Speech by Councillor Seal Chong Wah

Council Chambers:

CLAUSE C: PROCUREMENT SUB-GROUP (INCORPORATING STORES BOARD)

SUBMISSION – SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING PLAN FOR THE

CHERMSIDE AQUATIC CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 165/210/179/5361

12th August 2025

I rise to speak on Clause C Procurement sub-group (Incorporating Stores Board) submission - significant contracting plan for the Chermside Aquatic Centre redevelopment project. 

Chermside Aquatic Centre is located approximately 9 kilometres from Brisbane’s CBD. The Chermside Aquatic Centre is intended to service an 8-kilometre catchment population of 250,000 people. Therefore, the surrounding community is lucky to have a pool in close proximity. The downside is this LNP administration has taken a public council pool and privatised it. 

The LNP administration likes to boast about their $2 summer dips for the council public pools. I could argue that our public pools should actually be free entry, however I am very supportive of the initiative as the cost is at least in reach to most residents. However we know the Aquatic waterpark is not part of that program, perhaps because it’s a water park, but also likely because it is already more privatised than other council pools.

Handing over public assets to a private enterprise is not in the public's best interest, as the entry cost can be out of reach for many families due to rising rental and mortgage costs and the cost of living. The Greens believe everyone should be able to access all public pools and facilities without excessive travel or breaking the bank. Our community deserves access to high-quality public space for a cohesive, well-functioning city. As Brisbane expands to accommodate our growing population, we are seeing this LNP administration selling off or gifting away our public spaces to private companies or developers, and new public spaces rarely being acquired. 

We are voting on the draft resolution to establish a lease arrangement for the Chermside Aquatic Centre redevelopment project by approving the submission to invite EOIs before inviting written tenders.

This procurement process seeks to secure a long-term operator, who would take responsibility for the design, construction, operation and maintenance of a redeveloped centre in return for a long-term lease agreement sufficient to enable a commercial return on investment. This is more than a lease proposal, this is EOI for an significantly expanded Public Private Partnership. 

Public Private Partnerships, or PPPs, are being promoted as a “win-win” partnership to both the public and private sector. The argument is that these partnerships fund a project beyond what could normally be done by the public alone. 

This line of reasoning is a myth! PPPs are an expensive, ineffective, and corruption-prone way of financing infrastructure and services, with the public taking all the risks.  Queens Wharf is a perfect example of why these PPPs are not in the public’s best interest. Researchers who have studied this model have concluded that it is most commonly the public that loses out in the long run.

To be clear, PPPs are not the Private sector coming in spending private money instead of public money. 

The Private sector is stepping in and taking significant public resources and public assets.

Another issue is that contracts are often hiding payments to the private company as part of the PPPs, that are often spread over a longer number of years. Therefore, it's not replacing public spending, it's actually a contractual obligation to subsidise a particular company.

Another example of why PPPs are such a bad idea is that the private sector is borrowing money to build the infrastructure instead of the public sector borrowing the money to build the infrastructure. 

The private sector pays a higher interest rate than if it went through the public sector. So the public sector ends up paying a higher interest rate. 

The LNP Administration should be retaining our assets fully in public hands, investing in upgrades, maintenance and operations, rather than privatising to benefit the private sector.

I will therefore be voting against this motion.