· Web viewThe election signs aspect maintains the original objective, but it hopefully makes it...

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

The 4528 meeting of the Brisbane City Council,held at City Hall, Brisbaneon Tuesday 6 June 2017at 2pm

Prepared by: Council and Committee Liaison OfficeCity Administration and Governance

Dedicated to a better Brisbane


THE 4528 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL,HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE,

ON TUESDAY 6 JUNE 2017AT 2PM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS_______________________________________________________________i

PRESENT:________________________________________________________________________1

OPENING OF MEETING:____________________________________________________________1

MINUTES:_______________________________________________________________________1

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:____________________________________________________________1

QUESTION TIME:__________________________________________________________________3

CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS:___________________________________________19ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE__________________________________________19

A STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING PLAN FOR DELIVERY OF THE WYNNUM ROAD CORRIDOR UPGRADE – STAGE 1 AND 1B PROJECT_________________________42

B PROPOSED BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL NETWORK LAND MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK___________50C PROPOSED ADVERTISEMENTS AMENDING SUBORDINATE LOCAL LAW 2017__________________51D CONTRACTS AND TENDERING – REPORT TO COUNCIL OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES

FOR APRIL 2017__________________________________________________________________52ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Special meeting)___________________________58

A STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – WASTE AND RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICES_________________76PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE_______________________________________________88

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – MAJOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT PROJECTS: BENEFIT COST RATIOS____89INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE___________________________________________________________91

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – TRUCKS AND PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL STREETS – COUNCIL POLICY AND THE LAW_____________________________________________________________91

B PETITION – REQUESTING THE INSTALLATION OF A YELLOW ‘NO STOPPING’ LINE OUTSIDE 29 CRACKNELL ROAD, ANNERLEY____________________________________________________92

CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE_____________________________________________________________94A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – THE NEW PLANNING ACT – IMPACT ON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES_94

ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE____________________________________96A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BIOLOGICAL CONTROL FOR AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT_____97B PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL BUILD VECTIS STREET PARK SPORTS FIELDS,

NORMAN PARK__________________________________________________________________98FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE_____________________________________________________________99

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – FLEET PROFILES AND INSIGHTS____________________________100LIFESTYLE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE_________________________________________101

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – THE NEW eLIBCAT______________________________________101B PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL CLEAN-UP THE VACANT LAND AT 12 BOTHWELL STREET,

MOUNT GRAVATT EAST__________________________________________________________103FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE______________________________________104

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – ALBERT STREET ACTIVATION______________________________104

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:____________________________________________________105

GENERAL BUSINESS:_____________________________________________________________106

QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:_________________________________107

[4528 (Ordinary) Meeting – 6 June 2017]



THE ?? MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL,HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE,

ON TUESDAY ??AT 2PM

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN:______________________108




THE 4528 MEETING OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL,HELD AT CITY HALL, BRISBANE,

ON TUESDAY 6 JUNE 2017AT 2PM

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

LNP Councillors (and Wards) ALP Councillors (and Wards)Krista ADAMS (Holland Park)Adam ALLAN (Northgate)Matthew BOURKE (Jamboree)Amanda COOPER (Bracken Ridge)Vicki HOWARD (Central) (Deputy Chairman of Council)Steven HUANG (Macgregor)Fiona KING (Marchant) Kim MARX (Runcorn)Peter MATIC (Paddington)Ian McKENZIE (Coorparoo)David McLACHLAN (Hamilton)Ryan MURPHY (Doboy)Kate RICHARDS (Pullenvale)Adrian SCHRINNER (Chandler) (Deputy Mayor)Julian SIMMONDS (Walter Taylor) Steven TOOMEY (The Gap) Andrew WINES (Enoggera)Norm WYNDHAM (McDowall)

Peter CUMMING (Wynnum Manly) (The Leader of the Opposition)Jared CASSIDY (Deagon) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition)Steve GRIFFITHS (Moorooka)Charles STRUNK (Forest Lake)Shayne SUTTON (Morningside)

Queensland Greens Councillor (and Ward)Jonathan SRI (The Gabba)

Independent Councillor (and Ward)Nicole JOHNSTON (Tennyson)

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

MINUTES:589/2016-17

The Minutes of the 4527 meeting of Council held on 30 May 2017, copies of which had been forwarded to each Councillor, were presented, taken as read and confirmed on the motion of Councillor Andrew WINES, seconded by Councillor Steven TOOMEY.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:Maxime Groenewoud – Opposition to an off-leash dog park in Evergreen Place, Park Hill Village, Murarrie

Chairman: I would now like to call on Mr Maxime Groenewoud who will address the Chamber on opposition to an off-leash dog park in Evergreen Place, Park Hill Village, Murarrie. Orderly, please show Mr Groenewoud in.

Please proceed, Mr Groenewoud, you have five minutes.


Maxime Groenewoud: Thank you. Madam Chairman, LORD MAYOR and Councillors, thank you for the opportunity today to speak to the Chamber. I’d like to start off with stating that I’m here representing my own views as well as my direct neighbours.

Late February this year we heard from a neighbour that they received a letter sent by Councillor MURPHY stating that an off-leash dog park would be put in in Evergreen Park Place, metres away from our backyard. This was based on a petition from a number of years ago with 300 signatures, which turn out to be 70 or 61 numbers. Talking to our neighbours, the residents of Rosewood Place and Evergreen Close, we found that only a couple of people received this letter.

Councillor MURPHY stated two weeks ago in Council that he had sought feedback from the residents, but in reality the letter clearly stated that the park was going in as planned. That concluded that phase of consultation by Councillor MURPHY.

As you are aware, we responded with a petition which was tabled at Council on 28 March. Our main concerns are noise—on a daily basis we have to cope with noise from trains 100 metres away from our backyard and overhead planes. Now we’ll have to cope with noise from the dog park, as well as additional barking from our neighbourhood dogs.

Parking—we have very limited parking space in the two streets. On a daily basis residents struggle to park their own cars. We cannot cater for any additional car parks. And yes, as you may know, people take their cars to walk their dogs in a dog park. In our view, the petition should have been considered with the suitability of the area and considered as not suitable. Councillor MURPHY could have ended his difficult consultation, in his words, right then and there. However, instead, not only did Councillor MURPHY not address the issues, he responded with an additional survey.

What I’m here to argue today is that we cannot compare the results from the survey to our petition. The petition has 79 signatures against the dog park. With our petition we focused on the residents of Rosewood Place and Evergreen Close, as these would be directly impacted by the dog park. Councillor MURPHY’s survey targeted the wider Park Hill and Murarrie areas. Councillor MURPHY’s survey was sent to residents using the electoral roll address data, but unfortunately this does not reach a great number of our residents, as with the February letter. So it’s fair to say that not all of us got to respond to the survey.

How is this ‘proper and extensive consultation’, I want to ask. Words used in this very Chamber two weeks ago and basis for your vote. Instead, we went door to door to ask, to gauge the residents’ opinion on the dog park, and we were surprised to find that even dog owners were against the location of the dog park. Only then did we commence with the petition, and went door to door again. Whilst 105 survey votes for trumps the 79 petition votes against, you cannot compare the results—apples and oranges.

To conclude, I would like Council to reconsider the vote for installing the off-leash dog park in Evergreen Place Park and reconsider alternatives, such as two examples—Portwine Street Park at the corner of Moonie Avenue and Barrack Road, Council land, not Powerlink land as was stated by Councillor MURPHY—fit for Council to install a basketball court but too hard to install a dog park? It’s a central location for Cannon Hill residents and Park Hill residents, and there’s ample parking and limited impact to surrounding residents.

Murarrie Recreation Ground, a massive park, a central location for all Murarrie residents, ample parking and very limited impact to surrounding residents.

Thank you for your time.

Chairman: Thank you, Mr Groenewoud. Would you please take a seat.

Councillor McLACHLAN, would you care to respond, please?


- 2 -

Response by Councillor David McLachlan, Chairman of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee

Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr Groenewoud, thank you for addressing Council today. I am Councillor David McLACHLAN, and I’m Chairman of Environment, Parks and Sustainability, and dog off-leash areas, DOLAs as we call them, are a subset of parks, so that’s why I’m responding to you today.

You’re aware that the petition that you led was dealt with and resolved and debated in this place a couple of weeks ago, and as you’re aware, both Councillor MURPHY and I spoke on that issue. I know that dog off-leash areas can be contentious. Typically it’s because residents want more of them and petition us for more of them. I get castigated quite frequently for not providing a dog off-leash area in every one of our 196 suburbs across the city, so I’m aware of that request, that demand, that residents have for dog off-leash areas. And the Council’s intention is to have a reasonable distribution of them north, south, east and west. It’s not possible necessarily to have one in every suburb.

But when land is identified as being suitable, potentially suitable for a dog off-leash area, that’s when the consultation process begins. I understand that the issues relating to this particular space date back to an election commitment made by then State Labor candidate Di Farmer, so it does go back a while. Ms Farmer, I understand, circulated a petition to get a DOLA installed in or near the Park Hill Estate area, and I understand that Councillor SUTTON supported it at that time as well.

Councillor MURPHY also committed to the installation of a dog off-leash area which was an act of good faith, given that previous petition, as a commitment to residents. There were concerns from residents noted, and that’s why there was the counter-petition that was led by you or signed by you, and I think it had virtually the same number of petitioners opposed and for the dog off-leash area. And that’s why I understand Councillor MURPHY went back out for further consultation.

Now, he offered to do that by way of a reply paid survey going out to those on the electoral roll, so that is an established way of reaching people in an area, going out via the electoral roll. I understand that there were over 120 petitioners or people who responded to that, residents who responded to that, and it showed that 70% of people supported a dog off-leash area being provided, 55% of people wanting it fenced and a number of people wanting it unfenced, and 30% opposed. So that shows that there’s a strong demand in this area for a dog off-leash area that seems to be supported by the residents in the area.

There have been issues that have been dealt with relating to, and in the planning of this in terms of potential flooding and soil contamination issues. That’s what our Council officers will go through as they plan this sort of infrastructure. So, this will be a dog off-leash area that will be proceeded with. It’s budgeted for. I understand that’s not the answer that you wanted to hear today. I thank you for coming in to talk to Council with your concerns, but we know across the city there is always a strong demand for dog off-leash areas, and this will add, I think, to our sum total of dog off-leash areas up from 135 to 136.

Thank you, Mr Groenewoud.

Chairman: Thank you, Councillor McLACHLAN, and thank you, Mr Groenewoud.

QUESTION TIME:

Chairman: Are there any questions of the LORD MAYOR or a Chairman of the Standing Committees?

Councillor ALLAN.


- 3 -

Question 1

Councillor ALLAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My question is to the LORD MAYOR.

This morning, Deputy Premier Jackie Trad and yourself announced the finalised study into the integration of the Brisbane Metro and Cross-River Rail projects. For the benefit of the Chamber, can you outline the intentions of this study and how the two projects will work in conjunction?

LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor ALLAN for the question.

Well, Madam Chairman, today, as Councillor ALLAN has pointed out in his question, I did stand with Deputy Premier Jacqui Trad to present a document entitled Connecting Brisbane. I have a copy of that document with me, Madam Chairman. That document had its beginnings, if you like, following a visit to our city by the Prime Minister and Minister Fletcher, and it was really I suppose, driven out of a concern that Brisbane City Council were over here doing our thing in terms of a Brisbane Metro. The State Government had its project in terms of Cross-River Rail and, Madam Chairman, I guess the uniqueness of this is that this is the only capital city in Australia where such a situation would exist.

If we go to Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, anywhere else, it is essentially both of those types of facilities would be handled by a State Government. So the dilemma, I guess, for a Federal Government is that they don’t want to be dealing with parties all over the place. They wanted to make sure that, in terms of their considerations through Infrastructure Australia and the like, that there was a single city plan. Madam Chairman, what this document Connecting Brisbane does, is to look at how the two facilities will interact, how they will work within a city context.

Importantly, Madam Chairman, not only does the document show that they are complementary projects. We all know that we need an increased bus capacity, we need an increased rail capacity in our city. We know that the transport task in Brisbane right now is covered to the tune of two-thirds by the bus task.

So Brisbane Metro and the Cross-River Rail, which is the State Government’s preferred project, Madam Chairman, we see them as complementary projects. They’re not going to get in each other’s way in terms of the detailed design, in terms of the roll out and construction of those projects, but what they will do is provide a complementary and interconnectivity at Boggo Road where the Deputy Premier and I launched this document this morning, and that of Roma Street Station.

So, Madam Chairman, beyond that, the document really talks about the other projects into the future that are an important part of creating a turn up and go environment for our City of Brisbane. So, it is about saying yes, there are projects on the go right here, right now, but there are other things into the future and, Madam Chairman, as monies become available, it can be done to create a strong public transport future for our city. That’s an ambition that is held rightfully by both levels of government, and so it is that this document today reflects that.

So it brings together the vision of the current State Government, Madam Chairman, it brings together the strategy that the Brisbane City Council has, and it will lay the foundation to transform transport and tackle congestion in Brisbane into the future. Last week, of course, I launched the—the week before, the Metro project, Madam Chairman, in terms of its cost and what is required, what we can do at our level of government here, and again it does reflect the uniqueness. So when the Federal Government provided an initial $10 million to the State last year, it was in part conditional upon us getting together, getting officers of Council together with State Government officers, and combining the views in terms of the future of public transport within this document.

So, for example, the work that Councillor COOPER is undertaking in the new Transport Plan for Brisbane, that she’ll be bringing to this place at some time


- 4 -

later this year, Madam Chairman, some of the early information from that is incorporated in this document. It looks at the sorts of projects into the future that we can have in the public transport space. So it looks at, I guess, as I said earlier, not just the immediate, but also the future. It looks at a radial network, Madam Chairman, where buses and trains are making journeys into the city centre.

We know that, as the region grows, one thing that will happen is jobs within our central city area will increase enormously.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Further questions?

Councillor CUMMING.

Question 2

Councillor CUMMING: Thanks, Madam Chairman. My question is to the LORD MAYOR.

On Channel 7 on Saturday night you confirmed rates would rise in this year’s budget to be brought down next Wednesday 14 June. Brisbane’s inflation rate for the 12 months to 31 March is 1.8%. Will you guarantee no Brisbane resident will be forced to pay rate increases above the inflation rate?

LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman, I thank Councillor CUMMING very much for the question. As he has correctly pointed out, the budget will be delivered next Wednesday, Madam Chairman. So it’s only a week away, and I look forward to bringing down the budget this year. This will be my, I think, seventh budget as LORD MAYOR of this city.

Madam Chairman, as I said on Sunday also—and I don’t know that it got reported—but it will be a budget which acknowledges the transportation needs of our city. It will build, in terms of its funding, for those important projects that we’re undertaking—Kingsford Smith Drive, Wynnum Road, Madam Chairman, Telegraph Road, the Inner City Bypass. It builds on all of those projects as part of a 90-project program across the city, $1.3 billion in expenditure on our network.

Of course, it will build into that budget the funding associated with Metro. So, Madam Chairman, I would just say to you, Councillor CUMMING, that the budget will be a responsible budget. It will be a budget that meets the needs of our city. It’s a budget that will build on our leisure and lifestyle aspects to Brisbane, Madam Chairman, things that we hold very, very important to us.

So, when the budget comes down next Wednesday, it always reminds me a bit like Christmas, budgets, it’s—you know, people wait with a high level of anticipation to see what’s in the budget. But, Madam Chairman—

Councillor interjecting.

LORD MAYOR: Well, Councillor CUMMING, we’ll all be waiting and watching and next week we’ll have it all out there for everyone to see. So, I’m not going to comment beyond that what’s in the budget or what’s not in the budget, Madam Chairman, other than to say that it will be a budget that meets the financial needs of the city, a budget that also meets the needs of this city in terms of the facilities that we have and the responsibilities that we have across the city.

Of course, Madam Chairman, it does include some things that we perhaps ought not necessarily have to do as a city, but we do because we want our city to be a functional city. We have now over the last decades, you know, stepped up to the plate, undertaken projects which in any other city in this nation would be handled by state governments, and that’s the reality. I remind Councillors that, if you go down to Melbourne City Council, they put zero dollars towards public transport—zero dollars. Last year, of course, Madam Chairman, we put $122 million into the operating subsidy, not building new public transport, but the operating subsidy in public transport in this city, around $30 million on our CityCats and ferry services, and the remainder as a subsidy to bus services in Brisbane.


- 5 -

So, with the Brisbane Metro, Madam Chairman, we again show our commitment to being prepared to do the things that we need to do to create a New World City, to make sure that the people of this city can be proud of their city, have a city that is progressing, that is creating jobs and, Madam Chairman, is one which adds to the lifestyle and sustainability of our city.


Councillor MARX.

Question 3

Councillor MARX: Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. My question is to the Chair of the Field Services Committee, Councillor MATIC.

Last year the LORD MAYOR and yourself—sorry, last week, it felt like last year—the LORD MAYOR and yourself announced the successful contractors that will undertake the vital on the ground services around Brisbane including waste collection, operation of the city’s resource recovery centres, and green waste processing. Can you please outline to the Chamber the significance of this contract?

Councillor MATIC: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor MARX for the question and for the opportunity to talk about what is, or what will be, one of the most significant procurement contracts for this Council and for us as Councillors when we get to the debate later on this afternoon.

Madam Chairman, what we have before us is a significant contract that will cover a period of 16 years in the delivery of three essential components—waste collection, the operation and management of that waste including the resource recovery centres, and the green waste processing.

Madam Chairman, for this Council, our focus is on ensuring a cleaner, greener and more sustainable city. With the selected contractors that the LORD MAYOR announced last Thursday, we will deliver a high quality service to the people of Brisbane with a clear focus on long-term sustainability and innovation. Madam Chairman, these contracts ensure the best value for money outcomes for ratepayers and a high level of service which can cater to the changing needs of our New World City.

Now, Madam Chairman, this tender process has been a long time in its implementation. Looking at the work that the officers have done behind the scenes to provide a comprehensive waste and recovery service through a set of third party arrangements is a very complex space. There’s been an enormous amount of work done to get to this point through the investigation, the assessment of our existing contracts in the past, the improvements that we could look at making in the services, where do we go as a Council and as a city in the future in managing and dealing with that waste?

The lengthy procurement process that was undertaken by officers within that branch, the backwards and forwards of negotiations with all of the prospective tenderers to get the best outcome ultimately for Brisbane residents, and that, Madam Chairman, is what this contract delivers. In all of its different spheres, our goal and our outcome has been to deliver that best outcome for all of Brisbane residents. Because we know as a growing city, Madam Chairman, that we must deal with the use, with waste, in all its different forms, and we must look to the most efficient way of being able to collect that, to provide a streamlined service for Brisbane residents on a daily basis, wherever they are, and also importantly, Madam Chairman, how we reduce, reuse and recycle. There are the key elements that we have gone through throughout this whole process.

Now, Madam Chairman, within that waste collection announcement the LORD MAYOR made last week, the successful tenderer was SUEZ. They are a long standing company, an established company within Australia and to this Council. We are pleased to be able to continue that strong relationship with them in that space. We will see, Madam Chairman, SUEZ continue to provide that strong service day in, day out for those 440,000 red top bins, the


- 6 -

380,000 yellow top bins, and the 80,000 green top bins. That’s the kind of volume we’re looking at across this city.

But, Madam Chairman, SUEZ are keen to work strongly with us in this space to improve on those key performance indicators and to make sure that they continue to deliver that high level of service. One of the key components for SUEZ, Madam Chairman, and for Brisbane residents will be the benefit of being able to have a variety of different vehicles, and an increase in the number of those vehicles so that they can respond more quickly and efficiently at times of need, particularly, Madam Chairman, at times of natural disaster so that we as a city can get back to business.

With our alliance contract, Madam Chairman, the resource recovery centres, the successful tenderer the LORD MAYOR announced last week was Cleanaway. Cleanaway are an Australian-based company with a strong track record making sure that they are delivering with all of their 4,200 employees at 179 sites, Madam Chairman, across Australia, delivering for Brisbane the kind of outcomes that we are looking for. When it comes to the area of innovation, Madam Chairman, one of those key outcomes that we were looking for was the future—making sure that we can deal with waste in a progressive manner, looking at new technologies, at new processes, and making sure that, as a city, we are reducing our carbon footprint and establishing our green and clean credentials into the future, as well as now. Madam Chairman, that’s the kind of strong record that this Administration is proud of, and continues to do.

Now, in the space of green waste processing, Madam Chairman, as a Council we always want to see more recycling within this space, the conversion of green waste to mulch, making sure it’s not going into landfill, reducing those methane gases and creating compost, Madam Chairman, that can be reused. The tenderers that the LORD MAYOR announced at that time were Wood Mulching Industries, NuGrow Metro and Phoenix Power Recyclers. All of these, Madam Chairman, together will provide the kind of outcomes that we are looking for.

Madam Chairman, I look forward to the debate later on in regards to this. This is one of the most significant contracts that we will have, and it is a great pleasure to be able to deliver these enormous benefits for Brisbane residents now and in the future.

Chairman: Councillor SRI.

Question 4

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. My question is to Councillor SIMMONDS.

Part 1.5D of the City Plan very clearly states that neighbourhood plan codes prevail over zone codes to the extent of any inconsistency. The Kangaroo Point Peninsula neighbourhood plan code clearly states in table 7.2.11.1.3.B that development on the site at 26 Cairns Street, Kangaroo Point, described in the plan as the Dockside D2 sub-precinct, is to be a maximum of three storeys in height. There’s no rule saying that neighbourhood plans can be ignored if they are old.

The established process where height limits in a neighbourhood plan are considered to be too low is to draft a new neighbourhood plan, but Council has not yet approved the new Kangaroo Point Peninsula neighbourhood plan. The properties immediately across the road from 26 Cairns Street are single storey character dwellings, and I understand that the apartments next door are three-storeys and further to the north of this site, Dockside’s Amity Tower is eight storeys.

In deciding to approve a tower development of up to 17-storeys in height on this site, did Council’s Development Assessment team choose to ignore the three-storey height limit in the neighbourhood plan, or did you instruct the Development Assessment team that the neighbourhood plan height limits were not relevant?


- 7 -

Councillor SIMMONDS: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and I thank Councillor SRI for the question.

Well, perhaps it’s easier if I deal with the last part first, and that is the assessment of this application was undertaken by independent Council officers, as is the case for all of the assessments for all development applications other than the ones that come to recommendation for the Committee and to this Chamber. But even in those cases, they are assessed by independent Council officers and a recommendation is provided to the Committee and the Chamber.

So, just for clarity, it was the independent Council officers who made the decision on the merits of this application in relation to the performance outcomes that you have advised. Just for the interest of the Chamber, Councillor SRI is referring to the application 26 Cairns Street, Kangaroo Point. Council received an impact-assessable application on 10 February 2015 for two residential towers and ground floor retail space. The two residential towers were proposed for 25 storeys and 23 storeys in height which, as I said, this was assessed by Council’s independent planning officers, and it was communicated through the information request process that this was deemed excessive height for the area.

Several information requests were issues, and further issues sent to the applicant about the proposal. As a result of the information requests and the changes that followed and the discussions that followed with the applicant, the application was amended to acknowledge Council’s concerns, and the towers’ heights have been reduced to 17 storeys and 13 storeys. The total number of units was reduced from the original application from 441 to 311 that was approved. The retail space was also reduced from 1,966 square metres to 715 square metres.

There was also a reduction in site cover, an increase of communal open space, deep planting and landscape areas, an improved building design, and improved public plaza which opens to the adjoining dockside area. These are all improvements from the original application that resulted from the officers’ assessment and them putting their concerns in writing through the information request process.

I note that officers, as part of their assessment of the application, noted that the final height and form which was approved by Council officers was commensurate with building heights in the area of the Kangaroo Point Peninsula. Kangaroo Point, as we know, and we’ve been very upfront about this as an Administration, as a Council, has been identified as a high growth area as it is close to the CBD, close to public transport and other infrastructure.

Let me remind the Chamber that the more density that can be provided in places like the inner city or principal regional centres like Toowong or Indooroopilly, helps us protect the majority of our suburbs from other development outcomes that would be therefore needed to accommodate the growth that the State Government has put in place for our targets—


Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, don’t interject.

Councillor SIMMONDS: Well, Madam Chairman, I’ll take the interjection. The State Government has set targets for population. Brisbane is a very desirable city. People want to move here. You can’t just put up fences around the city. You have to accommodate people appropriately, and we do that as an Administration by having a conversation with residents through the award-winning neighbourhood planning process, so we can appropriately focus growth around existing infrastructure, of which Kangaroo Point has a lot, in order to ensure that development is not in an ad hoc manner.

In relation to Councillor SRI’s question with the neighbourhood plan, well, I know that the assessing Council officers would have given consideration to the fact that it’s a 20-year-old neighbourhood plan, that in City Plan 2014, a very recent document, a document which underwent significant community consultation, the site is zoned as high density, which is an acceptable outcome of


- 8 -

15 storeys. So let me just remind you of what was approved—17 and 13—and would have given consideration that the neighbourhood plan is so out of date that this Administration has taken the decision to re-do the neighbourhood plan, which is currently under way.

Now, to your question, Councillor SRI, I can’t stop an application being submitted just because there is a neighbourhood planning process in place. People are entitled under the State Government Act to put in an application, and that application has to be assessed on its merits. I believe that, in this case, the officers, the independent officers who have assessed this application, and appropriately taken into account the fact that this site is zoned high density 15 storeys, have made—


Chairman: Councillor GRIFFITHS, stop interjecting.

Councillor SIMMONDS: —have made a decision that is both in line with the Sustainable Planning Act that the Labor Government put in place, and also City Plan 2014.

Thank you.


Councillor WINES.

Question 5

Councillor WINES: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My question is to the Chair of the Public and Active Transport Committee, Councillor SCHRINNER.

DEPUTY MAYOR, in September of last year the State Government suspended bus contract renewal negotiations as a result of concerns raised about the way in which the government was approaching negotiations and the inability of Council to consult with its workforce as part of that new agreement.

Can you update the Chamber on the progress that has been made since the negotiation process has restarted, and how much closer we are to providing job security for the over 2,000 bus drivers who proudly serve the travelling public?

DEPUTY MAYOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you, Councillor WINES, for the question.

We’ve obviously got a big contract that’s coming through to Council today, and that’s the waste contract. But there is actually a bigger contract that exists in Council, probably our biggest single contract that we have, and that is the contract to provide bus services for the State Government for TransLink, which is our bus service contract.

That contract is of a value currently of around $300 million per year, and so obviously over time, over a five-year period, for example, we’re talking about a $1 to $1.5 billion contract here. So this is a really important matter. As Councillor WINES pointed out, it’s important not only for the travelling public but for the 2,000-plus bus drivers that we have out there providing those services. Because, as of today, there is no future security about what will happen when the new bus contract comes into place.

We have obviously talked in the past in this Chamber about problems with the negotiation process. When this current government came into place in January 2015, they promised a consultative, cooperative contract negotiation process, and we were very hopeful that that would be the outcome. Unfortunately, that’s not the way it panned out, and one thing led to another, and the whole process had to be stalled and reviewed as a result of concerns, not only from ourselves, but from the entire bus industry in South East Queensland. All of the private operators had similar concerns as well.

So a review was undertaken late last year, and since that time the negotiation process has restarted. But unfortunately, as I stand here today, we have a contract that expires at the end of this month. So, at the end of this month, our bus service contract expires. There is no certainty going forward. As of today,


- 9 -

we have not received any tender documents from the State Government at all to do with our new contract. So we’re expected to put in a proposal to the State Government on our, I guess, offer to provide public transport services going forward. We have not even received the documentation to allow us to put in that offer. The contract expires at the end of this month.

So, as a result of this situation we’re in, we received a letter just recently from TransLink saying they would like to extend our contract for a further 12 months. Now, I don’t know what you think, but that’s completely unacceptable, because all it does is to extend the period of uncertainty for longer, but what it really does is it draws out the contract negotiation process beyond the next State election.

Councillors interjecting.

DEPUTY MAYOR: Now we know—no coincidence, Councillor SIMMONDS, there is no coincidence.


Chairman: Order!

DEPUTY MAYOR: So what essentially the State is doing is saying, ‘oh, we’ll deal with that after the election. Just trust us, it will be okay. There’ll be a good contract on the table, just trust us. We’ll wait until after the election’.

We will not have a bar of this. This matter needs to be resolved as a matter of priority in the next few months, and we will not tolerate any other outcome. This Council puts a big investment in on top of the State Government’s contribution to public transport. We’ve heard there’s a $300 million State contract in place. On top of that, we put in an extra $100 to $120 million on top of the State’s contribution to provide public transport services. This is something that we are legitimately interested in, and the people of Brisbane are interested in, and needs to be resolved.

So, going forward, I have talked to our managers in Transport for Brisbane and advised them that this Administration wants this matter sorted out immediately. We want, without further delays, a contract put in place before the next election to give certainty to our travelling public, to give certainty to our 2,000-plus bus drivers, to give certainty to those people that want to get around the road network and transport network of our city.

There is no certainty right now, and this is a matter that needs to be addressed as a matter of priority. Now, I know that Minister Trad has been very cooperative with Council in recent times, particularly with Metro, so I hold out great hope that we can get this matter sorted out, I do. The response that we’ve had on Metro has been really positive, and I’m grateful for that. We need a similar level of cooperation to get this bus contract issue sorted out as soon as possible.


Councillor JOHNSTON.

Question 6

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. My question is to the LORD MAYOR.

I refer you to the Council meeting of—oh, sorry, wrong question. A few weeks ago I provided you with, and tabled a copy of the Parks Capital Budget Schedule 1.4.3.1 for the past five years, funding allocated personally by you in your budgets over the past five years. I trust you’ve had a look now.

LORD MAYOR, why have you provided funding under this schedule for dozens and dozens of park projects in wards that were badly flooded, including The Gabba, Walter Taylor, Pullenvale, Jamboree, Moorooka, and Coorparoo, yet only funded two projects in Tennyson Ward, out of 680 projects across the city over the past five years?

LORD MAYOR: Well, Madam Chairman, I thank Councillor JOHNSTON for the question.


- 10 -

But, Madam Chairman, I did have a look at the investments that we have made in Tennyson Ward, and I can report that the financial investments in Tennyson Ward are much higher than they are in many wards in this city.


LORD MAYOR: That is the reality.

Chairman: Order!

LORD MAYOR: That is the reality. You see, Councillor JOHNSTON sits down and she goes, ‘one, two, three, four’—she does this add-up game, Madam Chairman, in terms of the number of lines, the number of lines in the budget. But the reality is that there has been a greater financial spend in that ward in that period of time than there has been in most wards around the city.


LORD MAYOR: Well, you know, you say that, Councillor JOHNSTON, but—

Councillor JOHNSTON: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

LORD MAYOR: I’ve had a look at the numbers. You’re right, I did—

Chairman: Point of order against you, LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: —have a chance, and I did have a look.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.


Councillor JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, my question is about the budget schedule for parks capital allocations in 1.4.3.1, that shows clearly that there were 680 projects funded citywide and only two in Tennyson Ward. Now, on any—

Chairman: And Councillor JOHNSTON—

Councillor JOHNSTON: —reading of it, he’s misleading the Chamber.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, section 51 of the Meetings Local Law. You were referring to Council budget allocations, and the LORD MAYOR hands down the budget, and he was providing context.

LORD MAYOR.


Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Just to be clear, and I’m going to table my question, it specifically refers to the budget schedule 1.4.3.1—

Chairman: And Councillor JOHNSTON, Councillor JOHNSTON, I have made my ruling that it relates to the Council budget which the LORD MAYOR hands down, and the LORD MAYOR was providing context in respect of funding for Tennyson Ward.

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: So, Madam Chairman, you know, just to be clear here, what Councillor JOHNSTON does is she picks out the tiny little section of the budget that suits her yarn out there with the people of Tennyson, that ‘poor me, poor me, they’re not giving me anything’.

Now, Madam Chairman, the reality is that, when you look at the contributions that have been made in Tennyson Ward in respect to parks, Madam Chairman, in financial terms, it is greater than many wards in this city. So, Madam Chairman, Councillor JOHNSTON can frame this up, she can narrow it down.


Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON! Stop interjecting.


- 11 -

LORD MAYOR: What was the part of the budget? A narrow part of the budget called 1.4.3.1, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, parks are more than just 1.4.3.1 that fits conveniently with Councillor JOHNSTON’s story line. Parks are much more than that, Madam Chairman. There is another section referring to major parks in this city, and Councillor JOHNSTON has done very, very well, I might say, when it comes to parks in an overall context.

So, again it’s this same old thing of coming in here, Madam Chairman, creating a very narrow question on a very specific thing, Madam Chairman, without taking in the broader context of the budget and the allocations contained in that budget. So, Madam Chairman, Councillor JOHNSTON—


LORD MAYOR: —will continue down this pathway because—

Chairman: Just a moment, please, LORD MAYOR.

Councillor JOHNSTON, stop interjecting. I am not going to continue to warn you all afternoon. You are on notice that I am not going to tolerate your interjections, and you asked in the question about citywide funding, and the LORD MAYOR is answering appropriately. So hear the answer.

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. So, Madam Chairman, again, when you're looking at a budget, we look at it in an overall context, and I just say again that there has been some significant expenditures in the Tennyson Ward in the parks areas.

I just again remind the Chamber that, you know, during my term as LORD MAYOR as well, we invested a colossal amount of money out in that area, Madam Chairman. We were the first ones to put up our hand to say we will help you to recover. We put a whole lot of projects across this city on hold.

Later today we’re going to be debating a Wynnum Road upgrade—at last, the Councillor would say over there, Councillor SUTTON. Because, Madam Chairman, that was one of the projects that we had to put on hold while we spent the monies out there in Tennyson Ward and in those parts of the city that had suffered during the floods—


LORD MAYOR: —during the floods—no, we were not, Councillor, thank you for that interjection.

Chairman: Order!

LORD MAYOR: Thank you for the interjection.

Chairman: Order! Order!

Warning – Councillor Nicole JOHNSTONThe Chairman then formally warned Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON that unless she desisted from interjecting and interrupting the proper conduct of the meeting, she would be suspended from the service of the Council for a period of up to eight days. Furthermore, Councillor JOHNSTON was warned that, if she were suspended from the service of the Council, she would be excluded from the Council Chamber, Antechamber, Public Gallery and other meeting places for the period of suspension.

Chairman: LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and again it just shows the ignorance of Councillor JOHNSTON here today—‘we were refunded all the money by the National Disaster’—


LORD MAYOR: Madam Chairman, that is not right, and here she goes again.



- 12 -

Councillor JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, the LORD MAYOR’s comments are just offensive. You can’t—



Councillor JOHNSTON: And I ask him to with—

Chairman: Councillor—just a moment, Councillor JOHNSTON. I will deal with one point of order at a time.

Councillor JOHNSTON, what is your point of order in respect of what the LORD MAYOR was saying, please?

Councillor JOHNSTON: The LORD MAYOR’s comments are offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn.

Chairman: I don’t uphold your point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON. I don’t believe that the LORD MAYOR said anything offensive.

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Madam Chairman, all I am pointing out is that the comments that Councillor JOHNSTON has made by way of an interjection are just completely false. To infer that this Council was refunded all the monies that we’d spent during the floods of 2011 and 2013, Madam Chairman, are just complete nonsense—are just complete nonsense.

There was $400 million, Madam Chairman, that was invested in this city in terms of the recovery on public infrastructure, and more than $100 million of that, Madam Chairman, was shortfall that this Council had to find—$100 million, Madam Chairman.


LORD MAYOR: So let’s not have this nonsense—

Chairman: Order!

LORD MAYOR: Let’s not have this nonsense that we were given all of that money back, Madam Chairman, it is just not right. Madam Chairman, a lot of the costs associated with that flood are monies that we’re having to continually find, because there were things that were hidden that were damaged, that you couldn’t take a photo of and say, well, that was flood damage, but we know that there had been significant loss of life with that infrastructure. A lot of that also was road infrastructure, Madam Chairman, the under-surface—we couldn’t demonstrate it was flood damaged, because you couldn’t visually see it. But we knew the under-surface had significant damage and that a lot of life had been taken out of the road network in those flooded areas.

So, Councillor JOHNSTON, Madam Chairman, forgets a bit of that history where we came to the rescue, and rightly so, but, Madam Chairman, there’s a lot more to the story than Councillor JOHNSTON ever tells.


Councillor MURPHY.

Question 7

Councillor MURPHY: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. My question is to the Chair of the Finance and Economic Development Committee.

Councillor ADAMS, amongst its many benefits, Brisbane Metro will activate key precincts around Brisbane. Can you please outline how these precincts will build our local economy while creating new jobs for Brisbane residents?

Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Councillor MURPHY.

I’m very excited again to be talking about Brisbane Metro project and the opportunities we’re going to have for our economy, for our residents, for new


- 13 -

and innovative jobs, and going forward into the future for a New World City here in Brisbane.

It’s no secret that Brisbane is going to experience significant growth to 2041. The State Government has told us that we need to be prepared to accommodate 223,400 new dwellings due to the population growth that’s going to be coming to this region. It also requires Council to support the development of job creation opportunities out of this by making our city easier to move around.

So, one way to do this is focus on creating and enhancing precincts where employment and services can be co-located and, of course, well serviced by public transport. Brisbane Metro, which will ultimately move 22,000 people an hour, will go a long way to achieving this. Through delivering a better connected city and a network of high quality, inclusive public spaces, Metro will catalyse an increase in our public activity, our civic life and deliver a range of social and economic benefits as well.

As part of those key findings that we saw here last week, there was precinct assessments done to completely understand the specific benefits and opportunities that Brisbane Metro can deliver at key locations across the city. Some of those locations include, for example, the Cultural Centre, obviously a very main crux of the Metro as it comes from the southside into Brisbane. There were aspirational statements there about the development of this precinct and how it can support the city and place project objectives.

Obviously it’s a highly connected place. It celebrates our culture. It is on the river’s edge and has a subtropical lifestyle to it. That precinct is definitely our pre-eminent visitor destination. It’s a gateway to South Bank, to West End, to Queen Street Mall—it will be a launching point for Queen’s Wharf Brisbane and our newest entertainment destination. Melbourne and Grey Streets are going to be transformed into a subtropical boulevard which will really put the whole precinct together along the river’s edge and across to the CBD as well.

We’re very excited about Victoria Bridge and the future cross-river connections which are going to support that easy movement and provide a lovely experience as you cross the river and take in the city sights as well. And not to forget, of course, the historical values we have there of Queensland Performing Arts Centre, Queensland Museum and South Bank around that whole precinct. But that’s just some of it in the cultural precinct.

When we see the decongestion and de-cluttering of Melbourne Street to provide that pedestrian crossing at that intersection there, the urban common outcomes and the public activity that we can do in that space is going to be absolutely outstanding. There are other areas that we’ll be looking at, too, obviously. We’ve got the direct connection with Roma Street which is a very important part of the work as well, and we know Roma Street is going to align with both Cross-River Rail and the Brisbane Live proposal as well. There’s a vision for Roma Street within those key findings about being revitalised and transformed into the grand arrival into Brisbane as well. All of this taking in the inner city parkland there and the experience.

So through from Roma Street to South Bank to our creative economy, the innovative jobs are endless in that space. We know the work that we’ve done through the Windows of Opportunity shows us in our mapping, that creators love staying within the inner city, particularly around West End and South Brisbane. Let’s make it an easy place to get to and experience the talent and the innovation they have as well.

On the other end we have very important quarters around Queen’s Wharf Brisbane, the Bowen Hills Priority Development Area and, of course, the Herston Quarter as well. Madam Chairman, the biomedical research education and innovation at the Herston Quarter is inspiring. I was there just a couple of weeks ago to open the Neuro-Psychotherapy International Conference where we had 200-plus of the brightest minds in that field talking about their innovations and the way to treat patients through a whole new study of medicine, and they were meeting here in Brisbane because of those opportunities that we were


- 14 -

offering The connectivity that we’ll have to those precincts are going to be endless in innovative jobs and creating the economy that we need to thrive into the future in Brisbane.


Councillor CUMMING.

Question 8

Councillor CUMMING: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to the Chair of Finance and Economic Development, Councillor ADAMS.

You’ve approved Council’s negotiating position with its workers during the current EBA (Enterprise Bargaining Agreement) negotiations which has seen most Brisbane City Council electricians locked out of work for over a week now. There are just three qualified electricians ensuring the safety of motorists, pedestrians and cyclists using signalised intersections 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Do you think Council’s actions of locking workers out was the right decision, and what contingencies do you have in place during this period?

Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair, and look, happy to speak about the EBA negotiations, because they have been ongoing since October last year, and we have been doing a lot of work with our union representatives since that time.

We have had 20 enterprise bargaining unit meetings with 11 unions, discussing over 220 claims. We have had 30 separate meetings with unions to discuss matters relating to specific EBA schedules, and we have also taken the step to make sure we are providing wage certainty for our employees, with the interim administrative payment of two per cent back to October last year.

We also reaffirm at this point of time that we do not support any forced redundancies. We want to work constructively with the unions and these discussions are continuing. We are obviously at the moment in a protected industrial action environment by a number of Council electricians who are members of the Electrical Trade Union (ETU)—


Chairman: Councillor SUTTON!

Councillor ADAMS: The Electrical Trade Union has advised that it will not undertake paperwork other than safety related paperwork. This means that when jobs are completed, Council’s work order system SAP will not be updated to reflect the work that has been done.

The Electrical Trade Union has also advised that there will be bans on repairing crossing lights and telecommunication faults, and if not attended to, these faults have very severe consequences. What we are looking at—


Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY!

Councillor ADAMS.

Councillor ADAMS: Thank you.

What we are looking at is making sure that we have minimal disruption to the work that needs to be done for public safety and for work for the ratepayers of Brisbane as possible.

The union claims that the public are at risk are false. Staff were advised if they wished to participate in industrial action, that they would not be rostered on for the duration of that action. We needed to make sure that we could mitigate for the work that had to be done if it’s required to be done at this point of time.


Councillor ADAMS: This was also—


- 15 -

Chairman: Order!

Councillor CASSIDY, I will not tolerate you accusing Councillor ADAMS of bullying workers across this Chamber. There is no parliamentary privilege in this place. I ask that you withdraw that comment that I heard immediately.


Chairman: Order!

Councillor CASSIDY. You’re refusing my direction? Under section 186A of the City of Brisbane Act, I require that your conduct in refusing my direction be noted in the Minutes.

Order under section 186A of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 that disorderly conduct by Councillor Jared CASSIDY be noted in the minutes

Chairman: Councillor ADAMS.



Councillor JOHNSTON: So just to be clear, it’s okay to call me ignorant, but a comment that’s not even on the record—

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, I don’t—

Councillor JOHNSTON: —has to be withdrawn?

Chairman: Councillor—order!

Councillor JOHNSTON: I would just like to know why you’re—

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON! Sit down.

Section 51 of the Meetings Local Law, when I am speaking, you do not. You immediately cease and resume your seat.

Now, Councillor JOHNSTON, I do not know what you’re referring to. I certainly did not call you ignorant, and I—

Councillor GRIFFITHS: The LORD MAYOR just did.

Chairman: Order! Councillor GRIFFITHS, section 51 applies to you as well.

Councillor GRIFFITHS: I think she’s talking about—

Chairman: Councillor GRIFFITHS!

Councillor GRIFFITHS: —when the LORD MAYOR called her ignorant.

Chairman: Councillor GRIFFITHS, resume your seat.

Councillor JOHNSTON: That is exactly right.

Chairman: Order! Councillor JOHNSTON, you are on a warning. You do not get up and litigate a debate or put an argument forward.

Councillor ADAMS, would you care to continue.

Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The union claims that the public are at no risk for their stop work or their protected industrial action is just not true. We were told the consequences of disruption to telecommunication systems could mean that we would be unaware of faults with crossing lights and traffic lights. Secondly, faults with crossing lights could mean that pedestrians are forced to cross without lights, vision impaired people would not have the use of buzzers. Such devices are installed where we need them, and as such, near schools and hospitals on roads that carry a heavy amount of traffic, and if we can’t get them fixed, it puts the public—


Chairman: Please, just a moment, please, Councillor ADAMS.


- 16 -

Warning – Councillor Shayne SUTTONThe Chairman then formally warned Councillor Shayne SUTTON that unless she desisted from interjecting and interrupting the proper conduct of the meeting she would be suspended from the service of the Council for a period of up to eight days. Furthermore, Councillor SUTTON was warned that, if she were suspended from the service of the Council, she would be excluded from the Council Chamber, Antechamber, Public Gallery and other meeting places for the period of suspension.


Councillor ADAMS: Those across the Chamber again screaming across the Chambers, ‘they have been locked out from their work’. That is untrue.

Staff were advised that if they wished to participate in industrial action, which is their absolute right to do so under legislation, that they would not be rostered on for the duration of that action.


Councillor ADAMS: This is a very important point.

Chairman: Councillor CASSIDY, I hereby warn you that, if you continue to interject, you will be suspended from the service of the Chamber for a period of up to eight days. If you are suspended from the Chamber—


Chairman: Order! Councillor SUTTON!


Chairman: Councillor SUTTON! Section 51 of the Meetings Local Law. You are on a warning. This is your final time.

Warning – Councillor Jared CASSIDYThe Chairman then formally warned Councillor Jared CASSIDY that unless he desisted from interjecting and interrupting the proper conduct of the meeting he would be suspended from the service of the Council for a period of up to eight days. Furthermore, Councillor CASSIDY was warned that, if he were suspended from the service of the Council, he would be excluded from the Council Chamber, Antechamber, Public Gallery and other meeting places for the period of suspension.


Councillor ADAMS: The reality is, Madam Chair, that Council needs to make arrangements to ensure that there was no impact to public safety and that ratepayers are not paying for work that wasn’t being done.

I’m advised that arrangements have been in place to respond to the faults with the traffic network, and the union claims to the contrary are absolutely untrue. Staff are free to return to work at any time, but they have to undertake all of their duties. As I said again, they were advised, if they wanted to participate in the industrial action, they would not be rostered on for the duration of that action as well.

We are working with the unions and continue our negotiations with the unions in good faith. Unfortunately they are not coming to the table. The ETU didn’t come to the table last week, they didn’t come to the table today. But we need to support a good outcome, not just for our workers, and we continue to negotiate with our Brisbane City Council workers from all of those unions as well, but we also have a responsibility to the ratepayers of Brisbane that they remain safe as they move around the city, and that we are not using ratepayers’ money to pay workers for work that is not being completed.

Chairman: That ends Question Time.

Councillor SUTTON: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON.


- 17 -

590/2016-17At that juncture, Councillor Shayne SUTTON moved, seconded by Councillor Jared CASSIDY, that the Standing Rules be suspended to allow the moving of the following motion

Condemning this Administration for failing to recognise and respect protected industrial action that has been sanctioned by Fair Work Australia.

Councillor SUTTON: Madam Chair, we have just sat here and listened to Councillor ADAMS’ defence of this Administration’s treatment of our Brisbane City Council workers where these workers, having been given permission to take protected industrial action through Fair Work Australia, that would allow them to take this action in order to negotiate fairer working conditions with this Council, and this Council’s response, in true Liberal National Party style, has been to tell them they’re not getting any other work from this Council until they walk away from their protected right to take industrial action.

Australians believe in a fair go, Madam Chair. Brisbane residents believe in a fair go. These workers deserve a fair go, and they deserve to have the legal protected industrial action respected. It is not acceptable in anyone’s mark for Councillor ADAMS, who wants to be the Lord Mayor of this city, to stand there and say—

Chairman: To the urgency motion.

Councillor SUTTON: —and say that Brisbane City Council workers will get no work, no shift work, if they take industrial action against this Council. That is what she is saying. That is what she is saying. These are good, honest workers who are doing nothing more than exercising their rights under Federal legislation to take protected action. I listened to her, Madam Chair, and the insulting thing is, she tried to claim that these workers were putting the public at risk. They’re the ones that are putting the public at risk, Madam Chair, by trying to take away these workers’ rights.

This used to be an organisation that wanted to be an employer of choice. Now—this is planned—these workers are just the first—these 25 electricians are just the first, Madam Chair. This is going to roll out through all of Brisbane City Council’s operational services, all of them, maybe save for the bus drivers. But, Madam Chair, this is unacceptable. This is an unacceptable way to treat our workers.

Time and time again these people on the other side of the Chamber claim that we’re not respecting the workers and we’re criticising the workers. Look at what they are doing, Madam Chair, it is not acceptable—

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON—Councillor SUTTON, your time has expired.

I will now put the motion of urgency.

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

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

The voting was as follows:

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

NOES: 20 - The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER,


- 18 -

Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Kim MARX, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.

ABSTENTIONS: 1 - Councillor Nicole JOHNSTON.

CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS:

ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE

The Right Honourable, the LORD MAYOR (Councillor Graham QUIRK), Chairman of the Establishment and Coordination Committee, moved, seconded by the DEPUTY MAYOR (Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER), that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 29 May 2017, be adopted.


LORD MAYOR: Madam Chairman, I thank you, I thank the Chamber.

Madam Chairman, before coming to the report itself, there’s a number of matters that I want to make comment on. I might just start, with the issue of the Electrical Trades Union, and the claims that have been made here today.

Madam Chairman, firstly, I think the words—there were a couple of words that Councillor SUTTON used in relation to it. Respect, I think, was one. Madam Chairman, the reality is that the ETU members have been afforded a 15.5% increase in the last five years. EBA negotiations are under way at the moment. As a sign of good faith, this Council has backdated staff pay with a two per cent interim increase, going back to October last year. So, Madam Chairman, that is while negotiations are continuing to occur. We didn’t have to do that, but as a sign of good faith to staff, understanding that these negotiations were going on for longer than we thought they might, we felt it was appropriate to afford staff that increase, pending negotiations.

Now, I don’t think that Councillor SUTTON quite had it right in terms of her commentary. My understanding is that the legislation under which action was being taken was the Queensland industrial laws but, Madam Chairman, those laws also provide for the Council, or an employer to be able to take action where certain circumstances may prevail.

Now, in this particular case, Madam Chairman, what this Council was concerned about was the disruption to the telecommunications systems. It could mean that Council became unaware of faults with crossing lights, with traffic lights and, Madam Chairman, and it is our view that that was not a tenable circumstance for us to be in in terms of any form of protected action.

Madam Chairman, I did note also that the members of ETU—I’m not sure whether they were Council employees necessarily, but there were some people, together with Construction Forestry Mining Energy Union, flag wavers, in the square last Friday which—and fair enough, they were apparently waiting for me to come down, Madam Chairman, and I was not prepared to come down, and I want to tell you why. I know Councillor SUTTON was down there, and I think Councillor CUMMING was also in amongst it.

But, Madam Chairman, I was not going to put myself in a situation of a scene which would have been created in the middle of a fundraising event for Foodbank, for Drug Arm Australasia, and for the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Trust. I was just not prepared to do it. Now, in saying that I was not prepared to do that, I was very concerned that, if there had been any scene or any disruption, and I’m fair game, Madam Chairman, if there had been a scene or disruption, my concern was that we may have, out of that, lost sponsors for that event, that Big City Barbeque which has been a significant fundraiser for Drug Arm


- 19 -

Australasia and for Foodbank and the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Trust in future years.

So, Madam Chairman, I want to, having said that though, say this, that I have never, ever, in the time that I have been LORD MAYOR, refused a meeting of an industrial organisation when requested, Madam Chairman. I have met with every union that has asked me to meet with them. That remains my position today.

So, as far as the EBA negotiations are concerned, they will continue to proceed. We will continue to negotiate in good faith in respect of those negotiations. So, Madam Chairman, but again, I just sort of make the point that, from our point of view, we’ve also got a responsibility as an organisation to protect the ratepayers of this city, and particularly in a case where we believe that those actions were relevant to safety, on pedestrian crossings, on signalised intersections, Madam Chairman, we felt that was an untenable situation for us as an organisation.

As I say, if we’d allowed that to happen and there had been some fatality out there, we’d have been answerable. I’d have been responsible, it would have been my duty of care, Madam Chairman, and this organisation’s duty of care that would come under questioning, and rightly so. So, that is why we acted in the way we did.

I do note, Madam Chairman, earlier today that Councillor Paul Pisasale announced his resignation as the Mayor of Ipswich. I just want to make a couple of comments in relation to that. Paul Pisasale was ‘Mr Ipswich’. He was a colourful character, unconventional in many ways, and he performed his duties, Madam Chairman, for many years while suffering from Multiple Sclerosis. I could always detect when Mayor Pisasale was having a bad day with that. But he continued on, and regardless of what might happen, what news might emerge, Madam Chairman, I just want to thank him for his advocacy for Ipswich. He has, in terms of his own city, made a very significant contribution which can never be taken away from him.

Madam Chairman, in relation to the report I mentioned earlier, I’d just like to table that report if I may, Connecting Brisbane. I think it will be online, certainly if it hasn’t been, I will contact the Deputy Premier’s office about putting that up online for anyone that may wish to peruse the document.

Some other matters that have come up, Madam Chairman, over the last few days, we had a very sad loss in the State of Origin last Wednesday night, but there is always two more to go. The Italian Chamber of Commerce, I had the opportunity to be at an event last Saturday night for the Italian Chamber, together with Grace Grace and other members of the Chamber. There were other representatives there—Steve Minnikin, Trevor Evans, Madam Chairman, and it was a significant event. It’s one of 75 Italian Chambers across 50 countries around the world—well, that’s not that many, when you think about it—75 Chambers of Commerce worldwide is not that many, and we have a very strong Italian Chamber of Commerce in Brisbane, and we’re grateful for all that they do.

Madam Chairman, Green Heart Fair at Chermside last Sunday was again, a very, very successful event, and I thank all of the sponsors and the exhibitors at the Green Heart Fair. As I said out there, it’s a message about simple ways that we can be more sustainable in our daily lives, not only reducing the footprint for the City of Brisbane and helping us to retain that status as the Most Sustainable City in Australia, but also it’s a way in which people can save some dollars, through simple, you know, application to reducing their energy use.

Madam Chairman, the other items before us today are firstly the items A, which is the Wynnum Road Stage 1 and Stage 1B contract. This is a contracting plan. This is a plan, Madam Chairman, which of course will be tens of millions of dollars. It is a plan which not only looks at Stage 1 on Wynnum Road corridor upgrade, but also 1B. This will start the formal tendering process for both projects, with Council expecting to release the tender to the market in the next


- 20 -

two weeks. Following that, I’m advised that the tender will close in mid-August. We will then see the next step of awarding the contractor, and that’s anticipated in November.

Council is proposing for the works for both Stage 1 and Stage 2 to be undertaken by a single major contractor to offer a coordinated management of the site, in the same way as we have with Kingsford Smith Drive and Telegraph Road, Madam Chairman, same approach. So the significant contracting plan also includes approval for early works, which involves the early demolition of some Council-owned properties that will allow preparation for site establishment, for the main contractor to start at the beginning of next year.

These early demolition works will be undertaken by a separate contractor to the main construction contract. Stage 1 of the project will see four laning of the stretch from Lytton Road, from Latrobe Street to Canning Bridge widened to six lanes. Madam Chairman, Stage 1B are the interim works from Canning Bridge to Riding Road, and that will compliment, of course, Stage 1. So it’s all about improving the traffic efficiency and safety.

Since Stage 1 has been announced, nearly three years ago, Council has undertaken extensive community consultation—

Chairman: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.591/2016-17

At that point, the LORD MAYOR was granted an extension of time on the motion of the DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, seconded by Councillor Steven TOOMEY.

LORD MAYOR: I thank the Council.

Madam Chairman, that’s included obviously door-knocking affected land owners, arranging one-on-one meetings with them, and following up on any responses to information and assistance that they require. So this is one, I believe, the local Councillor, on 1B, Councillor SUTTON is supportive of. But if not, I’m sure we’ll hear about that later.

Madam Chairman, item B, this is the proposed Brisbane City Council Network Land Management Framework. So, in Queensland, local authorities may be appointed as trustee to manage trust land for public and community purposes. As trustee, local authorities may then enter into a trustee lease or permit with a secondary user, like a sports club. We have, of course, many of those throughout the city—equally, community groups.

The Queensland Government’s Department of Natural Resources and Mines frequently requests land management plans from Council. These land management plans are to ensure that the State is satisfied with what Council intends to do with the site that they manage as trustee. The proposed framework, should the State Government agree to its intents and purposes, will remove the need to develop individual land management plans, and will also remove the need to obtain ministerial consent for the trustee lease.

So what it seeks to do is to, if you like, is give a model, in terms of the land management approach to sites, and we are hoping that that will provide the necessary information the State requires, the necessary confidence that the State requires to ensure that the land is appropriately managed by this Council. There are 73 trust land sites which make up the framework for State consideration. So the framework was produced in consultation with relevant State Government departments, relevant Council divisions, and will be in effect for 20 years, with reviews occurring every five years.

Item C, Madam Chairman, the proposed Advertisements Amending Subordinate Local Law 2017. This is its second time here, Madam Chairman. Councillors will all recall the debate last time, and the withdrawal of this item last time. Since then I thank all Councillors who might have had some input, Madam Chairman, from across the Chamber, into the suggestions into changes to those laws. Regardless of how people might vote today, Madam Chairman, I’m grateful for the input that Councillors have had.


- 21 -

Madam Chairman, the proposed Advertisements Amending Subordinate Local Law proposes to amend the existing 2005 local law. There are a number of amendments in the proposed new law which relate to general signage as well as election signage. There are new and amended definitions to improve clarity—the custodian requirements, for example, in King George Square. In other words, people minding the signs, have been made clear, there are rules which have been removed because they were covered in other laws. The election signs aspect maintains the original objective, but it hopefully makes it clearer in terms of the enforcement guidelines. The new law, we believe, is reasonable, relevant and user friendly, risk faced and current and contemporary.

Now, Madam Chairman, item D, the one we all look forward to—contracts and tendering. Number one went to CNW Pty Ltd. This is a LED lighting upgrade package, $469,000, and that was the lowest tender, best value for money. Number two, Crosana Pty Ltd as trustee for the Michael Reid Family Trust trading as Crosana, $234,000, Madam Chairman. Again, it was by far the best value for money proposed and the cheapest.

The next one, also the cheapest tenderer, best value for money, this is schedule braces for Telegraph Road corridor upgrade Stage 2, $39,654,000. Number four, Cragcorp Pty Ltd, Wolston Creek Bridge upgrade, Madam Chairman, $6.68 million. It wasn’t the cheapest, but it was the best value for money. That was the second lowest price. Doval Constructions (QLD) were the lowest price, but did not demonstrate the same level of understanding of the works, which was reflected in their construction program and methodology. The project team also appeared to be less experienced than that put forward by Cragcorp in this instance.

Madam Chairman, the next contract was won by Moggill Constructions. This is a bus stop accessibility improvement. This organisation is spending tens of millions of dollars on bus stop improvements as part of the disability compliance laws, Madam Chairman. A very significant sum of money is being spent when you add it up over the years of this activity. So, Madam Chairman, this particular case, $898,000 for this one, lowest price tendered.

BMD—contract six, North Brisbane Bikeway, Chermside to Aspley, that’s $1.31 million, Madam Chairman. It was the cheapest, and BMD Urban Pty Ltd, best value for money. Box & Co won contract seven, which is the Cathedral Square refurbishment Stage 2. That’s for $1.38 million.

The next one, Landscape Construction Company won tender eight, which is the landscape construction services work at the Walton Bridge Reserve. The next one, Turf Irrigation Services Pty Ltd, $336,000, that’s stormwater harvesting and reuse in Marchant Park. The next one, Abergeldie Contractors Pty Ltd—I’ll just check that last one, $336,000, that’s right. Abergeldie Contractors, $411,000. It’s not the cheapest, Madam Chairman, Pensar Civil Pty Ltd tendered the lowest price, but again they did not demonstrate the same level of understanding of the project, or the same level of bridge experience in their management team as Abergeldie. So therefore Abergeldie were awarded the contract.

The next one, which was the Simpsons Falls final stage and associated works, that’s at Mt Coot-tha precinct, when we’ve talked about undertaking significant works. Naturform Pty Ltd won this work at $276,000, and it was the lowest price and best value. The next one, 12, this is the provision for data for Virtual Brisbane, and category one there was won by Model Data, and category two was won by LiDAR Point Cloud Data. So they are the two successful bidding parties there.

Thirteen, this is the provision of quality surveying and estimating services, $200,000, Madam Chairman, a Queensland Government standing offer arrangement, so there is a whole lot of different companies there under the Queensland Government procurement arrangement. That was 13. Fourteen, a whole range of categories here, Madam Chairman, again it’s supply and delivery of quarry spare parts and consumables. Expected to be around about a $12 million spend over a five-year period, so again the full list of companies are


- 22 -

there with their rating, their ranking out of a score, Madam Chairman, as a panel provider.

The next one goes to Sarb Management Group Pty Ltd as trustee for the Sarb Enterprises Hybrid Trust. This is digital parking permits solutions. So this is in association with the 55 recommendations contained within the parking taskforce, Madam Chairman, that report—

Chairman: LORD MAYOR, your time has expired.

592/2016-17At 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.


LORD MAYOR: I won’t be much longer, Councillors, thank you for your indulgence.

So this one, as I say, is associated with the parking taskforce, Madam Chairman, a roll out of that particular recommendation.

The next one goes to contract number 16—this is water for horticulture and industrial use. It goes to Panwick Investments Pty Ltd for the small trucks, and for the medium trucks it went to Panwick Investments Pty Ltd, and the large trucks went to Panwick Investments Pty Ltd. So they won all three. They were considered the most favourable, $6 million maximum investment, so when we say $6 million, you can’t go over that amount, Madam Chairman. If it goes over, we’ve got to come back to Council. So we’re authorising a maximum spend over a five-year period of $6 million.

So, Madam Chairman, the number 17 is the professional conference organiser for the Asia Pacific Cities Summit and Mayors’ Forum, and in this case, Carillon Conference Management Pty Ltd, Madam Chairman, have been awarded that contract. That is in association with Daejeon.

Madam Chairman, the final two. Number 18 is Citrix remediation packaging, $212,000. The purpose of that, Madam Chairman, is the provision of Citrix for remediation packaging to existing applications with the Citrix environment, with App-V, so that applications are platform agnostic and can be tested internally on a terminal server in Council. Number 19 is Bay Technologies Pty Ltd, $3.336 million, and that’s a correspondence management exchange, CMX as a service. That concludes the contracts.

Madam Chairman, before sitting down, I just want to mention also that tomorrow evening the City Hall lights will be put up in blue and white as a mark of respect for the loss of Senior Constable Brett Forte. Brett Forte’s funeral is tomorrow, and Madam Chairman, we felt it appropriate to give support to the Queensland Police Service through the lighting up of City Hall in blue and white.

Chairman: Further debate?

Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor CUMMING: Yes, thanks, Madam Chair.

Firstly can I say—briefly mention, Mayor Pisasale that the LORD MAYOR has mentioned. He was an incredibly popular Mayor of Ipswich. I forget whether his vote was high 70s or early 80s in the last poll, despite a number of candidates running against him. Ipswich people loved him, and he was out to improve Ipswich in any way he could, and he’s done a great job over the years, and I believe he’ll be sadly missed, and he was a good Labor man as well, Madam Chair.

Seriatim – Clauses A and B en bloc; and Clauses C and D en blocCouncillor Peter CUMMING requested that Clause A, STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING PLAN FOR DELIVERY OF THE WYNNUM ROAD CORRIDOR UPGRADE – STAGE


- 23 -

1 AND 1B PROJECT, and Clause B, PROPOSED BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL NETWORK LAND MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK, be taken seriatim en bloc for voting purposes; and that Clause C, PROPOSED ADVERTISEMENTS AMENDING SUBORDINATE LOCAL LAW 2017, and Clause D, CONTRACTS AND TENDERING – REPORT TO COUNCIL OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR APRIL 2017, be taken seriatim en bloc for voting purposes.

Chairman: Thank you.

Councillor CUMMING: Thank you.

In relation to item A, the Wynnum Road corridor, the Labor Councillors here support the Wynnum Road corridor upgrade, and Councillor SUTTON will be at her eloquent best explaining why that is the case in a few minutes’ time, Madam Chairman.

In relation to the Network Land Management Framework, we’ve been through this and it seems a reasonable approach that’s been taken by Council. I would urge Councillors to look through any parks in their area, because I saw one of mine was described as a bit flood-prone, and I’ll be writing in about that, because I’ve seen it in very wet seasons and there’s a creek through the middle of the park and the water roars through there, but it has never come up on to the playing fields. It came up behind the clubhouse but didn’t actually go out on to the playing fields. So, anyhow, I’ll let the department know about that, and I’d urge anyone else to check their facilities and just make sure that the consultant got it right.

Madam Chairman, in relation to item C—firstly, I’d like to thank Councillor BOURKE. The first time it came before Council, we didn’t get a briefing on it, but this time we did, so that’s good, Councillor BOURKE, you’re improving. You’re improving, Councillor BOURKE.


Councillor CUMMING: Perhaps if we had been briefed first time around, it would have gone through a lot easier, but anyhow, we’re still not going to support it, Madam Chairman, because—


Councillor CUMMING: Madam Chairman, firstly, the whole rationale behind the changes in the election local laws, the election signage local laws, from what we’ve heard, it was in relation to some court case in Western Australia. Now, Madam Chairman, as an old solicitor myself, I know that it wasn’t a decision of the High Court, and therefore it’s got no precedent for a Queensland court, and no force at all for Brisbane City Council, Madam Chairman. I thought myself that it was actually reasonable to provide a limit to the number of signs on private properties during the election, and that no limit whatsoever would tend to benefit the incumbents, Madam Chairman, for a State to have a delegate, you’d think there’d be more signs up on constituent properties than would be the challenger. Likewise with the incumbent Lord Mayor.

The other thing is the current law still exists, in other words, there are still currently limits to the number of signs on properties. The fact that Council has chosen not to enforce it for the last three years, or the last three elections, is Council’s choice, I suppose, but actually I think making a decision not to enforce a valid local law is not a satisfactory position to adopt, actually. I think the law is the law, and if you say, you know, we’re not going to enforce this law, well, you know, what other laws aren’t we going to enforce, Madam Chairman? So, anyhow, the amendments that have been brought are at least a way to clarify what the Council thinks should be appropriate laws. But in the meantime I think the current law should be enforced.

But anyhow, Madam Chairman—I still have a problem in relation to the provisions relating to pop-up information booths. We still believe this type of booth should be available for candidates, as well as elected members, and tables and chairs as well as anything else that the pop-up booths have. I’ve also got


- 24 -

concerns about—and I said this in my speech previously on this—about the provisions relating to mobile motor vehicle signs.

The new provisions remove the requirement for the vehicle to be driven and not left unattended or stationary, so as to be visible from a road or public place. In my view, this leaves it wide open for someone to park a fleet of possibly rundown utes up and down the length of major roads across the city as part of a marketing campaign and, Madam Chairman, I don’t think that would be very satisfactory for residents of Brisbane. In fact, I can see someone setting up a business for hiring out a fleet of utes with signs on them, Madam Chairman.

Madam Chairman, I understand the proposed amendments have been formulated without reference to the commercial sector, and I look forward to any comments they have on the proposed changes in due course, Madam Chairman.

In relation to item D, contracts and tendering, Madam Chairman, the LORD MAYOR did mention again that cheaper tenders don’t necessarily mean better tenders, but there are a number of contracts where the cheaper price wasn’t adopted this time. Contract four, contract eight, contract 10, contract 15—there were two cheaper, and in various parts of contract 16 there were four cheaper, and also in number 18 it was cheaper. So the numbers seem to be increasing as we consider these things.

As usual, we don’t trust this process, Madam Chairman, and this is because of the problems that this Administration has had with contracts. Of course, the obvious one is the TechnologyOne debacle. A contract, a $120 million contract, according to Council, blowing out by $60 million in 18 months, so we won’t be supporting these contracts, these tenders. We’ve also got some concerns because some of them are IT, and this seems to be an area where the Administration has difficulties in coming up with appropriate contracts. Contract 15, digital parking permit solution, and by the way, TechnologyOne was a non-conforming tender with that one. I wonder—I guess not surprising, given the relations between the parties, I suppose.

Contract 18, Citrix remediation packaging, Madam Chairman, this is a fairly recent contract that we’re aware of, and it seems to have been requiring a lot of expenditure soon after it’s been entered into, so we’ve got some concerns about that. We’ve also got concerns with contract 19, the correspondence management, CMX as a service. So we won’t be supporting item D, Madam Chairman.


Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Chair. I rise to speak on item A and maybe briefly on item B in the report.

I won’t go on about why I think the widening of Lytton Road is such a poor project for this Council to be pursuing, on the understanding that Councillor SUTTON won’t go on about why it is a good idea, and hopefully then we can save ourselves a lot of time.


Councillor SRI: Well, now I have to, don’t I?

Chairman: To the report, please.

Councillor SRI: All right. Look, I think the numbers in this budget for this item make it clear that this is a pretty poor use of ratepayers’ funds. When you’re looking at a $60 million figure to acquire 40-odd properties, and you think about what else we could have done with $60 million—$60 million. It’s pretty disappointing that this is how we chose to spend that money.

I also just wanted to note that many of the properties Council has acquired along Lytton Road are pre-1946 dwellings in good condition, and I’m told some are over 100 years old and have been well preserved by their previous owners. So I have a specific question for the LORD MAYOR that he can hopefully clear up


- 25 -

in his remarks. Does Council intend that these properties will be relocated to preserve their character homes, or will they simply be demolished? It kind of looks in the explanation of the contract there that the intention is for all of them just to be demolished, and I think that would be very disappointing. Many of these are beautiful old homes that have been there for a long time, and it would be a shame for them to be lost, and probably a fairly poor use of resources as well.

Also, I’m not sure if all the Councillors are aware of this, but many residents have been writing to the State Government asking that the State Government doesn’t approve the elements of this projects that impact upon the heritage-listed Mowbray Park and the East Brisbane War Memorial. So I just wanted to clarify—maybe Councillor COOPER or the LORD MAYOR will have an answer to this—has Council received development approval from the State Government for the parts of this project which impact upon the State heritage-listed Mowbray Park and East Brisbane War Memorial?

If we haven’t received approval for this project from the State Government, is it standard practice to put a project like this out to tender before such crucial approval has been received? I’m genuinely not sure what the standard practice is in this case, but it surprises me that we would put a project of this scale out to tender when we don’t have that very important approval from the State Government, particularly when there are some legitimate concerns about how this project will impact negatively on the heritage-listed Mowbray Park.

I’d also just like to clarify or ask—the contract or the draft contract terms don’t seem to specify who bears the cost if protest actions delay this construction project. If it eventuates that, for whatever reason, the residents engage in actions to try to prevent or delay this project, will Council bear the cost or will the contractor bear the cost?


Councillor SRI: I’m hearing—


Councillor SRI: Asking for a friend. Yes, so I’d just be interested to know who does bear the cost in those situations. I think it’s important for Council to factor that in.


Councillor SRI: Sorry, I can’t hear the interjections, but I assume I’ll get a straightforward response.


Chairman: Order!

Councillor SRI: Yes, so just finally to restate that I really think this is a poor project. When I think about how our city should be developing and the sorts of projects we should be prioritising, it’s lamentable that we’ve spent so much money on, and have caused so much disruption to the lives of so many people for this project. I think future generations of residents will look back on these sorts of road widening projects and wonder what we were thinking.

I note that other cities around the world are moving away from these kinds of projects as a response to traffic congestion. I note that many other possible solutions and responses to congestion along this corridor have not be appropriately or sufficiently explored by this Council. Previously I’ve raised ideas like improved public transport frequency, improved intersection upgrades, experimenting with tighter lane controls, peak hour transit lanes, et cetera. None of these options have been explored by Council’s business case. In fact, the earlier independent feasibility study recommended against widening into six lanes. So I won’t rehash all the same old arguments, but I think it’s a mistake to support this item, and I think this project is a poor use of ratepayer funds, and that future residents of Brisbane will look back on it as a mistake.


- 26 -

I’d also like to just note regarding the advertisements local laws that I won’t be supporting that item. I thought a few weeks ago when we first voted on this, I kind of heard from the Councillors of the Administration that there’d be a broader public consultation process around these amendments. I distinctly remember saying something along the lines of, ‘oh, this is only the first stage and it will go out to public consultation, and then we’ll come back and vote on it again’. It’s there in the Minutes if anyone wants to check it.

But I don’t think there has been anywhere near enough public consultation about these amendments, and I think a lot of residents aren’t aware that these changes are happening. I think a lot of small businesses aren’t aware that these changes are happening, and I think we could and should have done a much better job of explaining what these changes involved, of notifying the public, of seeking their input. A lot of key stakeholders are going to be caught in the lurch by these changes.

I also think these changes are a lost opportunity when we should have gone further in restricting advertising in the public sphere, particularly in regards to mobile vehicle advertising. As I said last time, I don’t think that’s an effective use of Council infrastructure to have vehicles driving around advertising big companies. I don’t think it would have been unreasonable for us to explore tighter restrictions, or even banning mobile vehicle advertising in some parts of the city, and that’s what we really should have done that with this amendment to the advertisements local law. I don’t think we’ve gone far enough, and I think again it’s a wasted opportunity, so I won’t be voting in support of that either.


Councillor KING.

Councillor KING: Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in support of item D, in particular, two projects that are happening on the northside.

The first one is the North Brisbane Bikeway, Chermside to Aspley. I would like to make a note that BUG (Bike User Group) North actually came to see me before the 2016 election, and thank you to Terry, this was actually one of Terry’s ideas, and I am absolutely delighted that it’s coming up and actually under construction as we speak at the moment.

This is a vital connection between Aspley and Chermside which goes along Marchant Park and connects up with the busway that crosses over to Kittyhawk Drive and through, if you want to continue your bike ride, you can go right through to Northgate Ward and continue on. So thank you very much, and the project is going smoothly and well at the moment.

The second one I’d like to speak about is the stormwater harvesting in Marchant Park, This was this Administration’s commitment of $10 million to deliver better local sports grounds across Brisbane. There is no better sporting ground, I think, or one of the most significant ones in Marchant Ward, of course—Marchant Park, being the home of Warehouse Cricket. Marchant Park has a long history in the Marchant Ward, hence the name of the ward.

So, water harvesting is so important for our local groups who are experiencing high water charges as they’re going on in maintaining their fields. So this will benefit Marchant Park or Warehouse Cricket astronomically, and I’m glad to see that this is actually starting—work is actually starting now, and we’ll see the benefits of water harvesting on beautiful Marchant Park.

Thank you.


Councillor SUTTON.

Councillor SUTTON: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just rise to speak on item A and item C briefly on this report.

Just covering off on item C first, which is the amending subordinate local law. As the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, we won’t be supporting this item


- 27 -

before us. Fundamentally it is the principle of there would be one set of rules for incumbents and one set of rules for candidates when it comes to these pop-up stalls. We think that is a dangerous place to be, as it sets up the possibility of a system that is open to manipulation and political interference.

We think it’s better to treat everyone, when it comes to these pop-up stalls, equally and that, if candidates are expected to have a permit, so should elected members, or if elected members aren’t required to have a permit for these things, then neither should candidates. Where you’re in the situation where a candidate might be endorsed two years before the poll—they may do, you know, any number of pop-up information stalls during that period, and this Council would place them in the position where, for that two-year period, they would be having to go for permit, after permit, after permit.

Who knows what cost, and therefore what barriers, what financial barriers might be put in place, not necessarily by this Administration, but administrations into the future. You know, no one is safeguarded against this, so we are better to make sure that we always have a level playing field when it comes to information stalls outside of the election period proper.

Wynnum Road—Madam Chair, I think it’s around about nine years—nine years, we’ve been talking about doing the Wynnum Road upgrade, and it was going to be delivered in 2012. I think there are a number of people in this place who probably wish that it had been delivered before then, so we wouldn’t have to deal with some of the debates we’re having at the moment.

But, Madam Chair, this is an important project—both stages—for my local area, and for the residents of the eastern suburbs. I want to thank the Administration for progressing it. They are not progressing it in the way a Labor Administration would progress it, and there are key points of difference in the Stage 1 design that I have previously identified—the duplication of Canning Bridge to remove the bottleneck, the use of the additional lanes as T2, T3, and bus lanes, to improve public transport services into the city, along with, at the same time as the introduction of additional bus routes to actually really benefit and encourage public transport use in the eastern suburbs.

But, given that we are not in the position, and the Labor Councillors are not in the position to make those design calls, I accept that I need to agree to disagree with this Administration on those design elements in order to follow the bigger picture, which is to deliver this important road upgrade—56,000 vehicles per day are using this road, and they are sitting in congestion that can go as low as 25 kilometres an hour. It is an important project for all eastern suburbs residents.

Councillor SRI, I note your objections, but I appeal to you to just get out of the way of this project. You, and the 10 members of the East Brisbane branch of the Greens that rallied at Parliament House last week. You know, you managed to gather 10 people for your protest, we have got 56,000 people sitting in traffic congestion every day on Wynnum Road. I appeal to you—do not—

Councillor SRI: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Councillor SUTTON: —hold up this project.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Will Councillor SUTTON take a question?

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON?

Councillor SUTTON: No, Madam Chair, I’m okay.


Councillor SUTTON: I know where Councillor SRI stands on this project, because when I asked him a question about whether or not he would support the upgrade if it was the widening of Wynnum Road, to support the provision of additional public transport services, he said no. He said that we should remove an entire general lane of traffic, and we should turn that into a T2 lane. I think that is a fantasy. I


- 28 -

think that is a fantasy. With due respect, that is not someone who has actually understood the real transport and traffic issues that are happening along the Wynnum Road corridor.

You know, I think that we need to make sure that there are no further delays on this project, and I have heard what you have said on the public record in the past. I just appeal to you—do not try to hold up the project. I think it is unethical for you to be giving these residents false hope and adding to their trauma of losing their home. From the outset I have said that Council needs to be as upfront with residents and as fair with residents so that they can make decisions about their future with all of the information. By the same token, I have said that to them, I say to you—do not play politics with these people’s lives. They are traumatised enough. They are angry enough, and they are upset enough about what is happening. Do not use them for your own political purposes. It is unethical. And do not, Madam Chair, through you—



Councillor SRI: Will Councillor SUTTON take a question?

Councillor SUTTON: Yes, sure. Sure, I’m happy to take a question.

Chairman: Through the Chair, please, Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Through you, Madam Chair—does Councillor SUTTON have any evidence whatsoever that I have used this campaign on behalf of residents of East Brisbane, who are genuinely frustrated about this poor project and the lack of consultation, and meaningful input they have received into it. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that I have been using this as a shadow boxing campaign for the Greens?

Councillor SUTTON: Thank you, Madam Chair, happy to answer the question.

Madam Chair, I’ve heard several public remarks by Councillor SRI that people should enter buildings illegally and squat. I have heard you talk about that in the Wynnum Road context. And, Madam Chair, through you, I say to Councillor SRI—if you are encouraging people to do that, that is unethical. It is unethical for a person in your position, a person of responsibility, to be encouraging anyone to break the law.

I understand the need to advocate against laws that are wrong. I understand the need to advocate for better outcomes for local projects, but never in the 13 years that I have been in Council, and I would go so far to say for the rest of the people in this Chamber, regardless of political affiliation, we are not meant to be telling people to break the law in our position.

I appeal to you—do not hold this project up. If you cannot support it, you need to get out of the way, because this is an important project that is for our city’s future. I care passionately about this project. I want the people who are losing their homes to be respected. I want them to be taken care of. I want them to be given fair prices for their homes. But I do not think that you should, given all of the approvals that are happening, that you should be playing games with this.

I have seen the comments that you have made about the War Memorial. The War Memorial is not being moved. When you say these comments, I live across the road from a gentleman whose family is memorialised on that War Memorial, and what happens is he comes across the road to me concerned and upset because of your comments, Councillor SRI, and they are untrue. So again, I appeal to you to stop being deliberately dishonest about the War Memorial, because there are people who have served this country who you are upsetting with those comments.



Councillor SRI: Would Councillor SUTTON take a question on that?


- 29 -

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON?


Chairman: Order! Councillor SUTTON—

Councillor SRI: To clarify it.

Councillor SUTTON: That’s the first time you’ve ever said that, Councillor SIMMONDS.

Chairman: Order! Councillor SUTTON, would you care to take the question or not?

Councillor SUTTON: Sure, Madam Chair.


Councillor SRI: I don’t believe I have said—and this is framed as a question to you—I don’t think I’ve actually said anything that would suggest that the War Memorial is being moved, and I’m interested to know when I’ve said that or where I’ve been quoted, because maybe I’ve been misquoted. I’d be interested to know.

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON.

Councillor SUTTON: Sure. Madam Chair, in answering the question, I refer to page 3 of last week’s South-East Advertiser where Councillor SRI says, and I quote, ‘We’re worried about the loss of a parkland and the impacts on the War Memorial, and we are also concerned about the 40 or so properties that will be removed’. There was also something else I saw as well about the War Memorial and the impacts on the War Memorial.

You’ve been told, Councillor SRI, I’ve been told—I, as a result of your public comments, have checked it myself. The War Memorial is not being moved. So can we just actually stop, you know, fanning concern about that, because it is not being moved.

Madam Chair, I support the contract and the structure of the contract that is coming to this Council today. I am pleased to see that the Stage 1 and Stage 1B of the project are being bundled together. I understand from my own enquiries prior to this coming to Council, that what Council is looking at is trying to remove and relocate as many of those homes as can be in terms of their structure. Some of the structure is not very good, but—

Chairman: Councillor SUTTON, unfortunately your time has expired.

593/2016-17At that point, Councillor Shayne SUTTON was granted an extension of time on the motion of Councillor Jonathan SRI, seconded by Councillor Jared CASSIDY.

Councillor SUTTON: Thank you. I’m not trying to make a spectacle. It’s just a project that I really care about, and I don’t want to see it held up.

My understanding from my own enquiries about those homes, because I get that they are old homes, and I get that, but my understanding from my own enquiries prior to this coming to the debate today, is that Council will look to relocate as many as possibly can be moved off the site, but there may be some that are not structurally sound enough to be relocated, in which case they will be demolished.

I think that’s appropriate, and that is why I, as a passionate advocate, I always said to the LNP that, when the rubber hits the road on this, you will have my full support after lobbying, and I give that again to you today and that of my Labor colleagues who have been graceful to accept my lead on this particular project. It is there. I know this is tough.

I know with Stage 1B, Councillor SRI, there will be resumptions in my area as well, and I have said to the Chairperson the same thing, that for those residents to be treated with respect, given information as early as possible, and a fair price for their homes, so they can make informed decisions about their future as soon as possible. That is a fair way to treat these people, and I think that we just have


- 30 -

to be doing everything that we possibly can. I understand your concerns about, you know, and that widening roads doesn’t solve traffic congestion.

But as I go back to it, our Labor position is that eventually we believe that this widened road can be used to support increased bus services from the suburbs in a way that wouldn’t be able to be achieved if the road is not widened.

Chairman: Councillor WINES.

ADJOURNMENT:594/2016-17

At that time, 4.00pm, it was resolved on the motion of Councillor Andrew WINES, seconded by Councillor Steven TOOMEY, that the meeting adjourn for a period of 15 minutes, to commence only when all Councillors had vacated the Chamber and the doors locked.

Council stood adjourned at 4.03pm.

UPON RESUMPTION:


Councillor RICHARDS.

Councillor RICHARDS: Madam Chairman, I rise to speak in support for two items in item D, being the contract for the Katunga Street Bridge upgrade at Kenmore and the Simpson Falls final stage and associated works at Mt Coot-tha.

Madam Chairman, it’s great news that works have commenced on the Katunga Street Bridge upgrade at Kenmore for a shared pedestrian and cycle bridge upgrade. What is being delivered is a 3-metre wide concrete path that connects to the new bridge and meets up to another 3-metre wide path.

Based on feedback from the community, the northern edge angle approach to the bridge has been softened, and this has been done to improve visibility and safety for cyclists, pedestrians, pram usage and disability users. This design means removal of two trees at this location, with native trees being planted to offset the impact of this tree removal, in accordance with Council’s offset planting guidelines.

The other contract, as mentioned earlier, being the Simpson Falls final stage and associated works commenced mid-April, with a 12-week term. These works will complete the redevelopment at Simpson Falls at Mt Coot-tha Forest Reserve. From feedback received into the Pullenvale Ward Office over the past number of months, residents and users certainly acknowledge the great upgrades and improvements to the iconic area of Mt Coot-tha. So, thank you to the Chairman, Councillor McLACHLAN, and the LORD MAYOR for these works, and thank you, Madam Chairman.



Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on hopefully all items in the Establishment and Coordination Committee report today.

Seriatim – Clauses B and CCouncillor Nicole JOHNSTON requested that Clause B, PROPOSED BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL NETWORK LAND MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK, and Clause C, PROPOSED ADVERTISEMENTS AMENDING SUBORDINATE LOCAL LAW 2017, be taken seriatim for voting purposes.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Okay, thank you.

Firstly, briefly on the Stores Board submission—I note with great interest that finally this Council has led a contract for digital parking permits. This is a recommendation of the parking taskforce from two years ago, and variously the recommendations were supposed to be implemented within three and


- 31 -

12 months. So 18 months on, this Council is finally getting on to deliver it. We don’t know anything about it, though, and given the way Council has botched the existing parking system with, you know, six to eight week waits to get a parking permit, failing to notify residents at the conclusion of the parking permit, expiration, and inefficient renewal, you know, I don’t have a lot of faith that they’re going to get this right.

So I certainly have concerns about it. I mean, it’s the way we need to go, but it’s all about the delivery and the implementation, and that’s where this Administration lets us down time and time again. So I just hope this does not become the next debacle for this Council which, you know, I think it probably will.

Now, Wynnum Road, I know this is a very difficult issue, and I know that we’re now got a contracting plan in place. It all seems very convoluted to me, but obviously we have to move on with the project. There’s one thing Councillor SRI said that I do agree with though, it does not look to be good value for money. When you look down at a breakdown of the budget costs, there’s a phenomenal amount of money going into corporate overheads, project management costs, you know, those kind of things.

So it just strikes me that it’s not a very efficient use of ratepayers’ funds, and I would have hoped we could do better, you know, in terms of the way in which this contract is allocated, because certainly it looks like there is a high level of demand for delivery of the project. So I don’t quite know why all of the admin costs associated with it appear to be quite as high as they are, and that is certainly a little bit disappointing. You know, we’ve got a contingency of 25% and then we’ve also got project risk. You know, it just seems not well budgeted and financed from what I can see.

I’d also like to make some comments on the Brisbane City Council Network Land Management Framework. Now, when I read this, I was a bit concerned about what was happening. The document that’s attached to this item at Council is 395 pages long, and Council has been working on it secretly for the past two years, since 2015. Now, here’s my question. The LORD MAYOR is not here. He’s wandered off. Councillor McLACHLAN—I had a chat to our parks guys, the people who administer the trust funds to see what they knew about this, and guess what—they know nothing about it. Nothing about it.

So the LORD MAYOR actually stood up here and said there had been consultation with the relevant department and the relevant officers—certainly not with South Region officers, because they don’t know anything about it, and in fact they asked me to send them copies of the material going to Council today, which I have done. Now, quite a number of these parks are actually located in my ward. They are extremely significant parks. They are heritage-listed parks in most cases, and I am very concerned—good, the LORD MAYOR is back. LORD MAYOR, I asked our parks officers—through you, Madam Chairman—I asked our parks officers about the Land Management Framework, and they knew nothing about it. So the people who have to administer and manage these parks know nothing about a secret project you’ve been working on for two years—two years.

I love the way Councillor HOWARD shrugs and sighs when I say that. This is the first time that it’s been brought into public, Councillor HOWARD, through you, Madam Chairman. So, for the past two years—and it’s in the document—no one has consulted with anybody here—maybe they consulted with you. Nobody has consulted with the Asset Services South officers, and guess what, Madam Chairman? They’re the ones who have to deliver management of our parks. I would have thought at a minimum someone might have consulted with them.

What particularly concerns me is how this document is going to interact with our existing conservation and land management plan. For example, in Yeronga Memorial Park, our community fought hard to ensure that conservation of the historic park would be protected. It’s very clearly defined, the types of uses, the history, it’s very clearly defined in that document.


- 32 -

Now, it seems that this new process is making those documents redundant, from what I can see, and I am concerned that this Council will now go out, possibly, and issue new leases without any second checking being done by the State Government which, I appreciate, can be done more efficiently, but in heritage-listed parks that have restrictions on where land can be developed and where conservation values are important, I certainly would like to know that the land management and conservation reports that are in place now, that guide how we use these significant parks, will be respected.

Because the implication of this document is that now Council can lease land whenever they want. So that concerns me, you know, that concerns me greatly. I will be abstaining on that item because, I mean, you know, two years—two years designing a document you don’t say anything about, I mean, it’s just not a way to run government, really. I mean, go out and consult with your line officers about how it’s going to impact with them, even if you don’t consult with me. But when I’m the one that tells our parks officers what’s happening at Council, I don’t think that’s a good way for this Council to operate, I really don’t.


Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, well, the advertising local law. I just want to say, honestly this is just a shemozzle. I mean, we’ve heard of BrisVegas and Brisneyland—I think we’re now going to have BrisBanner, because this is just a free for all for signs all over Brisbane. Why on earth do we need more than 50 election signs? Why do the Feds need more than 200? I mean, honestly, this is not necessary. The proliferation of signage that will flow from this decision is excessive.

The regulation around the political parties, for God’s sake, I mean, no one enforces it now. The LNP would have up to 12 people standing waving signs on Graceville Avenue during the election. The State members whack their Labor banners up in parks every weekend. I mean, no one enforces it, no one enforces it.

And the worst part is, when you ask a simple question of Councillor BOURKE like, ‘do community groups have to apply to Council to put a sign up in a park, and do they have to pay?’ He waffles—he waffles for I don’t know how long through multiple simple questions, and his answer at the end of the day is—‘well, it’s not really this law, it’s a bit of this law and it’s a bit of the PLACA (Public Land and Council Assets Local Law 2014), and they both apply’.

For God’s sake, what voluntary not-for-profit community group is going to look at two different by-laws to figure out whether they can put a sign up in a park? I mean, we can’t even get it right in this document. I mean, this document is the one that corrects all the mistakes from the document a month ago, or whenever it was, six weeks ago. I mean, for God’s sake, we’re enshrining something here that is so unnecessary. It is not making it easier for community groups. It’s making it more complicated, more complicated.

The only people it’s making it easier for are politicians and political parties who get a sign free-for-all. I just don’t think that’s good enough, and I can’t support the local law in its current form. Particularly when, you know, if Councillor BOURKE had been even a little bit more willing to be upfront with us about this, maybe—maybe I would consider it, because there’s just no benefits for the community groups at all. You know, when they’ve got to read two by-laws to find out if they can put up a sign, and Councillor BOURKE can’t even be straight with Councillors when they ask a question, I call that ignorant. I think that that was ignorant and unnecessary at that meeting earlier today.

So, Madam Chairman, I just think we have some concerns here with the way in which Council is going about delivering on its agenda. Even when they might have a good idea, the problem now is that they are so far into ‘we don’t care how it happens’, that bad policy is coming forward, policy that’s not been properly consulted—

At that time, 4.24pm, the Deputy Chairman, Councillor Vicki HOWARD, assumed the Chair.


- 33 -

Deputy Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, your time has expired.

Further debate?

Councillor BOURKE.

Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I just rise to talk on two items, item B, the Network Land Management Framework, and also on the subordinate local law.

So, Madam Chairman, the Network Land Management Framework that we have before us today encompasses 33 trust sites across the city. I have to start off by just sort of dispelling some of the myths that we just heard. So, this isn’t the ‘How do you cut the grass? Which gardens do you mulch? Where are you putting a playground in a park in Brisbane’ document. Madam Chair, that’s covered under Councillor McLACHLAN.

This document, if Councillors had read the stuff before us, they would see that it’s actually come from the Lifestyle part of Council, and it is a high level document that captures all of the information that we already have in a number of different systems, brings it together into one place, and forms part of a document that has been provided to the State for those 73 sites that we manage in trust on their behalf, Madam Chairman.

So the great secretive document that Councillor JOHNSTON just talked about includes such secretive information as the park name, the street address, the parish county area and Brisbane City Council ward that the location is, the ownership of which State Government department owns the land, the reserve designation—so is it park, is it sports and rec—the trusteeship gazettal date, are there any easements? What Brisbane City Council zoning the site has, what overlays in the Brisbane City Council City Plan does it cover?

Who are the current lessees? What is the primary use under the trustee? What are the proposed uses under the trustee—are all that secretive information, Madam Chairman, that has been apparently whittled away and worked on for two years as Councillor JOHNSTON said. This document brings together all of the information that is relevant to help make informed decisions about these sites, Madam Chairman. It helps our Council officers work with community groups and leased sites across our city, for sports clubs and community groups, volunteer organisations, to inform them about how and what they can do on their sites, and how they can help us manage these sites, Madam Chairman.

It is a tremendous piece of work that has been put together by the Council officers. It is a complicated document. All of this information used to sit across various parts of Council, whether it was in the NEWS (Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability) part, in my part in Lifestyle, or in Organisational Services previously, Madam Chairman, this has brought that information together. It has made it a one-stop-shop for officers across the whole organisation to consult, to see what the relevant issues are or what important information is there, and help make informed decisions for the better use and governance of these sites across our city.

From here it will go to the State, if it is endorsed by Council this afternoon, and I just want to commend and thank all of the Council officers for the hard work and dedication they’ve shown in putting together such a comprehensive document that we have before us, Madam Chairman.

Turning to item C, Madam Chairman, this is the amended Advertisement Local Law that we have before us today. Madam Chairman, as the LORD MAYOR outlined, there are a number of changes that have had to happen to the 2005 Advertisement Local Law, mainly relating to changes in definitions, terminology and provisions that have changed over a number of years, Madam Chairman.

To touch on some of the points, though, that were raised by Opposition Councillors during the debate and earlier today, Madam Chairman, for


- 34 -

Councillor CUMMING—and we’ve heard two Councillors now stand up and say we should limit freedom of expression and freedom of political expression in this city—well, Madam Chairman, we on this side of the Chamber don’t agree with that. While Councillor CUMMING might want to, you know, implement this totalitarian rule of stopping you freely expressing your political views, Madam Chairman, the people of Brisbane should be perfectly entitled to. If they want to put a sign in their front yard expressing a view on an election, Madam Chairman, that is their choice. So, that rule has been in place for a number of years. It has worked at the last Council, State and Federal election, and this change to the local law today, Madam Chairman, cements that into the actual local law.

I didn’t hear Councillor CUMMING screaming before the 2016 Council election saying ‘it’s terrible, I can have more than 50 election signs up across Wynnum Manly Ward’, Madam Chairman. ‘It’s terrible I can have more than 50 Lord Mayoral corflutes across my ward’, Madam Chairman. He didn’t say it then, when it suited him politically, but he’ll stand up in here today to grandstand, Madam Chairman, unless of course he didn’t have more than 50 signs across his ward.


Councillor BOURKE: —he didn’t have 50 supporters. But, Madam Chairman, that is one of the changes. Another one of the changes that Councillor CUMMING talked about was the mobile motor vehicle signs and how it was wide open for someone to park a fleet. Well, Madam Chairman, I’ve only ever seen one party park a fleet of mobile vehicles with signs on them, and that was in the 2015 State election, when the Australian Labor Party parked small minivans across this city supporting Labor candidates, Madam Chairman. I remember seeing them, two or three every morning on—

Councillor CUMMING: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Deputy Chairman: Point of order against you, Councillor BOURKE.

Councillor CUMMING: Claim to be misrepresented, Madam Chairman.

Councillor BOURKE: I didn’t mention—I wrote the comment down, ‘wide open for someone to park a fleet’. So, wide open for someone to park a fleet. Well, there’s only been one party that’s done that, Councillor CUMMING, and that was your political party who took advantage of that, so don’t stand up in here and preach and lecture us, Madam Chairman, because we’ve already seen your Labor colleagues in the State Government do that very thing, Madam Chairman.

Vehicles are parked legally, then there is no real reason why you cannot have signage on them displaying an election. Once again, do you want to limit people’s ability to freely express their political view? Who is going to censor signs? Is that your view, Councillor CUMMING? Are you actually going to be the one who censors and makes these decisions?

On the issue of pop-up information booths, Councillor CUMMING, along with other Councillors, particular Councillor SUTTON, raised the issue around candidates, and Councillor SUTTON said candidates are requested to get a permit. Well, Madam Chairman, I don’t know how many times I can say this. I said it twice or three times in the briefing that we had today, Madam Chairman. No one displaying election signs, no one displaying election signs has to get a permit.

It’s not me—you don’t have to take my words for it, all you have to do is read the document that you have before us. So, it’s very, very easy, Madam Chairman. Election signs on footpaths, page 35 for those reading along, Advertisement Amending Subordinate Local Law, ‘Election signs on footpaths may be erected or placed at any time in election display provided that’—and the provided thats are—you’re not allowed to have more than four signs, how the signs are calculated—a sign advocating a cause is included, and that you have a custodian with six metres.


- 35 -

No mention of permits. Zero mention of permits. But those important words that seem to evade the Australian Labor Party, which is ‘may be placed at any time’. So, tomorrow, if you really—if you are a candidate for an election, you could go out tomorrow. So I don’t know where this furphy is.

Councillor STRUNK gets it. He’s over there nodding. The rest of the Labor team don’t get it. But Councillor STRUNK at least understands it, Madam Chairman. I don’t know where they get this furphy, thinking that you’re going to need a permit if you’re a candidate. It’s not there, it’s not in any of these documents. You can’t find it. If you can find it, Councillor CUMMING, you get the gold star, but you won’t because it’s not there.

On the issue of pop-up information booths, I don’t know why the Australian Labor Party are so against pop-up information booths. Is it that they’re afraid to go out and consult with their communities? They don’t want the as of right ability to actually, as the local Councillor with the Brisbane City Council logo, go out and, as of right, consult with people? Or do they not want their State colleagues to go out and consult with people as State members, or do they not want their Federal colleagues to go out and consult with people as Federal members?


Councillor BOURKE: Well, they might be doing it now, I’ll take your interjection, Councillor SUTTON, but it’s not provided for in the local law. So if you want to talk about inequality, and you want to talk about political games, your candidate could go out against you, but you would have no right to go out as the Councillor on an issue. Because if there was a complaint, and the local laws officer rocked up there, then if you wanted it enforced, Councillor SUTTON—I’m happy to get it enforced for you if you don’t want to in here—but they would have to give you an infringement notice, because there is no provision unless you go and get a permit. But this gives you an as of right, as a Councillor, to go out with Council information, as a Councillor, and to do engagement with the community.

Madam Chairman, the last point is around some comments that Councillor SRI made. I know Councillor SUTTON made some comments but she wasn’t at the briefing, and I know that Councillor SRI didn’t make it to the briefing that was provided today, and Councillor SRI asked— where’s the public consultation? I thought there was going to be more public consultation.’

So, just for the benefit of all Councillors, if the local law passes Council this afternoon, it goes for a State Government interest check. Following that, Madam Chairman, public consultation is carried out. This is the process that local laws take. So, we need to endorse it here as Council and, it needs to go to the State for a public interest check. Then it goes out to consultation, a 21-business day period for people to make submissions. The submissions are then reviewed. It then comes back to E&C, and then back to Council for endorsement, with any amendments or any changes that are necessary.

So there is a process there. It’s the same process that’s been followed for all local law amendments or changes that we’ve had to do in this place, Madam Chairman. So, just in summary, and in closing, Madam Chairman, I’d just encourage Councillors to re-read this. It is very clear on a number of provisions that have been raised in the briefing today, and then again in the Council Chamber. The words are there. It is very clear, particularly around the rights of candidates to go out, that they are able to do it at any time, and the provisions are there. It is common sense changes, the changes that have been in place for the last three elections, and I’d encourage everyone in the Council Chamber to get on board and support this item C today.

At that time, 4.39pm, the Chairman, Councillor Angela OWEN, resumed the Chair.

Chairman: Councillor CUMMING, you had misrepresentation.


- 36 -

Councillor CUMMING: Yes, Madam Chairman, Councillor BOURKE said I was talking about the mobile vehicle election sign. All my comments were clearly about the mobile motor vehicle sign, which does not mean the motor vehicle election sign. So his comments about a party having a fleet of vehicles on the back of the vehicles was inappropriate, wrong and misrepresented what I’d said.


Further debate?

Councillor McLACHLAN.

Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just rise briefly on item B and to respond to the fanciful assertions made by Councillor JOHNSTON in relation to this item, and to reiterate the comments made by Councillor BOURKE.

Councillor JOHNSTON clearly has not read the document before us. She made fanciful assertions that I should have been briefing officers in the field about it.

Well, look, I’m happy to read a document, the memo that was provided by the Parks and Natural Resources Manager, Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability, in relation to the Network Land Management Framework, community purpose trust land, which makes it clear that this is not something to do, as Councillor JOHNSTON would have anybody listening or reading the transcript believe, in relation to the over 2,000 parks that we do look after, or the 15,000 hectares of open space. This is a very specific measure in relation to community purpose trust land.



Councillor JOHNSTON: Claim to be misrepresented.

Chairman: Councillor McLACHLAN.

Councillor McLACHLAN: It’s pretty clear, Councillor JOHNSTON, that you were making assertions that this relates to all parks across the whole city, and in fact, if you read it, you will understand that this is a document that’s been prepared to provide clear information to the Department of Natural Resources and Mines on future use and management of community purpose trust land over the next 20 years. That’s in line with the requirements of the Land Act 1994. So we’re really talking about trust land that is leased to Scouts, to groups like the Scouts and the Guides, and to make sure we have a framework that means that we don’t have to go every time there’s a change to that lease arrangement to get Ministerial consent or Departmental consent. That is the beginning and the end of it.

The note from my officers, my senior manager in Parks, made that point. This is a Connected Communities project, nothing to do with Parks, and to anybody listening or who heard Councillor JOHNSTON earlier, or is reading the transcript of what she said, I can allay your concerns. This is not something to do with the management of all our parks, this is a very specific measure relating to those leased areas in trust where we might otherwise have to go and consult with the Department of Natural Resources and Mines to get their consent for any future activity.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, misrepresentation.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman, thank you.

I’ve been deliberately verballed by Councillor McLACHLAN there, and misrepresented when he claimed I said this applied to all parks. I said absolutely no such thing, Madam Chairman.

I made it very clear that I was talking about parks that were held in trust, and even gave examples in my own ward of the type—

Chairman: Thank you, Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: —of park—Yeronga Memorial Park. He is completely wrong.


- 37 -

Chairman: Please resume your seat.

Further debate?

Councillor MURPHY.

Councillor MURPHY: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak to item A and item D.

Firstly, Wynnum Road Stage 1 and Stage B, the major contracting plan for this project. This is a project that, as many Councillors have said, we’ve all been looking forward to for a very long time. At the completion of acquisitions happening two months ago, to now have this contracting plan, we are really seeing this project take off, Madam Chairman.

As stated in the report, this is the work package for Stage 1 and 1B, both for early works and the construction of the Stage 1 and 1B, split into two projects. Council is very right in saying that we can expect significant interest in this project from Tier 1 and Tier 2 contractors across the city. We know that there is a dearth of projects within Brisbane and around Brisbane for major road builders at the moment, so I think these works will be a real shot in the arm for an industry that is struggling at the moment.

I think it’s important to acknowledge that $60 million of this $112 million project has been spent on land acquisition. So there were some comments made earlier about value for money. Well, you know, if we were to spend less money on acquiring that land and not give people fair market value for their properties, then just as easily we would be criticised for coming in here and ripping them off. So, I mean, unfortunately, it is a large component of the cost in this project, but we are committed to providing fair market value to residents who are going through a very difficult process of having their homes resumed for this road upgrade. I don’t think we should cop that criticism, quite frankly, Madam Chairman.

Just to Stage 1B in particular—and this is the stage that scored over a 4 in the BCR (Benefit-Cost Ratio). We had a presentation in Infrastructure Committee on this project this morning. This is the stage of the project that I think I’m most fond of because it gives us the biggest bang for our buck. With $11 million of work, there is $55 million of public benefit in improving congestion outcomes along that corridor, and adding bus priority measures, intersection improvements, and indent bays along Wynnum Road. I think it’s the type of project that we as a Council will need to consider into the future more and more often.

Councillor SRI has made several comments, both in today’s debate and previously, around cities moving away from these kind of road widening projects. I think, whilst we fundamentally disagree on the need to, or the necessity for this project, particularly in Wynnum Road’s circumstance, I do agree with his more broader point that eventually these kind of major road widening projects will become less and less necessary as we see the advent of autonomous vehicles and the potential that software and cars working together can have to optimise the road network that we have currently, rather than looking to expand it increasingly into the future and getting a Los Angeles-style situation.

So, I do agree that there is some truth in that, but it’s almost like saying the Romans shouldn’t have built the aqueducts because fluoridated water was coming just around the corner. These technologies are still very much in their early days, and we should not stop tackling the problem of traffic congestion in 2016 because there is the promise of future technology that may make the road network more efficient in the future. Sure—should we be aware of it? Yes, absolutely, we should. But we should not stop our mission to improve congestion outcomes across Brisbane just because there is a shiny bauble off into the future.

Should we be at the forefront of any transition to smart technologies when it comes to roads? Sure, absolutely we should, and I think Councillor COOPER has shown an enormous interest in that technology. We get constant


- 38 -

presentations in Infrastructure Committee about that. But I think those kinds of projects would be of extreme use in my ward along Old Cleveland Road, Creek Road, Manly Road and Wynnum Road in particular, Madam Chairman.

Just quickly to item D, Councillor CUMMING has made some disparaging remarks in item D about, in contracts and tendering, around a range of IT projects that Council has undertaken. He said that he doesn't have faith in us to deliver IT projects. Madam Chairman, notwithstanding the dispute that we're in about LGS (Local Government Systems) at the moment, this Council has a fantastic track record of delivering IT projects for the people of the City of Brisbane.

Let's not forget that Councillor CUMMING only found out about the BaSE project, which was a $350 million transformative IT project, three years after we started the project. He doesn't trust us on IT projects because he doesn't actually understand them himself. One of the projects that he disparaged in here, Madam Chairman, contract 17, was for Citrix Remediation.

Now Councillor CUMMING would probably be surprised to learn that all Councillors use Citrix to log into their ward office environments from this very building. If we weren't to do the Citrix environment project, I'm sure Councillor CUMMING would be the first person to complain that we weren't doing enough to support him. So the other thing, Madam Chairman—


Chairman: Order!

Councillor MURPHY: —is that those opposite claim to be friends of the worker, and we know Council—


Chairman: Order!

Councillor MURPHY: —employees—one of the favourite things that Council employees enjoy about working here is their ability to work flexibly from home, and it's that contract that supports their ability to do that. So when they vote against these IT projects, they've got to remember that these IT projects don't just exist in a vacuum. Real Council officers use them. Real employees use them to conduct real work for the benefit of the city. So Madam Chairman, I commend the contracts and I just implore those Councillors opposite to vote for them today.


Councillor COOPER.

Councillor COOPER: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak to item A and I am almost feeling like my words have been taken away from me. I'm feeling a little bit like it's all been said before, but I think it is really important.


Chairman: Councillor CUMMING, I hereby warn you that if continue to interject in that sort of manner that you have been formally warned.

Councillor CUMMING: Point of order, Madam Chairman. Just a suggestion if everything's been said, there's no need to say it.

Chairman: No, Councillor CUMMING, we can do without suggestions like that, thank you very much.

Councillor COOPER.

Councillor COOPER: Ever the charmer, Madam Chairman, isn't he? Absolute delight. I'm being ironic for the Minutes please.

So just to note, that there were some comments in relation to this. I would particularly like to note the Councillor for Tennyson seems to think that this Council loves to splash the cash on all sorts of things, when in fact we are actually obliged under the City of Brisbane Act, we have to make sure that it is the most advantageous outcome for Council when we expend every single


- 39 -

dollar. I think that the Council officers certainly have made sure with this particular proposal that it is.

I think that Councillor MURPHY's point was one well made, there is certainly an opportunity out there, to go out, put this out and see what is possible. There might be a cheaper proposal brought to Council, but we need to be carefully considering what the potential cost should be, and it would be negligent of us to make assumptions about the cost being cheaper just because we want it to be cheaper. It should be in line with what is actually feasible, and I think it is very clear that that is Council's intent, and I'm disappointed that there was any commentary otherwise.

I note that Councillor SUTTON made the comment with respect to the demolition of these existing buildings, that they may be reused if they are suitable. The works are defined as demolition, so all Councillors in this Chamber would understand, even if a property is being relocated, it actually is defined as demolition. So it might not actually be being demolished and reduced to rubble, but it is defined in such a way and that is why it is presented as such.

So this is a significant contracting plan to deliver early works. It is to make sure that the properties that Council now owns, that they can be removed, and if they are suitable for repurposing then that is entirely appropriate. It's also to do some site establishment works to make sure that the main contractor is able to start, and to set up this project so that when we have secured all the properties in Council's ownership, we can immediately get into delivering this project.

I note Councillor SUTTON on a regular basis has called for us to progress this and to bring this project on. This is absolutely what we are trying to facilitate. Of course, this project delivers such benefits, seeing a 50% improvement in peak periods travelling along the corridor. So it's not just for the motorists, of course this is for public transport, that actually allows it to flow better. It also has benefits in terms of rat running. So we see people who are frustrated by the congestion being experienced on the corridor, who are using local roads to try and get through and to progress more quickly. So this is another benefit that this project will deliver for the local community.

I also would like to note that the corridor actually carries approximately 300 bus movements each day. So it's got five main routes through the corridor, the 227, the 230, the 232, the 235, the N226, so that's Saturday night and Sunday only. So it's got 30 bus services inbound, so 9am, and it's got 27 bus services travelling outbound between 3pm to 6pm. So these are significant services that will particularly benefit as a result of this particular proposal.

Everyone in this Chamber knows very well that this is a safety improvement that it will deliver, particularly with Stage 1, showing there were 53 recorded accidents over a five year period, with 27 incidents requiring medical treatment or hospitalisation. Noting with Wynnum Road Stage 1B, the WebCrash data from July 2007 to July 2012 was undertaken, and it similarly, in fact has even more, a focus on safety.

So if you look at between 2007 and last year, there were 86 crashes recorded, with 55 of those requiring hospitalisation or medical treatment. This will make significant improvements to safety, and in particular the bus jump lane the Council officers, particularly I understand, Transport for Brisbane, are very excited about the opportunities this will deliver for them to improve services for the residents in the eastern suburbs.

So significant improvements. Council officers have worked very, very much with landowners to make sure that this process is a process that, while it is a very difficult one, and I don't think anyone in this Chamber takes it lightly, that it is such a traumatic experience for people to go through, whether it is full or partial resumption that is required.


- 40 -

I think Councillor SUTTON's comments were very truly spoken, we should not treat people like pawns. We should treat them with respect. We should make sure that they are well informed, that they understand the process and we support them through the process. That is what Council has endeavoured to do the whole way through this particular process. So I do not take this lightly. I do not think any Councillor in this Chamber takes this lightly and I'm pretty disappointed that Councillor SRI seems to think that we don't care about people. We absolutely do but we note—

Councillor SRI: Point of order, Madam Chairman.


Councillor SRI: Claim to be misrepresented.

Chairman: Councillor COOPER.

Councillor COOPER: I noted that he seems to think that that's the case, I am clearly saying that this particular project will deliver great benefits to the local community, to the wider community, and it will also, not only improve the flow the traffic, it will make it a lot safer. It will deliver improvements to pedestrians, to cyclists. The benefits are very real.

We would not be doing a project unless it does deliver significant benefits for the local community, for the wider community, and that's why we are committed to delivering this project. We will be doing everything in our power to make sure that we get into this project and we deliver this project for the benefits for the people of Brisbane.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.


Councillor SRI: Yes, just really quickly, Madam Chairman. I'm not at all suggesting that LNP Councillors don't care about people. I wouldn't dare to suggest such a thing. I'm just concerned about the merits of the project and that they might not stack up.


LORD MAYOR?

I will now put item A.

Clause A put

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

Chairman: I will now put item B.

Clause B put

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

Chairman: I will now put item C.

Clause C put

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

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



- 41 -

AYES: 19 - The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.

NOES: 7 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Peter CUMMING, and Councillors Jared CASSIDY, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Shayne SUTTON, Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON.

Chairman: I will now put item D.

Clause D put

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

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


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

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

The report read as follows

ATTENDANCE:

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

A STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING PLAN FOR DELIVERY OF THE WYNNUM ROAD CORRIDOR UPGRADE – STAGE 1 AND 1B PROJECT165/210/179/2481

595/2016-171. The Chief Executive Officer provided the information below.

2. The Chief Executive Officer and Stores Board considered the submission, as set out in Attachment A, on 16 May 2017.

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

Purpose


- 42 -

4. That the Chief Executive Officer (through the Stores Board) recommends to Council that it approves the Significant Contracting Plan (SCP) for the Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade – Stage 1 and 1B project.

Background

5. The Wynnum Road corridor forms part of the south-east Brisbane arterial road network and is a Local Road of Regional Significance (LRRS). It provides an important east-west link with the motorway network including routes to the north and south and to the Australia TradeCoast, Port of Brisbane and Brisbane Airport (via the Gateway Motorway).

6. The upgrade works for Stage 1 comprise widening the existing road with improvement of the alignment of Lytton Road at the Heidelberg Street intersection and inclusion of a signalised intersection at the new access street to Laidlaw Parade. The provision of a full-length median along the upgrade with changed traffic arrangements at selected intersections is also proposed (refer to Figure 1 - Stage 1 Project Plan, submitted on file).

7. The upgrade works for Stage 1B comprise interim improvements including rationalisation and indentation of bus stops, restriction of right turns at selected side streets, extension of the right turn pocket at the Norman Avenue intersection and extension of the bus jump lane, currently located between Hipwood Street and Hawthorne Road, through to Bennetts Road. The interim improvements will improve traffic efficiency and increase safety along the corridor.

8. The early works include demolition of properties acquired by Council on the north side of Lytton Road which is required to be completed to allow early site establishment to progress Stage 1 of the project.

Business case

9. An upgrade of Lytton Road between Latrobe Street and Canning Bridge will provide the following benefits:- improved safety by removing vehicular access from properties on the north side of the

corridor, rationalising the number of streets with right turn access to/from Lytton Road, increasing the width of traffic lanes and improving the alignment at the Heidelberg Street intersection

- improved crossing facilities for pedestrians and cyclists- reduced travel time and improved reliability for road users including freight, public and

private vehicles- improved traffic operations on the broader road network- support growth of the eastern suburbs of Brisbane- allow more efficient operations for bus services- reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

10. Delivery of the Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade – Stage 1B project will provide the following benefits:- improved safety for road users - improved public transport through rationalised and relocated bus stops- allow the Stage 1 upgrade to achieve its full potential- improved travel times and reliability for commuters, freight and public transport services- reduced emissions- reduced transportation costs.

Outcome

11. The Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade – Stage 1 project scope includes: - widening Lytton Road between Latrobe Street and Canning Bridge from four to six lanes to

provide an additional inbound lane and an additional outbound lane- upgrading the bend by changing the curvature at Heidelberg Street to improve safety - increasing lane widths to improve safety- relocating and signalising the intersection at Laidlaw Parade and Lytton Road to provide

access for local residents and a safe crossing point for pedestrians and cyclists- improving safety and traffic flow by installing a centre median to prevent right turns into

private properties and local side streets


- 43 -

- rationalising and indenting bus bays within the project area to reduce the impact on traffic flow and improve efficiency

- providing a designated two-way off-road bike path between Mowbray Park and Laidlaw Parade

- undergrounding the existing overhead service lines to improve amenity and safety- installing new LED street lighting.

12. The Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade – Stage 1B project scope includes: - rationalising bus stops- removing right turns into adjacent side streets- indenting the outbound bus stop at Norman Avenue intersection- upgrading the Norman Avenue intersection to increase the capacity of the right turn lane- improvements to the existing u-turn movement at Kingsbury Street - installing a bus jump lane from Bennetts Road to Hipwood Street during the morning peak,

which extends the existing bus jump lane to Hawthorne Road- installing new LED street lighting.

Policy and other considerations

13. Is there an existing Corporate Procurement Arrangement (CPA) for these works?Construction – No, the Council’s CPA 520202 for Construction and Rehabilitation of Transport and Drainage Infrastructure has been established for works valued up to $10 million.

Early Works (including Demolition) – Yes, members of Segment 2 of Council’s CPA 520202 for Construction and Rehabilitation of Transport and Drainage Infrastructure are considered capable of undertaking all aspects of the early works, generally with the assistance of specialist demolition contractors. Segment 3 of Council’s CPA 510538 for Construction, Restoration and Maintenance and Demolition of Buildings and Associated Infrastructure was established for demolition and removal of property up to a contract value of $500,000.

Members of Segment 3 of the CPA are not considered to have the ability to undertake all works required as they do not have the required traffic management capabilities, including managing a high volume of cyclists, environmental management capabilities, including air quality and noise mitigation. However, these suppliers would be suited as sub-contractors.

14. Could Council businesses provide the works?No, Council businesses do not have the resource capacity to be the construction contractor on the project.

Council staff will be engaged in the project management, contract administration, application for planning approvals and technical peer reviews of the project.

Market analysis

15. The current civil construction market in South East Queensland is competitive as a consequence of the number of new projects being well below historical levels, however, the market has experienced a moderate increase in activity with Council and the Queensland Government Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) releasing multiple projects to the market recently.

16. It is anticipated that Council will attract multiple offers and this project will attract interest from tier one and two contractors. This project requires a TMR pre-qualification level of R4/F50.

17. All contractors with an office in South East Queensland, relevant TMR pre-qualification levels and known experience successfully completing similar projects have been contacted, with considerable interest shown regarding submitting an offer for this project.

18. Panel members from Council’s CPA 520202, Construction and Rehabilitation of Transport and Drainage Infrastructure, Segment 2, Bikeway Construction, Programs and Environmental Work (Major), have been contacted and they have indicated strong interest in submitting tenders for the works.

Procurement strategy and activity plan


- 44 -

19.

Procurement objective: To procure the required works in a way that complies with the sound contracting principles set out in section 103(3) of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 and provides the most advantageous outcome for Council.

The construction contract for the corridor upgrade will contain a contingent separable portion for Stage 1B, where construction works can only commence once land acquisition has been completed (anticipated in June 2018).

Within the contract for construction, a specialist contractor for tree relocations in Mowbray Park will be novated to the Principal Contractor. The contract and relevant details for scope and objectives will be provided in the tender process for the construction tender. Council will have completed a competitive procurement process for the engagement of the specialist contractor for the relocation of selected trees in Mowbray Park.

Title of contract/s: 520285 Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade – Stage 1 and 1B – Construction

531185 Wynnum Road Corridor Upgrade – Stage 1 – Early Works (including Demolition)

Type of procurement: Early Works: Establishing a one-off contract under CPA 520202 for Construction and Rehabilitation of Transport and Drainage Infrastructure

Construction: Establishing a one-off contract

Process to be used: Early Works: Request for Quotes (RFQ) from a CPA

Construction: Request for Open Public Tenders (RFT)

RFT/Q standard to be used (and any amends):

Council’s corporate standard with no amendments

Advertising/select sourcing:

Early Works: RFQ documentation will be released to panel members from Segment 2, Bikeway Construction, Programs and Environmental Work (Major), CPA 520202, Construction and Rehabilitation of Transport and Drainage Infrastructure, excluding Wagners CFT Manufacturing Pty Ltd, as they only provide specialist structures not required under this contract.

Construction: Offers are to be sought publicly via open tender.

How RFT/P is to be distributed:

RFQ and RFT are to be distributed via Council’s supplier portal.

How tenders/proposals are to be lodged:

RFQ and RFT are to be lodged via Council’s supplier portal.

Part offers: Part offers will not be considered.

Joint offers: Joint offers may be considered.

Contract standard to be used (and any amends):

Australian Standard General Conditions of Contract 4000 (AS4000) with Council’s standard amendments.

Period/term of contract:

Approximately 91 weeks

Insurance requirements:

Council’s Principal Arranged Construction Insurance will apply. In addition, motor vehicle insurance of $20 million will be required.

Price basis: Schedule of rates

Price adjustment: Not applicable. Prices will not be subject to adjustment for rise and fall for the duration of the contract.


- 45 -

Liquidated damages: Early Works: $9,000 per day

Construction: $9,000 per day

Security for the contract:

Early Works and Construction: Two unconditional bank guarantees each to the value of 2.5% of the contract sum.

Defects liability period/Warranty Period:

Early Works: Not applicable

Construction: 12 months

Other strategy elements:

A probity auditor will be appointed to oversee the procurement.

An external chairperson for the tender evaluation panel will be appointed.

A specialist contractor for tree relocation will be novated to the construction contract.

Alternative strategies considered:

Design and Construct (D&C)

A D&C procurement model was not considered to provide any benefit in terms of earlier project delivery when compared to the adopted construct to design model. Council’s City Projects Office, Planning and Design, possesses the required skills and knowledge of the area and completed the detailed design and documentation for the project.

Alliance Contract

An alliance model is not considered to be suitable for this project. The complexity and size of the project does not warrant the cost and time required setting up an alliance contract and the significant costs associated with obtaining a Target Cost Estimate would not deliver value for money to Council.

Budget

20. Estimated expenditure under these contracts:

Contract Cost Contingency Total

Early Works $975,488 $243,872 $1,219,360

Construction Stage 1 and 1B $27,316,044 $6,829,011 $34,145,055

21. Sufficient approved budget to meet the total spend under this contract? Yes

22. Program budget line item: Program: Program 2 – Moving BrisbaneOutcome: 2.3 Transport Network Service: 2.3.2.1 Build the Transport NetworkOperating or Projects: Wynnum Road Corridor Stage 1

Program: Program 2 – Moving BrisbaneOutcome: 2.3 Transport Network Service: 2.3.2.3 Project Attacking CongestionOperating or Projects: Wynnum Road Corridor Stage 1B

23. Program budget funding availability:Wynnum Road Corridor Stage 1

Financial Year

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Total

$000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000 $000

Capital 8,370 17,081 42,967 16,613 22,834 6,405 114,270

Expenses - - - - - - -

Revenue - - - - - - -Wynnum Road Corridor Stage 1B


- 46 -

Financial Year2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Total

$000 $000 $000 $000 $000

Capital 530 6,847 4,440 102 11,919

Expenses - - - - -

Revenue - - - - -

24. Breakdown of budget and identifiable costs:Wynnum Road Corridor Stage 1

Line Item Description Budget Estimate Identifiable Cost

Land acquisition $60,202,758 $60,202,758

Design $2,299,790 $2,299,790

Owners Cost – including Project Management, Communications, Contract Administration

$3,018,118 $3,018,118

Services $7,693,931 $7,693,931

Early Works including Demolition $975,488 $975,488

Early Works including Demolition contingency (25%) $243,872 $243,872

Construction $20,862,044 $20,862,044

Construction contingency (25%) $5,215,511 $5,215,511

Project Risk $5,220,202 $5,220,202

QLeave $103,728 $103,728

Design support $275,000 $275,000

Corporate overheads (7.69%) $8,159,558 $8,159,558

TOTAL $114,270,000 $114,270,000Wynnum Road Corridor Stage 1B

Line Item Description Budget Estimate Identifiable Cost

Land acquisition $429,829 $429,829

Design $453,355 $453,355

Owners Cost – including Project Management, Communications, Contract Administration

$755,920 $755,920

Services $625,000 $625,000

Construction $6,454,000 $6,454,000

Construction contingency (25%) $1,613,500 $1,613,500

Project Risk $486,953 $486,953

QLeave $30,657 $30,657

Design support $150,000 $150,000

Corporate overheads (8.36%) $919,786 $919,786

TOTAL $11,919,000 $11,919,000

Procurement Risk

25. Summary of key risks associated with this procurement which are applicable to both Stages 1 and 1B:


- 47 -

Procurement Risk Risk Rating

Risk Mitigation Strategy Risk Allocation

Queensland Urban Utilities (QUU) water main, located in close proximity to construction pavement box and underneath resurfacing works, bursts during construction. The water main was constructed in approximately 1906 and contains lead packed joints.

Medium Final design provides dual main upgrade to QUU asset.

Temporary repairs until new mains are connected and operational.

Review proposed construction methodologies in proximity to water main.

Council/ Contractor

Delays to project delivery, Public Utility and Plant (PUP) service interruptions and traffic delays due to complexity in the project and PUP staging and sequencing.

Medium Detailed constructability review with staging completed during design.

Tender staging plans to be requested and reviewed during tender evaluation.

Council/ Contractor

Unidentified services (redundant/abandoned) encountered during construction.

Medium Detailed services investigations completed during design.

Investigation of old services completed on all PUPs during design.

Council/ Contractor

Additional and/or changes to traffic management and conditions.

Medium Obtain pre-approval for temporary traffic management for construction under traffic control.

Keep the community informed of the expected temporary traffic disruption during construction.

Council/ Contractor

Land acquisition process/vacant possession process delays require an exclusion zone within the project extent.

Medium Consider including condition precedent to enable contract award subject to land gazettal.

Track resumption process with Queensland Government Department of Natural Resources and Mines and assist current owners/businesses to relocate as effectively as possible.

Council

Transplanting of trees in Mowbray Park delays contractor from completing key staging requirements.

Medium Council to engage specialist tree relocation contractor to be novated to construction contract.

Relocation works to be completed at commencement of civil contract.

Council/ Contractor

Exposure of unknown contaminated land during construction.

Medium Contractor’s environmental management plan to encompass strategies for handling contaminated land encountered on site.

Council/ Contractor

Public complaints cause program slippage through restricted construction times or access to properties.

Medium Develop key messaging around project benefits and construction activities.

Ongoing liaison and meetings with property owners.

Keep the community informed about changing conditions before and during construction.

Council

Asbestos removal from structures to be demolished.

Low Hygienist inspections conducted pre-demolition where access is possible to determine asbestos

Council


- 48 -


Risk Mitigation Strategy Risk Allocation

presence and quantify volume.

Private property electrical reconnections result in additional work in order to energise based on electrical contractor’s assessment.

Low Electrical audits of private properties completed during design.

Council/ Contractor

Recovery of artefacts uncovered within the project site.

Low Tram tracks located within project extent.

Porphyry stone kerb anticipated to be encountered within site.

Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection endorsement of protocol for encountering artefacts to be sought.

Council/ Contractor

Latent conditions around retaining structures.

Medium Significant geotechnical testing completed to map soil and rock shelves.

Council

Unsuitable ground conditions lead to additional costs and delays.

Low Geotechnical investigations completed during design.

Council

Variations associated with a schedule of rates contract.

Low Superintendent and inspector to monitor and assess the project works and variations.

Independent review and quantities check completed during design.

Council

Tender evaluation

26. Evaluation criteria(a) Mandatory/essential criteria:

Construction Contract- TMR prequalification level of R4/F50 or higher- Acceptance of Council’s construction contract standard, AS4000 (with Council’s

standard amendments)Early Works Contract- Nil.

(b) Non-price weighted evaluation criteria:Construction Contract

Ref Weighted Evaluation Criteria Weighting

1 Project management of the following.

Project staging and sequencing

PUP staging and sequencing

Detailed program supporting staging and sequencing

Operational traffic management

Environment including erosion and sediment control, air quality and noise mitigation

65%

2 Demonstrated previous track record and capacity to deliver the project 15%

3 Key personnel experience 20%

Total: 100%Early Works Contract


- 49 -

Ref Weighted Evaluation Criteria Weighting

1 Project management of the following.

Demolition sequencing

Construction program

Operational traffic management

Environment including erosion and sediment control, air quality and noise mitigation, hazardous material handling and disposal

65%

2 Demonstrated previous track record and capacity to deliver the project 15%

3 Key personnel experience 20%

Total: 100%(c) Price model:

Normalised tender price (e.g. including risk of delay costs).

27. Evaluation methodologyResponses will be evaluated using Council’s standard value for money (VFM) methodology. This is non-price score divided by risk adjusted price to create a VFM index.

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

29. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL APPROVES THE SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING PLAN FOR THE WYNNUM ROAD CORRIDOR UPGRADE – STAGE 1 AND 1B PROJECT.

ADOPTED

B PROPOSED BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL NETWORK LAND MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK112/590/543/7

596/2016-1730. The Acting Divisional Manager, Brisbane Lifestyle, provided the information below.

31. In Queensland, local authorities may be appointed as trustee to manage trust land for public or community purposes. Trust land is available for the general community to use and includes parks, recreation and sporting areas.

32. As trustee, local authorities may enter into a trustee lease or permit with a secondary user, e.g. a sport and recreation club, for part or all of that trust land. Previously, each site required an individual land management plan to be prepared and registered with the Queensland Government’s Department of Natural Resources and Mines, to guide the secondary use of the site and to eliminate the need for Ministerial approval to enter into and register a lease.

33. To streamline this process, Council engaged CPR Group to prepare a network land management framework to manage secondary use of trust land. The proposed Brisbane City Council Network Land Management Framework (Framework) provides an innovative approach to reduce the approval timeframe of trustee leases or trustee permits and the management of trust land.

34. The proposed Framework has been prepared to guide Council in the use, development, maintenance and management of the secondary use of 73 community purpose trust land sites. The proposed Framework was compiled through engagement with the Queensland Government’s Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Council’s trustee lessees and consultation with relevant internal partners. The proposed Framework is set out in Attachment A (submitted on file).

35. While the Queensland Government has amended its Written Authority No. 1 - Section 64 of the Land Act 1994 to remove the mandatory requirements for a land management plan, the Department of


- 50 -

Natural Resources and Mines still maintains discretion under its policy to request a land management plan and frequently does so.

36. The proposed Framework will remove the need to develop individual land management plans and obtain Ministerial consent for a trustee lease, by clearly defining suitable land use, as agreed by the Queensland Government and Council. This shared vision will result in greater certainty for all parties and will also simplify any required tenant approval processes.

37. The proposed Framework is consistent with the Queensland Government’s 2 May 2017 revision of the Secondary use of Trust land under the Land Act policy and the Land Management Planning for Reserves or Deeds of Grant in Trust Information Kit. The proposed Framework recognises that Council manages all of its community leased land, both trust and freehold, consistently and in accordance with its Community Land and Facilities – Allocation and Leasing Procedure.

38. The proposed Framework will be in effect for 20 years and will be reviewed every five years. It is likely that operational amendments will be required periodically.

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

40. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE LODGEMENT OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL NETWORK LAND MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A (submitted on file), WITH THE QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT’S DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND MINES FOR REGISTRATION.

ADOPTED

C PROPOSED ADVERTISEMENTS AMENDING SUBORDINATE LOCAL LAW 2017155/455/468/34 and 155/455/468/15

597/2016-1741. The Acting Divisional Manager, Lifestyle and Community Services, provided the information below.

42. The proposed Advertisements Amending Subordinate Local Law 2017 (the proposed subordinate local law) amends the Advertisements Subordinate Local Law 2005 (ASLL 2005).

43. The ASLL 2005 currently identifies types of advertising signs and categorises them depending on the city environment in which the sign is to be exhibited.

44. The proposed subordinate local law amends ASLL 2005 by making like for like changes to update classifications of land to reflect the current zonings under Brisbane City Plan 2014. Additionally, contemporary and professionally designed drawings have been included to better illustrate the different sign types defined in the proposed subordinate local law.

45. The proposed subordinate local law also makes a number of changes to reduce the regulatory burden and compliance costs for advertisers, whether they are individuals, businesses or community organisations.

46. In the case of election signs, amendments include:- introduction of standard provisions applying to all election signs- repeal of conditions about election signs exhibited on private property (such as the maximum

number of signs that may be exhibited by a candidate within their electoral area) where there are no public safety risks

- removal of the concept of a ‘stall’, replaced with a new concept of a ‘display area’ - fewer rules for exhibiting election signs.

47. The proposed amendments also include:- the addition of community event sign bunting and community event signs on designated land


- 51 -

- a reduction of the number of sign-specific conditions of the same or similar nature by consolidation into a single generic condition.

48. The proposed subordinate local law is set out in Attachment B (submitted on file).

49. When proposing a subordinate local law, Council is required to identify any possible anti-competitive provisions and determine whether they are excluded from review and whether there are any significant impacts caused by the provisions. An analysis of this proposed subordinate local law has resulted in the assessment set out in Attachment C (submitted on file).

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

51. RECOMMENDATION:

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

Attachment ADraft Resolution

DRAFT RESOLUTION TO MAKE THE ADVERTISEMENTS AMENDING SUBORDINATE LOCAL LAW 2017

Council:

(i) approves making the Advertisements Amending Subordinate Local Law 2017 in accordance with the City of Brisbane Act 2010 (Qld) and the Local Law Making Procedures

(ii) determines that the Advertisements Amending Subordinate Local Law 2017 does not satisfy the principles for exclusion under the National Competition Policy - Guidelines for conducting reviews on anti-competitive provisions in local laws

(iii) determines that there are no significant impacts from anti-competitive provisionsADOPTED

D CONTRACTS AND TENDERING – REPORT TO COUNCIL OF CONTRACTS ACCEPTED BY DELEGATES FOR APRIL 2017109/695/586/2-04


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

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

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


- 52 -

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


57. RECOMMENDATION:

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

Attachment ACity of Brisbane Regulation 2012 – Chapter 6 – Contracting

Details of Contracts Accepted by Delegates of Council for April 2017Contract/Quote No. and Successful Contractor/s including Comparative

Tender Prices and Value for Money (VFM) Index achieved

Delegate Nature of Arrangement and

Estimated Maximum

Expenditure

Contract/Quote Purpose Unsuccessful Tenders and Quotes including VFM achieved

Comparative Tender Prices

Approval, Start/End Dates and

Term

BRISBANE INFRASTRUCTURE1. Contract No: 510731

CNW Pty Ltd – $469,807Achieved the highest VFM of 195.83

CPO Schedule of rates

$469,807

LED Lighting Upgrade Package Australian Regional Wholesalers Pty Ltd trading as John R TurkAchieved VFM of 184.37

$499,001 Approved:27.04.17Start:03.05.17Term:Eight weeks

2. Contract No: 520302

Crosana Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Michael Reid Family Trust trading as Crosana – $234,852*Achieved the highest VFM of 36.76

*prices represent the adjusted normalised tender price to include installation of additional toe rock.


$234,852

City Botanic Gardens Riverwall Refurbishment Stage 2

Elite Retaining Systems trading as Australian Marine and CivilAchieved VFM of 16.48

$364,980* Approved:19.04.17Start:15.05.17Term:Eight weeks


Georgiou Group Pty Ltd – $39,654,615*Achieved the highest VFM of 17.7

*prices represent the adjusted normalised tender price for risk of delay.

CEO Schedule of rates

$38,757,604

Telegraph Road Corridor Upgrade Stage 2 (Mustang Street to the Gateway Motorway on/off ramps)

Shortlisted offers not recommended

Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 17.3

Civil Mining & Construction Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 16.5

Fulton Hogan Construction Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 13.5

Offers not recommended

Bielby Holdings Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 14.2

Lendlease Engineering Pty LimitedAchieved VFM of 13.6

$44,106,736*

$42,412,632*

$41,044,333*

$43,450,684*

$56,759,967*

Approved:20.04.17Start:26.04.17Term:72 weeks


Cragcorp Pty Ltd trading as Queensland Bridge & Civil – $6,686,140Achieved the highest VFM of 123

CEO Schedule of rates

$6,686,140

Wolston Creek Bridge Upgrade Civil Mining & Construction Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 101

Moggill Constructions Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 88

York Civil Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 77

Doval Constructions (QLD) Ltd Achieved VFM of 67

Abergeldie Contractors Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 62

Hazell Bros Group Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 57

$6,928,571

$7,168,747

$6,822,518

$6,570,825

$6,880,610

$7,701,169



Moggill Constructions Pty Ltd – $898,920Achieved the highest VFM of 85

CPO Lump sum

$898,920

Bus Stop Accessibility Improvement Program – Construction Package 14

Pensar Civil Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 54

CPM Group Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 26

$1,081,895

$2,637,176



- 53 -

Contract/Quote No. and Successful Contractor/s including Comparative



Estimated Maximum

Expenditure




Term


BMD Urban Pty Ltd – $1,318,694Achieved the highest VFM of 51.95


$1,318,694

North Brisbane Bikeway, Chermside to Aspley


Cragcorp Pty Ltd trading as Queensland Bridge & Civil Achieved VFM of 50.86

Abergeldie Contractors Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 50.73


AllenCon Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 38.63

Pensar Civil Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 35.96

Moggill Constructions Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 35.52

CPM Group Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 34.60

Ark Construction Group Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 24.74

Epoca Constructions Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 23.30

$1,425,590

$1,320,588

$1,397,799

$1,459,876

$1,520,412

$1,820,927

$1,758,215

$2,167,341



Box & Co Pty Ltd – $1,384,326Achieved the highest VFM of 54.5

CPO Lump sum

$1,384,326

Cathedral Square Refurbishment – Stage 2

JM Kelly Builders Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 40.0

A Dart & Co Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 38.9

$1,688,770

$1,724,000



The Landscape Construction Company – $1,176,029Achieved the highest VFM of 66.3

CPO Lump sum

$1,176,029

Landscape Construction Services – Walton Bridge Reserve

Naturform Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 50.7

Dig-It Landscapes Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 31.2

$1,162,652

$1,456,034

Approved:20.04.17Start:21.04.17Term:27 weeks plus 26 weeks landscape maintenance period.


Turf Irrigation Services Pty Ltd – $336,078Achieved the highest VFM of 201

CPO Lump sum

$336,078

Stormwater Harvesting and Reuse – Marchant Park

Pensar Utilities Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 63.3

$773,498 Approved:13.04.17Start:14.04.17Term:24 weeks


Abergeldie Contractors Pty Ltd – $411,462Achieved the highest VFM of 15.8


$411,462

Katunga Street Bridge Upgrade Moggill Constructions Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 15.1

Pensar Civil Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 15.0

Cragcorp Pty Ltd trading as Queensland Bridge & CivilAchieved VFM of 12.1

AllenCon Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 12.0

Epoca Constructions Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 11.5

Doval Constructions (Qld) Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 11.2

CPM Group Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 10.7

Ark Constructions Group Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 9.0

$475,332

$395,793

.$628,860

$474,297

$437,337

$590,284

$490,491

$449,457



- 54 -




Estimated Maximum

Expenditure




Term


Naturform Pty Ltd – $276,203Achieved the highest VFM of 280.59

CPO Lump sum

$276,203

Simpson Falls Final Stage and Associated Works

Dig-It Landscapes Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 161.05

Box & Co Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 141.04

$282,528

$374,892


LIFESTYLE AND COMMUNITY SERVICESNilTRANSPORT FOR BRISBANENilCITY PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY12. Contract No: 510626

Category 1 – 3D Model Data

AAM Pty Ltd – $150,686Achieved the highest VFM of 157

Category 2 – LiDAR Point Cloud Data(this category was not awarded)

CPO CPA (Panel Arrangement)Lump sum and schedule of rates

$236,490(over the potential

maximum period of two years and

includes an option to purchase a full

update of the existing model coverage

area)

Provision of Data for Virtual Brisbane

Category 1 – 3D Model Data

Aerometrex Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 82

$249,529

Approved:14.03.17Start:17.03.17Term:One year with an option to extend for one additional year.

CITY ADMINISTRATION AND GOVERNANCENilORGANISATIONAL SERVICES13. Contract No: 120070Queensland Government Standing Offer Arrangement – PTD0003-14 # Engineering Consultant Scheme (ECS) Sub-Discipline 8.3 for the Provision of Quantity Surveying & Estimating Services

ADG Engineers (Aust) Pty Ltd Advisian Pty Ltd AECOM Australia Pty Ltd Aquenta Consulting Calibre Consulting (Qld) Pty Ltd Cardno Holdings Pty Ltd Donald Cant Watts Corke (Qld) Pty Ltd GHD Pty Ltd Gray Robinson & Cottrell Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd Leckring Pty Ltd trading as MIEngineers Opus International Consultants

(Australia) Pty Ltd Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty

Limited Project Support Pty Ltd Rider Levett Bucknall Qld Pty Ltd SMEC Australia Pty Ltd Turner & Townsend Pty Ltd Wilde and Woollard (Qld) Pty Ltd


$200,000

Provision of Quantity Surveying and Estimating Services

Contract was entered into under section 2.5 (Exemptions from Tendering) of Council’s Contract Manual pursuant to the City of Brisbane Act 2010.

N/A Approved:20.04.17Start:01.05.17Term:Six months


Category 1 – Quarry Spare Parts (Panel Arrangements)

SUB-CATEGORY APanel Arrangement for Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) and Common Quarry Spare Parts(VFM not applicable as each tenderer has bid on a different combination of parts)

H-E Parts International Crushing Solutions Pty Ltd – $372,079Achieved the highest non-price score of 90.1

Australian Crushing & Mining Supplies Pty Ltd – $387,240Achieved non-price score of 84.8

CEO CPA (Panel and Preferred Supplier Arrangements)Schedule of rates

$12,000,000(over the potential maximum period of five years)

Supply and Delivery of Quarry Spare Parts and Consumables

Category 1 – Quarry Spare Parts (Panel Arrangements)

SUB-CATEGORY A Panel Arrangement for Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) and Common Quarry Spare Parts(VFM not applicable as each tenderer has bid on a different combination of parts)


Fenner Dunlop Conveyor Services Pty LtdAchieved non-price score of 66.8

Australian Mine & Quarry Supplies

$9,779

$209,670

Approved:28.03.17Start:01.05.17Term:Three years with an option to extend for up to two additional years.


- 55 -




Estimated Maximum

Expenditure




Term

Lincom Pacific Equipment Pty Ltd – $388,483Achieved non-price score of 83.5

Finlay Screening & Crushing Systems Pty Ltd – $576,165Achieved non-price score of 82.5

Metso Australia Limited – $404,472Achieved non-price score of 82.0

Quarry Plant Solutions Pty Ltd – $524,328Achieved non-price score of 81.1

Sandvik Mining and Construction Australia Pty Ltd – $214,269Achieved non-price score of 81.1

RAM Conveyors Pty Ltd – $48,688Achieved non-price score of 79.5

Terex Australia Pty Ltd – $123,038Achieved non-price score of 70.4

SUB-CATEGORY BPanel Arrangement for Generic Conveyor Spares

Bearing Service Pty Ltd – $257,143Achieved the highest VFM of 31.1

CBC Australia Pty Ltd – $295,262Achieved VFM of 27.9

Applied Industrial Technologies Pty Ltd –$333,927 Achieved VFM of 26.5

Category 2 – Chemicals (Preferred Supplier Arrangement)

BASF Australia Ltd – $85,750Achieved the highest VFM of 108.4

Pty LtdAchieved non-price score of 66.5

Minprovise International Pty LtdAchieved non-price score of 56.5

North West Mining & Metals Pty LtdAchieved non-price score of 50.1

Non-conforming offers(price and VFM not applicable)

ESS – Engineering Services & Supplies Pty Ltd

Locker Group Pty Ltd

SUB-CATEGORY BPanel Arrangement for Generic Conveyor Spares


Partout Pty Ltd trading as Statewide BearingsAchieved VFM of 24.3

Quarry Plant Solutions Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 21.8

Lincom Pacific Equipment Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 20.3

Finlay Screening & Crushing Systems Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 18.6

Offers not shortlisted(price and VFM not applicable – did not meet minimum quality requirements)

Minprovise International Pty Ltd

Category 2 – Chemicals (Preferred Supplier Arrangement)

Ecolab Pty Ltd trading as Nalco AustraliaAchieved VFM of 66.0

Finlay Screening & Crushing Systems Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 47.4

$46,332

$11,467

N/A

N/A

$314,248

$372,770

$410,582

$444,399

N/A

$120,250

$173,075


- 56 -




Estimated Maximum

Expenditure




Term


Sarb Management Group Pty Ltd as Trustee for The Sarb Enterprises Hybrid Trust trading as Database Consultants Australia – $2,056,513Achieved the highest VFM of 37.2

CEO CPA (Preferred Supplier Arrangement)Schedule of rates

$2,056,513(over the potential

maximum period of approximately five

years)

Digital Parking Permits Solution Shortlisted offers not recommended

Customer Management Technologies Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 33.1

CellOPark Australia Pty Ltd Achieved VFM of 30.1

Offers not shortlisted

HCL Australia Services Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 18.7

The Trustee for the De Boer Family Trust trading as PrintData Achieved VFM of 8.7

Non-conforming offer(final tendered price and VFM not calculated)

Technology One Limited

$1,951,353

$2,004,386

$2,707,367

$5,605,004

N/A

Approved:14.03.17Start:01.04.17Term:Two years from Actual Acceptance with an option to extend for three additional years.


Small Trucks (up to 7 kilolitres)

Panwick Investments Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Ryan Discretionary Trust & Four Kids Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Beioley Family Trust No. 2 & Broeky Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Broekman Family Trust No.2 trading as H2Flow Hire – $224,309Achieved the highest VFM of 35.6

Medium Trucks (8-13 kilolitres)


Large Trucks (14-23 kilolitres)




maximum period of five years)

Water for Horticulture and Industrial Use

Small Trucks (up to 7 kilolitres)

River City Garden and Lawn Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 30.9

Aust Care Environmental Services Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 14.0

RST Systems Pty Ltd trading as Vinton Tree Services and Vinton Plant HireAchieved VFM of 8.7

Em-Mows Pty Ltd as Trustee for GL & DA Emmerson Family TrustAchieved VFM of 7.6

Medium Trucks (8-13 kilolitres)

JK Cartage Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 12.8

The Trustee for PR & MJ Sprague Family Trust trading as Lees Liquid Waste ServicesAchieved VFM of 10.6

River City Garden and Lawn Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 10.2


Aust Care Environmental Services Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 6.3

Large Trucks (14-23 kilolitres)

JK Cartage Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 24.2


$202,902

$344,468

$725,067

$318,956

$418,673

$393,656

$617,571

$816,862

$760,637

$221,856

$296,764

Approved:28.03.17Start:01.04.17Term:Three years with an option to extend for two additional years.


- 57 -




Estimated Maximum

Expenditure




Term


Carillon Conference Management Pty Ltd – $831,953*Achieved the highest VFM of 74.04

*Final tendered price reflects the estimated surplus to Council of revenue over expenses for the initial term which includes the 2017 and 2019 summits.


$831,953(over the initial term

of two years and seven months)

Professional Conference Organiser – Asia Pacific Cities Summit and Mayors’ Forum

Think Business Events Pty LtdAchieved VFM of -65.38

(-$1,005,800*) Approved:11.04.17Start:12.04.17Term:Two years and seven months with an option to extend for two additional years.


Data#3 Limited – $212,000Achieved the highest VFM of 4.43

CPO Lump sum

$212,000

Citrix Remediation Packaging Dimension Data Australia Pty LtdAchieved VFM of 3.31

$199,534 Approved:11.04.17Start:18.04.17Term:Nine months


Bay Technologies Pty Ltd – $3,336,000

E&C CPA (Preferred Supplier Arrangement)Lump sum for implementation plus schedule of rates


maximum period of approximately 10

years)

Correspondence Management eXchange (CMX) as a Service

Contract entered into without seeking competitive tenders from industry, in accordance with section 2.4 (Sole or Select Sourcing) of the Contract Manual pursuant to the City of Brisbane Act 2010.

N/A Approved:03.04.17Start:10.04.17Term:Four years with an option to extend for six additional years.

ADOPTED

ESTABLISHMENT AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE (Special meeting)

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 special meeting of that Committee held on 31 May 2017, be adopted.


LORD MAYOR: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman.

Madam Chairman, this is one of the most significant contracts that this Council approves in its lifetime. Madam Chairman, it's a significant one. I guess it's at the heart of what the local government is about. It's often said Council, local government, is about roads, rates and rubbish.

Certainly, whilst the local government has evolved to be many, many more things than that today, certainly rubbish—its collection, its handling, its reuse and recycling, Madam Chairman, in the modern era, are very significant parts of the work that we undertake. Certainly, it's at the very essence and centre of a civilised city, Madam Chairman, and particularly in terms of how it collects, handles its waste and how it looks at opportunities to minimise that waste to reuse and recycle that waste in a modern city.

So Madam Chairman, I just want to at the outset acknowledge that Councillor MATIC provided a presentation, an information session to all Councillors. I want to thank Arron Lee as the central Council officer I guess in this process. It's a very significant, a very long process, Madam Chairman, in a highly competitive industry and I thank them for their efforts.

Madam Chairman, throughout the process, Council had engaged a probity auditor. That's been an important part of it to make sure that somebody external, in an independent way was overseeing the process, not only in the terms of the operations by officers, but also where there were policy decisions required by the Civic Cabinet.


- 58 -

So Madam Chairman, it was of course an opportunity last Thursday to announce the successful tenderers, and we certainly extend our congratulations to SUEZ for their continuation of the collection contracts, and we congratulate Cleanaway Pty Ltd for being successful in terms of the—well reuse and recycling and what we call the resource recovery centres, Madam Chairman, within this system. So Madam Chairman, the other phase I suppose related to that of vegetation and the reuse of the opportunities in that regard.

So Madam Chairman, at the heart of it there were three parts to the tender process. The first of those— in terms of the contracts, the first of those was collections as I mentioned. The second is an alliance, and that's an alliance that will be formed with Cleanaway, and the third, Madam Chairman, regards the green waste processing. Pre-market it was undertaken between September of 2014 through to July 2016.

It was during that pre-market process that there was a determination made to look towards 16-year contracts. That was, we believe, to get the best financial outcome for the ratepayers of the city. We believe also that this provided the best certainty for workers within the industry, knowing that the contractor with whom they are employed would be in that field, in that contract for a considerable period of time.

Obviously, with the previous eight-year contracts it meant that with new companies potentially taking on those contracts, there was often uncertainty for the workforce. So Madam Chairman, it does provide at the heart of it, we believe, though, a good value for money outcome for the ratepayers of this city. So, the in-market evaluation, Madam Chairman, firstly the in-market process occurred between July 2016 and December of last year, and then the evaluation of those tenders occurred between December, and the finality of it in May just last week.

So Madam Chairman, again these are large contracts, very important contracts. Councillors, as I say, have had the briefing, so one thing I would say for those that might be wondering, Madam Chairman, there is a whole range of KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) associated with these contracts. They relate to zero harm and environmental outcomes.

The people and leadership management within the contracts, the equality of delivery, the cost and efficiency, the systems and processes, Madam Chairman, and then in terms—that’s particularly in relation to collections, and then in regards to the alliance is lag indicators, but they are largely based around safety, lost time from injuries, injury frequency rates, at-fault incidents.

Then there's lead indicators which can be things like near-miss reports, safety walks, in other words, safety auditors, toolbox talks, Madam Chairman, a number of workplace health and safety committee meetings and the like. So Madam Chairman, the details around that have been available, by way of the contracts, to Councillors. They will continue to be available so in terms of the—

Councillor SUTTON: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

LORD MAYOR: No, not the contracts I'm sorry.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor SUTTON.

Councillor SUTTON: Can I just clarify, LORD MAYOR, in the briefing last week, I specifically asked not just about viewing the contract, but also being informed of what the KPIs are.

I have written communication from Councillor MATIC that says the KPIs will be unavailable for us to see prior to this debate, and until you started outlining them just this second as the debate has already commenced, we have not yet been afforded the opportunity to see those KPIs, and consider them, to inform the comments we are about to make today.

So if you could table those and perhaps give us an opportunity to have a considered look at them, that would be gratefully appreciated.

Chairman: LORD MAYOR—


- 59 -

LORD MAYOR: Sure. Well Madam Chairman—

Chairman: —would you like to clarify.

LORD MAYOR: Well Madam Chairman, I just refer to Councillor MATIC here to make sure that from a contractual point of view, I'm not doing the wrong thing, but Madam Chairman, there is a list of KPIs which certainly are available and I'm happy for those to be viewed, Councillor SUTTON, in the lead up to the decision today. Madam Chairman, what I'm saying to you is they would apply to whomever is selected. So they are a list of KPIs for the contracts going forward.

So they're not a determinant in terms of who would get a contract. Madam Chairman, what the KPIs do, is they provide a go-forward analysis. Now I'm just simply saying to you here today, that there are KPIs that apply to this contract. I believe that you are interested in the KPIs and I've tried to today, in providing that information to you, to indicate the nature of those KPIs. So they are and will be available for discovery on the files is what we're saying, Madam Chairman, and regardless of—

Councillor SUTTON: Point of order, Madam Chairman.

Chairman: Point of order, Councillor SUTTON.

Councillor SUTTON: Again, and LORD MAYOR I'm sorry to interrupt you but we have been told that we will not be able to view that file until after the contract has been signed and executed, and that is why we can't have them. So, LORD MAYOR, I don't know who's briefing you but what you are saying here is completely different to the written correspondence I have before me.

Chairman: LORD MAYOR, would you like to provide a little bit more clarification.

LORD MAYOR: Yes if I can explain, Madam Chairman, these KPIs are not relevant to the selection of a contractor. They are not. They are service delivery KPIs. They are not relevant to whom you select in terms of a contractor. So this is what I've tried to explain, Councillor SUTTON—


Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, you need to be quiet because a question has been asked and the LORD MAYOR is attempting to give an answer. So that people on your side of the Chamber can hear what the LORD MAYOR is saying, please do not interrupt.

LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: So Madam Chairman, this is what I'm trying to explain to Councillor SUTTON is that the KPIs will be available for Councillors to view, and they can ask me any questions they want in Question Time or any other forum in respect to the performance of the contracts, but they are not relevant as to whether Proponent A or Proponent B is successful in terms of the tender bids. It is how the ongoing assessment of the contract will apply.

It's our safeguards, if you like, in terms of the provisions within the contracts. So that's all I'm saying, but it's not going to be a game-changer for you today as to whether you decide to support a Contractor A or a Contractor B, Madam Chairman. That's not what it does. It's simply a process for the successful contractor in terms of the KPIs that Council has in place for the life of the contract—the 16 years we're going forward.

Now one of the things I should have mentioned earlier, Madam Chairman, is that the other point of the contracts in the way they've been set up, is that they make provision for technological changes for opportunities to vary those contracts along the road if there are advantages to Council and, through Council, the people of this city, that can be the benefit of those technological improvements. Improvements in service delivery, improvements in the way in which we undertake the task of waste collection and processing. So Madam Chairman, I leave my comments at that and I thank the Chamber for its time.



- 60 -

Councillor CUMMING.

Councillor CUMMING: Yes thanks, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, I refer to item A, the Stores Board submission for Waste and Resource Recovery Services. Madam Chairman, the new contract is due to start on 1 July next year. Look, we'd love to have supported the contract, but sad to say we can't, and there's a number of reasons for this. One reason is fairly basic—the collection contract is 16 years.

Madam Chairman, 16 years is a long time in the, I think it's generally called the post-industrial world we live in now. Was the internet and email widespread 16 years ago? So 16 years is an enormous length of time to tie a major organisation down to a contract on existing technology, Madam Chairman. It's also, for terms of Council, should any administration bind four future administrations to a contract? I think not, I think not.

Secondly, the process is not complete. Categories 1, 2 and 4 have been decided, but not Category 3, the Landfill Waste Disposal. So, we believe Council needs to decide all the contracts, not just have one of the four hanging. In short, the process has not been finalised as I said. Also, we had a briefing on the submission last week and I thank Councillor MATIC for that, and we're a bit shocked on this side of the Chamber to get a couple of briefings lately. It's been so long since we've had a briefing—forgotten what they were like.

Madam Chairman, Councillor SUTTON has asked for access to the contracts as she spoke about it earlier. We haven't been able to read the terms of the contract. We haven't been able to find out what the KPIs are for the contract, and that means that we're, as it were, kept in the dark, and we're not prepared to support the contract on that basis.

We can't support a submission clothed in secrecy where the basic KPIs remain hidden from us for scrutiny. This is really quite poor form from the Administration to keep those sorts of things secret, but it's typical of what we expect from this Administration. No doubt they'll use their massive majority to push this submission through, but the high level of secrecy continues.


Councillor MATIC.

Councillor MATIC: Thank you Madam Chairman, look I rise to speak in regards to item A, and the importance of what this contract is for the Brisbane City Council and for Brisbane residents. Madam Chairman, this is a 16-year contract. It is one of the most fundamentally important contracts that, as a Council, we will enter into, because it provides such a core service.

Before I get into the detail of the debate of the contract, Madam Chairman, I just want to go back to a couple of points in regards to the issues that the LORD MAYOR has raised, and Councillor SUTTON has raised, and the written speech that somebody wrote for Councillor CUMMING about secrecy and other related items. Madam Chairman, so there was a briefing to Councillors in regards to the contract. There was information provided.

The questions were asked to view the contract and view the KPIs. I took the question on notice from Councillor SUTTON and responded to her on last Friday afternoon advising her of the fact of the matter is that, Madam Chairman, until we actually resolve in this Chamber to accept the tenderers as proposed, we don't have a formal contract in place. Once those formal contracts, once we've voted on it, Madam Chairman, the formal contracts can then be executed and then the documents are available.

In my correspondence to Councillor SUTTON, I actually detailed the actual files, the file numbers, all of the detail that she needs to view the contract, Madam Chairman, they're easily available.

Madam Chairman, the reality of the situation is that we're here to talk about these tenderers and the proponents that we put forward and to talk about the contract in its widest terms. The E&C document setting out all of the


- 61 -

information that is available at this meeting, sits on the table over there for all Councillors to view.

So the question of secrecy, Madam Chairman, unfortunately is just a political stunt by Councillor CUMMING. It really is unfortunate, Madam Chairman, that with something like this that he would just simply go back to form on what is, I think, a really innovative outcome, and certainly a value for money outcome for all Brisbane residents.

Now, Madam Chairman, when you look at this contract, there are three component pieces to it that the LORD MAYOR made an announcement on last week. That was 1—waste collection, 2—the operation and management of the resource recovery centres which includes transporting the waste to Rochedale, and 3—green waste processing.

Now in the process of undertaking that work, Madam Chairman, there has been a lengthy undertaking by officers, over a significant period of time over the last couple of years actually—to evaluate the previous contract to look at where the improvements could be made and to put in place the necessary processes for procurement to then take that to the market and then to fight for it. That's the outcome that we see before us today.

Now this contract, Madam Chairman, all of them all collectively are about focusing on ensuring that we are a cleaner and greener and more sustainable city. When we look at a growing city, Madam Chairman, we look at Brisbane as a New World City, we need to look at how we manage our waste. It's absolutely fundamental. Moving away from the traditional ways of the past to looking at innovation, is actually one of the most important things that any organisation can do.

Now when we look at these things, Madam Chairman, we need to look at what's on offer. What we have before us are a number of key outcomes that will be of significant benefit to Brisbane residents. Also, Madam Chairman, to the proponents that we put forward as tenderers. The 16-year contract, Madam Chairman, delivers certainty and security to the workers—to the workforce of these proponents, and importantly also the Brisbane residents.

Now we will work towards a very smooth transition, Madam Chairman, to new contractors within the Recovery Resource Alliance and making sure, Madam Chairman, that it's as streamline as possible. So for example, there is no alteration in pick-up days within our various suburbs, which is I think of fundamental importance in the continuation of a smooth service.

There's a large waste collection fleet which will improve collection services and especially the response to disaster or storm events. Importantly, also Madam Chairman, there's more variety in the size of the fleet. For some of us who have narrower streets, it's sometimes a challenge for operators to be able to get through them. It's important to provide flexibility within that fleet to address that issue.

Now the Alliance partner, Madam Chairman, will modernise the waste transport fleet to increase that transport efficiency. So we will see the new collection vehicles will have a standard Euro 5 emissions standard, which I think is particularly important given the number of collections that we have. We've got 32 million pick-ups a year, Madam Chairman, across the city. So when we look at that, we want to look at how we reduce or minimise our carbon footprint in the collection of waste, and making sure that the Euro 5 standard is consistent will go a long way towards reducing NOx (Nitrous Oxides) and particle emissions.

Now with that waste collection, Madam Chairman, and with SUEZ as the proponent, what we're seeing is a continuation of the relationship, but through that, Madam Chairman, we're seeing improvements in the service in the items that I raised before. Also looking at, Madam Chairman, more efficiencies around the storing of the vehicles and making sure that we're minimising travel times has also been a key component in reducing our carbon footprint, reducing costs because of dead running.


- 62 -

Now with the alliance, Madam Chairman, with the resource recovery centres, and Cleanaway being our successful proponent, what we're seeing there, Madam Chairman, is a boosting of efficiency and customer experience. Our resource recovery centres, as all Councillors know, are very busy places and we want to make sure that the services we offer there, such as recycling, and reuse through the Endeavour Foundation, people being able to take all of those items that they would not normally be able to put into the yellow top bin for recycling, continues at a high level.

Also looking, Madam Chairman, at what the future brings, because as the world evolves and technology improves, the contract needs to provide the flexibility for Council and its partners to look at innovation and how we deal with waste in the future, and this contract delivers on that. Now Cleanaway obviously is a substantial player within the market. It has a long-established history within Australia and has with it the capacity and the talent within its staff to deliver the kind of outcomes that we're looking for.

Now within green waste processing, Madam Chairman, an area that we continue to develop and look for future opportunities, we see three proponents, Wood Mulching Industries Pty Ltd, NuGrow Metro Pty Ltd and Phoenix Power Recyclers Pty Ltd. Each of these three are contractors with the capacity to meet the needs of a growing city. We also have flexibility within the contract to deliver the green waste to them if some have more capacity rather than others.

Geographically also, Madam Chairman, there are places that if there is a natural disaster, we don't rely just on one tenderer who may not be accessible by vehicle. So we've got the opportunity to spread our risk and make sure that we're also meeting the needs of a growing population.

Now Madam Chairman, when you look at all these different factors, you're seeing a contract that goes above and beyond the standard. This contract is the largest of its kind in Australia, and by making sure that we provide that level of innovation in there, we're going to see real outcomes for Brisbane residents.

As we know, Madam Chairman, we spoke in this Chamber before about our environmental policy and looking at a clean and green sustainable Brisbane, looking at how we can continue to progress this further, and waste is fundamentally one of those key outcomes in order to achieve that result. So in looking at this contract overall, there are great opportunities for us. A smooth transition for Brisbane residents.

So Madam Chairman, I want to congratulate these proponents that we put forward for their successful tenders. I want to thank Councillor McLACHLAN as the previous Chairman because this process actually started during his time as Chairman. Certainly, Arron Lee for his leadership of his team, the whole Waste and Resource Recovery team—the enormous amount of work that they've put in to evolving the tender, making sure that all of those criteria are in there that they would like to see outcomes for.

Of course, the procurement people within Council have done an amazing job in representing Council to the market through an extensive consultation and in-market process. The pre-market process was in previous years, in July 2016 and during Councillor McLACHLAN's time, the previous term. The in-market ran from July 2016 to December 2016, and then the evaluation between December 2016 and May of this year.

So you can see the significant amount of work that all of these branches have undertaken. Can I acknowledge also City Legal for their work through that contract process, and the literal thousands of pages that are involved within that. Madam Chairman, I look forward to us voting on this and implementing an innovative and brand new scheme for Brisbane that will achieve enormous outcomes for the future.


Councillor STRUNK.


- 63 -

Councillor STRUNK: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise to speak on item A, specifically Category 1, the waste recovery system contract. Now I want to speak about this—or the aspect I want to speak on about, this is of course, the increase from the previous contract of eight years to 16 years. I mean it's a $1.31 billion contract, and as everyone is saying, it's probably one of the largest contracts of its time that this Council has ever entered into, and it's probably the largest in Australia.

Madam Chairman, 16 years is a very long period of time. Just listening to Councillor MATIC, I don't think, in my mind anyway, he hasn't made the case to extend the contract from eight to 16. I don't know of any other big councils or small councils that would sign off on a contract that would cover four election cycles as my colleague said, or, as the LORD MAYOR said, four lifetimes—I'm probably paraphrasing there.

Just to look at the Chamber today, how many of the Councillors today sitting in this Chamber were here 16 years ago? Just to put it into context—two. The LORD MAYOR and Councillor CUMMING. How many mayors have gone through this Chamber over the last 16 years? Four.

So when you're going to sign off on a contract for 16 years you're binding, as has been said earlier, you're binding a future administration, whichever side of politics they are, to a contract for that length of time. The reason given to justify the double length, or the doubling in length of the contract, was the longevity of the truck fleet. Now I'm sure there's other good reasons why you've done it but when I asked in the consultation or the briefing, that was the main one that was raised.

There are many reasons why I think a 16-year contract isn't really advisable. A lengthy contract can take away from the waste collection innovation, reducing incentives for industry long-term technical development. Innovation is reliant on access to materials and supplies that restrict those creative engineering solutions. Even with constant monitoring, long-term contracts result in less motivation and momentum for a company to improve services.

Now, I take on board what the LORD MAYOR said in regards to the KPIs and some of the other conditions that were worked into the contract in regards to innovation. Monitoring that isn't probably an easy thing and I just think that we're just setting ourselves up for possible issues in the future by extending it—by doubling the length of the contract.

Now you only have to look at technologies that didn't exist 16 years ago, and this is how rapidly the world is changing—GPS, smartphones, iPads, self-driving vehicles, Google Maps, YouTube, FaceTime, podcasts, the hybrid cars, drones, to name a few. These are all things that have happened over the last 16 years, so who knows what the contract or the contractor is going to be able to come up within that time. Again, we haven't really seen the full contract so we really don't know what has been built into the contract to address this issue. So if you think that giving a long-term contract is doing the right thing by ratepayers, well I would ask Councillor MATIC to think again.

So Madam Chairman, we are locked into potential multiple administrations in this contract and will not be—I don't think will be cost effective and I just worry that—16 years—I can't just can't believe how long that is. So anyways, with this Administration's massive majority they will just rush this through with very little scrutiny, as we heard from my colleague here, Councillor SUTTON. We haven't seen the contract. We don't know what the KPIs are, and it will all be signed off on the dotted line before we even can view that.

Madam Chairman, there are any number of issues that will probably be left up to a future administration to fix up. I just want to sign off, Madam Chairman, by saying that we were told that this was the largest contract of its type entered into anywhere in Australia, and the length and the longevity of this contract was all informed by the longevity of a truck fleet. I look forward to the Chairman addressing that particular issue for me, as to what are the reasons why we would have extended the contract from eight to 16 years. Thank you.



- 64 -

Councillor McLACHLAN.

Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on item A, the Stores Board submission into Waste and Resource Recovery Services.

I'll take on Councillor STRUNK's comments. I haven't been here 16 years but I have been here 10 years and was closely involved with the negotiation of the last contract. It's fair to say that waste contracts in this city, until the last contract was negotiated—were always done in an atmosphere of distrust and the potential for industrial disputes.

That was wiped away by our renegotiation of the contract back in 2008. I'll just go back briefly with your indulgence, into history, because Councillor STRUNK has raised some issues about the longevity of contracts and what you can achieve over a period of time.

Well, look when that contract was re-negotiated, Madam Chairman, Hughie Williams of the TWU (Transport Workers Union) put this up on the TWU website. He said, 'the Transport Workers Union of Queensland welcomes the announcement that Brisbane City Council garbage workers will be protected. Lord Mayor Campbell Newman has awarded the city's kerb-side collection of refuse, recycling to the incumbent contractor ceded with workers' conditions and entitlements retained'.

TWU Branch Secretary, Hughie Williams said, 'this is a Queensland first. No other Brisbane Lord Mayor has looked after the conditions of their garbage workers. Mr Williams said the TWU has been in talks with Brisbane City Council to make sure that the successful tenderer pays their employees the going rate of pay. It's good to see, he said, that in these times of economic hardship, Brisbane City Council is looking after garbage workers and their families. The TWU urges other local government councils to follow Brisbane City Council's lead and look after their workers’.

Well that was the atmosphere in which we negotiated the last contract, Madam Chairman, and that process has continued to get rid of those days of distrust and lack of harmony in contract negotiation. To take the contractors into a partnership arrangement rather than a master-servant relationship, which dictated all the times when the Labor Party had a chance to look at contracts in this place.

It was always a master-servant relationship, an atmosphere of distrust and disharmony that meant that there was always the potential for industrial dispute. We wiped that out and that continues now with these renegotiated contracts, which allow for the same atmosphere of trust and relationship building to continue.

Now Councillor STRUNK has asked about why 16 years? Well that goes to the value for money equation. There's very good reasons for that. In the past when a contractor was introduced onto the job, typically trust would last eight years and typically in the expectation they wouldn't win the contract when the Labor Party was in charge here, They would let those trucks run down to the last couple of years and we'd have a woeful service for the last couple of years of those contracts.

What we've wanted to make sure was that there was a potential for an existing contractor to continue in the job, to give them encouragement to continue to reinvest in the fleet that they could purchase to make sure there was always new fleet coming through, because they've got the confidence to keep reinvesting. They know they've got access to the biggest contract in the southern hemisphere in Brisbane City Council, and they've got the opportunity and the incentive to make sure they continue to invest in providing us with excellent services, Madam Chairman.

So that's what that's all about. That's what this is about to make sure that we've got contractors on board who are committed to Brisbane City Council, committed to our objectives, and committed to make sure they continue to invest


- 65 -

in providing excellent services through continuing to buy new equipment as it becomes available, as they need to update their equipment.

Madam Chairman, Councillor MATIC was kind enough to mention me in his comments and I thank him for that. It has been a long exercise getting these contracts to this place. It did start over three years ago. A few years ago, Ian Skippen of 4BC dubbed me 'Mr Rubbish', and I was more than happy to pass that title on to Councillor MATIC, although I think the ABC dubbed him as 'Brisbane's Chief Garbo'. I think 'Mr Rubbish' is a slightly better title but anyway that's the mantle you now have to live with Councillor MATIC. I wish you well with your administration of these particular contracts. As we've heard, this is the largest contract for waste services in the nation—kerb-side collection of wheelie bins, the transportation of waste, the processing of green waste and the maintenance of our four resource recovery centres. It is about value for money, about ensuring the long-term sustainability of our services and our city. It will continue to ensure that we have access to larger, more flexible collection fleets.

Councillor STRUNK didn't take heed of the comments that were made about the flexibility of the fleet in that briefing that was provided to Councillors, but one of the huge advantages of having the incumbent contractor coming in with contracts across the wheelie bin services and park services is that they have smaller trucks that they can put onto the run where need be to give them that flexibility for delivery—one of the critical factors that was looked at when we were looking at who should be assigned to this contract.

Madam Chairman, two weeks ago we debated the sustainability report card—Brisbane Clean, Green, Sustainable. Without a doubt, Madam Chairman, waste and resource recovery is one of the centrepieces of our achievements to date in terms of what we've done and also in what we want to do going forward. Waste and Resource Recovery Services have been crucial in Brisbane being named as Australia's Most Sustainable City in 2014 and 2016, and also in relation to our future sustainability goals.

We've made huge achievements in the area of waste and resource recovery. Reductions in domestic waste going to landfill, less litter on the streets, reductions in green waste being sent to landfill, increases in recycling over the terms of the last contract, and that will continue going forward. I do recall, Madam Chairman, that one of the crucial things we did when we introduced the last contract was to get rid of the split trucks that the ALP had foisted onto this city and which were hugely inefficient. I know that when we—


Councillor McLACHLAN: Yes, so I hear Councillor CUMMING interjecting, it was a recommendation of the officers at the time. Who was one of the officers of the time? Somebody who went on to become a Councillor in this place—Councillor Abrahams, driving that contract.


Councillor McLACHLAN: When those split trucks were split, Madam—when those split trucks were dumped, Madam Chairman, there was a huge increase immediately, almost overnight in recycling rates. It went from about 90,000 tonnes a year to 100,000 tonnes a year because of the efficiency of the dedicated trucks for recycling.


Councillor McLACHLAN: I hear Councillor CUMMING continue to interject from the sidelines. I know he has had an interest in waste in the past when he was Deputy Chairman of this area and he picked up on this scene, he asked of his Chairman at the time and he said this to Councillor Campbell—this was when they were sort of toying with the idea of weekly recycling and they put out a petition about it or put out a survey about it.

A response came back from a resident to Councillor CUMMING, he said, ‘I do not think a weekly pick-up of recycling bins would be a good idea. The majority of people would rarely fill a recycling bin in one week. A better idea would be


- 66 -

to follow the New South Wales example of having a green bin for garden waste. This is an initiative admired in other parts of the world’. Councillor CUMMING put that up to his Chairman who said in response, ‘Why bother me? John’. ‘Why bother me?’ So we know that when Councillor CUMMING has expressed a thought bubble on waste, he's been knocked back in the past. We know that he has no real interest in this area.

We see that he says he's being kept in the dark about the contract. Well look, Madam Chairman, these contracts have been negotiated to rid us of the atmosphere of distrust that always pervaded the negotiations in the past when the Labor Party was in charge. We've made sure that the service will be efficient and efficiently run. The rationale for the longer contract terms is to ensure that that efficiency continues.

These are good contracts for Brisbane City Council. Good contracts for the residents of Brisbane, and I commend it to the Chamber.



Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman, I rise to speak briefly on item A before us today. I would ask that item 2 in the recommendation is taken seriatim for voting purposes.

Chairman: No Councillor JOHNSTON, there's only one item, it's Clause A, that's it.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, the Meetings Locals Law, section 44 states that ‘when a motion consists of more than one statement, action or concept, such statement, actions or concepts shall be put seriatim if any Councillor so requests’ and I so request that recommendation number 2 be taken seriatim for voting purposes please.

Chairman: No Councillor JOHNSTON, there is one Stores Board Submission. It is Clause A and that is what is voted on. I don't uphold your point of order.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, I just draw your attention to the motion which is that we approve the following, and it lists one, two, three, four, and the Meetings Local Laws are very clear that I am entitled to request it to be taken seriatim for voting purposes, and I refer you to page 24, section 44 of the Meetings Local Law.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, as I have said, it is Clause A, one clause we are voting on, not the—that is all—they are all within item A of the contractual arrangements, therefore I don't uphold your point of order.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, I'll just draw your attention to the fact—

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, I have made my ruling.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Right, well Madam Chairman, you are clearly contravening the Meetings Local Law—

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON—

Councillor JOHNSTON: —and I move dissent in your ruling because it's an obvious contravention of the Meetings Local Law.

The dissent motion lapsed for want of a seconder.

Chairman: There being no seconder to your dissent, it is not upheld.

Councillor JOHNSTON: That's just deliberately ignoring the Meetings Local Law.

Chairman: No Councillor JOHNSTON—


Councillor JOHNSTON: For god's sake. Right, well—

Chairman: I do not need commentary on my ruling.

I have given my ruling, Councillor JOHNSTON.


- 67 -

You have moved dissent, you did not have a seconder, we will therefore move on.

Councillor JOHNSTON: We will—CMC—Now on item A, Madam Chairman, I would like to raise a number of issues and you've made it very easy, there's no chance I'm supporting this then because of what is in item 2. Item 2 in the recommendations that we're being asked to approve today states the following, 'The optional additional periods in the contractual arrangement may be exercised following approval from the Chief Procurement Officer in conjunction with the Manager, Waste and Resource Recovery Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, subject to satisfactory performance of the contract/supplier'.

Now my concern is that after the end of the eight year period for these contracts, this Council will not be given any information about how those contracts have unfolded. This Council will not be approving the extensions for an additional eight years, and this Council will have no knowledge or approval of any additional contractual extension under this decision being put forward today.

Now we've heard over and over again from the Councillors opposite and the LORD MAYOR how important this contract is, how big this contract is, how it impacts on our city, and yet in eight years' time, a decision will be taken behind closed doors to approve an additional eight years without the matter coming here for debate, scrutiny and approval. That is absolutely not on. This Council is approving a massive contract—$1.31 billion. It's a term that we've never seen before with respect to the delivery of waste services, and this decision today locks Council into a 16-year contract for all waste services—the provision of wheelie bin services, the running of our landfill and our green waste services—and when we get to the point where we could exercise discretion as a Council, we don't get to make that decision.

This document before us today is delegating that power away to Council officers who are not accountable to the ratepayers of Brisbane. We are. I don't even think that clause is actually legal, because if we enter into another contract at that point, surely that's got to come back here for approval because of the size of the contract. So I'm not even sure that that actually meets our procurement purposes.

Now all of this is just ridiculous. Ridiculous that we are not going to oversight one of the largest contracts that this Council enters into. I can tell you now I do not support the delegation of powers to officers who are not accountable to the people of Brisbane.

We are. We are, and in eight years half of us won't be here. I think Councillor STRUNK made a very good point. Half of us won't be here, and those Councillors who are here will have no say at all in how the waste services in this city are delivered. That is flat out wrong. Flat out wrong.

Now before someone on the other side stands up and says, ‘oh well, she doesn't support the waste contractors’ and whatever, I mean I think SUEZ have been doing a pretty good job. I don't have a problem with their reappointment. The term of the contract and the provisions in here that remove public scrutiny of the length of the term and how it is being administered. That is the fundamental problem—fundamental problem.

If clause 2 wasn't in here I would probably vote for this motion, hence my request to take it seriatim. I have no problem with Arron Lee oversighting the contract. He's done a great job with his team for many years into the green waste services for this Council, and I think he does a very good job in doing that.

I've seen him come to the Field Services Committee now for 10 years and I think he does a great job, but it is not reasonable to delegate a $1.13 billion contract to officers without any oversight and scrutiny by the elected representatives of the city. That is absolutely not on. It is not reasonable. We shouldn't be doing it and I absolutely in the strongest terms object to the fact that I cannot take it seriatim for voting purposes.

So because of those reasons—it's the largest waste contract in Australia and in eight years' time no one in here gets to have a say on what happens to it, no one,


- 68 -

and I mean that's just phenomenal. I can't believe that you want to delegate this away.

If there is a problem in eight years' time you get no say in it because of this decision. Based on the procurement processes that you guys have oversighted today you probably think this is the best course of action because you've been hopeless, but presumably in eight years' time there'll be a different administration in this place, or certainly there could be, and you are deliberately hamstringing their ability to intervene in this contract if something's not right.

Even if the economics have moved on, technology's move on, the city's different, all of those things could influence this contract and you are simply denying future councils the right to oversight and make decisions which we are paid and elected to do.

Councillor MATIC and the other E&C Chairmen are even paid extra to do it and they still want to delegate it off to the Council officers. Not good enough. Not good enough. So I can't support this for the simple reason today that the way in which we are executing this motion, which denies this Council the chance to scrutinise, oversight and to decide on behalf of our ratepayers how our waste services are delivered, is a fundamental failure—fundamental failure—in terms of the delivery and transparency and accountability of the way our Council operates.

I just think it is appalling that you are progressing with particularly Clause 2 in the motion before us today.


Councillor SUTTON.

At that time, 5.47pm, the Deputy Chairman, Councillor Vicki HOWARD, assumed the Chair.

Councillor SUTTON: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just rise to enter the debate on this contract, and as the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Chairperson has already indicated, we won't be supporting this contract today.

At the outset I want to say how flabbergasted I am that the LORD MAYOR of this city, well A—is not here for the single biggest contract in Australia in terms of waste. Remember what happened when I was out of the Chamber for less time than what he has been as part of this important debate here today.

So number one—good point Councillor JOHNSTON—but I am flabbergasted that the LORD MAYOR of this city does not think it is necessary for Councillors to be fully briefed and have access to the key performance indicators of a contract that we are about to enter into that is worth in excess of $1 billion for Category 1.

I do not understand how he finds that, or anyone in this place finds that acceptable, because, you know—procurement 101—you put key performance indicators into a contract so you can measure the performance of that contract. We are now here today being asked to endorse a contract by service providers when we have no idea as to how this Council will track their performance.

So we don't know what customer service standards have been signed up to by this Administration. We don't know, when residents then come to us and have a concern about bins not being collected or so on and so forth, what the performance standards are going to be for this contract.

Is it going to be missed bins have to be collected in 24 hours? Is it going to be missed bins are going to be collected in 48 hours? Is it that missed bins are going to be collected in 36 hours, or at all? We don't know that simple basic information because the LNP Administration, with their great big whopping majority, that they think they can push anything through without scrutiny, has said, ‘No, you're not entitled to have that information prior to you making a decision on whether or not to support the contract or not’.


- 69 -

That is bad governance and that is actually thumbing your nose at the appropriate democratic processes that are meant to be in operation in this Council. That is not good enough.

So, when my colleagues then talk about the contract length of time, it's actually also about locking us in to a set of performance targets that we are powerless to change. So, why should we support a contract that we don't know what the base level of service is for our residents.

Now, I understand that part of the new technology that the Category 1 contractor is engaging is we're going to have tracking devices on our collection vehicles that can actually send a message to Council when the bin is not presented on the kerb.

So what happens if there's a failure in that technology and someone's bin is genuinely missed, but because of the technology failure the contractor is saying, ‘No, it wasn't presented’. Then you have the residents saying, ‘Well, actually it was presented’, and then you're in a standoff between the contractor and the resident as to whether or not the bin was presented, and then how do we move forward and resolve that matter?

What are the key performance indicators that have been written into this contract as to whether or not we expect a bin to be collected if our contractor is saying, ‘well, it wasn't on the street’, and the resident is saying it was? Do we trust the contractor or do we trust the residents?

This will happen, Madam Chair. They screamed at me when we were debating the City Plan when I said people will not know if a building is going to be built next door to them until the bulldozer showed up. I was howled down as being hysterical yet that is happening across Brisbane every single day. I'm sure they'll tell me that I'm over-exaggerating in this case, but you wait, I guarantee you will find that situation as this new technology is brought in. I guarantee you.

Madam Chair, moreover than that, this Administration is saying by refusing to give us access to the full contract and the KPIs, they are saying, ‘Trust us. Trust us to deliver this contract in the best interests of the Brisbane residents’. Well, don't listen to what they say, look at what they do.

We've got the CityCycle contract. A cost-neutral contract that's cost us $15 million, and there's even more billboards—

Deputy Chairman: Councillor SUTTON.

Councillor SUTTON: —more billboards than bike stations.

Deputy Chairman: Councillor SUTTON.

Councillor SUTTON could you just come back to the report please.

Councillor SUTTON: Madam Chair, I'm setting a context as to why we shouldn't trust the—


Councillor SUTTON: —Administration on this contract.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Deputy Chairman.

Deputy Chairman: Point of order Councillor JOHNSTON?

Councillor JOHNSTON: Will Councillor SUTTON take a question?

Councillor SUTTON: Yes, I will Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Councillor SUTTON, you expressed concern about being able to trust the Administration. Can you give us some examples of why you cannot trust their administration and delivery of major contracts in the city.

Councillor SUTTON: Yes, I'm happy to provide you with an answer to that Councillor JOHNSTON, because I've just noted the CityCycle contract. That cost-neutral contract that's now cost us $15 million and has delivered more billboards than bike stations. We're only a few years into that. That's for 20 years. Let's see how much it costs us by the end of that 20-year term.


- 70 -

Madam Chair, then we have the mowing contract. Remember the mowing contract where the LNP Administration stood up and said we’re going to be saving the ratepayers $5 million. They saved the ratepayers $5 million by awarding the contract to a company that didn't have enough mowers to do the job.

Then of course you have the latest fiasco. The TechnologyOne LGS contract. That contract that is now costing us $60 million more. A blowout of $60 million and it's now going to cost us more than the savings that it was originally proposed to deliver, and we're likely to get sued for our trouble.

So, Madam Chair, when this Administration comes into the Chamber and says, ‘Trust us. Trust us to deliver this contract, we're good for it’—I'm sorry, that is not good enough.

Now I acknowledge Councillor MATIC has provided us with the file numbers so that we can look up the detail after the fact, but that does not allow us the opportunity to scrutinise the key performance indicators and the service standards that this Administration has set as part of this contract. That alone is cause for refusing to support this contract.

I also have concerns about the delegation authority for the contract extensions. I do think that's inappropriate, particularly for contracts of this size and for the length of time in which they were being issued. I think that it is appropriate for those contract extensions to come back to this place at that point of time.

So, Madam Chair, for those reasons—and as I said, I am truly flabbergasted, truly flabbergasted, that this LNP Administration thinks it's okay to progress this without providing us that essential information about the key performance indicators and the contract in full.

Deputy Chairman: Further debate?

Councillor OWEN.

Councillor OWEN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Chairman. I rise to speak in support of this item, and what we've heard from the other side of this Chamber shows that they really do not have the extensive comprehension of what happens in the corporate world, and the extent of what goes into these very substantial tender processes.

You only have to read—


Deputy Chairman: Point of order against you Councillor OWEN.


Councillor JOHNSTON: Councillor OWEN’s being very offensive, Madam Deputy Chairman. For example, I've participated in a $2 billion tender process for a major contracting company—

Deputy Chairman: Thank you, Councillor JOHNSTON, please resume your seat.

Councillor JOHNSTON: —she doesn't know what she's talking about.

Deputy Chairman: Please resume your seat. I don't uphold your point of order.

Councillor OWEN.

Councillor OWEN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Chairman. What this process has undertaken—and if Councillor JOHNSTON had taken the time to even attend the briefing session, she would understand the extensive probity that was applied throughout this whole tender process.

It was a blind process. It was very substantially overseen the oversight was extensive throughout all of this process by the probity auditor, and I think some of the comments that are being thrown by those on the other side of this Chamber are insulting to those people who have worked on this tender process, as well as to the many tenderers who submitted their documents and went through this very difficult process. They don't make these investments and they


- 71 -

don't put these tenders forward on a corporate basis if they're not prepared to stump up and make a sincere financial investment.

From the whole process, this outlook on where waste is going on behalf of our city—to subdivide it into the different categories, to allow different tenderers to have a look at different capacities that they may or may not have, instead of taking the contract on as an entire contract and not being able to deliver in certain areas—this has actually divested risk across a broad range and allowed tenderers who are smaller companies to actually step up and grow through this process. It's a way that we are actually able to support business to grow with us as the need across the years develops.

Tenderers in these types of contracts to this level need to have a certain level of surety. They need to be able to say, ‘If we're going to make an investment in providing a fleet of vehicles, we've got to have the financial surety that comes with a long-term contract’. That's where just having an eight-year contract is not sufficient for the investment that is needed for such a significant delivery that these tenderers are required to do.

Now, there is a good balance across the categories. There has been no refusal of access to anything in relation to this contract, and what those on the other side have to understand, is that until such time as a contract is signed it is not available for viewing. It is the standard record process in this place. So—

Councillor SUTTON: Point of order, Madam Chair.

Deputy Chairman: Point of order against you Councillor OWEN.

Councillor SUTTON.

Councillor SUTTON: I'm sorry, I can't let Councillor OWEN say that we have not been refused access to any of the documentation, because I have a letter in my hand right now saying that we cannot have access to this documentation prior to this vote today and the contract being executed.

That has been our point of contention the whole time. I understand she's saying we can have access to it after the fact, but to say that we have not been denied access to it up to this point is actually false.

Deputy Chairman: Thank you, Councillor SUTTON. I'm sure Councillor OWEN will address that.

Thank you.

Councillor OWEN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Chairman.


Deputy Chairman: Point of order, Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Thank you, Madam Deputy Chairman, I apologise. I also rise on a point of order.

The City of Brisbane Act and the Meetings Local Law make it clear we are entitled to confidential information as Councillors, however we do have some restrictions on how we use that information.

So, Councillor OWEN is deliberately being wrong when she says we are restricted from accessing confidential information.

Deputy Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, I'm sure that Councillor OWEN will clarify her remarks in the time that she has left.

Thank you.

Councillor OWEN.

Councillor OWEN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Chairman, and the reality is if something is in draft it is not a record. It is not a document—


Deputy Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON—



- 72 -

Deputy Chairman: Just before you begin, Councillor JOHNSTON, can I just make the point that when you rise and have your say people allow you to do that without interruption. It would be very kind if you would just allow Councillor OWEN to finish her remarks, and then of course if there is a point of order I'm happy to take it.

What is your point of order right now?

Councillor JOHNSTON: Councillor OWEN is misleading the Chamber. Drafts are a document, that's been decided both within the legislation of this State and by the Queensland Ombudsman.

Deputy Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON, could you just please resume your seat. I have already said that Councillor OWEN is trying to address her remarks. If you would let her finish, thank you.

Councillor OWEN.

Councillor OWEN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Chairman.

At the end of the day, the contract is going to be the contract irrespective of which tenderer gets it. There is a contract that is going to be signed, but what we are here to do today is to make a decision as to whether or not the recommendation of the Council officers for who is awarded the contract is upheld. That is what we are here to do.

So, if Councillor JOHNSTON had taken the time to actually sit through the entire briefing she would have had a better understanding of what has gone in behind the scenes. There have been thousands and thousands of documents that have gone through an extensive process, and I for one would like to say to all of the Council officers that have worked so hard on this behind the scenes, a very big thank you for all of your efforts, because this is not a quick process.

There has been a lot of work and a lot of time and energy invested in this by the Council officers and the way that some of those on the other side are behaving tonight is appalling and disrespectful.

Madam Deputy Chairman, we are here tonight to support this recommendation by the Council officers who have given very substantial reasons why each individual category should be awarded in what particular way, and on the grounds that have been put forward through this process under intense probity conditions. I believe that we are here to support the officers and I commend the report to the Chamber.


Deputy Chairman: Councillor SUTTON!

Thank you.

Is there further debate?

Councillor SRI.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Deputy Chair. I rise to speak briefly on this item.

It strikes me that to some extent the comments from Opposition Councillors are in a way wasted breath because we know this decision's already been made. I don't say that lightly but it is clear to me that most of the Councillors in this place, who belong to the Administration party, will vote with the Administration whether or not they've looked in detail at this proposal. They'll tow the party line, which effectively means that right now there's only half a dozen or so Councillors who are actively scrutinising this proposal, and the majority of the Chamber is just waving it through.

That's because they trust the members of their own party who've already made the decision behind closed doors. That's all well and good for them, but for the rest of us and for the people of Brisbane that means that there's been no meaningful democratic scrutiny or insight—


- 73 -

Deputy Chairman: Councillor SRI can I just point out that this is your opportunity to have your say and so could you just refer to the report and to tell us what you think about the report. We're interested in what your views are.

Councillor SRI: Thanks, Madam Deputy Chair, for that guidance. I'm making these points because I'm concerned about the process, and I feel that concerns about the process are directly relevant to what we're voting on here today.

I mean, fundamentally my concern is that what we're seeing here is an outsourcing of decision-making power to unelected staff and to opaque algorithms.

Now I'm at pains to emphasise that attacking the recommendation before us and attacking this process is not an attack on Council officers or Council staff themselves. I think it was rhetorically lazy of Councillors of the Administration to try and muddy the waters and to accuse Opposition Councillors of denigrating or undermining the hard work of Council staff.

At that time, 6.08pm, the Chairman, Councillor Angela OWEN, resumed the Chair.

Councillor SRI: To question this process and to question what's before us is not to necessarily criticise or undermine the Council officers themselves, and I think it's irresponsible and lazy rhetoric to imply as much.

But when I say what we're seeing here is an outsourcing of decision-making power, I'm talking about the fact that the residents of Brisbane entrust us, as elected representatives, to make these decisions with the full information before us. To scrutinise these proposals, to do our homework and in this case, a lot of the Councillors in this place haven't been given that opportunity.

There's been precious little information available to make an informed decision on this recommendation, and I share the concerns raised by members of the Labor Party and the Independent, Councillor JOHNSTON, that this entire process has been really quite opaque.

But I also wanted to draw attention to the fact that a lot of the weighting in this cost benefit ratio analysis before us, they're effectively political decisions. What I mean by that—if you go to evaluation criteria, to number 13 in the report, experience and track record, capability and capacity, compatibility et cetera, et cetera—these percentages have been allocated based on subjective value judgments of the members of the TENT, Tender Evaluation and Negotiation Team.

So, I'm not questioning the experience of the members of that team, but I'm observing that they are making subjective value judgments, which are on some level political judgments, because they're making policy decisions about how much weighting each of those criteria should be given.

So these aren't necessarily purely commercial—it's not purely commercial advice. It's not technical assessments and technical information. It's a political decision in terms of how much weighting those different criteria are given. The political decision as to how much weighting those different criteria are given and what elements are included and excluded from those criteria, ultimately inform the outcome of the algorithm that makes the recommendation as to which company is most appropriate for the tender.

So, the algorithm is effectively masking the fact that unelected, unaccountable individuals are making political decisions on behalf of the people of Brisbane. Those political decisions are fed into that algorithm that then spits out a recommendation, and then that recommendation is acted upon and adopted as though it was independent and objective, even though it's actually based on very subjective values-based judgments by unelected and unaccounted officials.

So, I'm at pains to emphasise that I don't think it's good governance for us as city Councillors to outsource decision-making in this way and to this extent. I'm not necessarily questioning the outcome or the choice to split up the different categories, but I'm saying that the process itself is deeply flawed. I share


- 74 -

concerns about the length of the contract and the fact that its renewal won't be subject to democratic scrutiny either.

I guess I'm just disappointed because as a new Councillor coming into this place I expected better. I expected a higher standard. I expected that these sorts of processes would be robust and democratic and accountable and transparent, but when so much information is being withheld from Councillors who are supposed to vote on the recommendation, I can't see how we can be expected to make an informed decision.

So for that reason I'll be voting against this motion.


LORD MAYOR.

LORD MAYOR: Well thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I might just come to the last speaker first.

I mean there were a number of inaccuracies with what Councillor SRI had to say. The first thing is that there is a contracting plan. That plan is approved by the Cabinet. That plan determines criteria in terms of what are the important things to assess in a contract.

So, that is not something that is delegated to officers. It is something that, as the elected governing board of Brisbane, as in the Cabinet—that is determined at that level. To say that there was lack of information—there was an information session that Councillor MATIC held last week. I notice most of the Labor Councillors seemed to find the time to get along to it. It's a pretty significant contract, but unfortunately Councillor SRI, you weren't there. Councillor JOHNSTON wasn't there, but you stand up today claiming that you don't have information, you're not going to vote on it and all the rest of it.

Well, Madam Chairman, the reality is that there's more information flow in this place than what you'll get at either of the other levels of government. I just remind the Chamber also that we are elected to govern. We're elected by the people of the city and that places an onus of responsibility upon us. It also places an onus of accountability upon us and we accept both of those by the decision of the people.

So, Madam Chairman, I can just assure all Councillors here that the Cabinet had invested an enormous amount of time in this. There have been a lot of policy determinations that have been sought by the Cabinet from Council officers, so I would not accept any proposition that suggests that Mr Lee and other officers have run off and made political determinations.

They have not, but they have followed a proper process of assessment. They have looked at a range of things including price, and including spread of risks associated with various sites and companies. They have at each step of the way, as has the Cabinet policy-making determinations, been overviewed by an independent probity auditor.

So, having seen lots of contracts go through this place in the 32 years that I have been here, I am absolutely satisfied that it has covered every aspect that we needed to cover to make sure that the best outcome is there.

On the issue of the 16 years, we take absolute responsibility as a Cabinet in terms of making that call, and I outlined the reasons at the beginning of introducing this item as to why it was so. I explained that it provided the best value for money for the ratepayers of this city. It provided, Madam Chairman, for, we believe, the best stability for workforce engaged in the industry.

It also though takes into account the opportunities for changes in technology, for innovation, for all of those things that the ratepayers can benefit from through negotiated outcomes with this Council, whatever the Council of the day might be.

To your point Councillor SUTTON, we may all be gone in 16 years, but you know, they said that to me when the contracts were put through in the 1990s and


- 75 -

I'm still here. So that was a contract at that time for more than 20 years in parts of the rubbish contracts, as it were, in those days.

So I am very comfortable that the examinations have been properly made around these contracts. I believe the selections of the tenderers are good ones, are appropriate ones, and do represent the best on offer to represent value for the people of this city.

Chairman: I will now put the report.

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

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


AYES: 19 - The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR, Councillor Graham QUIRK, DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, and Councillors Krista ADAMS, Adam ALLAN, Matthew BOURKE, Amanda COOPER, Vicki HOWARD, Steven HUANG, Fiona KING, Peter MATIC, Ian McKENZIE, David McLACHLAN, Ryan MURPHY, Angela OWEN, Kate RICHARDS, Julian SIMMONDS, Steven TOOMEY, Andrew WINES and Norm WYNDHAM.

NOES: 7 - The Leader of the OPPOSITION, Councillor Peter CUMMING, and Councillors Jared CASSIDY, Steve GRIFFITHS, Charles STRUNK, Shayne SUTTON, Jonathan SRI and Nicole JOHNSTON.


ATTENDANCE:

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

A STORES BOARD SUBMISSION – WASTE AND RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICES165/830/179/484


2. The Chief Executive Officer and Stores Board considered the submission, as set out in Attachment A, on 31 May 2017.

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

Purpose

4. That the Chief Executive Officer (through the Stores Board) recommends to Council that it approves entering into the following contractual arrangements for the provision of Waste and Resource Recovery Services (excluding Category 3).- SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Pty Ltd (SUEZ) for Category 1 – Waste, Recycling and

Green Waste Collection Services. This Corporate Procurement Arrangement (CPA) will be in the form of a Preferred Supplier Arrangement and will be on a schedule of rates price basis for a term of 16 years.

- Cleanaway Pty Ltd (Cleanaway) for Category 2 – Resource Recovery Innovation Alliance. This Alliance contract will be on a management fee and Total Cost Estimate (TCE) price


- 76 -

basis, for an initial term of 10 years with an extension of up to six additional years, not exceeding a maximum term of 16 years.

- Wood Mulching Industries Pty Ltd (WMI), NuGrow Metro Pty Ltd (NuGrow) and Phoenix Power Recyclers Pty Ltd (Phoenix) for Category 4 – Green Waste Processing Services. This CPA will be in the form of a Panel Arrangement, on a schedule of rates price basis, for an initial term of eight years with the option to extend for one additional period of eight years, not exceeding a maximum term of 16 years.

Background/operational impact

5.

What is being procured and why:

This procurement exercise aimed to establish suitable arrangements for the provision of Waste and Resource Recovery Services (WaRRS).There are four service categories being procured:Waste, Recycling and Green Waste Collection ServicesResource Recovery Innovation AllianceWaste Disposal ServicesGreen Waste Processing Services.

These waste management services are some of the key core services of Council delivered to residents of Brisbane.

Redland City Council’s (RCC) requirements were included in Category 1 as a separable sub-category. There was also the option of services being delivered for both Council and RCC areas in a combined regional collections contract.

Pre-market approval: A Significant Contracting Plan was approved by the Establishment and Coordination Committee (E&C) on 24 November 2014. The pre-market submission was approved on 28 June 2016, by the Chief Executive Officer (through the Stores Board).

Process used: Request for Proposals (RFP) (with negotiations)

Closing date for responses:

21 December 2016

Offer validity period expiry date:

17 September 2017

Pre-market approval adhered to?

Yes

Summary of responses

6. Tenderer details have been kept confidential from the Project Control Group (PCG), Stores Board and E&C throughout this procurement and approval process, and have only been included in the report to Council for approval.

7. Category 1 – Waste, Recycling and Green Waste Collection Services – BCC

Name Address and ABN/ACN Non-price Score [out

of 100]

Final Tendered Price* (excl.

GST) [after any negotiations]

Value for

Money (VFM) Index**

Recommended OfferSUEZ Recycling & Recovery Pty Ltd (SUEZ)

Level 3, 3-5 Rider BoulevardRhodes NSW 2138ABN: 70 002 902 650ACN: 002 902 650

88 $1.31 billion 6.71

Shortlisted Offers Not RecommendedCleanaway Pty Ltd(Cleanaway)

Level 4, 441 St Kilda Road Melbourne VIC 3004

81 $1.33 billion 6.10


- 77 -


of 100]



Value for

Money (VFM) Index**

ABN: 79 000 164 938ACN: 000 164 938

Remondis Australia Pty Ltd (Remondis)

Level 4, 163 O’Riordan StreetMascot NSW 2020ABN: 95 002 429 781ACN: 002 429 781

56 $1.83 billion 3.03

* The Final Tendered Price is the 16-year whole-of-life cost based on a basket of services.** The VFM Index is the Non-price Score divided by Final Tendered Price and then scaled

appropriately.

8. Category 1 – Waste, Recycling and Green Waste Collection Services – RCCThis separable portion will be subject to the RCC approval process.


of 100]



Value for

Money (VFM) Index**

Submissions Received. To be awarded by RCCCleanaway Pty Ltd(Cleanaway)

Level 4, 441 St Kilda Road Melbourne VIC 3004ABN: 79 000 164 938ACN: 000 164 938

n/a n/a n/a

J.J. Richards & Sons Pty Ltd (Richards)

3 Grant StreetCleveland QLD 4163ABN: 40 000 805 425ACN: 000 805 425

n/a n/a n/a

SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Pty Ltd (SUEZ)


n/a n/a n/a

* The Final Tendered Price is the 16-year whole-of-life cost. ** The VFM Index is the Non-price Score divided by Final Tendered Price and then scaled

appropriately.

9. Category 2 – Resource Recovery Innovation Alliance


of 100]



Value for

Money (VFM) Index**

Recommended OfferCleanaway Pty Ltd (Cleanaway)


87 $69 million 1.55

Shortlisted Offers Not RecommendedSUEZ Recycling & Recovery Pty Ltd (SUEZ)


81 $65 million 1.53

Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty Ltd (Veolia)

Level 4 Bay Centre 65 Pirrama Road Pyrmont NSW 2009ABN: 20 051 316 584ACN: 051 316 584

66 $80 million 1.00


- 78 -


of 100]



Value for

Money (VFM) Index**

Remondis Australia Pty Ltd (Remondis)


62 $86 million 0.88

Offer Not ShortlistedRe.Group Pty Ltd (Re.Group)

Suite 1801A, Level 18 1 Bligh StreetSydney NSW 2000ABN: 76 616 439 779ACN: 616 439 779

30 $93 million 0.39

* The Final Tendered Price is the 16-year management fee. The main portion of the Alliance costs, the TCE has not been considered as part of the price assessment. The proposed TCEs were considered as part of the assessment of the non-price elements. The reason for this is that these are pass-through costs for the Key Performance Indicator (KPI) pool, tip shops and all the operations related to Category 2 and are set by the Alliance on an annual basis. An understanding of what is contained in a TCE is a fundamental requirement of an Alliance partner.

** The calculation of the VFM Index for this category differs slightly to the other categories. It is derived by the Non-price Score divided by Final Tendered Price (55%/45%). This was done in recognition of the higher relative importance in this category of long-term strategic relationships rather than transactional elements.

10. Category 3 – Waste Disposal ServicesCategory 3 – Waste Disposal Services has not been finalised at this stage and will be the subject of a separate submission to be progressed at a subsequent date.

11. Category 4 – Green Waste Processing Services


of 100]



Value for

Money (VFM) Index**

Recommended OffersWood Mulching Industries Pty Ltd (WMI)

1b/13 Brendan Drive Nerang QLD 4211ABN: 66 061 419 921ACN: 061 419 921

66 $3.2 million 20.49

NuGrow Metro Pty Ltd (NuGrow)

Level 18, 145 Ann StreetBrisbane QLD 4000ABN: 34 124 571 875ACN: 124 571 875

64 $3.9 million 16.24

Phoenix Power Recyclers Pty Ltd (Phoenix)

Unit 1, 16 Vanessa Boulevard Springwood QLD 4127ABN: 54 077 704 502ACN: 077 704 502

63 $7.4 million 8.59

Shortlisted Offers Not RecommendedCleanaway Pty Ltd (Cleanaway) #


76 $7.7 million 9.85

Aegina Pty Ltd as Trustee for Galbraith Family Trust trading as ARG Trees (ARG Trees)

32 Enterprise StreetCleveland QLD 4163ABN 36 841 312 788

50 $6.9 million 7.26


- 79 -


of 100]



Value for

Money (VFM) Index**

M&C Keith Family Trust & J Keith Family Trust Partnership trading as Green Fingers Potting Mix (Green Fingers)

709 Stapylton-Jacobs Well Road Woongoolba QLD 4207ABN: 64 913 938 751

63 $10.3 million 6.07

Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty Ltd (Veolia) ~

Level 4 Bay Centre 65 Pirrama Road Pyrmont NSW 2009ABN: 20 051 316 584ACN: 051 316 584

80 $81.0 million 0.98

SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Pty Ltd (SUEZ) ^


65 $3.4 million n/a

Remondis Australia Pty Ltd (Remondis)+


64 $8.0 million n/a

* The Final Tendered Price is a 16-year, 40,000 tonne per annum basket of goods price for composting shredded green waste only.

** The VFM Index is the Non-price Score divided by Final Tendered Price and then scaled appropriately.

^ SUEZ proposed a subcontracting arrangement with NuGrow using an unsustainable price review methodology. This offer was not progressed as it provides the same facility as NuGrow. A VFM Index was not calculated as their offer for this category was contingent on acceptance on their Category 2 offer. See Evaluation of Responses below.

# Cleanaway proposed a solution that included three subcontracting arrangements with Phoenix, Green Fingers and another non-tendering organisation. This option was not recommended as it provides the same facilities as Phoenix and Green Fingers, but at an increased margin. See Evaluation of Responses below.

+ Remondis proposed a subcontracting arrangement with Phoenix. This option was not progressed as it provides the same facility as Phoenix, but at a higher margin. A VFM Index was not calculated as their offer for this category was contingent on acceptance of their Category 2 offer. See Evaluation of Responses below.

~ Veolia provided a proposal for in-vessel composting technology to be co-located at Council’s Willawong Resource Recovery Centre. While this technology is more robust and environmentally superior to the windrow composting proposed by the other Category 4 tenderers, it requires significant capital investment.

Evaluation of responses

12. Evaluation TeamThe Tender Evaluation and Negotiation Team (TENT) was structured into four teams to evaluate each of the four categories. There were some evaluation team members who participated on multiple sub-teams.

13. Evaluation Criteria(a) Mandatory/essential criteria

Nil(b) Non-price weighted evaluation criteria

The service categories each have different characteristics. The non-price weighted evaluation criteria were developed with input and endorsement from the PCG members and the differing weightings reflect the differing relative importance of each criterion to each service category. The criteria weightings are as follows.

Criteria 1. Waste, 2. Resource 4. Green Waste


- 80 -

Recycling and Green Waste

Collection Services

Recovery Innovation Alliance

Processing Services

Experience and Track Record 23% 10% 19%

Capability and Capacity 34% 27% 24%

Compatibility 15% 30% 22%

Commercial Matters 22% 24% 27%

Innovation and Value-add 6% 9% 8%

Total 100% 100% 100%(c) Price model

The pricing models used for Categories 1 and 4 were baskets of services drawn from the tendered prices. For Category 2, the pricing model used was a management fee based on the number of waste service charges.

14. Addenda issuedFifteen addenda were issued. The purpose of these addenda was to respond to tenderer clarification questions and to detail logistics regarding the industry briefings, vendor presentations and five days of site tours for Category 1 and Category 2.

15. Initial evaluationResponses received were initially checked for completeness. Evaluation against the relevant evaluation criteria for each category by TENT commenced. In parallel, five tenderer presentations were held for Category 2 tenderers. The purpose of these presentations was to provide the Category 2 TENT an overview and broad understanding of each tenderer’s proposal.

16. The results of the evaluation of each category proposal were moderated by each category evaluation team. Rankings were determined and a full TENT meeting was then held to discuss the results of the initial evaluation and determine TENT’s recommendation.

17. Shortlisting and additional stagesFollowing completion of the initial evaluation, TENT recommended to the PCG progressing all parties except one for Category 2. Re.Group was not progressed as their assessed Non-price Score following the initial evaluation was significantly lower than the other tenderers, driven in part by a lack of landfill experience, concerns regarding their proposed operations plan and general lower scores achieved across the other criteria elements. Their management fee was also the least competitive of the Category 2 tenderers.

18. Round one negotiations feedback was then provided to the remaining tenderers for all categories. Additionally, as part of this round, four full-day workshops were held with the remaining four Category 2 tenderers. Workshop performance and responses to the feedback were assessed and eight tenderers’ category offers were recommended to progress to round two negotiations feedback.

19. Remondis’ Category 1 offer was parked at this point as its VFM was significantly lower than the other two parties. This lower VFM was driven by a low Non-price Score and significantly higher total price arising from a very large proposed collection fleet.

20. A decision was also made at this point to separate the Council and RCC collections requirements into two separate streams, as a combined contract option did not provide either local government with sufficient added value. The RCC separable sub-category and relevant proposals will not be discussed further as they will be the subject of a separate post-market submission via the RCC procurement process with contract award a matter between the successful party and RCC.

21. Of the Category 2 tenderers, Remondis and Veolia were both parked at this point as they offered the lowest VFM of the shortlist driven by substantially lower Non-price Scores and higher management fees.


- 81 -

22. For Category 4 tenderers offering subcontracting arrangements, SUEZ, Cleanaway and Remondis were also parked at this point as:- their offers for these categories were conditional on Council’s acceptance of their Category 2

proposal and/or- their proposed facilities were provided through other tenderers’ offers meaning Council would

pay an additional margin as they were more expensive, in part due to using the facilities of others.

23. In Category 4, ARG Trees, Green Fingers and Veolia were also parked at this point as these tenderers offered the lowest VFM driven by concerns regarding systems and processes in the case of ARG Trees, and higher processing charges for Green Fingers and Veolia.

24. Round two negotiations feedback was then held with the progressed tenderers. Responses to this feedback from all tenderers were again assessed and a recommendation was made to the PCG to continue to progress these parties to round three.

25. During round two, Category 1 and 2 tenderer offers were explored with respect to determining the benefits of awarding both these categories to one tenderer. The analysis, while indicating limited benefit, showed that a combined contract for both categories would result in a lower Non-price Score being achieved and would lead to increased risk to Council. The more advantageous solution was to keep both categories separate.

26. A third round of negotiations feedback was undertaken to finalise tenderer positions. No tenderers were parked at this point. In Category 1 and 2, both Cleanaway and SUEZ were provided with contracts to formalise their offers to Council. For Category 4, NuGrow, WMI and Phoenix were determined as a panel to provide green waste disposal security and were provided with clarifications regarding the term and minimum volumes to be provided by Council. These clarifications were positively responded to and all are recommended to form the Category 4 panel.

Objectivity and probity

27. Was a probity auditor used?Yes, O’Connor Marsden & Associates Pty Ltd (OCM) are the appointed probity auditor. They have attended all evaluation moderation, strategy, decision-making and negotiation meetings. They have had direct contact with all tenderers enquiring of any probity concerns. OCM has confirmed that, as of the date of this post-market submission, they have no unresolved probity issues. They will provide Council with their final written probity report on the conclusion of the process, after debriefs with unsuccessful tenderers have been carried out.

28. OCM has confirmed that the tenderer details have been kept confidential from the PCG, Stores Board and E&C throughout this process.

Recommended tenderer/s (most advantageous outcome for Council)

29. Most advantageous:Category 1 – Waste, Recyclables and Green Waste Collection ServicesThe recommended tenderer is SUEZ for the following reasons.- They have the highest Non-price Score, lowest estimated price and hence the highest VFM.- They have extensive domestic and international experience as a collections service provider

for large councils.- They proposed a methodology assessed as most suitable to deliver the services, including

greater fleet capacity and redundancy enabling high flexibility and systems to introduce new technology over the term.

- They offered the establishment of collection vehicle depots at Council Resource Recovery Centres, which will be transferred to Council at no cost on conclusion of this contract.

- They offered strong experience in integration to Council’s systems.- They have included added value features that improve the safety and utility of the fleet.- They offered minimal transition risk in terms of labour, customer service (changes and

expectations) and disruption of services.- They provided the strongest KPI regime.

30. Category 2 – Resource Recovery Innovation Alliance


- 82 -

The assessment of this category applied higher importance to Non-price Scores than pricing as successful Alliances are determined more through relationships than transactions.

31. The recommended tenderer is Cleanaway for the following reasons.- The have the highest Non-price Score and highest VFM.- They demonstrated excellent understanding of Alliances and excellent alignment with

Council’s vision and values.- They have a strong assessed ability to undertake innovation over the term of the contract with

their in-house innovation fostering system and the suggested processes to capture and pursue opportunities.

- They have offered many value-adds including eject blade trailers to replace the slower to unload walking floor trailers and infrastructure improvements, such as a concept design of an additional transfer station near the Chandler Resource Recovery Centre to significantly increase the speed of unloading and alleviate capacity constraints.

- They have good Alliance experience and capability as demonstrated by their broad strong team response in the Alliance workshop.

- They have very strong landfill, resource recovery centre and transfer station operation experience.

- They have provided an extensive and well-resourced transition plan and mobilisation plan.

32. Category 4 – Green Waste Processing ServicesThe following three tenderers are recommended in order to ensure Council has sufficient disposal options to manage Council’s expected green waste tonnages and to provide adequate redundancy in times of natural disaster events.

33. WMI is recommended for the following reasons.- They achieved the highest Non-price Score and lowest price resulting in the highest VFM.- They are an experienced green waste processor.- They have the ability to deliver, if required, any future food organics, green organics (FOGO)

processing services.- They have a strong focus on innovation.NuGrow is recommended for the following reasons.- They achieved the second highest VFM.- They are an experienced, large scale green waste processor.- They have the ability to deliver, if required, any future FOGO processing services.Phoenix is recommended for the following reasons.- They provide geographic redundancy through their location.- They offered the third highest VFM for a standalone facility.- They are an experienced green waste processor.- Have the ability to provide, if required, any future FOGO services. - They have a focus on innovation.

34. Tenderers not recommended:The following tenderers are not recommended as they achieved lower VFMs in each of their respective categories relative to the recommended tenderers and for the reasons as follows.

35. Category 1 – Waste, Recycling and Green Waste Collection ServicesCleanaway is not recommended for the following reasons.- They demonstrated comparably less recent experience in handing waste contracts of a similar

magnitude to Council.- The lower fleet numbers proposed meant less flexibility and capacity to deal with external

changes such as natural disasters.- They were assessed as a higher transition risk than the recommended tenderer across areas

such as labour, customer service and ICT integration.- They achieved a lower VFM score than the recommended tenderer.Remondis is not recommended for the following reasons.- Their operational approach was underdeveloped.- Their much greater fleet size drove significantly higher rates.- They achieved a lower VFM score than the recommended tenderer.


- 83 -

36. Category 2 – Resource Recovery Innovation AllianceFor this category, Non-price Scores have a higher importance than pricing in recognition of the greater importance of relationships rather than transactions for Alliances.

37. SUEZ is not recommended for the following reasons.- Their alignment to Council’s vision and values was assessed as less than that of the

recommended tenderer.- They offered less relevant value-adds and less integrated innovation fostering systems.- Their lower performance in the Alliance workshop appeared as a result of dependency on a

few key individuals and being less prepared.- While they have the lowest management fee, their Non-price Score and VFM are both lower

relative to the recommended tenderer.Veolia is not recommended for the following reasons.- Many parts of their proposal were underdeveloped or very generic, for example, their

operational approach, industrial relations and Alliance management structure.- They demonstrated an average alignment to Council.- They achieved a lower VFM driven by a higher management fee and lower Non-price Score.Remondis is not recommended for the following reasons.- They did not demonstrate strong alignment to Council on the dimensions of vision,

relationship and practically through their workshop performance. These indicated a transactional services relationship would be likely.

- Many of their proposed plans were underdeveloped and in initial draft stages.- They proposed the second highest management fee and had a lower Non-price Score which

meant an overall lower VFM.Re.Group is not recommended for the following reasons.- They demonstrated limited relevant experience and deficiencies were assessed in their

operations plan, systems and process and innovation.- They proposed the highest management fee.

38. Category 4 – Green Waste Processing ServicesSUEZ is not recommended for the following reasons.- Their offer was subject to the award of Category 2.- Their subcontracting arrangement with NuGrow means the same facility is provided as

NuGrow’s proposal. Their lower price relative to NuGrow was driven by an unsustainable rise and fall methodology.

Cleanaway is not recommended for the following reasons.- Their subcontracting arrangements with Phoenix, Green Fingers and another

non-tendering organisation means the same facilities are provided by other tenderers, but with an additional margin.

Remondis is not recommended for the following reasons.- Their offer was subject to award of Category 2.- Their subcontracting arrangement with Phoenix means the same facility is provided, but with

an additional margin.ARG Trees is not recommended for the following reasons.- Their referee reports highlighted some issues.- Their proposal had a number of deficiencies with their operational methodology, systems and

process.- They achieved a lower Non-price Score and thus lower VFM.Green Fingers is not recommended for the following reasons.- While they provide a sound approach, their processing capacity is lower than others and prices

were higher than the recommended shortlisted companies, which overall resulted in their lower VFM.

Veolia is not recommended for the following reasons.- They proposed an advanced composting technology (in vessel), which while offering

improved service benefits, was offered at significant cost when compared to the mature windrow composting technology offered by other tenderers. This resulted in a very low VFM.

39. The evaluation criteria considered the environmental, quality assurance, corporate social responsibility, zero harm and support the local economy aspects of these services. Tenderers provided extensive responses to these and TENT has reviewed the positions of all tenderers and is satisfied with those of the recommended tenderers.

40. Risks associated with this contract (including mitigation strategies):


- 84 -


Comments/other risk Mitigation Strategies

Category 1 – transition

Low SUEZ has proposed a sound transition and mobilisation approach that TENT has assessed and views as low risk.

Category 2 – transition

Low Transition to a new supplier represents a risk given the scale of operations. However, transition plans and the additional dedicated resources proposed by Cleanaway, along with their prior transition experience are considered to provide good mitigations for this risk.

Category 4 – processing capacity security

Low The ongoing processing of green waste, especially during periods of natural disaster, was considered problematic. Having a panel with three disposal options (in two geographic regions) was considered as providing the greatest disposal security.

41. Is this contract listed by SPO as a critical contract?Yes, for Category 1.

Contract proposed

42.

Type of procurement:

Establishing CPAs in the forms of:- Category 1 – Waste, Recyclables and Green Waste Collection

Services Preferred Supplier Arrangement- Category 2 – Resource Recovery Innovation Alliance

Agreement- Category 4 – Green Waste Processing Services Panel Arrangement.

RCC’s requirements are to be approved by RCC separately and will result in a different collections contract for that council.

If establishing a new CPA, how will it be operated?

- Category 1 – Services order placed on an annual basis.- Category 2 – Delivery of services against a TCE as approved by the

Alliance Board each year.- Category 4 – Rolling four-year waste forecast determined for each

panellist. Relevant orders then placed each year with each panellist. Allocation of waste between each panellist optimised subject to pricing, caps and minimum volumes committed under the forecast.

Contract standard to be used:

Council’s standard Goods and Services Contract was used as the basis for all arrangements except for the Alliance component.

The Category 1 – Waste, Recycling and Green Waste Collection Services contract is based on the current contract and aligns to the Strategic Partner standard which includes concepts such as relationship objectives, innovation and Council’s performance objectives.

The current Alliance contract was used as the draft Category 2 contract with changes to drive improved operations.

For Category 4 – Green Waste Processing, panel arrangement contracts have been modified to accommodate some of the key characteristics of those services.

All changes were developed with and approved by City Legal, City Administration and Governance (CAG).


- 85 -

Amendments to standards:

- Category 1 – minor amendments regarding rights upon breach and compliance with legislation.

- Category 2 – no amendments.- Category 4 – no amendments.

All amendments were approved by City Legal, CAG.

All non-compliances with contract conditions and specifications resolved?

Yes

Is liability and indemnity to be capped?

- Categories 1 and 4 – no limit or cap.- Category 2 – tenderer liability is limited to the TCE for that year.

Has the proposed contractor(s) signed the contract to formalise their offer?

Yes

Execution date of contract:

Proposed for 6 June 2017, following Council approval. The contracts have up to a 12-month mobilisation phase before services commence on 1 July 2018. This allows the necessary period of time for transition activities to be completed, equipment purchases made and labour arrangements put in place.

Term/period of contract:

- For Category 1 – Waste, Recycling and Green Waste Collection Services, the contract term is 16 years.

- For Category 2 – Resource Recovery Innovation Alliance, the initial term is ten years with up to six years of extensions possible.

- For Category 4 – Green Waste Processing Services, an initial term of eight years with one optional extension of eight years.

There is provision in all of the arrangements above for early termination should this be required.

The maximum term of all contracts is 16 years.

Price basis: Categories 1 and 4 are on a schedule of rates basis. Category 2 is on a management fee and total cost estimate price basis.

Variation for rise and fall in cost:

Categories 1 and 4 prices may be adjusted by the Consumer Price Index (CPI), labour and fuel changes on the anniversary of the commencement date. A portion in each contract remains fixed for the duration of the contract. The Category 2 management fee may be adjusted by CPI on the anniversary of the commencement date and the extent of growth of waste service charges.

Security for the contract:

Category 1 – $10 million Mobilisation Security and a $10 million General Security.

Category 2 – A performance bond set at 10% of the initial year’s TCE and reviewed every four years.

There is no security required for Category 4.


- 86 -

Defects liability period/warranty period?

Not applicable

Liquidated damages: No liquidated damages apply but Council’s right to claim general law damages is preserved.

Funding

43. Estimated expenditure under this CPA/contract (excluding contingency if any): Over the 16-year term the following expenditures are estimated:- Category 1 – $1,311 million- Category 2 – $990 million (includes the estimated TCE component over the 16 years)- Category 4 – $16 million- Total – $2,317 million.

44. Sufficient approved budget to meet the total spend under this CPA/contract? YesWhile the Category 1 contract is a schedule of rates CPA, there is a schedule of work to be completed meaning these services will be required to be budgeted for over the full term. Similarly, Category 2 services will be required to be budgeted for over the full term.

Category 4 has a minimum quantity commitment for processing 20,000 tonnes per vendor per annum. Council’s requirements are approximately 80,000 tonnes per annum, meaning a total of 60,000 tonnes is to be committed. In year one, the value of the minimum commitment for the panel is $410,000 per annum.

45. Procurement saving against pre-market estimate (if any): Category 1A procurement saving of $43 million reduction on current rates over the 16-year term has been identified. This saving includes a negotiated saving of $16 million on the originally tendered rates by the recommended tenderer. Additionally, the recommended tenderer has proposed the establishment of depots at Council Resource Recovery Centres. At the end of the 16-year term, Council will be transferred ownership of these assets at no charge.

Category 2A procurement saving of $2.1 million on current management fees over the 16-year term has been identified. A negotiated saving of $29 million on the originally tendered rates by the recommended tenderer over this same period has been achieved.

Category 4A procurement saving of $12 million reduction on current rates through optimising use of the panel over the 16-year term has been identified.

46. Budget line item: Program: Program 1 – Clean, Green and WaterSmart City Program Outcome: 1.9 Managing and Reducing Waste and LitterService: 1.9.1.1 – Waste Stream Management and Reduction Operating or Projects: 5000000451 – Waste Stream Management and Reduction


Financial Year 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21$000 $000 $000

Capital - - -Expenses 136,782 142,927 144,760 Revenue 162,481

(loaded budget)171,769

(loaded budget179,440

(loaded budget)

- 87 -


48. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT COUNCIL APPROVES THE FOLLOWING.

(1) ENTERING INTO CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS WITH:

I. SUEZ RECYCLING & RECOVERY PTY LTD FOR CATEGORY 1 – WASTE, RECYCLING AND GREEN WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES. THIS CORPORATE PROCUREMENT ARRANGEMENT (CPA) WILL BE IN THE FORM OF A PREFERRED SUPPLIER ARRANGEMENT AND WILL BE ON A SCHEDULE OF RATES PRICE BASIS FOR A TERM OF 16 YEARS

II. CLEANAWAY PTY LTD FOR CATEGORY 2 – RESOURCE RECOVERY INNOVATION ALLIANCE. THIS ALLIANCE CONTRACT WILL BE ON A MANAGEMENT FEE AND TOTAL COST ESTIMATE PRICE BASIS FOR AN INITIAL TERM OF 10 YEARS WITH UP TO SIX YEARS OF EXTENSIONS POSSIBLE NOT EXCEEDING A MAXIMUM TERM OF 16 YEARS

III. WOOD MULCHING INDUSTRIES PTY LTD, NUGROW METRO PTY LTD AND PHOENIX POWER RECYCLERS PTY LTD FOR CATEGORY 4 – GREEN WASTE PROCESSING SERVICES. THIS CPA WILL BE IN THE FORM OF A PANEL ARRANGEMENT, ON A SCHEDULE OF RATES PRICE BASIS FOR AN INITIAL TERM OF EIGHT YEARS WITH THE OPTION TO EXTEND FOR ONE ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF EIGHT YEARS, NOT EXCEEDING A MAXIMUM TERM OF 16 YEARS.

(2) THE OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL PERIODS IN THE CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS MAY BE EXERCISED FOLLOWING APPROVAL FROM THE CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MANAGER, WASTE AND RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICES, FIELD SERVICES, BRISBANE INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBJECT TO THE SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACTOR/SUPPLIER.

(3) THAT THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER IS AUTHORISED TO SIGN THE CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS ON COUNCIL’S BEHALF.

(4) THAT THE MANAGER, WASTE AND RESOURCE RECOVERY SERVICES, FIELD SERVICES, BRISBANE INFRASTRUCTURE, IS AUTHORISED TO MANAGE THE CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS ON COUNCIL’S BEHALF.

ADOPTED

PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE

DEPUTY MAYOR, Councillor Adrian SCHRINNER, Chairman of the Public and Active Transport Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Andrew WINES that the report of that Committee held on 30 May 2017, be adopted.

Chairman: DEPUTY MAYOR?

Nothing?

Any debate?


- 88 -

There being no debate I will put the report.

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


ATTENDANCE:

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

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – MAJOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT PROJECTS: BENEFIT COST RATIOS

600/2016-171. Brendan O’Keeffe, Principal Engineer, Policy and Strategy, Business Improvement and Transport

Strategy, Transport Planning and Strategy, Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide a presentation on benefit cost ratios of major public transport projects. He provided the information below.

2. The purpose of the Committee presentation was to explain the basic principles and the use of benefit cost ratios (BCRs) in project evaluation, and to provide examples of the use of BCRs in public transport projects around Australia.

3. BCRs summarise the overall value for money of a project and demonstrate if the benefits of a project outweigh its costs, and therefore is beneficial to the community. The ratio is evaluated over the life of the project, measured against a ‘business as usual’ base case, and is calculated by dividing the net benefits of a project by the net costs (capital and operational). BCR can also be expressed as Net Present Value (NPV), the sum of the net costs and net benefits.

4. BCRs are used to prioritise projects within a program and to determine if a project represents value for money. For example, for a BCR of 1.5, a company could expect $1.50 in benefits for each $1 of its cost. Conversely for a BCR of 0.7, a company could only expect 70 cents for each $1 of cost. Some limitations of BCRs include that it only considers costs and benefits that can be monetised, and the project could have non-quantifiable benefits to society which still make the project a valuable proposition.

5. Numerous considerations are included in calculations of BCR including: - producer costs/benefits (e.g. capital investment and maintenance/operational costs or savings) - user costs/benefits (e.g. travel time savings, improved reliability and reduced overcrowding) - non-user costs/benefits (e.g. travel time cost savings, vehicle operation cost savings and

accident reduction benefits) - external costs/benefits (e.g. community health, pollution and greenhouse gas emission

reduction, noise reduction, land value increase and land use changes generated by a project)- wider economic benefits (e.g. benefits generated by the project to the local economy, however

Infrastructure Australia requires that wider economic benefits are not to be considered as a key element of evaluation).

6. Mr O’Keeffe presented maps and breakdowns of examples of major public transport projects across Australia and their relative BCRs, which each take into account differing methodologies for their calculation. The following major public transport projects were provided as examples: Melbourne Metro Rail Project (BCR of 1.1); Canberra Light Rail (BCR of 1.0); Gold Coast Light Rail (BCR of 1.9); Sydney Metro (BCR of 1.2); Perth-Forrestfield Airport Link (BCR of 1.4); and Cross River Rail (BCR of 1.1). The relative breakdown of the BRCs are summarised in the tables below.

Melbourne Metro Rail ProjectCosts ($ Billion)Capital costs 6.7Operation and maintenance 0.6


- 89 -

Benefits ($ Billion)Public transport users 4.7Road users 2.3Other users 0.8Benefit Cost Ratio 1.1

Canberra Light RailCosts ($ Million)Capital costs 619Operating costs 204Benefits ($ Million)Bus operating savings 54Public transport users 222Non-users 130Land use benefit 381Benefit Cost Ratio 1.0

Gold Coast Light RailCosts ($ Million)Capital costs 652Operating and maintenance costs 160Benefits ($ Million)Fare revenue 579Public transport users 534Road users 107Non-users 94Environment and social 19Benefit Cost Ratio 1.9

Sydney MetroCosts ($ Billion)Capital cost plus operating and maintenance costs

8.6

Benefits ($ Billion)Public transport users 6.3Road users 1.8Land use, environment and social 2.2Benefit Cost Ratio 1.2

Perth-Forrestfield Airport LinkCosts ($ Billion)Capital cost 1.4Operating and maintenance costs 0.35Benefits ($ Billion)User 1.99Non-user 0.14Environment and social 0.24Benefit Cost Ratio 1.4

Cross River RailCosts ($ Billion)Capital Cost (undiscounted) 5.4Benefits (Percentage)Public transport users 25%Road users 62%Other benefits 13%Benefit Cost Ratio 1.1

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


- 90 -

8. RECOMMENDATION:

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

INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE

Councillor Amanda COOPER, Chairman of the Infrastructure Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Fiona KING, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 30 May 2017, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor COOPER?

Further speakers?


Councillor JOHNSTON: Yes, Madam Chairman, just briefly on item B.

This is a request for a yellow line from the users of the Fijian Stephens Church on Cracknell Road at Annerley. They are having problems because of the proximity of the church and the hall to the very popular shops on the corner of Ipswich Road and Cracknell Road, with visibility when entering and exiting their driveway.

The user groups have all supported this, the church has supported this and I'm very pleased to see that Council has supported it, and I hope that the yellow line will be effective in increasing visibility for cars exiting the church hall car park.


Councillor COOPER?

I will now put the report.

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


ATTENDANCE:

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

LEAVE OF ABSENCE:

Councillor Kim Marx.

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – TRUCKS AND PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL STREETS – COUNCIL POLICY AND THE LAW

601/2016-171. Marie Gales, Manager, Transport Planning and Strategy and Congestion Reduction Unit,

Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to provide an update on Council policy and the law regarding trucks and parking in residential streets. She provided the information below.

2. Restrictions apply to the parking of heavy or long vehicles to help keep residential streets accessible and safe. Council’s rules relating to heavy or long vehicles are set out in the Heavy and Long Vehicle Parking Local Law 1999 (the local law). The local law defines a heavy vehicle as one which has a gross vehicle mass (GVM) of 4.5 tonnes, or any component of a combination (a prime mover or prime mover trailer) with a GVM of three tonnes or more. A long vehicle is one which measures more than


- 91 -

7.5 metres or longer (including load and projection), or any component of a combination which, if standing alone, is five metres or longer.

3. Section 200 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 2009 states a heavy vehicle or long vehicle must not stop on a length of road in a built up area for longer than one hour unless it is engaged in dropping off or picking up goods for the entire period, there is a traffic control device informing otherwise, or a Council local law permits. A built up area is defined as an area in which buildings on land next to the road are not over 100 metres apart, or in which street lights are not more than 100 metres apart.

4. Heavy or long vehicles may stop on the shoulder of a road for an unrestricted time outside a built up area. The shoulder of a road includes any part of a road that is not designated to be used by motor vehicles for travel. For a kerbed road, the shoulder includes any part of the kerb. For a sealed road, the shoulder includes any unsealed part of the road, and any sealed part of the road outside an edge line marking on the road. Bicycle paths, footpaths and shared paths do not form part of a road shoulder.

5. According to the local law, heavy and long vehicles are restricted from parking for longer than one hour within 100 metres of any residential land. A parked vehicle is considered to be within 100 metres of land if any part of the vehicle, load or projection is within 100 metres of any point on the boundary of the land used for a residential purpose. This does not include caretakers’ accommodation or non-residential premises.

6. Exemptions apply to the local law if a long or heavy vehicle is:- parked in accordance with a traffic sign- broken down- carrying out emergency work- delivering goods or providing services to the area- part of construction or maintenance of the street- undertaking permitted utility installation parked on land where only one side of a road is

used for residential purposes and there is no off-street service facility on the non-residential side (must park on the non-residential side).

7. Council received approximately 1,000 complaints about heavy vehicles each year from 2012 to 2016. Council’s enforcement of the local law is predominantly reactive and each proven offence incurs a $609 fine. Enforcement officers can easily determine that a vehicle is long by measuring it. A vehicle’s GVM is also generally easy to identify because it is displayed on the vehicle. Alternatively, the GVM can be determined by conducting a registration search through the Queensland Government’s CITEC Confirm database. The complaints received by Council commonly relate to one-off overnight stays, hired removalist vans and utilities work trucks taken home by employees.

8. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Ms Gales for her informative presentation.

9. RECOMMENDATION:


B PETITION – REQUESTING THE INSTALLATION OF A YELLOW ‘NO STOPPING’ LINE OUTSIDE 29 CRACKNELL ROAD, ANNERLEY CA17/367553

602/2016-1710. A petition from residents requesting a yellow ‘no stopping’ line outside 29 Cracknell Road, Annerley,

was presented to the meeting of Council held on 2 May 2017, by Councillor Nicole Johnston, and received.

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


- 92 -

12. The petition contains a total of 90 signatures from people who attend events at Jubilee Hall.

13. Cracknell Road is a 12-metre wide two-lane district road that allows for traffic movement through the suburb, servicing local residents and businesses. The section of Cracknell Road outside number 29 is marked with edge line markings and provides for on-street parking on both sides of the road. There is medium to high on-street parking demand at the location due to shops and restaurants in the near vicinity. Jubilee Hall, in addition to its off-street carpark, also creates on-street parking demand, being used for various events by local community groups. Attachment B, submitted on file, shows a map of the location.

14. In response to this petition, Council conducted a search of parking complaints at 29 Cracknell Road, Annerley, and identified two reports of illegal parking across the driveway within the past six months.

15. Council also conducted a site assessment of the driveway access to the off-street carpark for Jubilee Hall and identified that by installing a yellow line across the driveway, and extending the yellow line past the driveway in each direction, access to the off-street carpark would be improved. The removal of one car parking space on either side of the driveway will also increase the sight lines for vehicles entering and exiting the site and is not expected to have an impact on the on-street parking availability. Attachment C, submitted on file, shows a diagram of the proposed yellow ‘no stopping’ line.

16. It is recommended that the draft response, as set out in Attachment A, hereunder, be sent to the head petitioner advising that Council proposes to install a yellow ‘no stopping’ line outside 29 Cracknell Road, Annerley, to improve site access to Jubilee Hall. The yellow ‘no stopping’ line will be installed by the end of July 2017.

Consultation

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

Customer impact

18. The response will address the petitioners’ concerns.

19. The Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed unanimously.

20. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT ON ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER ADVISING THAT COUNCIL PROPOSES TO INSTALL A YELLOW ‘NO STOPPING’ LINE OUTSIDE 29 CRACKNELL ROAD, ANNERLY, TO IMPROVE SITE ACCESS TO JUBILLEE HALL. THE YELLOW ‘NO STOPPING’ LINE WILL BE INSTALLED BY THE END OF JULY 2017

Attachment A Draft Response

Petition Reference: CA17/367553

Thank you for your petition requesting Council to install a yellow ‘no stopping’ line outside 29 Cracknell Road, Annerley, to assist with site access to the Jubilee Hall off-street carpark.

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

Council proposes to install a yellow ‘no stopping’ line outside 29 Cracknell Road, Annerley, to improve site access to Jubilee Hall. The yellow ‘no stopping’ line will be installed by the end of July 2017.

Please let the other petitioners know of this information.


- 93 -

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

ADOPTED

CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE

Councillor Julian SIMMONDS, Chairman of the City Planning Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Vicki HOWARD, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 30 May 2017, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor SIMMONDS?

Nothing?

Any debate?


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


ATTENDANCE:

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

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – THE NEW PLANNING ACT – IMPACT ON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

603/2016-171. Debra Robinson, Manager, Development Services, City Planning and Sustainability, attended the

meeting to provide an update on the new Planning Act 2016. She provided the information below.

2. The Planning Act 2016 (the Planning Act) represents a change from the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA) and will come into effect 3 July 2017. The Integrated Development Assessment System (IDAS) is replaced with the Development Assessment (DA Rules) under the Planning Act. The rules are very similar to IDAS in terms of process steps and timeframes but there are subtle and important differences.

3. Under SPA there are five categories of development: exempt, self-assessable; development requiring compliance assessment, assessable development, and prohibited. The Planning Act reduces these to the three categories of accepted development (a combination of the current exempt and self-assessable), assessable development (which includes code and impact categories) and prohibited development. There will also be some terminology changes.

4. The Planning Act will introduce a number of new concepts into the development assessment process including amended assessment provisions for code applications and bounded assessments.

5. The Planning Act removes the concept of compliance assessment that was contained in SPA. Council did not use compliance assessment as a means to assess applications except for the plan sealing process. Council has its own version of compliance assessment, with conditions set on approvals which are not based on the SPA compliance assessment processes or provisions. The Brisbane City Council compliance assessment process will continue unchanged after 3 July.

6. In the new assessment rules around the assessment of code applications, for code-assessable applications, assessment is restricted only to the identified assessment benchmarks contained within the categorising instrument, which in this case is the Brisbane City Plan 2014 (City Plan). When using City Plan under the Planning Act, the assessment benchmarks are codes identified in the ‘level of assessment’ tables. The Planning Act also introduces the presumption of approval for code assessable


- 94 -

applications. Where an application is determined to comply with the assessment benchmarks it must be approved. If it does not comply but can be conditioned to comply, then the application must be approved. A code-assessable application may be refused but only if compliance cannot be achieved by imposing a condition.

7. The Planning Act differs from SPA by introducing the ability for the Queensland Minister for Infrastructure and Planning to make rules about development assessment processes.

8. Some of the new concepts contained within the DA Rules include the ability for applicants to not to accept an information request or to ‘opt out’. This means Council cannot issue an information request. Applicants cannot opt back in, but may provide Council with additional material, however, Council does not need to accept this material under an ‘opt out’ circumstance.

9. There is no ability for Council to stop the clock. Council has 10 business days to review properly-made submissions between the public notification period and the decision period. Reduced timeframes, an applicant has three months to respond to a request for information (RFI). Council no longer has the ability to automatically extend a timeframe for RFI or the decision period. Applicants may ‘stop the clock’ but only after the application is properly made and before it is decided. This option can be used multiple times up to a cumulative period of 130 days and must be requested in writing.

10. The Planning Act introduces a two-tiered approach to changing development approvals. The change can either be assessed as a ‘minor’ change or as an ‘other than a minor’ change. Under section 81, minor change applications are effectively the same as a ‘permissible change’ application under SPA and follow the same tests for determining what would be a minor change (e.g. it cannot result in a substantially different development). These applications have a simplified assessment process and should be decided in 20 business days or 25 business days if a referral agency is involved in the decision. Under section 82, ‘other’ change applications are for proposals that cannot be considered as a minor change but are still considered to be a change to the approval given. Other change applications must follow the DA Rules processes in the same way as a new application. The assessment should reflect the fact that a development approval already exists and the assessment can only have regard to the changes made; it cannot consider the whole application again.

11. Section 46 of the Planning Act allows a local government to give an exemption certificate that removes the requirement for a development application. Exemption certificates state that no development application is required; they cannot be conditioned; and attach to a site. Exemption certificates have effect for two years or later as stated on the certificate and the development must be completed with the stated time period. They must also describe the premises and the development to which the certificate relates, and include the reasons for the giving of the exemption certificate. Local Government must; publish the Exemption Certificate notice on a website and have a register of all exemption certificates available for inspection.

12. Exemption certificates may be given if the development is categorised as assessable due to an error (e.g. an error in zone mapping); the development is categorised as assessable but the particular circumstances no longer apply; or the development would be minor or inconsequential considering the circumstances and reasons why it was made assessable in the first place.

13. Council will be ready to accept applications for assessment under the Planning Act on 3 July 2017. The new legislation has introduced new provisions, processes and requirements. These changes require Council to amend or align our business processes and practices, supporting systems and published information. In readiness all the Planning Act processes have been mapped and alignment projects have been undertaken to ensure that Council will comply with the legislative requirements.

14. Development Services staff will be familiar with and ready to accept and assess development applications. Council’s public information will be updated and ready to provide accurate information from 3 July 2017. Council’s contact centre staff will have up to date information to help provide accurate advice on first contact. In response to some of the challenges introduced Council has and will adopt some streamlining processes as well as promoting ‘front-loading’ strategies (encouraging pre-lodgement meetings, early pre-assessment of technical reports, key account management).

15. From 3 July you will see updated websites will be updated with information reflecting the Planning Act provisions. This will include terminology changes, amended legislative processes and the introduction to new concepts and updated factsheets. Council’s Contact Centre staff will have updated information


- 95 -

and will be able to provide accurate and appropriate advice on development matters. Industry briefing events will be held in June 2017.

16. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Ms Robinson for her informative presentation.

17. RECOMMENDATION:


ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE

Councillor David McLACHLAN, Chairman of the Environment, Parks and Sustainability Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Norm WYNDHAM, that the report of the meeting of that Committee held on 30 May 2017, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor McLACHLAN?

Any speakers?

Councillor SUTTON.

Councillor SUTTON: Yes, Madam Chair, I'll be as quick as I possibly can.

I just really want to talk on item B, in this report. I tried to draw this to Councillor McLACHLAN's attention before, but I really do want to ask Councillor McLACHLAN and Councillor BOURKE to take a good look at this one.

This is a petition requesting that Council remediate some district-level sport and recreation land in Vectis Street Park, Norman Park. This is an area that we are currently unable to lease to a sports group or sporting groups for their active use because of the level of remediation. It needs to be recapped. It is a two-and-a-half hectare site and it offers enormous potential to relieve the pressure on sporting fields in the eastern suburbs.

My concern is that it is not being prioritised because there is no active user, but I can assure everyone involved in budget deliberations in this particular area—from Councillor McLACHLAN, Councillor BOURKE and the LORD MAYOR down—that if this land was remediated, it could be put to such enormous good use, supporting sport and recreation purposes in the eastern suburbs.

I do encourage you to please, please consider this in your deliberations for the 2017-18 budget.

Chairman: Councillor McLACHLAN.

Councillor McLACHLAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Just briefly to respond to Councillor SUTTON.

As always and typical of the ALP, they try to run before they can walk. The first stage, and the petitioners, including Councillor SUTTON, will be advised accordingly is that the first area of work that has to be undertaken in remediating an old landfill site is to investigate to determine the amount of work that needs to be done before we could even consider what Councillor SUTTON wants, which is to, as she said, flatten it and use it for a sports field.

So that will be something that we can look at, which is to look at the extent of work that is required to remediate the site, but I can't guarantee any outcomes because it depends on what those investigations find once that work is undertaken.

Chairman: I will now put the report.

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


- 96 -


ATTENDANCE:

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

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – BIOLOGICAL CONTROL FOR AQUATIC WEED MANAGEMENT

604/2016-171. Dr Rachel Greenfield, Senior Program Officer, Invasive Species and Wildlife Management,

Urban Forest and Invasive Species Management, Parks and Natural Resources Team, Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability, City Planning and Sustainability, attended the meeting to provide an update on Council’s biological control for aquatic weed management. She provided the information below.

2. The most common aquatic weeds found in South East Queensland (SEQ) are Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth), Pistia stratiotes (water lettuce) and Salvinia molesta (salvinia). These weeds are popular in ornamental gardens and fish tanks, however, once introduced into local waterways, they can cover the water surface and restrict water flow and oxygen content in water; reduce social amenity; affect drinking water; increase the cost of water treatment; make waterways unsuitable for biodiversity; and create breeding areas for mosquitos.

3. The Queensland Government’s Biosecurity Act 2014 (the Act) governs the management of restricted invasive plants, and stipulates that they must not be given away, sold or released into the environment without a permit. The Act states that local governments must have a biosecurity plan to manage these species and Council introduced the Brisbane Invasive Species Management Plan to satisfy this requirement.

4. Physical or chemical treatment of aquatic weeds can be expensive and may affect non-invasive species, and although the effects are immediate, they are also temporary. The alternative is to use biocontrol, which uses a pest’s natural predator to control its population in order to minimise the impact on economic and environmental assets. Council uses host-specific weevils, growing to two millimetres, which lay eggs in fleshy leaves and produce larvae which tunnels through a host plant’s tissue. The resulting openings aid the entry of fungi and bacteria causing tissue to rot. The weevils do not target any plants which are not host-specific.

5. The biocontrol method was first introduced by the CSIRO at Lake Moondarra, Mt Isa, in 1980. The method can become self-sustainable once established, with a ‘seed bank’ at the bottom of the waterway continually producing weeds which support a core population of weevils. Council has a biocontrol facility located at Bowhill Road, Durack, and for the last eight years has been breeding salvinia weevils (Crytobagous salviniae), water hyacinth weevils (Neochetina eichhorniae and Neochetina bruchi) and water lettuce weevils (Neohydromonus affinis).

6. Council’s Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability is responsible for assessing applications for the use of biocontrol resources. Urban Amenity, South Region, operates the biocontrol facility and provides customer service. Operations are funded through Program 1, with contributions received from program partners through a memorandum of understanding. The program partners are City of Gold Coast, Moreton Bay Regional Council, Redland City Council and Seqwater. Organisations that are not program partners, and residents who live outside of participating local government areas can purchase biocontrol material on a ‘pay as you go’ basis and specimens have been distributed as far away as Cairns and the Northern Territory.

7. Salvinia is the primary species treated in SEQ over the past eight years. A graph was shown to illustrate the high number of treatments undertaken for salvinia in contrast to water hyacinth and water lettuce from 2009 to 2017. In the year 2016-17 approximately 60 treatments were carried out for salvinia, and less than 10 treatments recorded for other species. Another graph was displayed to show the changing nature of the biocontrol facility’s customer base during the same period. In the year 2009-10, approximately 15 customers fell into the category of individuals or other local governments and more


- 97 -

than 50 customers were program partners. In the year 2016-17, both categories had customer numbers in the mid-thirties. The facility has recently expanded to a total of 26 tanks with holding decontamination tanks being used to maintain separation of the weevil species.

8. Council’s biocontrol program has prevented biomass from compromising the water quality of the Brisbane River and other waterways, reducing the risk of damage to local infrastructure, and preventing CityCat and ferry disruptions. It has also reduced the burden on SEQ residents to manage aquatic weeds and the social impacts of aquatic weeds in ‘common areas’. The program’s positive results have spread through word-of-mouth, helping to build the customer base, therefore, the circulation of bookmarks containing information about biocontrol is the only advertising undertaken for the program. Council has maintained the biocontrol service and regional partnership for eight years. It is an excellent example of collaboration in the management of invasive species which do not recognise jurisdictional or tenure boundaries.

9. Before-and-after photographs were shown to illustrate the success of biocontrol methods over several months.

10. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Dr Greenfield for her informative presentation.

11. RECOMMENDATION:


B PETITION – REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL BUILD VECTIS STREET PARK SPORTS FIELDS, NORMAN PARK CA17/266154

605/2016-1712. A petition from residents requesting that Council remediate and reconstruct the Vectis Street Park

sports fields in Norman Park and that funding be provided for these works within the 2017-18 Council budget, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 28 March 2017, by Councillor Shayne Sutton, and received.

13. The Divisional Manager, City Planning and Sustainability, provided the following information.

14. The petition contains 261 signatures.

15. Vectis Street Park is a former landfill site. Council’s Landfill Remediation, Waste and Resource Recovery Service team have been consulted and advise that there are no major remediation plans for this site within the next five years. Minor filling works have been conducted in recent years to even out undulations from suspected subsidence. To further understand the landfill, site tests will be conducted in future years, subject to budget allocation and citywide priorities.

16. To address increases in demand for sport park infrastructure in Brisbane, Council plans and delivers new sport parks in high demand areas across Brisbane as outlined in the Brisbane Priority Infrastructure Plan within Brisbane City Plan 2014 subject to available budget.

17. It is recommended that the draft response, as set out in Attachment A, hereunder, be sent to the head petitioner advising that Council will need to conduct site investigations to determine the work required to remediate the land to a standard suitable for use as a sporting field. The timing of these investigations are subject to budget allocation and other citywide priorities.

Consultation

18. Councillor Shayne Sutton, Councillor for Morningside was been consulted, and does not support the recommendation.


- 98 -

19. The Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed, with Councillor Steve Griffiths abstaining.

20. RECOMMENDATION:

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE DRAFT RESPONSE, AS SET OUT IN ATTACHMENT A, hereunder, BE SENT TO THE HEAD PETITIONER ADVISING THAT COUNCIL WILL NEED TO CONDUCT SITE INVESTIGATIONS TO DETERMINE THE WORK REQUIRED TO REMEDIATE THE LAND TO A STANDARD SUITABLE FOR USE AS A SPORTING FIELD. THE TIMING OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO BUDGET ALLOCATION AND OTHER CITYWIDE PRIORITIES.

Attachment ADraft response

Petition Reference: CA17/266154

Thank you for your petition requesting Council remediate and reconstruct the Vectis Street Park sports fields in Norman Park and that funding be provided for these works in the 2017-18 Council budget.

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

As Vectis Street Park is a former landfill site, Council will need to conduct site investigations to determine the work required to remediate the land to a standard suitable for use as a sporting field. The timing of these investigations are subject to budget allocation and other citywide priorities.

To address increases in demand for sport park infrastructure in Brisbane, Council plans and delivers new sport parks in high demand areas across Brisbane as outlined in the Brisbane Priority Infrastructure Plan within Brisbane City Plan 2014 subject to available budget.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Ms Helen Favelle, Senior Program Officer, Park Network Planning and Acquisition, Natural Environment, Water and Sustainability, City Planning and Sustainability, on (07) 3403 8888.

ADOPTED

FIELD SERVICES COMMITTEE

Councillor Peter MATIC, Chairman of the Field Services Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Steven TOOMEY, that the report of that Committee held on 30 May 2017, be adopted.

Chairman: Councillor MATIC?

Any debate?


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


ATTENDANCE:

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

LEAVE OF ABSENCE:

Councillor Kim Marx.


- 99 -

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – FLEET PROFILES AND INSIGHTS

606/2016-171. Kay Sullivan, Manager, Fleet Services, Field Services, Brisbane Infrastructure, attended the meeting to

provide an update on Council’s fleet profiles. She provided the information below.

2. Council has a large and diverse fleet comprising more than 4,300 fleet and plant items. Fleet Solutions look after the fleet except for the ferries, buses and CityCycle bikes. An entire fleet replacement costs in excess of $100 million, an annual capital budget of $17 million, and a service and maintenance budget of $11 million.

3. At the demand stage, the customer contacts Fleet Solutions for their fleet requirements including the purpose and specifications. Fleet solutions work with the customer to design the fleet to suit their needs in the design phase, while also considering future trends, operating and maintenance costs, and forecast disposal costs. The next step is purchasing, Fleet Solutions work together with the customer and the supplier to provide a suitable product. The diverse customer requirements in Council (and Field Services) will dictate that we cannot always buy off the shelf models. Servicing and maintenance is the next stage. The Wacol depot is home to Fleet Solution mechanics; however, there is a strong field presence and service and repair fleet throughout Brisbane. The last phase of the lifecycle is auction and disposal. Arrangements with the Auction Suppliers help to achieve the best prices for the fleet at disposal to benefit Council and customers.

4. Examples of equipment that are serviced and maintained were shown to the Committee.

5. Council’s fleet include the following:- 398 trucks including; road sweepers, tipper trucks, cranes; and a mobile library- 559 commercial vehicles- 393 passenger vehicles- 211 trailers and 88 caravans- 363 pieces of major plant equipment- more than 2,000 minor plant items.

6. A Fleet Solutions customers graph was displayed showing fleet numbers and replacement value for different areas of Council. Construction, Urban Amenity, and Asphalt and Aggregates were the top three for replacement value, Urban Amenity having by far the highest amount of fleet items.

7. The diverse fleet is represented by more than 200 different manufacturers with Fleet Solutions’ approach being to consolidate and standardise. The table below containing the top 10 fleet by maintenance costs was shown to the Committee. A graph showing the age of Council’s fleet was shown to the Committee.

8. There are future plans to increase the fleet size once it is economically feasible and performance improves. The short-term focus is economic feasibility and the long-term focus is carbon neutrality. Electric vehicles (Nissan Leaf or Holden Volt), hybrid vehicles (Toyota Prius, Camry, Corolla, and Nissan Pathfinder) will be part of a carbon neutral fleet to align with the Lord Mayor’s commitment to be carbon neutral. The travelling range of a Nissan Leaf is less than 150 kilometres with a cost of more than $36,000 per vehicle.

9. There is a global trend to introduce congestion taxes on diesel sedan vehicles entering city centres, which is altering Fleet Solutions’ plans to purchase diesel vehicles. Auction prices may be impacted negatively in the future if the public demand reduces. The approach for the carpools is to use smaller petrol vehicles such as the Toyota Yaris and Mitsubishi ASX wagons.

10. The definition of a ANCAP 5-star rating is changing and in future will only be achievable by vehicles equipped with standard crash avoidance systems (lane-support systems and autonomous emergency braking). The purchasing strategy has been adjusted to continue to meet a 5-star rating for the passenger fleet, supporting Council’s commitment to Zero Harm.

11. The global trend is towards autonomous/self-driving vehicles. The current advanced driver-assistance systems will prepare government and the public for the reality of cars taking over control from drivers. Investigations are starting into the implications on Council for fully autonomous/self-driving vehicles.


- 100 -

12. Augmented reality combines the physical world with augmented computer generated information and may be used by Fleet Solutions in the future. Maintenance tasks can be simplified by inserting additional information into the field of view, for example, labels and work instructions can be displayed on parts of a system to help a mechanic performing maintenance on a system.

13. Field Solutions’ plan for continuous improvement includes condition-based maintenance; radio frequency identification devices for equipment tracking; automation using SAP standard jobs with the work instructions and spare parts; voice recognition and data entry shortcuts; barcoding for spare parts; and expanded capacity planning.

14. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Ms Sullivan for her informative presentation.

15. RECOMMENDATION:


LIFESTYLE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE

Councillor Matthew BOURKE, Chairman of the Lifestyle and Community Services Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Steven HUANG, that the report of that Committee held on 30 May 2017, be adopted.

Chairman: Any debate?

There being no debate, I will now put the report.

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


ATTENDANCE:

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

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – THE NEW eLIBCAT

607/2016-171. Sharan Harvey, Manager, Library Services, Lifestyle and Community Services, attended the meeting to

provide an update on the new eLibCat library catalogue. She provided the information below.

2. eLibCat is Council’s online library catalogue. It is the customer interface of the Library Management System (LMS), which is the major system for library collection records, customer records and the associated management and transactions (loans, renewals, reservations/holds etc.).

3. The classic eLibCat interface has been in place since 2000, with 14.7 million page views in 2015-16. The classic eLibCat provided a very reliable interface with good functionality and stability throughout its usage. The site was updated and expanded between 2000 and 2017, with small improvements made to improve discovery and connection, such as links to online collections and publications.

4. The overall design and ‘look and feel’ of the new eLibCat has remained consistent. Customer feedback was a main driver for the improved interface. Customers requested: - a more contemporary interface, as they found the current interface dated- easier navigation - improved information to assist customers in managing their loans (particularly to

differentiate between issues of the same magazine)


- 101 -

- additional functionality such as being able to create personal reading lists.

5. Improved tools for searching and filtering search results had been previously developed but were unable to be implemented in the classic version. The classic version was also limited in the way it could display additional content, limited to a list format or via links to other sites rather than a more attractive tiled design, which is featured in the new version.

6. The new eLibCat project required multiple stages of planning, including upgrades to the LMS software, installation of new hardware, and a new application module. There were also upgrades to the Brisbane images database of more than 22,000 images, and updated site design including creation of new library content. There was extensive testing completed, covering areas such as browser compatibility, response times, image loading capability, content accuracy and search functionality and results.

7. As part of the project delivery a broad communications strategy was developed, including customer notification across multiple channels, such as the library e-newsletter, social media, customer notices and flyers in libraries, as well as having a dedicated email address for customers to provide feedback and ask questions post-implementation.

8. The new eLibCat site went live on 27 February 2017 with a very seamless transition. Cutover occurred on a Sunday night, with a service interruption of only 20 minutes. The new eLibCat offers an improved one-stop interface for customers to discover, learn, borrow and connect with Brisbane libraries.

9. The interface has a more attractive, bright and vibrant look and feel. An improved search engine achieves better results, and allows for more targeted refining and improved navigation. Much more content is available for customers to access information about library facilities, collections, programs and services, and is accessible via multiple access points. Clear image tiles on the front page guide customers to the extensive online collections for customers to borrow and use. Display of customer account details has improved, with more information available to assist customers in managing their loans.

10. Links to Library Services pages now connect customers to comprehensive branch information with links to local programming. Rolling event information and social media feeds are also available on the front page, helping customers to connect with the content they need.

11. Following the successful transition, the new eLibCat has had very stable performance. Staff have reported receiving positive feedback from customers. The success of the transition is due to a number of factors including broad general acceptance; resilience of people to adapt to website changes; extensive Library Services communication strategy with customers; and the staff training and preparation, including availability of the site for staff familiarisation before ‘go live’.

12. The site has experienced an average of 1.4 million monthly page views since implementation, above the old site average monthly page views of 1.275 million. This could be due to customers exploring the increased content and pathways to information and resources. The classic version was retained until early May 2017 to allow customers additional time to upgrade their browsers and transition to the new site.

13. The new eLibCat will now have regular content updates as well as a rolling replacement of images to keep the site fresh. The vendor will also continue to develop the product to offer an optimum experience for users.

14. Following a number of questions from the Committee, the Chairman thanked Ms Harvey for her informative presentation.

15. RECOMMENDATION:



- 102 -

B PETITION – REQUESTING COUNCIL CLEAN-UP THE VACANT LAND AT 12 BOTHWELL STREET, MOUNT GRAVATT EAST CA17/265310

608/2016-1716. A petition from residents requesting Council clean-up a vacant site at 12 Bothwell Street,

Mount Gravatt East, was presented to the meeting of Council held on 28 March 2017, by Councillor Krista Adams, and received.

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

18. The petition contains 27 signatures.

19. The site, also known as 16 and 20 Bothwell Street and 29, 31, and 33 Lauder Street, was reported by the petitioners as having rubbish and building materials left over from a previous demolition. The petitioners also noted that the footpath has grass and weeds at knee height, which has made it hard to use the footpath.

20. Under section 30 of the Natural Assets Local Law 2003 and section 19 of the Health, Safety and Amenity Local Law 2009 (HSALL), Council can require landholders and/or occupiers of properties to ensure their property is free from accumulated vegetation, objects and materials considered unsightly.

21. Council’s complaints management system, Development and Regulatory Tracking, showed that six complaints had been received about these properties since 1 January 2016. Upon receipt of the initial complaints of 19 January 2016, the property owner was contacted. They responded by conducting a clean-up of the property. The property was found to be compliant during the follow-up site inspections conducted by the Council officer on 14 and 27 April 2016. Due to the property owner voluntarily complying, a compliance notice was not issued.

22. On 17 January 2017, a new complaint was lodged with Council about the properties. In response to this, an advisory letter was sent on 18 January 2017 to the property owner and the complainant. The complainant contacted Council as a follow-up on 8 March 2017 and a subsequent site inspection was conducted on 5 April 2017. The officer observed a breach of HSALL and issued a compliance notice. Additionally, the officer logged a job for the Council footpath area to be attended to by Council. A follow-up inspection on 4 May 2017 confirmed the footway had been mowed.

23. The compliance notice was mailed to the property owners on 6 April 2017, requiring them to cut the long grass and weeds, and remove all demolition debris and rubble from the property by 20 April 2017. A follow-up inspection was undertaken on 21 April 2017 and it was observed the properties were not cleared as per the notice. As such, an infringement notice has been issued.

24. Subsequent inspections were undertaken on 15 and 18 May 2017 and showed that the property owner has commenced works to bring the property into compliance. Council has been advised there is asbestos on the site. As such, the Queensland Government’s Workplace Health and Safety Queensland has been contacted and is currently involved in the clean-up of this site. Council will continue to monitor the site to ensure compliance is achieved and maintained.

25. It is recommended that the head petitioner be advised that Council has engaged with and undertaken enforcement action against the property owner of 12 Bothwell Street, Mount Gravatt East. The property owner is undertaking action to bring the property into compliance and Council will continue to monitor the site to ensure compliance is achieved and maintained.

Consultation

26. Councillor Krista Adams, Councillor for Holland Park Ward, was consulted and supports the recommendation.


- 103 -

Customer impact

27. The head petitioner will be advised that Council has engaged with and undertaken enforcement action against the property owner of 12 Bothwell Street, Mount Gravatt East. The property owner is undertaking action to bring the property into compliance and Council will continue to monitor the site to ensure compliance is achieved and maintained.

28. The Acting Divisional Manager recommended as follows and the Committee agreed.

29. RECOMMENDATION:

THAT THE HEAD PETITIONER BE ADVISED THAT COUNCIL HAS ENGAGED WITH AND UNDERTAKEN ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 12 BOTHWELL STREET, MOUNT GRAVATT EAST. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS UNDERTAKING ACTION TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE AND COUNCIL WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE SITE TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE IS ACHIEVED AND MAINTAINED.

ADOPTED

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Councillor Krista ADAMS, Chairman of the Finance and Economic Development Committee, moved, seconded by Councillor Ryan MURPHY, that the report of that Committee held on 30 May 2017, be adopted.


Councillor ADAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just to the report last week, we had a presentation to Committee around the Albert Street traders and the work that they're doing to really revitalise that street, and work together to make sure that we are helping the economy of Brisbane on a wider scale.

I'd just like to congratulate not only the officers that have initiated this and doing the work, but also the traders that are taking the commitment to come to the regular meetings and work together, where they usually are fighting against each other in the economic climate that we have, but are working together to make sure we're improving the economy of the great city, and particularly down there at Albert Street.

Thank you.


There being no further debate, I'll put the report.

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


ATTENDANCE:

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

A COMMITTEE PRESENTATION – ALBERT STREET ACTIVATION

609/2016-17


- 104 -

1. Shawn Day, Manager, Economic Development, City Planning and Economic Development, City Planning and Sustainability, attended the meeting to provide an update on Albert Street activation. He provided the information below.

2. The strategies for the activation of Albert Street are to engage, collaborate and build capacity of the Albert Street Traders Group (ASTG), and leverage the existing Brisbane Marketing city branding to build the Albert Street precinct. The activation also includes upgrading and reinvigorating the Albert Street public realm and building facades in collaboration with ASTG, generating media interest in the Albert Street precinct, positioning Albert Street as a precinct with locals and visitors, and attracting new tenants that align with the Albert Street destination positioning.

3. Media coverage clippings from events held from September 2016 to May 2017 were shown to the Committee. During that period there were 26 pieces of traditional media content circulated which reached 4,095,226 people.

4. Photographs used as a part of the consumer influencing were also shown to the Committee. The engagement used food bloggers and media experts, as well as leveraging off traders. As part of the ‘influencer engagement’, 1,276,082 people were reached

5. Council has made it possible to turn the area on Albert Street into a temporary event space. Traders and groups can apply to use the space to hold events, for example, Priceline recently held their 10th birthday celebration in the area.

6. An Albert Street precinct guide was created, which includes 22 traders who paid to be featured in the guide. Ten thousand guides have been printed and distributed to all traders as well as the Queen Street Mall Brisbane Visitor Information and Booking Centre.

7. An Albert Street student guide includes 18 traders who paid to be featured. Six thousand student guides have been printed and distributed to Student One Accommodation, trader venues, Iglu Brisbane City Student Accommodation, Queen Street Mall Brisbane Visitor Information and Booking Centre, English Unlimited on Albert Street and during student orientation events.

8. As part of the Albert Street activation, artwork has been created to feature on the footpath. A local artist developed non-slip ‘fallen leaf’ decals, which will be trialled for a period of four to eight weeks.

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

10. RECOMMENDATION:


PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS:

Chairman: Councillors are there any petitions?

Councillor BOURKE.

Councillor BOURKE: Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I've got a petition from residents of Jindalee about under-surfacing in the Jindalee Boat Ramp Park, and I also have another petition from residents right across the City of Brisbane relating to wildlife attacks by domestic cats.

Chairman: Councillor HUANG.

Councillor HUANG: Yes, Madam Chair, I have a petition regarding the enforcement of City Plan 2014 from a resident.

Chairman: Councillor HOWARD.

Councillor HOWARD: I have a petition requesting a two-way street conversion program from Wickham and Ann Streets, Fortitude Valley.


- 105 -


Councillor SRI: Madam Chair, I have four petitions.

One is an objection to the development application for 31 Ferry Street, Kangaroo Point. Another is an objection to the development application for 35 Ferry Street, Kangaroo Point. Another is an objection to the development application for 162 Lambert Street, Kangaroo Point, and there's a petition requesting more parks in Woolloongabba.

Chairman: Councillor JOHNSTON.

Councillor JOHNSTON: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm tabling two petitions tonight.

The first requesting removal of a large gum tree outside 2 Victoria Street, Chelmer, and replacement with a more suitable native species.

Secondly, a petition by one of the LORD MAYOR's good friends requesting a CityCat terminal in the Tennyson/Yeronga area.

Chairman: No further petitions?

Councillor WINES, may I have a motion for receipt of petitions please.

610/2016-17It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Andrew WINES, seconded by Councillor Steve GRIFFITHS, that the petitions as presented be received and referred to the Committee concerned for consideration and report.

The petitions were summarised as follows:

File No. Councillor TopicCA17/485199 Matthew Bourke Requesting Council to remove the bark surrounding the

playground at Jindalee Boat Ramp Park and install fake grassCA17/485265 Matthew Bourke Requesting Council to review its legislation regarding domestic

pets to ensure owners keep their animals within their property boundaries while unaccompanied by a human

CA17/504076 Steven Huang Requesting Council to take further action regarding the development application for 161/161a Underwood Road, Eight Mile Plains

CA17/485214 Vicki Howard Requesting Council to undertake a two-way street conversion program for Ann, McLachlan and Wickham Streets, Fortitude Valley

CA17/485486 Jonathan Sri Objecting to the development application for 31 Ferry Street, Kangaroo Point (A004595391)

CA17/485581 Jonathan Sri Objecting to the development application for 35 Ferry Street, Kangaroo Point (A004060583)

CA17/485515 Jonathan Sri Objecting to the development application for 162 Lambert Street, Kangaroo Point (A004506820)

CA17/493052 Jonathan Sri Requesting Council to stop the sale of 29 Bourne Street, Woolloongabba, and allocate it as public parkland

CA17/503951 Nicole Johnston Requesting Council to remove a gum tree outside 2 Victoria Street, Chelmer

CA17/485237 Nicole Johnston Requesting Council to establish a CityCat terminal in the Tennyson/Yeronga area

GENERAL BUSINESS:

Chairman: Councillors, are there any statements required as a result of a Councillor Conduct Review Panel order?

There being no Councillors rising to their feet, Councillors are there any matters of general business?

There being no Councillors rising to their feet, I declare the meeting closed.


- 106 -

Thank you Councillors, see you next week.

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

Submitted by Councillor Nicole Johnston on 30 May 2017

Q1. Please provide a list of the top ten bus full routes for 2016?

Q2. Please provide a list of the ten bus routes with the highest number of customers during 2016?

Q3. Please provide a list of the ten bus routes with the lowest number of customers during 2016?

Submitted by Councillor Steve Griffiths on 1 June 2017

Q1. Detail the number of Full Time Equivalent staff employed at the Sir Thomas Brisbane Planetarium in the 2016/17 year

Q2. Detail the number of Full Time permanent staff employed at the Sir Thomas Brisbane Planetarium in the 2016/17 year

Q3. Detail the number of Part Time Permanent staff employed at the Sir Thomas Brisbane Planetarium in the 2016/17 year

Q4. Detail the number of casual staff employed at the Sir Thomas Brisbane Planetarium in the 2016/17 year













Q17. Patronage on all Transport for Brisbane Bus services in the 2015/16 year

Q18. Patronage on all City Cat Service in the 2015/16 year

Q19. Patronage on all Ferry Services in the 2015/16 year

Q20. Patronage on the Maroon City Glider in the 2015/16 year

Q21. Patronage on the Blue City Glider in the 2015/16 year.


- 107 -

Q22. List the distance of bikeways in Brisbane in kilometres

Q23. List the distance of dedicated on-road bike lanes in Brisbane in kilometres

Q24. List the total number of city cycle bikes in service at the launch of the scheme.

Q25. List the total number of city cycle bikes in service in the 2015/16 year.

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

Submitted by Councillor Steve Griffiths (from meeting on 30 May 2017)

Q1. What is the Key Performance Indicator (KPI) timeframe for officers from the Rapid Response Team to attend general parking related complaints.

A1. Note: It is assumed this question relates to Council’s Rapid Response Group (RRG) in the Compliance and Regulatory Services section of Council, as there is no section called Rapid Response Team.

Council does not record ‘general parking complaints’. All complaints are treated as ‘illegal parking’ with Council officers using the information provided to determine the urgency of the request. Rapid Response Group provide 24/7 response to a variety of matters across the city which usually does not include general parking complaints, but can include attending parking complaints where urgent attendance is required and circumstances where standard attendance from usual officers is not possible (e.g. outside normal operating hours for parking officers). Therefore there is no specific KPI for the Rapid Response Group to respond to ‘general parking related complaints’.

Q2. What is the Key Performance Indicator (KPI) timeframe for officers from the Rapid Response Team to attend urgent parking related complaints.

A2. Note: It is assumed this question relates to Council’s Rapid Response Group (RRG) in the Compliance and Regulatory Services section of Council, as there is no section called Rapid Response Team.

Council does not record ‘urgent parking related complaints’. All complaints are treated as ‘illegal parking’ with Council officers using the information provided to determine the urgency of the request. Rapid Response Group provide 24/7 response to a variety of matters across the city which usually does not include illegal parking complaints, but can include attending parking complaints where urgent attendance is required and circumstances where standard attendance from usual officers is not possible (e.g. outside normal operating hours for parking officers). Therefore there is no specific KPI for the Rapid Response Group to respond to ‘urgent parking related complaints’.

Q3. In percentage terms, please provide the number of times officers from the Rapid Response Teams (RRT) met their KPI for attending parking related complaints in each region for the past 12 months:

EgEAST REGIONMonth % rate officers from the RRT met

their KPI for attending general parking related complaints

% rate officers from the RRT met their KPI for attending urgent parking related complaints

May 2016June 2016July 2016August 2016September 2016October 2016November 2016December 2016January 2017February 2017March 2017


- 108 -

Month % rate officers from the RRT met their KPI for attending general parking related complaints


April 2017May 2017

CENTRAL REGIONMonth % rate officers from the RRT met



May 2016June 2016July 2016August 2016September 2016October 2016November 2016December 2016January 2017February 2017March 2017April 2017May 2017

SOUTH REGIONMonth % rate officers from the RRT met




NORTH REGIONMonth % rate officers from the RRT met



May 2016June 2016July 2016August 2016September 2016October 2016


- 109 -

Month % rate officers from the RRT met their KPI for attending general parking related complaints


November 2016December 2016January 2017February 2017March 2017April 2017May 2017

WEST REGIONMonth % rate officers from the RRT met




A3. For the reasons outlined in the answers Q1 and Q2 above, this question is unable to be answered.

RISING OF COUNCIL: 6.26pm.

PRESENTED: and CONFIRMED

CHAIRMAN

Council officers in attendance:

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


- 110 -

Date post:	11-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vankhanh
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

· Web viewThe election signs aspect maintains the original objective, but it hopefully makes it...

Documents