      3)       the exhibition of the advertisement is consistent with applicable environmental
               protection policies
      4)       the dimensions of the advertisement bear a reasonable relationship to the dimensions
               of surrounding buildings and allotments so that:
      5)       its presence is not unduly dominating or oppressive
      6)       it does not unreasonably obstruct existing views
      7)       the advertisement is consistent, in colour and appearance, with buildings and natural
               features of the environment in which it is to be situated
      8)       the advertisement is in other respects consistent with the character and values of the
               environment in which it is to be situated
      9)       the approval is consistent with the local law policies.”

11.   The sign is located on the property at 324 Vulture Street. The properties at 330 Vulture Street
      (frontage of 10 metres) and 340A (frontage of approximately 10 metres), which house a
      heritage place, are both between the sign and the property of 344 Vulture Street (St Nicholas
      Russian Orthodox Cathedral). During the assessment process the location of the sign and
      obscuring of the church was taken into consideration. The nearest point of the billboard
      structure is approximately 26 metres to the church and approximately 13 metres to the
      caretaker’s house, which is located at 340A Vulture Street. This property is also owned by the
      church.

12.   The petitioners oppose the tone of some of the advertising material on the sign and said this is
      causing distress to the congregation and local residents.

13.   Council’s Local Law No 1, (Control of Advertisements) and the Advertisements Subordinate
      Local Law do not take the content of a sign into consideration other than to classify the sign
      type (for example, a real estate sign).




                                                                      [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                               - 114 -

14.   Council does not have any jurisdiction on the overall content matter of a sign. The content of
      a sign must comply with the guidelines of the Code of Ethics of the Australian Association of
      National Advertisers. This is a self-regulated industry and is not enforceable by Council. The
      licensee is responsible for what advertisement is placed on the sign under contractual
      arrangements with a third party.

15.   The face of the sign that contains the advertising material does not face the Church; however,
      parishioners driving along Vulture Street towards it will see any advertising content.

16.   The petition requests that the licence for the sign not be renewed. Pursuant to the
      Advertisements Subordinate Local Law, division 2 sections 10 and 11, the renewal of a
      licence is as follows:

      Section 10 - Term of approval
      2)      The term of an approval for a Business Promotion Sign is a maximum of 14 days
              within any 90 day period.
      3)      The term of an approval for a Temporary Inflatable Sign in a particular location is a
              maximum of 21 days within any 26 week period.
      4)      The term of an approval for any other advertisement is one year unless the instrument
              of approval states otherwise.

      Section 11 - Renewal of approval
      1)      Subject to subsection (2), unless the licence or instrument of approval states
              otherwise, a licence or approval is renewable annually up to five times after—
              (a)     it is issued or given; or
              (b)     the commencement of this subordinate local law; whichever is the longer, as
                      long as—
              (c)     the conditions of the licence or approval continue to be met; and
              (d)     the renewal fee is paid.

      2)      If the applicant can demonstrate to Council’s satisfaction that the cost of supply and
              installation of the sign exceeds $25,000, the licence or approval may be renewed up
              to nine times, but only as provided in subsection (1).

17.   Communication with GOA Billboards has confirmed that the billboard structure exceeds the
      $25,000 erection cost of Section 11, Part 2 (actual cost for the engineered structure is between
      $80,000 to $100,000).

18.   All approved signage exceeding the $25,000 limit are automatically renewed each year, to a
      maximum of 10 years.

      Consultation

19.   Councillor Helen Abrahams, the councillor for The Gabba Ward, has been advised of the
      proposed decision.

      Customer impact

20.   The signatories of the petition will not be satisfied with a decision to retain the billboard sign
      in the existing location. The bulk of the sign blocks the visibility of their church from Vulture
      Street and advertisers will have the potential to continue to advertise what the signatories
      deem as inappropriate material; although this is governed by another agency.




                                                                       [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                - 115 -

        Preferred option

21.     The preferred option is for Council not to approve the petitioners’ request to remove the
        billboard located at 324 Vulture Street, Woolloongabba, and Council will renew permit
        number AS01186139707.

22.     The Divisional Manager therefore recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its
        meeting held on 4 April 2011.

23.     DECISION:

        THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT
        RESPONSE BELOW.

                                           ‘Draft response’

Thank you for your recent petition calling on the Lord Mayor to remove the billboard at 324 Vulture
Street, Kangaroo Point.

Please be assured that Council takes the issue of amenity of residents very seriously and is always
mindful of the balance between supporting local businesses and ensuring that local communities can
experience a relaxed lifestyle without inappropriate disruption.

With respect to the billboard in question, Council approved the location of the structure in accordance
with Council’s Local Law No 1 (Control of Advertisements) and the Advertisements Subordinate
Local Law 2005. Council, however, does not have any jurisdiction on the overall content matter of a
sign. The content of a sign must comply with the guidelines of the Code of Ethics of the Australian
Association of National Advertisers (AANA). This is a self-regulated industry and is not enforceable
by Council. Council can also assure you that Council officers are always diligent in consulting with
all affected stakeholders, within our organisation and within the local community, to ensure that the
right decision is made when signage applications are received.

I can assure you that Council officers have taken your concerns seriously and comprehensively
investigated the matter. In this instance, a number of site inspections were undertaken. The concerns
raised within your petition have been examined and the sign is deemed a lawful structure and no
legislation supports a decision to remove the billboard. Subsequent to this, Council has decided to
renew the permit for the sign.

If you believe inappropriate signage content is posted at this location, I encourage you to contact the
Advertising Standards Bureau on (02) 6173 1500 or by visiting their website at
www.adstandards.com.au to lodge a formal complaint. I have also provided you with a copy of the
Code of Ethics of the AANA for your information.

Thank you again for submitting your petition to Council.
                                                                                                 NOTED
        B       THREE PETITIONS – REQUESTING COUNCIL TO ENFORCE PUBLIC
                SAFETY AT THE DERELICT PROPERTY AT 54 SERVICETON AVENUE,
                INALA (OLD INALA SKATE RINK)
                CA10/240350, CA10/245502; CA10/257857

24.     Three petitions from Brisbane residents, requesting Council to enforce public safety at the old
        Inala Skating Rink at 54 Serviceton Avenue, Inala, were presented to Council at its meetings
        of 2, 9 and 23 November 2010, respectively, by Council Councillor Milton Dick, and
        received.

25.     The Divisional Manager, Families and Community Services, provided the information below.

                                                                       [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                               - 116 -


26.   The petition requests that the public health and safety concerns be investigated, restrictions be
      placed regarding access to the derelict site and that Council take action against the owners as
      required to ensure no negative impacts are felt by neighbours, and nearby residents.

27.   The petitions contain a total of 132 signatures.

28.   The property of concern at 54 Serviceton Avenue has been vacant for a number of years and
      was formerly known as the Inala Skate Rink. The building is in a derelict condition and is the
      subject of interest in the community. Furthermore, the property is described as an ‘eyesore’
      by local residents.

29.   The site is classified as a Sport and Recreation Area as defined by the Brisbane City Plan
      2000.

30.   The types of issues that are complained of are broken glass, graffiti, public health issues
      (birds nesting/breeding) and overgrown land.

31.   There have been a total of 12 complaints made to Council since 30 April 2007 in relation to
      overgrown land, hazard/obstruction and unsafe structure. Council officers have always
      responded promptly to any complaints that were received.

32.   The most recent complaint was made to Council on 17 September 2010 in respect of birds
      nesting and breeding within the derelict building. Council officers responded and issued the
      owners with an enforcement notice to make the property safe and to secure the perimeter to
      the grounds.

33.   The owners demonstrated a willingness to cooperate with Council and have made public
      statements that they are ‘happy to work with Council’ (South-West News, Wednesday,
      20 October 2010). The enforcement notice was subsequently withdrawn on
      3 November 2010.

34.   It is also on public record that there have been previous discussions with Council to convert
      the site into a medical centre, child care centre or community hall in 2008, but these
      discussions stalled because it was zoned for sporting and recreational use.

35.   There are currently no applications for redevelopment before Council and the property
      remains vacant and in a derelict state of repair.

36.   Local residents should be encouraged to raise complaints with Council in respect of health,
      safety and amenity issues until such time as planning issues are resolved.

37.   The Regional Manager, Compliance and Regulatory Services (CARS) South region, has
      consulted with the local councillor for Richlands Ward, Councillor Milton Dick, and is
      investigating a range of additional options available in terms of the Building Act 1975
      (‘dangerous and dilapidated’) and the Health, Safety and Amenity Local Law 2009 (‘graffiti’,
      ‘unsightly’).

      Consultation

38.   On 23 February 2011, Councillor Milton Dick and the Regional Manager of CARS South
      region met onsite to discuss the ongoing issues in respect of the property.

39.   There was very little graffiti visible from the roadway and there was evidence that some of
      the graffiti that had been present had been cleaned. There was graffiti visible at the rear of the
      property, but the councillor was comfortable with the fact that this could not been seen from
      the roadway and was contained out of public view.

                                                                       [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                               - 117 -


40.     Vegetation was visibly overgrown at the rear of the property and the matter was subsequently
        referred to the Environmental Management Team as it was identified on Council records to be
        ‘waterway vegetation’ and therefore governed by the Natural Assets Local Law 2003.

41.     On 28 March 2011, a compliance notice was issued to the property owner under the Health,
        Safety and Amenity Local Law to remove all unsightly materials, namely long grass and
        weeds (no protected vegetation was to be removed).

42.     An inspection of the property’s perimeter fencing revealed that it appeared to be secured,
        however the building itself is in an insecure state and in a derelict and run down condition.
        Councillor Dick was advised that the owners would be approached with a view to further
        securing all access points to the building.

        Customer impact

43.     Residents in the immediate area consider the derelict building to be an ‘eyesore’ and
        complain regularly to Council about the condition of the building and grounds.

44.     The following is a list of complaints received since 30 April 2007:
        -       building compliance (unsafe structure) – finalised 17/09/2010
        -       building compliance (unsafe structure) – finalised 09/09/2010
        -       footpath safety (hazard/obstruction) – finalised 30/07/2010
        -       vegetation (overgrown land) – finalised 13/01/2010
        -       vegetation (overgrown land) – finalised 16/06/2009
        -       vegetation (overgrown land) – finalised 14/11/2008
        -       vegetation (overgrown land) – finalised 15/09/2008
        -       vegetation (overgrown land) – finalised 11/08/2008
        -       vegetation (overgrown land) – finalised 29/01/2008
        -       development compliance (unlawful use) – finalised 01/08/2007
        -       vegetation (overgrown land) – finalised 09/05/2007
        -       vegetation (overgrown land) – finalised 30/04/2007.

45.     Accordingly, the Divisional Manager recommends as follows and the Committee agreed at its
        meeting of 18 April 2011.

46.     DECISION:

        THAT THE PRINCIPAL PETITIONER BE ADVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
        THE DRAFT RESPONSE BELOW.

                                          ‘Draft response’

I refer to your petition about the old skate rink site at 54 Serviceton Avenue, Inala, requesting that
public safety is maintained and that Council monitor the site.

Council understands that it must be difficult to see such an iconic building fall into such a state of
disrepair. I was pleased to hear that the Regional Manager from Council’s Compliance and
Regulatory Services branch (CARS) has contacted you to discuss the issue.

I can assure you that officers from CARS have promptly responded on each occasion that complaints
have been received about this site. I can advise that Council issued an enforcement notice to the
owners of the site on 12 October 2010.




                                                                      [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                - 118 -

The notice required the owners to make sure the property is safe, and that the perimeter to the grounds
is secured so no one can enter. An officer inspected the property on 1 November 2010 and found it to
be compliant. As the owners were deemed to have complied with the enforcement notice, it was
subsequently withdrawn on 3 November 2010.

I am pleased to also advise that the CARS Manager met with Councillor Milton Dick onsite on
23 February 2011. As a result of that meeting and a subsequent inspection by Council officers, the
owners were issued with a compliance notice on 28 March 2011 requiring the removal of the
unsightly materials, namely long grass and weeds.

Council will be meeting with the owners again to discuss the requirement to keep the building in a
secure state at all times.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, I encourage you to contact the Regional Manager of
CARS, South Region, on 3403 8888 or alternatively speak with Councillor Milton Dick of the
Richlands Ward Office.

Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.
                                                                                                 NOTED
        C       PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL TO REDUCE ITS MICROCHIPPING
                FEES FOR CATS AND DOGS AND OFFER LOW-COST MICROCHIPPING
                DAYS
                CA10/227426

47.     A petition from Brisbane residents, requesting Council to reduce its microchipping fees for
        cats and dogs and offer low-cost microchipping days, was presented at Council’s meeting of
        19 October 2010 by Councillor Helen Abrahams on behalf of Councillor John Campbell, and
        received.

48.     The Divisional Manager, Families and Community Services, provided the information below.

49.     In 2008, the Queensland Government introduced the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs)
        Act 2008. Among other things, the Act provides for the mandatory microchipping of puppies
        and kittens and also of all cats and dogs which are sold or given away. Local government has
        primary responsibility for administration and enforcement of the Act.

50.     Previously in Queensland any person could set up and operate a microchipping registry. If the
        business became insolvent or ceased trading for any reasons, none of the information relating
        to the microchips was available to councils or cat and dog owners. Similarly, the implantation
        of microchips was an unregulated activity. The reforms require licensing of microchipping
        registries and the regulation of authorised implanters.

        Brisbane City Council – Current veterinary microchipping services

51.     The petition states the microchipping fee of $66 is excessive and calls on Council to reduce
        the fee.

52.     Council currently employs two veterinarians. The Warra veterinarian is on a contract basis
        and is available to microchip pets for the general public on Thursdays only. The Willawong
        veterinarian is a permanent employee who began working with Council on 15 November
        2010. There is currently little demand for these services.

53.     The fee of $66 is comparable with services offered in the private veterinary sector.
        Microchipping fees vary between $50 to $150 depending on consultation and other
        professional fees. On a long-term and ongoing basis maintenance of the current fee structure
        will assist in maintaining Council’s positive relationships with local veterinary surgeons.

                                                                       [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                              - 119 -

      Ongoing and long-term subsidisation of microchipping may be perceived by local
      veterinarians as anti-competitive.

54.   At this point Council, with the exception of its two veterinarians, does not have any
      authorised microchip implanters on staff.

      Pilot studies conducted across Queensland

55.   As part of the Queensland Government’s Managing Unwanted Cats and Dogs Strategy, four
      local governments were funded to conduct pilot studies. The pilot studies were developed to
      assist in further policy and legislative development particularly around the issue of mandatory
      desexing.

56.   Logan City Council has developed a community desexing clinic where heavily discounted
      and means-tested de-sexing is offered for cats and dogs. This is currently operated by a
      consortium of veterinary surgeons and University of Queensland Veterinary Science students.

57.   Gold Coast City Council is implementing an approved breeder permit scheme and a specific
      education campaign focussing on cat enclosures.

58.   Townsville City Council has re-run its ‘CatScan’ program on Magnetic Island.

59.   Moreton Bay Regional Council (MBRC) is currently working with local veterinary surgeons
      and RSPCA’s Education Mobile Unit and Portable Animal Welfare Service to provide free
      and low-cost de-sexing of cats and dogs. MBRC is also ensuring it ties in its comprehensive
      primary school education program with the pilot study.

      Moreton Bay Regional Council – low-rate microchipping

60.   The petition refers to microchipping fees in MBRC. MBRC has been providing low-cost
      microchipping days for the last four years. In addition to maintaining the stand-alone
      microchipping days, the pilot study has been expanded to include the microchipping
      initiative. The goal of the microchipping days is to microchip as many cats and dogs as
      possible and to also ensure compliance with the Act’s registration requirements.

61.   MBRC utilises its own authorised implanters, usually community regulation officers, for
      these days. This means that microchipping can be offered at the wholesale price of the
      microchip (currently $9.97) with MBRC subsidising labour and other requirements such as
      small marquis for shade, cat and dog enclosures, cleaning equipment and data entry for
      registration and microchipping forms.
62.   The microchipping days that occur usually run between four and six hours, with an hour each
      side for setup and preparation. MBRC generally operates the microchipping days in lower
      socio-economic areas. This assists in having people attend who would not ordinarily attend a
      vet surgery to microchip their cat or dog.

63.   Veterinarians within the MBRC are supportive of the initiative. Over the last four years
      approximately 5000 cats and dogs have been micro-chipped and 3000 previously unregistered
      pets have been registered. The low-cost microchipping days complement the education of
      owners on their registration responsibilities.

64.   MBRC advises it is achieving an increase in general compliance with registration
      requirements as a result of the low-cost microchipping days. MBRC has received
      approximately $120,000 from entire cat and dog registration and $37,500 from desexed cats
      and dog registration as a direct result of the low-cost microchipping days. To date, the
      initiative generates revenue well in excess of the program costs.



                                                                     [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                              - 120 -

65.   Application of this process to Brisbane could be as simple as taking each person’s name and
      address details and mailing them a registration form. Council would then be able to follow up
      with the registration status of the cat or dog through the Finding Irresponsible Dog Owners
      (FIDO) program to ensure compliance with the Act’s requirements. As it is proposed that the
      low-cost microchipping will only be offered if the animal is registered, or a new registration
      form has been completed, the differential fee system ($10 registered and $25 unregistered)
      offered by MBRC is deemed unnecessary.

      Proposed way forward

      Option 1 - Nil cost microchipping

66.   Council may consider implementing a nil cost microchipping option. For this option, all
      conditions of the low-cost microchipping option will apply except that Council will waive the
      microchipping service fee and will cover the cost of the microchip. A single microchip will
      cost Council $10. Depending on the uptake by the community, the nil cost option will add
      between $400 (for 40 microchips) and $4000 (for 400 microchips) to the cost of the event.

67.   To the best of Council’s knowledge nil cost microchipping has not been offered in South East
      Queensland since the introduction of the Act. It is unknown to what degree the service will be
      utilised which makes accurate funding figures difficult to establish.

      Option 2 - Low-cost microchipping

68.   Should Council wish to support this option, it is proposed that Council trial 12 pilot
      microchipping days between April 2011 and April 2012. Subject to their success, Council will
      explore whether scope exists to make the initiative a permanent inclusion in its regular animal
      management community engagement/education activities.

69.   Four potential service providers have been considered to determine their ability to facilitate
      low-cost microchipping days for Council. The four prospective providers are the MBRC,
      National Pet Register (a Queensland Government approved microchip register), Animal
      Welfare League (operators of the Gold Coast City Council’s animal shelters) and the
      Australian Veterinary Association. An assessment rating of each of the potential service
      providers has been submitted on file at Annexure A.

      Low-cost microchip day venue options

70.   The following three potential venue options have been considered suitable for effective
      implementation of the initiative:
             1.      Combining low-cost microchip days with scheduled K9 Capers events at
             Council off-leash areas.
      2.     Holding low-cost microchipping only days at selected off-leash areas during
             weekdays; or
      3.     Holding low-cost microchipping only days at selected shopping centre carparks
             during weekdays.

      An assessment rating of each potential venue is located at Annexure B, submitted on file.

71.   While MBRC has focussed on lower socio-economic areas, it is considered that the benefits
      gained from combining resources with K-9 Capers will obtain significant customer service
      focussed benefits. Economies of scale regarding advertising will also be obtained with this
      combination of programs.




                                                                     [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                               - 121 -

72.   Additionally, while MBRC offers $10 for registered animals and $25 for unregistered
      animals, this is not supported. It is proposed that a standard fee of $10 per animal be offered,
      with owners of unregistered animals required to complete a registration application before the
      animal is implanted.

      Funding

73.   The costs to operate 12 pilot microchipping days are dependant on which service provider is
      chosen to facilitate the events. Details for both options are outlined below.

74.   Option 1 - The costs to operate nil cost microchipping days will vary significantly due to it
      being difficult to determine the uptake of the program. For example, using the most
      inexpensive (and preferred) option on a Saturday or Sunday would cost between $1260 (for
      40 microchips) and $5000 (for 400 microchips) inclusive of labour.

75.   Option 2 - For the low-cost option, the estimated costs per microchipping day provided by the
      potential service providers range from approximately $850 to $1500, excluding any paid
      advertising cost requirements. This includes all labour costs, equipment, material and
      administration.

76.   For either option, owners of unregistered animals will be required to register their pet before
      the animal is implanted.

77.   It is proposed to fund a pilot nil cost microchipping day from within the current Compliance
      and Regulatory Services budget. This may be an effective method to introduce low-cost
      microchipping days. Alternatively and depending on the results of the evaluation, Council
      may wish to expand or adopt the initiative on an ongoing basis.

      Customer impact

78.   If the nil cost option is selected, Brisbane residents would receive fully subsidised
      microchipping of their pets at the trial day. Extrapolating data from other local councils, it is
      expected that at least 50 per cent of the attendees will have pets that are unregistered. As it
      will be mandatory that all animals be registered with Council prior to implantation, it is
      expected that the extra revenue generated via registration will offset the cost of the event.

79.   If the low-cost option is selected, Brisbane residents would receive subsidised microchipping
      of their pets on certain specified days throughout the pilot period. This would relieve the
      financial burden on some cat and dog owners.

80.   Both options would also assist customers in meeting their legislative requirements under the
      Act and create a positive experience between customers and Council officers. In addition, it
      should result in higher numbers of impounded cats and dogs reunited with their owners and
      lower euthanasia rates at Council shelters.

      Preferred option

81.   It is the preferred option that Council conduct a nil cost microchipping day on Saturday
      14 May 2011 at Warra Animal Shelter. Council staff will evaluate and report on the day to the
      Committee. This evaluation will provide information on whether Council should pursue this
      initiative or not.

82.   The Divisional Manager therefore recommended as follows and the Committee agreed at its
      meeting held on 27 April 2011.




                                                                      [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                     - 122 -

83.      DECISION:

         THAT COUNCIL CONDUCT A NIL COST MICROCHIPPING DAY ON
         SATURDAY 14 MAY 2011 AT WARRA ANIMAL SHELTER AND THAT THE
         PRINCIPAL PETITIONER BE ADVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT
         RESPONSE BELOW.

                                               ‘Draft response’

Thank you for your petition requesting Council to reduce pet microchipping fees. As you would be
aware, your petition was presented by Councillor John Campbell to Council at its meeting held on
19 October 2010.

Council supports the recent reforms to microchipping contained in the Animal Management (Cats and
Dogs) Act 2008. It is important to note, however, that the Act imposes obligations on the pet owner to
microchip cats and dogs, not Council. That being said, Council supports appropriate and targeted
initiatives that assist in encouraging responsible pet ownership. Council also supports initiatives that
assist in the reunification of lost cats and dogs with their owners and reductions in the euthanasia rates
of cats and dogs at its shelters.

The current microchipping services provided by Council’s Veterinary contractors are considered
satisfactory on an ongoing and long-term basis. It is important to recognise that microchipping fees
throughout South East Queensland veterinary surgeries can vary between $50 and $150 depending on
factors such as consultation fees.

Council is aware that Moreton Bay Regional Council allocates specified days where low-cost
microchipping is offered. In a resource constrained environment, all programs subsidised by Council
must be thoroughly examined to ensure an appropriate and justifiable benefit to the community.

I am pleased to inform you that Council will be trialling a nil cost mirochipping day, with a view,
depending on its success, to including it in its ongoing animal management education programs. I
have instructed the relevant Council officers to consult with you during the development of the
proposal.

Thank you for bringing this matter to Council’s attention.
                                                                                                         NOTED
Resolution to continue the meeting after the automatic seven hour adjournment
                                                                                                858/2010-11
The Chairman then advised the Chamber that as it was nearing 9pm, the meeting would automatically stand
adjourned unless it was agreed to continue the sitting. She put the question of whether it was the will of Council
that the meeting continue past 9pm, and the meeting voted in favour of the continuation of the meeting until all
business had been completed.
Councillors say no.
Chairman:                      I remind you we’re back at 9am in the morning if we finish now. The ayes have
                               it. The meeting will now continue until all business has been completed.


PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:
Chairman:                      Councillors, are there any petitions? Councillor de WIT.
Councillor de WIT:             Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have a petition with 327 signatures from
                               residents requesting bus services into the Pullenvale area.
Chairman:                      Councillor FLESSER.
Councillor FLESSER:            Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve got a petition regarding a stormwater drain issue.

                                                                               [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                   - 123 -

Chairman:                     Councillor SIMMONDS.
Councillor SIMMONDS:          Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have a petition regarding Frederick Street and
                              Marmion Parade, Taringa.
Chairman:                     Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR.
Councillor OWEN-TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have a petition from residents of Algester,
                        Calamvale and Parkinson, objecting to a development in Calamvale.
Chairman:                     Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:              Thanks, Madam Chair. I’ve got three petitions, a petition regarding the
                              development of the Oxley Driving Range at Corinda Golf Course , a petition on
                              drainage issues at Wacol, and a petition about drainage issues at Darra.
Chairman:                     Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:          Yes, Madam Chairman. I table a petition on behalf of 70 residents of Yeronga
                              who are seeking improvements to drainage in the area, which I guess—.
Chairman:                     Councillor MacPHERSON.
Councillor MacPHERSON:        Yes, Madam Chair. I have a petition from over 1000 residents who are
                              requesting that traffic signals be installed at the intersection of Gowan Road and
                              Palatine Street at Calamvale.
Chairman:                     Councillor CAMPBELL.
Councillor CAMPBELL:          Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two petitions, one petition from residents at
                              Tingalpa/Gumdale, the Stanbrooke Estate, regarding the entrance. They require a
                              removal of a wire fence and replacement with a timber retaining wall and
                              maintenance of an existing wall. I also have a petition from residents of the
                              Tingalpa area and surrounding areas about the intersection of Wynnum, Manly
                              and Belmont Roads and calling on the Council to reinstate the $1.5 million
                              allocation that has been deferred by today’s Council meeting.
Chairman:                     Any further petitions? Councillor WINES.

                                                                                              859/2010-11
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Andrew WINES, seconded by Councillor Gail MacPHERSON, 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
 CA11/96108          Margaret de Wit            Calling on Council to fund additional bus services for the
                                                Pullenvale area
 CA11/96082          Kim Flesser                Calling on Council to fix the stormwater drain in Broughton
                                                Road, Kedron
 CA11/96085          Julian Simmonds            Walter Taylor Ward residents and businesses’ concerns
                                                regarding the enforcement of Council’s regulations and
                                                guidelines
 CA11/96109          Angela Owen-Taylor         Objecting to the proposed McDonalds restaurant at the
                                                intersection of Algester Road and Central Street, Algester
 CA11/96135          Milton Dick                Requesting improved stormwater drainage in Darra and
                                                surrounding districts
 CA11/96141          Milton Dick                Requesting improved stormwater drainage in Wacol and
                                                surrounding districts
 n/a                 Milton Dick                Calling on Council to refuse the proposed development of the
                                                Oxley Riving Range and Corinda Golf Course until residents’
                                                concerns are addressed
                                                (This petition is being processed as a formal submission on
                                                development application number A002934792)
 CA11/96110          Nicole Johnston            Calling on Council to review the drainage system in Orient
                                                Park, Yeronga, and to implement long-term improvements to
                                                mitigate flooding

                                                                             [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                - 124 -

 File No.          Councillor               Topic
 CA11/96125        Gail MacPherson          Requesting the installation of traffic signals at the intersection
                                            of Gowan Road and Palatine Street, Calamvale
 CA11/96097        John Campbell            Requesting the wire fence at the entrance to Stanbrooke Estate,
                                            Tingalpa, be replaced with a timber retaining wall and
                                            maintenance of the exiting wall signage
 CA11/96078        John Campbell            Calling on Council to commence work to fix the intersection of
                                            Wynnum, Manly and Belmont Roads, Tingalpa



GENERAL BUSINESS:
Chairman:                 Is there any general business? Councillor DICK.
Councillor DICK:          Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. And I rise tonight to speak on an issue of
                          concern, of great concern to residents at Sumner. Madam Chair, in the last
                          session of Council, I gave a speech regarding the land slip at Sumner.
                          And I refer to an article on 23 February, which was entitled, in The South-West
                          News, “slip, slide and away. Sumner residents fear their homes will fall into the
                          bottom of Wolston Creek because Brisbane City Council has done nothing to
                          repair a landslip it was told about in November 2008.”
                          Madam Chair, I update the Chamber tonight on further developments regarding
                          this matter and in particular the incompetence of the chair responsible,
                          Councillor David McLACHLAN. Madam Chair, in that debate, I raised the issue
                          that I had invited Councillor McLACHLAN to visit with the residents and to
                          meet with them. And in the debate, he said, I don’t think so.
                          Well tonight, for the Council Chamber, I advise that I’ve got a memo here which
                          I sent to Councillor McLACHLAN on 22 February, 2010, over one year ago,
                          where it is entitled, Clydesdale Place, Sumner, urgent public safety issue.
                          Madam Chair, I go on in that memo to Councillor McLACHLAN to raise the
                          concerns on behalf of local residents. And in the final statement it says, I would
                          request an urgent onsite meeting with you to discuss further Council action on
                          this matter.
                          I further tonight advise that Councillor McLACHLAN’s key aide confirmed to
                          me, on Thursday, 25 February, in writing, Councillor DICK, thank you for your
                          memo dated 22 February. Madam Chair, it is a falsehood for Councillor
                          McLACHLAN to say I have not raised this issue with him before.
                          Madam Chair, it went on. Through the year, residents received no response or
                          advice from the chairperson responsible for this matter. In frustration, residents
                          began a petition, calling for an urgent geotechnical report for the land on which
                          their houses were placed on. I tabled that petition last year, on 9 November 2010.
                          No action whatsoever from that petition has actually been taken with by this
                          Council.
                          Madam Chair, in that petition I called for a geotechnical report to be undertaken.
                          I understand that that work has taken place, on 13 April of this year—and I must
                          say, Madam Chair, that I raised this issue with the Brisbane City Council in the
                          middle of 2008. It is now 2011.
                          In my memorandum to Councillor David McLACHLAN, the Chair of City
                          Business and Local Assets Committee, I said, further to my correspondence,
                          emails and phone calls to yourself and regional office staff, under your direction,
                          and my comments to you in the Council Chamber, I am still waiting for a copy
                          of the geotechnical report for the land slip behind the address at Clydesdale
                          Place, Sumner. Could you please authorise a release of the copy of this report?
                          I did this as a result of the manager advising me that he had sought information
                          and he had then told me, on 25 March, that I needed to ask Councillor
                          McLACHLAN, to go through the Chair. Madam Chair, I received advice—so
                          this is an issue that residents have put up with for three years in the area. They
                          have petitioned Council to do a geotechnical report of which I believe Council

                                                                         [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                  - 125 -

                            has done. As their representative, on behalf of them, I have requested a copy of
                            that report. The local LAS manager advised me to go through the Chair, which I
                            did.
                            On 27 April, I received this memorandum from Councillor McLACHLAN,
                            where it says—I reference you memo re Clydesdale Place landslips, received in
                            my office on 18 April—you have asked me to authorise a release to you of a
                            copy of the geotechnical report for the landslip at Clydesdale Place, Sumner, on
                            behalf of residents, who want a copy of this.
                            So what does Councillor McLACHLAN say? Does he say, I’ll get you a copy in
                            the post tomorrow? I will send you, I’ll give you a copy at Council, the next
                            meeting. No. He says, I understand you are aware of the established procedures
                            for the release of Council information and I suggest you follow them.
Councillors interjecting.
Councillor DICK:            How arrogant. The absolute arrogance of this. At no stage has the chairperson
                            bothered to pick up the phone, to talk to the residents, to meet the residents.
                            These are the same residents in the paper who are fearful. You can see them,
                            standing at the edge of their property. They want assurances and they want
                            answers. At no stage has the chairperson bothered to get in contact with the
                            residents who are fearful if the landslip continues.
                            Now I don’t know what’s in that geotechnical report. It may clear the land. It
                            may give confidence to those residents. But why are those residents being used
                            as political hostages because Councillor McLACHLAN wants to play political
                            games with this issue? It is simply unacceptable.
                            And tonight I reiterate my calls for this administration, who we’ve heard just
                            today, that wants to be open and accountable under a new LORD MAYOR, to
                            release the geotechnical report. I have of course today requested that under the
                            so-called Council bureaucracy. My speech tonight is hoping that that process
                            will speed it up.
                            In the article, it says, couples stand firm on Council responsibility for land
                            slippage. Councillor McLACHLAN didn’t even bother to respond to the media
                            report. Landslip fears add to stress. Some residents, Inala Ward councillor,
                            Milton DICK, and Brisbane City Council authorities are at loggerheads over a
                            ground collapse in Clydesdale Place, Sumner.
                            Councillor DICK and residents have lobbied Council for more than two years to
                            address land slippage along the section of the bank on the Wolston Creek. But
                            the trio say they are beginning to despair of Council addressing the problem
                            which has deteriorated since the January floods.
                            I am frustrated with the lack of progress made by the Council. Emails obtained
                            by The South-West News show residents first raised concerns in 2008. The
                            emails also show that residents and Councillor DICK have unsuccessfully
                            pursued Council for more than two years for an engineers’ assessment of the
                            unstable land, including one note in January to the Council CEO, Colin Jensen.
                            When asked of plans to stabilise the area, a Council spokesman said,
                            responsibility for the stabilisation will require further investigation.
                            Madam Chair, that is the utter contempt. This is so embarrassing for the
                            administration. That is the utter contempt that this administration is holding
                            these residents in. Councillor McLACHLAN, I can appreciate if you don’t like
                            me, you don’t like my side of politics. That’s okay. But at least have the
                            common courtesy and the decency to pick up the phone, go onsite and meet with
                            those residents. I’m happy if you don’t want me to be in attendance at the
                            meeting. But at least give those residents the assurances that they need or the
                            report so that they can take actions if they need to.
                            I cannot believe the secrecy and the level of contempt that this administration is
                            showing these residents. Madam Chair, I made that speech back in the last
                            session of Council, hoping that I would see some action. I followed the Council
                            officer’s direction to go through the chair. Instead, all I’ve got is a slap in the
                            face. Councillor McLACHLAN, you have the power to release that geotechnical

                                                                           [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                              - 126 -

                        report. You have the ability and the LORD MAYOR has the ability to direct the
                        Council officers to enable residents in that area to have an open and transparent
                        process when dealing with their land.
                        Everyone knows that we are getting more and more rain coming down the range.
                        Madam Chair, it is essential, it is critical, that those residents have the assurances
                        from this LNP Council, if they need to take matters to stabilise the land on which
                        they live.
                        I don’t think this is an unreasonable request. I don’t think that residents are being
                        unreasonable. I simply say to Councillor McLACHLAN, through you, Madam
                        Chair, release the geotechnical report, make a copy of the report available. I’ve
                        gone through the Council processes. Do what you can, Councillor
                        McLACHLAN, to speed that request up, so that I can send—if you don’t want to
                        send a copy of the report to the residents, that’s okay. I will undertake to do that.
                        I’ve had volunteers going door-to-door to those residents.
                        These residents were also impacted in that area by the floods. So you can
                        imagine the level of concern and frustration. I can appreciate you don’t want to
                        talk to the media, Councillor McLACHLAN. I can appreciate you don’t want to
                        talk to me. But at least do the right thing, pick up the phone tomorrow. Email my
                        office. I will provide you with the details. I have written to you twice now
                        formally about this. Do the right thing by those residents who deserve a hell of a
                        lot more from this Council.
Chairman:               Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN:   Oh, thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak on matters relating to landslip
                        in Sumner and to respond to some of those grandstanding comments made by
                        Councillor DICK just now.
                        I’ll be brief. I have asked Councillor DICK to respond to the requests through
                        normal Council protocols, which I hear now that he’s done. And congratulations,
                        Councillor DICK, for now abiding by the protocols for the release of
                        information. You are aware of what you need to do to get hold of information
                        that pertains to matters within your ward. You’re welcome, I understand, to get
                        copies of that information if you’ve now made that request through the proper
                        procedures. I’m sure that a copy of the report to which you refer will be made
                        available.
                        Although I note that you’ve already condemned it as wrong and false in this
                        newspaper report, notwithstanding the fact you haven’t seen the report. You’ve
                        already condemned it as wrong and false.
                        I’m not aware of your technical qualifications as an engineer to make an
                        assumption based on an email summary of a report that was provided to you in
                        good faith by a Council officer, that this—the total report—undertaken by
                        engineers from City Design, not under my control, officers under the control of a
                        different area of the Council, but I understand you have taken it upon yourself to
                        already condemn that report as wrong and false. So you must have somewhere
                        let your engineering qualifications slip from your CV, I assume.
                        I also note that in this report that you’ve just waved around, the report of The
                        South-West News, which relates to the concerns of residents that number 34
                        Clydesdale Place, that you allowed yourself to be photographed with, in the
                        background, a completely different residence. It is in Clydesdale Place, but a
                        completely different residence, where I know the amount of slip appears to be
                        slightly worse than the issue at number 34.
                        I assume you did that to deliberately misrepresent the situation here because the
                        issues here in the article did not relate to the issues at 41 Clydesdale Place,
                        which is where you were standing, looking like a glum councillor. The issues
                        were—
Councillor JOHNSTON:    Point of order, Madam Chairman.
Chairman:               Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.



                                                                         [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                 - 127 -

Councillor JOHNSTON:        I think Councillor McLACHLAN needs a shovel and I’m prepared to give him
                            one.
Chairman:                   It’s not a point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON. Resume your seat. Councillor
                            JOHNSTON, resume your seat.
Councillor McLACHLAN:       Thank you for the—
Chairman:                   Your behaviour is totally inappropriate.
Councillor McLACHLAN:       —theatrics, Councillor JOHNSTON. But when Councillor DICK purported to be
                            representing the interests of residents at 34 Clydesdale Place, he allowed himself
                            to be photographed outside a completely different address. Well, he must have
                            been doing that for all the theatrics at the time, so he would get—
Chairman:                   Order. Councillor.
Councillor McLACHLAN:       It’s not the next house, Councillor DICK.
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor McLACHLAN:       Through—
Chairman:                   Councillor McLACHLAN, one moment, please. Councillor DICK, you had your
                            10 minutes. And all other councillors, you will listen to General Business in
                            silence and allow Councillor McLACHLAN the chance to rebut the debate put
                            forward by Councillor DICK. Councillor McLACHLAN.
Councillor McLACHLAN:       The issues—there are two separate issues and Councillor DICK is well aware of
                            this. The matter that LAS (Local Asset Services) has taken responsibility for is
                            to provide some further protection from the slippage that has occurred outside
                            number 34. As Councillor DICK is well aware, the issues at the other addresses,
                            of 41 and 43 Clydesdale Place, are the subject of legal action. And I don’t
                            propose to comment further on that because they are subject to legal
                            proceedings. And Councillor DICK is well aware of that, well aware of that.
                            And in grandstanding in his local newspaper, standing outside those houses, he’s
                            attempted to portray what is, on all appearances, a worse landslip from a
                            photographic perspective, to represent that as what has happened outside number
                            34 Clydesdale Place, which is clearly a misrepresentation of the issues here.
                            But look, to get to the nub of the issue, Councillor DICK has asked for a copy of
                            a geotechnical report that he has already condemned, based on a summary of it,
                            as false and wrong. Now that he has gone through the proper processes to seek a
                            copy of that report—which hasn’t come via Local Asset Services, the report was
                            produced by engineers from City Design—I’m sure the CEO will make a copy
                            of that report available to him.
Chairman:                   Further general business. Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        Yes, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak on a number of issues, including St
                            Aiden’s School concert, the Fairfield Family Flood Fair, Councillor
                            McLACHLAN, drainage issues in Tennyson ward and Councillor COOPER if I
                            have time. I might have to save that for next week.
                            Firstly, Madam Chairman, it was with great delight that I was able to attend the
                            performance of Women of Australia, the wonderful musical put on by St Aiden’s
                            in Corinda. I note that the local councillor was overseas at the time and did not
                            attend. But a number of other people did, including the Governor of this State.
                            And I’m very pleased that she got to see the most enjoyable performance that I
                            did as well.
                            Madam Chairman, it’s also of great interest that the councillor for Pullenvale
                            was in attendance. And Councillor de WIT, I’m sure, enjoyed herself
                            immensely. She sat next to me all night and didn’t speak to me, didn’t smile.
                            And Madam Chairman, I’m sure she walked away from there thinking: oh my
                            God, I had to sit next to her. And it was a performance about strong independent
                            women sticking up for what they believe in and paying the price for it.
Councillors interjecting.


                                                                           [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                             - 128 -

Councillor JOHNSTON:   Madam Chairman, I absolutely, absolutely loved every single second of that.
Chairman:              Councillors, I ask you again that Councillor JOHNSTON be heard in silence and
                       to settle down please.
Councillor JOHNSTON:   They’re supportive interjections, Madam Chairman. I’ll take them. I loved every
                       single second of it, Madam Chairman. It was full of sympathy, pathos, humour.
                       It was written by the school community. It was performed and directed by the
                       school community. The young women who sang and acted in it were absolutely
                       marvellous. It is a credit to St Aiden’s, the performance. The tenor of the
                       message, which really encourages young women to fight for what they believe
                       in.
Chairman:              Councillors, there's too much audible noise.
Councillor JOHNSTON:   And I thoroughly enjoyed it. And I commend them and I look forward to next
                       year’s performance as well.
                       Secondly, Madam Chairman, I am indebted to the Moorooka Lions Club and
                       many other local groups who recently put on the Fairfield Floods Family Fun
                       Fair—the five Fs, they call it. And Madam Chairman, I have been working very
                       closely with the Lions clubs in my area on flood recovery.
                       They have been enormously helpful behind the scenes in assisting residents with
                       small grants. And the Moorooka club wanted to do something for the local
                       community. And they coordinated the family fun day that we were able to put on
                       at Fairfield.
                       Madam Chairman, they did receive a last minute grant from Council, under the
                       grants that were set up. So that certainly helped offset the expenses and also
                       means that the Lions Club had more money available to help with flood
                       recovery.
                       The event, Madam Chairman, despite the inclement weather, was a great
                       success. They estimate more than 2000 people attended. I was there most of the
                       day. There was a great crowd there, particularly in the later afternoon. The rides,
                       entertainment was all fantastic. Councillor KNAPP was late. But you know, we
                       can’t have everything.
                       The food stalls sold out. And that’s great because all of the food was supplied by
                       local groups, including the kindies and the schools. And any funds that were
                       raised, and many of them donated their goods, will go back to local groups,
                       many of whom were flood-affected themselves.
                       One of the crisis counselling organisations represented had a lot of referrals. The
                       State Government agencies were all represented. Unfortunately, Council as an
                       organisation was not represented because, Madam Chairman, we did ask, would
                       Council come along and have a stall, as did several State Government agencies?
                       But this Council refused.
                       Madam Chair, books were given to kids. Plants were given out. Toys were given
                       out. Look, it was a wonderful, wonderful day. I am indebted to the Moorooka
                       Lions Club, the church groups, the Yeronga Uniting Church group, the Fairfield
                       Family Christian Church, the Yeronga State School, Yeronga Hyde Road Kindy,
                       Yeronga Memorial Park Kindy and no doubt I’ve missed somebody. But I’m
                       really grateful for all of the wonderful work in putting this event on for our
                       community.
                       Councillor McLACHLAN. Madam Chairman, this morning, I had to follow up
                       an issue with Councillor McLACHLAN too. And I’m still waiting for the
                       answer, some seven weeks later. Madam Chairman, I asked for some
                       information about cleaning out drains in Sherwood and Corinda about seven
                       weeks ago, from the manager of LAS (Local Asset Services) and Councillor
                       McLACHLAN in Committee. And no-one has bothered to come back to me.
                       Madam Chairman, I’m disappointed and I’m hoping that Councillor
                       McLACHLAN will come back to me. So it’s not just Councillor DICK’s
                       residents that are experiencing problems in getting basic information from
                       Councillor McLACHLAN. But it’s me as well.

                                                                      [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                  - 129 -

Councillors interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        I know. Didn’t get any votes, I guess. Madam Chairman, and I certainly raise
                            this issue with respect to drainage. I have requested the files of a drain in
                            Chelmer, which is at Chelmer Street East. And I’m sorry the resident who has
                            been pushing this issue with me is not still here in the Chamber.
                            Madam Chairman, I’ve been told no such files exist. So I’ve questioned that.
                            Weeks have gone by. This Council has not responded. How is it that there are no
                            files on whether a drain has been cleaned or maintained? Given that this
                            Council’s unwilling to provide those files, I have no choice now other than to
                            refer this matter to the Ombudsman, because Madam Chairman, I also put
                            questions on notice, asking when this drain was going to be, or had been, cleaned
                            out over recent years.
                            And Madam Chairman, Councillor KNAPP seems to be carrying on an extensive
                            discussion over there. It is very loud and I would ask that you—
Councillor interjecting.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        Ask her to be quiet or take her conversation outside.
Chairman:                   I will make my rulings when and where necessary, Councillor JOHNSTON.
                            Continue your speech.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        Yes, that’s just what I’d expect. Madam Chairman—
LORD MAYOR:                 Point of order, Madam Chair.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        —the response—
Chairman:                   Point of order, LORD MAYOR.
LORD MAYOR:                 Madam Chairman, that showed a clear sign of disrespect of you. Either the
                            councillor apologises to you or I suggest she sits down.
Chairman:                   LORD MAYOR, I take your point of order and I’d like to uphold it. But I think
                            there's nothing but disrespect from Councillor JOHNSTON to my role in this
                            place. And unfortunately, an apology will not make her behaviour any more
                            acceptable. Councillor JOHNSTON.
Councillor JOHNSTON:        Even when I’m in agreeance with the Chairman, I’m in trouble, as it turns out.
                            Madam Chairman; however, what is staggering is, after weeks after asking a
                            question about drainage on this very same issue, I’ve got a non-response again.
                            The answer that has been tabled today is: “The information requested is not
                            immediately available and would take an unacceptable amount of time to collate
                            from a variety of sources. Retrieval and collation of the material would cause an
                            unacceptable increase in the workload or delay in the performance of normal
                            day-to-day services of Council officers.”
                            So number one, they say there are no such files available and will not give me
                            access to look at the files and search for the information that several residents
                            have asked for. Number two, when I can’t get access to the files, I ask a question
                            on notice, which the Town Clerk is obliged to respond to and I am told that it’s
                            too hard to get the information.
                            Well Madam Chairman, now it’s the Ombudsman’s turn. Now the Ombudsman
                            has made a few rulings of interest with respect to this Council in the last few
                            weeks, Madam Chairman. And I would think this Council would do everything
                            it can to meet its own disclosure requirements with respect to access to files, and,
                            number two, answering questions as is required under the rules of procedure for
                            this place. Neither of those things have been done.
                            And Madam Chairman, it is the residents of Chelmer who are seeking this
                            information. And I will be delighted to write to them and tell them what Council
                            thinks of their request for information.
                            Finally, Madam Chairman, because I do apparently have time: Councillor
                            COOPER. I’ve been chastised very sternly by the CEO of Council, Colin Jensen,
                            for using ratepayer funded resources. I mentioned that LNP councillors voted

                                                                            [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                     - 130 -

                             against something, which was true. He just did not like me using the word LNP
                             councillors.
                             Madam Chairman, in my hot little hands I have a letter from Councillor
                             COOPER to Sherwood residents. And as we all know, it is a breach of Council
                             policy to mention the word LNP in any ratepayer funded resources; and it is also
                             a breach, a very serious breach of Council policy, to mention any political
                             candidate and use ratepayer-funded resources for campaigning purposes.
                             So imagine my surprise when a resident came to me very upset about Councillor
                             COOPER’s actions. She’s concerned, not only about the issue, which relates to
                             the Sherwood Road Bus Depot, but she’s incensed by the fact that Councillor
                             COOPER is promoting the LNP candidate for Tennyson, Matthew Brodie, in her
                             ratepayer-funded correspondence.
                             So Madam Chairman, as you can imagine, I am personally aware of how
                             seriously the CEO of Council, Colin Jensen, treats these matters. And I’ll be
                             taking these matter up with him first thing tomorrow. And I expect that
                             Councillor COOPER will be hauled over the coals for her inappropriate use of
                             ratepayer funded resources for overtly political purposes.
                             And Madam Chairman, finally, on that same matter, whichever bright spark it
                             was over there that made the complaint to the CEO in the first place, I’ve got
                             lots, lots, lots, lots, lots, lots, lots, lots, lots, lots more and I’m going to keep at it
                             until you all, all get the exact same treatment that I’ve got.
Chairman:                    Councillor WINES.

Motion that the meeting conclude
                                                                                                  860/2010-11
Councillor Andrew WINES, moved, seconded by Councillor Fiona KING, that the meeting conclude. Upon
being submitted to the meeting the motion was declared carried on the voices.

Thereupon, Councillors DICK and MacPHERSON immediately rose and called for a division, which resulted in
the motion being declared carried.
The voting was as follows:

AYES: 16 -              The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY
                        MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS,
                        Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Margaret de WIT, Steven HUANG,
                        Fiona KING, Geraldine KNAPP, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David
                        McLACHLAN, Angela OWEN-TAYLOR, Julian SIMMONDS, Andrew WINES,
                        and Norm WYNDHAM.

NOES: 10 -              The Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Shayne SUTTON, and Councillors
                        Helen ABRAHAMS, John CAMPBELL, Peter CUMMING, Milton DICK,
                        Kim FLESSER, Steve GRIFFITHS, Gail MacPHERSON, Victoria NEWTON, and
                        Nicole JOHNSTON.

Chairman:                    I declare the meeting closed.


ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN
GIVEN:
Submitted by Councillor Gail MacPherson (from meeting of 8 March 2011)
137/220/661/85
Q1.     Could the Town Clerk please advise the latest available figure of the gross amount that has been
        collected in tolls on the Go Between Bridge, since opening?

        As at 28 February 2011, approximately $3.79 million in toll amounts have been collected for the
        Go Between Bridge since its opening on 5 July 2010.


                                                                                 [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                  - 131 -

Q2.   Could the Town Clerk please advise the latest available figure of the amount the toll operator has been
      paid (or has collected) in toll collection fees for the Go Between Bridge, since opening?

      As at 28 February 2011, approximately $ 1.24 million in operating payments have been made by
      Council to its toll revenue collection service provider for the Go Between Bridge since its opening
      on 5 July 2010. An additional $0.31 million in toll collection fees have been paid to other toll road
      operators under a national interoperability agreement.

Q3.   Could the Town Clerk please advise the current location of the Lord Mayor's $3485 ratepayer-funded
      sleep pod/nap chair that was previously located in City Hall?

      No such chair exists. However, as the result of a specific recommendation following a workplace
      health and safety investigation, a chair was purchased for the sole use of the Lord Mayor’s
      drivers. This chair is located on the 5th floor of Roy Harvey House, 157 Ann Street, Brisbane.

Q4.   Can the Town Clerk please advise how many 'A Guide for your journey' plastic cards were produced
      for the Brisbane Transport Passenger Liaison Officer?

      The Passenger Liaison Officer project is a targeted campaign designed to improve the quality of
      Council's customer service and zero harm commitment. 9000 cards were produced as part of this
      project.

Q5.   Can the Town Clerk please advise the cost of producing 'A Guide for your journey' plastic cards were
      produced for the Brisbane Transport Passenger Liaison Officer?

      $1,790.10 (including GST)

Q6.   Can the Town Clerk please advise the staff costs associated with the recent Passenger Liaison Officers.

      $13,928

Q7.   Can the Town Clerk please advise in relation to building a new Riverwalk connection from the CBD to
      New Farm, what was the basis for the range of replacement cost estimates (between $40 million and
      $75 million ) which have been released by Council to the media? As precise estimates have already
      been released to the general public, can the Town Clerk please release the detail of options for
      Riverwalk on which these estimates were based?

      The $40 million figure was an initial preliminary estimate made straight after the flood and this
      was made public at that time. This figure was based on the most recent asset valuation.

      Since then, a better informed assessment has been carried out resulting in the replacement cost
      estimate being updated to $75 million, which is the figure that has been communicated to the
      public more recently. Possible options for replacement are currently being investigated and
      following this work more detailed estimates will be able to be provided.

Q8.   Can the Town Clerk advise of the nature of any accidents involving pedestrians and vehicles on the
      shared driveway in Chinatown Mall which occurred in the week beginning February 21, 2011?

      There is one recorded traffic accident involving a vehicle and pedestrian in the Chinatown Mall
      near Enjoy Inn, 10 metres into Wickham Street entry, at 6.03 pm on 22 February 2011.

      The accident involved a Chinese tourist. The person was standing in the shared entry area when
      a vehicle sounded its horn. After a few seconds the pedestrian moved to the side and clear of the
      vehicle. The pedestrian then moved in the opposite direction towards the vehicle, collided with
      the side of the vehicle and fell heavily after hitting the side mirror. The pedestrian was
      transported by ambulance to hospital.

Q9.   Can the Town Clerk please advise precisely how many unauthorised private vehicles have been
      recorded travelling through Chinatown mall (in the restricted area underneath the grand awning) for
      each week since January 1, 2011?

      Weekly statistics of unauthorised vehicles observed travelling through the Chinatown Mall
      January to February, 2011:

                                                                           [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                   - 132 -

       Week commencing:
       1 January                   1
       8 January                   1
       15 January                  1
       22 January                  2
       29 January                  2
       5 February                  1
       12 February                 1
       19 February                 1
       26 February                 2

Q10.   Can the Town Clerk advise how much of the Valley Mall levy is being paid by Valley property owners
       in depreciation for the current 2010/11 financial year?

       $281,000

Q11.   Can the Town Clerk please advise the total cost of capital works in Chinatown since June 2008,
       including (a) the mall upgrade, (b) changes to the Wickham St entrance and (c) the repairs to the
       Chinatown 'carp' sculpture?

       (a)        Total capital works cost less Energex contribution - $8,194,639
       (b)        $302,441
       (c)        $168,434

Q12.   Can the Town Clerk please advise of the revenue from outdoor dining in both Chinatown Mall and
       Brunswick St Mall in (a) 2008/9, (b) 2009/10, (c) revenue to date for 2010/11 and (d) projected
       revenue for 2011/12?

       (a)        2008/9 $106,000
       (b)        2009/10 $ 92,000
       (c)        Revenue to February 2010/11 $125,000
       (d)        Projected revenue for 2011/12 $120,000

Q13.   Can the Town Clerk advise how many properties in the suburbs of (a) CBD and (b) New Farm were
       flooded. Of these properties, what percentage were affected by;
       (a)      river water inundating their properties by breaking the river bank and flowing into the
                property
       (b)      river water flowing through stormwater pipes into their properties and
       (c)      a combination of both.

       (a) – (c) It should be noted that with regard to (c), the combined result for properties affected by
       both river bank inundations and enclosed drains, a response was not able to be provided. This
       data cannot be extrapolated from Council’s systems as it would require on site observations at
       the time of the event. Such observations are not available.

       Location        Total          Properties flooded due to river Properties suspected of flooding
                       properties     bank inundations                  due to enclosed drains
       CBD             8213           550               6.7%            2573             31%
       New Farm        6330           294               4.6%            1062             16.8%
       Total number of properties in New Farm and the CBD flooded
               Please note;
                The above figures include any property holdings that intersect with the flood
                   inundation area. This does not take into account the degree of flooding;
                The figures are based on owners property holdings, not individual land parcels;
                Properties that are positioned on the boundary between the CBD and New Farm,
                   that is, have portions of the land in both the CBD and New Farm, appear in both
                   data sets;
                Properties are only suspected of flooding through enclosed drains, due to the
                   flooding being separate from river bank inundation and the proximity of
                   stormwater enclosed drains.




                                                                          [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                    - 133 -

Q14.    Can the Town Clerk please provide details of the (a) cost, (b) location and (c) application of tidal and
        back-flow valves in relation to the following Brisbane City Councils orders for Tideflex valves in the
        last 11 years.
        (i)       April 2010, P/O # H84736SA, 150mm Diameter
        (ii)      April 2007, P/O # H67646SA, 150mm Diameter
        (iii)     September, 2004, P/O # H48139LP, 300mm Diameter
        (iv)      April, 2003, P/O # H35583SA, 1 x 150mm, 1 x 100mm
        (v)       January,2002, P/O # E12143PS, 450mm
        (vi)      January 2002, P/O # H24001, 6 inch Diameter, 5 inch Diameter
        (vii)     December, 2000, P/O # H14281SY, 6 inch Diameter
        (viii)    May, 99, P/O # D18433HP, 16 inch Diameter

        (i)      $1016.40
        (ii)     $1534.50
        (iii)    $4,879.60
        (iv)     $2970.00
        (v)      $9625.00
        (vi)     $4551.80
        (vii)    $1414.60
        (viii)   Information held by QUU

        (b) and (c) - This information is now held by QUU.

Q15.    Can the Town Clerk please;
        (a)       confirm that a special meeting of the Neighbourhood Planning and Development Assessment
                  Committee meeting was called during the recess in January and was subsequently cancelled.
        (b)       advise what development applications were intended for that special meeting,
        (c)       advise whether the agenda included an application for a site in Milton, and
        (d)       advise what was the recommendation in relation to each of the development applications
                  intended for that meeting?
        (a)       Yes
        (b) to (d) no agenda was issued


Submitted by Councillor Gail MacPherson ((from the meeting of 15 March 2011)
137/220/661/87
Q1.     Could the Town Clerk please advise how many letters regarding the issue of mosquitoes and Cr Flesser
        were sent by the Lord Mayor on or about 7th March 2011 to residents of Northgate Ward?

        14,710

Q2.     Could the Town Clerk please advise the total cost to Council for the letters regarding the issue of
        mosquitoes and Cr Flesser, which were sent by the Lord Mayor on or about 7th March 2011 to
        residents of Northgate Ward?

        Salmat costs: $6,510.22
        Envelopes: $555.00
        Postage: $6,913.70
        TOTAL COST: $13,978.92

Q3.     Could the Town Clerk please advise the approximate cost of one full aerial helicopter treatment of
        mosquitoes for the Boondall Wetlands area?

        Boondall Wetlands covers 600 hectares but treatment is often undertaken as part of a larger area
        of up to 2500 hectares. Depending upon the type of treatment this could cost between $128,000
        and $27,000.




                                                                             [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                   - 134 -

Q4.    Could the Town Clerk please advise if the 2nd Budget Review 2010/2011 included a budget reduction
       of $282,000 from Program 7.1.1.3 (Mosquito and Pest Services)?

       Successive Budget Reviews reflect changing circumstances throughout the financial year. The
       current position in relation to this matter was explained by Cr Newman in the Council meeting of
       8 March 2011 when he said: “There has been no cut-back or curtailment of spraying in terms of
       what is required. We will continue to do exactly what’s required out there on the ground.”

Q5.    Could the Town Clerk please advise the date on which the Lord Mayor signed off an 'exchange of
       letters' with i3 company for the provision of broadband in Brisbane's sewers.

       On 9 July 2010, former Councillor Jane Prentice sent a letter to Mr Peter Henderson, Director,
       i3 Group Asia Pacific stating that Council was willing to agree in principle that access be
       provided to the water and sewerage pipes to assist the i3 Group to facilitate their broadband
       rollout.

Q6.    Could the Town Clerk please advise the date on which a formal contract was finalised between
       Brisbane City Council and Queensland Urban Utilities (QUU) to allow Council the rights to run
       broadband cables through QUU sewer pipes?

       The 'Licence to Access Water and Sewerage Infrastructure Agreement' was signed by BCC and
       the Central SEQ Distributor - Retail Authority on 25 June 2010.

Q7.    If it has been above "forecast revenue", can the Town Clerk (without divulging the actual amount of
       revenue) please advise by what percentage of the "forecast revenue" it is above and has JCD paid
       Council the difference?

       Insufficient information has been provided in this question to provide an answer.

Q8.    If it has been below "forecast revenue" can the Town Clerk (without divulging the actual amount of
       revenue) please advise by what percentage of the "forecast revenue" it is below and has Council paid
       JCD the difference?

       Insufficient information has been provided in this question to provide an answer.

Q9.    As the contract between Council and JC Decaux states that "JCD will collect and retain all advertising
       revenue up to the forecast amount. If revenue exceeds forecast, the excess up to $800,000 per annum
       will be used to off-set payments made by Council towards the operation of the scheme. If revenue
       exceeds this amount it will be shared 50/50 between the parties": can the Town Clerk please advise of :
       (a)      the status of revenue from the 150 JC Decaux "CityCycle" advertising signs installed in streets
                throughout New Farm, Teneriffe, Fortitude Valley, Spring Hill, West End, South Brisbane and
                the CBD and
       (b)      whether Council has received any revenue and
       (c)      if so how much?

       (a)      Council will not know the status of revenue until the end of the first full year as specified
                in the contract. JCD will provide the figures as part of the annual financial reconciliation
                after end of April 2012.
       (b)      No revenue has been received to date.
       (c)      See above.

Q10.   Could the town clerk please advise and list the amount for each year in each category, the development
       contributions received via the infrastructure planning scheme policies levy funds for (a) parkland (b)
       community facilities (c) transport and traffic (d) stormwater for 2009/10 and for the first six months of
       2010/2011?. Can these amounts be provided by the following suburbs, West End, South Brisbane,
       Woolloongabba?

Q11.   Could the town clerk please list the amount for each year in each category, the developer contributions
       received via the infrastructure planning scheme policies for (a) parkland; (b) community facilities, (c)
       transport and traffic (d) stormwater for 2009/10 and for the first six months of 2010/2011?. Can these
       amounts be provided by the following suburbs, Brisbane City (CBD), Fortitude Valley, Spring Hill,
       New Farm, Teneriffe, Bowen Hills, Windsor, Wilston, Newmarket, Herston, Kelvin Grove?


                                                                             [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]
                                                   - 135 -

Q12.    Could the town clerk please advise how much was spent in each category of developer contributions
        (parkland, community facilities, transport and traffic) in each of the following suburbs in 2009/2010
        and for the first six months of 2010/2011: Brisbane City (CBD), Fortitude Valley, Spring Hill, New
        Farm, Teneriffe, Bowen Hills, Windsor, Wilston, Newmarket, Herston, Kelvin Grove?

        (10) – (12)
        The information requested is not immediately available and would take an unacceptable amount
        of time to collate from a variety of sources. Retrieval and collation of the material will cause an
        unacceptable increase in the workload or delay in the performance of normal day to day services
        of Council officers.


Submitted by Councillor Nicole Johnston (from meeting of 22March 2011)
137/220/661/88
Q1.     Could the Town Clerk please provide a list of the dates between 2000 and December 2010 that the
        stormwater drain located in the Chelmer Recreation Reserve, between the Sherwood AFL Club and
        Oxley Road (near the intersection with Chelmer St East), has been:
        * surveyed to check it is clear and working properly;
        * undergone maintenance to clean or unblocked it; and/or
        * repaired.

        The information requested is not immediately available and would take an unacceptable amount
        of time to collate from a variety of sources. Retrieval and collation of the material will cause an
        unacceptable increase in the workload or delay in the performance of normal day to day services
        of Council officers.


Submitted by Councillor Nicole Johnston (from the meeting of 29 March 2011)
137/220/661/89
Q1.     Could the Town Clerk please advise on what date the link from the Lord Mayor's newsletter of
        28 February and I quote "To find out the locations of Council's identified clean up sites, click here
        <http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/environment-waste/litter-prevention/Clean-Up-Australia-Day/clean-
        up-sites/index.htm>      or   go   to    the    Clean      Up     Australia    Day     website     at
        www.cleanup.org.au<http://www.cleanup.org.au/>" was removed? Who authorised the disconnection
        of this information and link?

        On 7 March 2011, after the Clean Up Australia Day event, Marketing & Communication
        removed the list of clean up sites and the link to the Clean Up Australia Day site list as the
        content was out of date. The content was removed late in the afternoon on 9 March 2011.

        The information which was removed provided details about how volunteers could participate in
        Clean Up Australia Day by attending nominated sites across Brisbane. This information could
        potentially have caused confusion to residents reading online content after the Clean Up
        Australia Day event on 6 March 2011.

RISING OF COUNCIL:              9.25pm.

PRESENTED:                                                   and CONFIRMED




                                                                                        CHAIRMAN

Council officers in attendance:
Colin Jensen (Chief Executive Officer)
Angela Tan (Team Leader, Council and Committees Support)
David Redding (Council and Committees Support Officer)
Stacey Graham (Council and Committees Support Officer)
Richard Ang (Personal Support Officer to the Lord Mayor and Council Orderly)


                                                                           [4344 (post recess) meeting – 3 May 2011]

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:5/14/2013
language:Unknown
pages:138
yaofenjin yaofenjin http://
About