Minutes of proceedings

Councillor COOPER, would you like to close the debate?

Councillor COOPER: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. So, Madam Chair, it's been pretty disappointing listening to the debate from the other side this morning. They have really come up with some pretty absurd nonsense. Didn’t really speak about the budget at all actually, but they really have a political agenda and that seems quite apparent with their commentary this morning. We saw some commentary about revenue increases. Well, of course, they're based that on last year's budget.

Not on Third Quarter Budget Review (3BR), which is the most accurate figures for them to actually work upon, but they don't seem to understand that the budget continues to be updated throughout the year. So, in fact, it's interesting, Councillor FLESSER, he weighed in, the heavyweight Councillor FLESSER leapt in to make a few comments when, in fact, when you look at his own career, when he was Finance Chair last couple of years, in his esteemed career as Finance Chair, he himself enjoyed significant—what he's describing as revenue that came in through Development Applications (DA) and Infrastructure Charges Plan (ICP) revenue.

So when you look at the percentage of total budget in the 15, 16 years, those last two years of him as Finance Chair actually saw greater percentages of the budget coming in through DA and ICP revenue. So an absolute furphy from Councillor FLESSER and Flessernomics is alive and well in the Brisbane City Council Chamber. In fact, if you look also at what the revenue is about—and it seems to be this railing on—what a disgrace that we are charging people to lodge development applications. Well, what do those fees actually go towards? Thank you very much. Those fees actually go towards labour.

They actually go towards paying people for doing the job of assessing, thoroughly assessing, development applications. So would they like us to not pay people? I would have thought that there are—that they, as these supporters of the workers, would be keen to make sure that people were properly paid. So labour and materials for the job to be done. It's not like stamp duty, Madam Chair. Stamp duty, which the State Government incurs, which doesn’t goes towards paying, Madam Chair—or perhaps it goes to paying ministers, but it doesn’t actually deliver anything on the ground.

We note that the new treasurer has made no statements about declining on stamp duty revenue. In fact, he's addicted to it, it seems quite clearly, Madam Chair. So what an absolute nonsense. Then we saw Councillor ABRAHAMS. She said that we're not seeing any new infrastructure being built. So all this growth is happening with no infrastructure being built. Well, Councillor BOURKE, I think, has got an award winning new facility out there at Frew Park, so I don’t call that no new infrastructure. We note that she scorned that park. She didn’t support that park.

In fact, the Labor Party wanted to see high rise development on that site, Madam Chair. So what an absolute pack of nonsense. Then, in her own ward, you’ve got Councillor—we've got Councillor ABRAHAMS, she was supporting the ABC site going on public open space. She didn’t see a problem with that. She thought that was all fine. They didn’t pay infrastructure charges too, either, DEPUTY MAYOR, through you, Madam Chair. They seem to have very different attitudes.

I note, Councillor ABRAHAMS, she had a letter to the editor saying she welcomed the decision of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s (ABC's) headquarters to move to South Bank. She thought that that was great and fine. Pretty disappointing and certainly some sort of—I think, some sort of opportunity for her to stand up for, supposedly, her values. Then we have a site also in her ward at 68 Vulture Street—I believe that's West End—where there was a proposal for a development on this site. So this was a site that Council actually was anticipating to purchase for public open space.

There was a development application was lodged, which Councillor ABRAHAMS—now, did she support public open space or did she support a development? Drumroll, please. I would expect you to say public open space. But, no. No. Au contraire. The Councillor for ­the Gabba Ward actually endorsed a development on that site. Now, look, I think it's important for everybody to note that the Councillor said that, you know, this is an application for this site for something rather than open space and I understood that she actually supported something that was above and beyond the neighbourhood plan.

That's my—that's the information I have to hand. I am happy to be corrected on that if that is not correct. I’m disappointed, but certainly—so above and beyond the neighbourhood plan and yet she railed against development incurring above and beyond the neighbourhood plan. So, please, a little bit of consistency would be very much appreciated in the debate we've got here. We also saw Councillor ABRAHAMS doesn’t support Edward Street, so she doesn’t want to see safety improvements. She doesn’t want to see this important part of our city really, I think, given a boulevard treatment.

She said, boulevards aren’t happening, but she doesn’t support a boulevard proposal. So a little bit of inconsistency there in her commentary again. But of course Councillor ABRAHAMS forgets to mention that in her very own ward, down there at Logan Road, Woolloongabba, Council invested millions of dollars in upgrading this dining precinct. So it was the old—it's called the Antiques Precinct. It's been mentioned in many magazines. It's been referred to as a fantastic new location created by Council with—was there a levy? No. There wasn't a levy. There was no levy.

Multi-million dollars worth invested in her own ward, but she doesn’t support Edward Street who pay, and correct me if I’m wrong, Finance Chair, I think about $11.5 million through the Queens Street Mall benefit levy. So there's a levy being paid. Edward Street, an important boulevard in the City Centre Master Plan, that connection between Spring Hill all the way down to the Botanic Gardens, this important boulevard—and we don’t have boulevards according to Councillor ABRAHAMS, but she doesn’t support this boulevard proposal. No. That is wrong.

But she was very—obviously very happy to see multi-million dollar investment in her own ward without a levy. I also—if memory serves me correct—she didn’t actually have a levy for the West End SCIP herself, so there was a—I think that was 1994. I hope I’ve got that correct. There was no levy for the SCIP in her own ward, so I think that the claim of hypocrisy that we certainly are very strong supporters of, because it seems that the Labor Party say one thing, Madam Chair, and then absolutely do another. So pretty disappointing debate all round.

Then we also saw Councillor ABRAHAMS say that we were recycling Alderley and Graceville SCIP proposals. Well, if you want us not to do consultation. If you want us to go out with a plan, predetermined plan, and not let the community be involved, help decide the artwork, help plan so the construction doesn’t impact on existing business owners, then we will deliver it in one year. But if you want us to go out and talk to people about what they want to see happen in their local area, then we will do it over a carefully staged and managed two year period.

So that's always been the way, and I believe there's 44 SCIPS in this city and not one single SCIP—and they were certainly set up under the Labor Party, I believe—not one SCIP was delivered in a one year period. So that again is an absolute furphy by the Australian Labor Party, Madam Chair. So it, I think, shows that first of all they don’t know what they're talking about. Their facts are fundamentally wrong. We had Councillor SUTTON talking about—she said two neighbourhood plans. Then she announced three neighbourhood plans, so inconsistency there.

She also mentioned we were doing a neighbourhood plan for Alderley. Wrong. We're doing a SCIP for Alderley. A little bit of a difference, but perhaps her detail's a little lacking. So it's pretty disappointing to see the level of debate. And then there was commentary about the LORD MAYOR's commitment to encourage hotels and student accommodation. It could not come as a surprise to anyone in this city that the LORD MAYOR has clearly said that we want to facilitate this sort of investment in our city.

Particularly, when you look at student accommodation, if you want to continue to see student accommodation inappropriately located in the suburbs of our city with not purpose built accommodation, not high quality public transport, no management in place, if you want to continue to see that happen, then support the Australian Labor Party, because that's clearly their policy platform.

Whereas this LORD MAYOR has said very specifically that if you are located within four kilometres of the city centre, if you’ve got a—if you’ve got a management plan, if you want to run this sort of accommodation very appropriately, if you are going to have good public transport outcomes, this is the place to locate student accommodation. Madam Chair, Future Brisbane is about planning and it's a shame that the Australian Labor Party's attitude seems to be an absolute shambles and with absolutely no basis in any fact whatsoever.

We've got Councillors basically just make it up and they get in here and all they do is rant and rave about all sorts of things, play politics of envy, but they have no suggestions. They have no kind of ideas. Councillor FLESSER can't even report damaged footpaths in his own ward.

Chairman: Councillor COOPER—

Councillor COOPER: Thank you.

Chairman: —your time has expired. Thank you.

I will put the motion for the adoption of the Future Brisbane program.

The Chairman submitted to the Chamber the motion for the adoption of the Future Brisbane program and it was declared carried on the voices.