13 March - Ordinary

Tonight, I'll pass over to Mr Conroy for the introduction.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land, the Darug people, their elders past and present. Members of the public attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, you will be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit, following the guidance of our fire warden. I would also like to advise members of the public that in accordance with Clause 6. 3. 1 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of Council are recorded. In terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting of Council meetings.

The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary. If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations. The recordings are stored on Council's record management system. And for the benefit of those persons who will be addressing Council tonight, it is expected that you will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting. This request relates both to your address to Council and to any answers given in response to questions from councillors. Finally, it is also requested that if any person in the Council Chamber has a mobile phone, that they either turn it off or turn it to silent.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Conroy. We have an apology from Councillor Calvert tonight. Could someone move Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Councillor Garrow? All those in favour? Declarations of interest?

None. Thank you. Confirmation of minutes from the last meeting. Move Councillor Conolly, seconded Councillor Rasmussen. All those in favour? The motion is carried. We have one item tonight for public address. It's item 69, and our first speaker is Robin Woods.

Mayor, councillors, staff, and I'd like just to mention that we have a few people here from the Bushells Lagoon Wetland, and various other people who are involved in some of the stuff that I'll be talking about. This is in reference to forming a wetland working, sorry, a wetland working group, but specifically having a wetland workshop. We have mounting concerns by many Hawkesbury residents and organisations with regard to the following issues in light of changing weather patterns and rapid increase in development: waters at risk of careless use and wastage. The community needs to adopt more sustainable management of our waterways and consider environmental

Needs as well as human, commercial and industrial uses. And if you just hang on a second, I've put the wrong notes in, which, okay.

I'll carry on. The main points are that the wetland that we're dealing with at the moment, Bottles, is a real case in point in that the events that have come to your notice over the last two months, partly exacerbated by the drying out, have led to us doing various investigations, including taking water samples using stream watch kits, which showed that there were some fairly alarming situations. We have a stream watch group of our own belonging to Hawkesbury Environment Network. The... The continuation of dropping levels of water and then the apparent sight of huge numbers of carp obviously struggling meant that we started to realise that water was going out faster than it was just drying.

So it was fairly obvious that trenches were being dug. We knew that there were trenches there before and that this is possibly a misuse of that wetland. And we got in touch with DPI, EPA, Water NSW and alerted them to some of the situations, and these were followed through also by Council. Then after that, on the 27th of February, we decided we'd go to Bust and actually take proper water samples off to the FASS Laboratories at Lidcombe. That took a week for the results to come through. Four pesticides turned up, and very high manganese amongst the inorganics, which is something that I don't know enough about to explain. But the pesticides, or in this case herbicides, were possibly responsible for the fact that we've not been able to establish reeds around the lagoon in this particular section.

Now, a good functioning wetland ecosystem actually has reeds which help to remove sediments through their filtration. The water itself then is a lot cleaner than Bushells Lagoon happens to be. One of the really alarming pesticides is called atrazine, and some further research by one of the colleagues from the university revealed that, in fact, even at levels that are okay

In drinking water, that actually emasculates frogs. That term could send a shudder down a male's sides, possibly. But what it means is that we don't have frogs on that lagoon, and they're just part of the food chain on that lagoon. The whole point about that wetland is that it's acting like a sump, in that water going into it from the various agriculture around it is containing nutrients and pesticides and herbicides. That goes into the water. Some of that water is extracted and sprayed back over vegetable gardens, and if that keeps on going on, it just accumulates. So we are particularly worried about human consumption of anything from the lagoon and what to do about it. Thank you.

Thank you, Robin. Would you be happy to take questions? Yes, certainly. Any questions, Councillor Wheelan?

Thanks , Robin. Where's the atrazine coming from? Do you know?

As far as I know, it's actually a really commonly used herbicide all over the world, one of the highest use, and it's used for broadleaf spraying. So it could be used both in vegetable gardens but also on turf farms.

And does it have, so would it be problematic if it was reused back on, say, the vegetable farms?

I would think so. I mean, there are limits to what can be used in terms of going into the human system. So when they refer to drinking water qualities, it's, say, one part per billion is allowed. But if it's accumulating and building up and not breaking down, then we've got a real problem.

And what sort of levels did you find?

That I'd have to refer back to quite a few documents here, but I think the next speaker might be able to help with that.

Sure And is it, Bushells is in particularly bad condition? Do we have, we've got some wetlands that aren't as bad, haven't we?

We certainly are aware of some excellent ones. Broadwater, the Cathie wetlands such as Broadwater Swamp and Pitt Town Lagoon are in very much better condition and far less activity going on around them. So we assume there are still problems because they've all been part of agriculture for over 200 years.

Thank you. Councillor Reynolds. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Thanks, Ms Woods. The atrazine, has that been in use for a long time?

Yes, apparently. It's one of those, I think it's in the organochlorine groups. Oh, okay. Not that that necessarily means much, but... Yeah, I know.

So if it's been in use for some time, why do you think now that's possibly an issue?

Good question. I would assume that nobody's done this sort of baseline data before. In other words, we're just sort of breaking new ground. These tests do cost a lot of money, and unless they're carried out, and I didn't hear anything from EPA about them going and doing water tests, so we're doing something that hasn't been done before. And these things, some of these are actually locked into the sediments. One of the highest use chemicals appear to be something called melaleuca, and another one was glyphosate, which of course you'd know as Roundup. So they're there, and they're used for spraying on vegetation.

And just one more question. You mentioned trenches had been dug, and you said that some of them had been there before. Is that right? Yeah And so there's new trenches being dug, is that right?

No. The trenches that we're aware of, that I'd been aware of when I was working with the Green Army around there, run in a sort of west to east direction, and it's a very big trench. And the purpose behind that was to allow the farms there to lower the water level when they'd had a flood or heavy rain. The water is then running from those trenches down into Buttsworth Creek and off into the river. That's an activity that these days would have been called a controlled activity. They would have had to have a DA to do that. But those trenches have been there for quite a long time. And on the other side of that, there's a flood levee bank. Okay. The other trench that we're talking about, which will be the subject, I should think, of court action possibly, I'm— I mean, the council staff that deal with these issues would know more than I do.

But those were being dug down deeper into the lagoon to get the very last water on those days when it was drying out. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. Councillor Kotlash. Thank you, Madam Mayor. When you said that you were trying to establish some vegetation around the lagoon, does any vegetation survive? Yes, and interestingly, one of—we've planted, I think, four properties, okay. This was with Green Army, and some of the frontages were about 200 metres long. Where we could, we persuaded the owners to allow us to erect fencing to keep cattle off or horses off. And one of the properties, we got very good results with trees and shrubs in the higher level of the ground away from the water, but not good with the reeds.

And that immediately struck a chord when I read about the atrazine and about other chemicals that are in there. Yeah.

Thank you. Okay Thank you. Thank you, Mrs Wood. Our second speaker is Sharon Simic.

There

Councillors and staff. My name's Sharon Simic, and I have a bachelor degree in Horticultural Science. Part of this area around—I live around Bushranger Lagoon—and part of this area is where I first started my horticulture work, and that was on a market garden on Fremont Street, right. So I've worked in various fields of horticulture, nurseries and such , and then I hadn't certified organic nursery.

So there's a lot of, you know, the wetlands around our area, you know, are so iconic to the Hawkesbury and such a valid part of our floodplains. There's a lot of history, a lot of culture,

And, you know, certainly a lot of Aboriginal culture, you know, coming from being someone of the land and also to a descendant of people who had worked this land, some second fleet convicts on Bushranger Lagoon. The lagoons are such a complex and intricate system. There's so many inputs, and they all—

It's not that simple. Everything has an effect on that, and then that has an effect on that, and so it's a difficult one to manage. And their importance is that they filter—it's a filter of our environment. It filters out, you

Know, pollutants, sediments, nutrients, and that's vastly important for the surrounding landscape and for the rivers that are around. It's also important for our air and our soil and the diversity of fauna and flora.

So they have quite their own rhythm and flow, and are quite adaptive systems. But what I see happening in these, probably the last 10 years, and last probably five years in particular, it's just getting hammered. And I see it daily. I experience it daily. And there's a lot of unsustainable farming practices which are really having an impact with pesticides, sediments, nutrients, weed species and erosion. And to have actually found five of those herbicide sites when we did it was after 70 mils of rain, the lagoon had dried out. And so I think, you know, we were actually lucky to get some results because in one way of it drying out, it really cooked and baked, and the water was like 37 degrees. So a lot of those pollutants that

Could have been there have been sort of reduced significantly. And also the organisms in the water will take care of a lot of that as well.

So yeah, there's a lot of impacts like earthworks, drainage, water extraction, as I mentioned, and some rather dubious unsustainable farming practices. And with that, you get weeds and erosion, and you get different metals and— And one of the heavy metals, or a micro, was the manganese, and that also adds to water turbidity, as so do all the other pollutants. So

Yeah, we'll leave it there.

Thank you, Sharon. Are there any questions from anyone?

No questions? Oh, Councillor Ross.

Good evening, Madam. Would it be correct of me to interpret the information you've just given us as indicating that the water sampling that has occurred and been scientifically tested

Would not have yielded the same result prior to the drying out of that area, that lagoon, and that it would have, in fact, been more concentrated potentially?

That's not personal opinion.

Again, I'm not a chemist, but I've sort of, I have a little bit of knowledge from my life experience, and also two and last five years I've

Done multiple

Amounts of research on the area. So, yeah, so you get factors like different factors that sometimes are very hard to capture. And so what I think we captured, I think, is, well, a bonus in one regard, not for the lagoon, you know. If that answers your question.

No further questions? Oh

Councillor Weeless , sorry. Thanks, Ms Simic. You live near the lagoon.

I do. I live on the western side of probably north-west, but it's only about 100 yards down the road. So all those hills, sort of probably a two-kilometre—well, longer than that—but a two-kilometre square would have significant impacts on that lagoon.

So some of the talk when the story first broke about Bushells Lagoon was that this was a natural occurrence, it drying out and all we needed was a bit of rain. So as someone who is quite close to the lagoon, what's happened now we've had a bit of rain?

Well, after the Sunday we had about 70 mils, and there was a significant amount of water in there. And the day that we tested, which was on Tuesday, there was a lot of water flow. And with those hills, as you do get a lot, and you get a lot of groundwater going in as well, it tends to just keep seeping for weeks because the hills are pretty heavy clay, whereas when you're getting down there it's sort of more silty loam. Did that answer your question?

I guess what I'm asking is some of the public perception was that if it rained, it would all magically clear up and we would be back to where we were before. Has that happened, now we've got some water?

No, there's not that much water in the lagoon. And I saw it in—I've lived there for over 35 years, so I've seen sort of different— Different things happen, and that lagoon was very different this time, the way it dried out. It normally will dry out from the edges. It'll normally dry out from that Goricks Lane side first. That hasn't happened, but there is so much soil movement and excavating that goes on, and that's, you know, pretty close to almost daily. You know, farmers have got excavators now, and I'm not banging on about farmers, but there's just soil movement in and out constantly, and changing water contours. So, and then, you know, someone doesn't want water in their place, then they just make a bank, and then it sort of traps it in or lets it out.

And, you know, that's from— so I see it happen constantly. Thank you.

What sort of farming was there before the intensive farming? Was it grazing, that sort of thing?

So in the history of, you know, probably the last 200 years, it's sort of gone through different things of, at the beginning, sort of mixed farming and animals, and then it sort of went across to dairies, and then up on the hills it became citrus orchards, and then there were a lot of market gardens, but they didn't operate like they operate now. Like they were using heavier chemicals, but they were expensive and they used them with due care. So, and now, and then the turf came in and now we're seeing an influx of Asian market garden vegetables and very, very different.

Okay. Thank you. No further questions. Thank you, Mr. Simms. Thank you. Our third speaker is Swaila Sledge.

Good evening, everybody. My name is Swaila Sledge. I am representing the Hawkesbury Landcare Network, and I am a member of the Bushells Lagoon Streamwatch Group. Firstly, tonight I'd like to applaud the current council for putting forward this motion in coordinating, hopefully, a wetlands workshop. I think the current issue at Bushells Lagoon, there has been a lot of discussions from many different parties from many different angles. Obviously there has been blame sent across all different jurisdictions. The administration of water licensing is a state issue. However,

Recent media suggests that that particular agency does not do much on-ground regulation at all across the state, whether that be large or small scale. So I would suggest that this needs to be a local council issue managed, coordinated by Hawkesbury City Council. I would also suggest that those local illegal earthworks that we have all seen, we believe are all illegal earthworks, the trenches, the regular re-digging of those trenches, the large one in question, being carried out on council land needs to be a council managed issue. And I think if Hawkesbury City Council stepped in now as the lead agency in— Developing a wetlands workshop, and potentially furthering that to be a wetlands working group for the longer term, I think that would be one very beneficial means of rectifying this issue and any others across the Hawkesbury area for the other wetlands that we obviously have and treasure.

There's not a great deal more I want to say other than the substantial and significant list of stakeholders listed on this motion is not a representation of troublemakers for Council. In actual fact, they are all supporting what we hope Council will step up and coordinate as concerned stakeholders, including landholders, including other people, experts and professionals in the field. We would all like to support Council coordinating this particular workshop and a wetlands working group in the future, if possible , to prevent this sort of issue occurring again. It is a matter of illegal water extraction. It is a matter of natural ephemeral happenings in this particular wetland, but it is also a matter of intense grazing all the way up to the water's edge.

It's a number of things. It's death by a thousand cuts at the moment, and for a coordinated discussion about this issue, I think we all need to be brought together by Council as the lead agency. I just wanted to reiterate the stakeholders on this list would all offer their support in moving forward on the Bushers Lagoon issue, and myself from Hawkesbury Landcare Network would put resources into helping the workshop along. In actual fact, we are currently waiting to hear about a grant that we have put in in partnership with Hawkesbury Environment Network and conservation volunteers, which is dedicated to Bushells Lagoon and the engagement of the landholders surrounding the lagoon, particularly including their nutrient runoff management.

That's about all I'd like to say, actually. Any questions?

Thank you, Ms. Ledge. Any questions?

Councillor Wheeler. Ms. Ledge, have you been involved in the Green Army work around Bushells previously?

I haven't been involved in the Green Army work, but I have been involved in the works following Green Army, those partnerships between HEN and Wetland Warriors, and I've been a part of planting the plants on the edge of the lagoon, in addition to those monthly stream watch testing.

Thank you. Could you give us some idea of what impact that's had on the relationship with the landholders? I know some of them are here tonight. Could you just talk to us briefly about how that's worked? Well

It's been fantastic engaging the local landholders of the lagoon. Given that I've heard from them firsthand that they have watched the lagoon, some of them over 20 years, suggesting that they've seen the lagoon dry out in the past, but it has always dried out differently. It was never totally dry before. And in previous years, the lagoon actually had a green layer beneath the water surface, so it was in much better condition. So actually engaging with the landholders that are quite concerned about the lagoon and its current drying regime , we've given them, you know, a good deal of support in improving their land management practices, and I think that's given them some hope in hoping that, you know, their beautiful vista, the view they invested in a long time ago, may one day be remediated and be what they used to see in the previous years.

It certainly has, you know, talking to people who have lived there and invested interest and relationship in the land for the last two decades have described how the wetland has decreased in, you know, its beauty and its treasure of biodiversity. So I guess just the engagement has, well, strengthened relationships, you know, in managing the edges of parts of the lagoon, but also has provided some hope to those landholders who have been trying to manage their lagoon better.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Ledge. Thank you. That was our final speaker, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I'd like to move the motion,

Please. Seconded, Councillor Garrow.

Councillor Wheeler. Thank you. I want to thank the speakers for coming and giving us such a good, broad understanding of what's happened at Bushells, but I think also allowed us to have a little bit of a glimpse into how important not just Bushells Lagoon is, but the other wetlands in the LGA, some of which are in much better condition and need to be protected lest they deteriorate, some that are probably on the way down, and we can hopefully prevent that, and some that really are in urgent need of some care and attention. I'm also aware that many of the people from Henn who've come tonight are missing a koala workshop. So we're not as entertaining; we're certainly not as cute. So thank you for coming.

The interest that the community has shown in Bushells Lagoon when the story of it drying out first broke, I think has actually been really encouraging. I think we've looked at lagoons like Bushells as a resource, as actually an elaborate dam, and they're far, far more important and more significant than that. They are not a big pool of water to be sucked out and tipped into. They exist in their own right as an ecosystem. They are an iconic, as one of the speakers said, an iconic part of the Hawkesbury landscape. And I think Council got that message loud and clear when Henn came and gave us a presentation on wetlands last year. And unfortunately, we didn't make a move when we received that information, apart from telling the Greater Sydney Commission about how marvellous they were and the Commissioner.

Certainly got that message and added it to his plans, but we didn't move. What we're seeing here is the impact of 200 years of a lack of understanding and poor management intersecting with climate change. And if we don't act now, I think we're going to reach a tipping point in some of these places. And what we've seen is that the effects on the wetlands in poorest condition are the most obvious because they're the least resilient.

It was really interesting to hear from the speakers that this isn't just normal drying out. This isn't just the behaviour of a natural ephemeral wetland. There is some artificial effect that is at play here. And the good news is that if this is an artificial impact, then we can at least stop it and, to some extent, mitigate and hopefully down the track reverse it. The chemical load stuff is really, really concerning, I think, particularly when it prevents groups who are trying to revegetate those really, really important buffer zones around the edges of the lagoon. If we can't replant those filter species, if we can't hold the banks together against the impact of carp and erosion and runoff, then those lagoons are really in a pretty perilous state.

So the fact that we've got a fairly reasonable concentration of a broadleaf herbicide means that the work that's done on the lagoon won't work as quickly and will be less effective. And that's really damaging ecologically, but it's really demoralising for the volunteers who are putting their time and energy into doing this as well. And it's not grant funding when they look at it and say, well, should we throw money at this? Well, no, because it isn't going to work. So it's a terrible catch-22. I think the point about the chemical load being different with the lagoon drying out is a valid one, and that would depend on how the individual chemicals degrade. Atrazine degrades fastest in water, so it can be degraded by bacteria, but it's much more likely to degrade in water.

The concerning thing about atrazine is that it can penetrate groundwater, where it sits for a very long time, and it doesn't break down particularly well when there's not enough oxygen. It also sits in soil, and it contaminates soil for up to four years, and that should be a matter of real concern for the landholders and for anyone who's trying to do remediation work on this property. And if you're unaware of it, atrazine has been banned in the EU since 2004. This is not a chemical to be taken lightly. Certainly the EU doesn't think so. So what this notice of motion seeks to do is bring together the people who have expertise in this area so that we can move forward. I would really like to see a working group come out of this.

I think that's something we can perhaps discuss when we hold the workshop. Council doesn't have the expertise or the resources to do this by ourselves. What we've heard tonight is that groups with that expertise and the resources, both physical and financial, are willing to join with us. We need to act in our role as a leader and as a facilitator to partner with those organisations. We're not alone in this. We have the support of the community, but we have the support of these groups and these organisations, including those with considerable influence, a reasonable workforce, and some money to throw at this problem, like Conservation Volunteers Australia, who are present tonight, who can actually turn this around.

So I think this is a really valuable opportunity to take this at very, very little cost to Council and fix a really big problem before it gets worse. So I would hope you could support this.

Thank you, Councillor Weiner. Further discussion?

Councillor Reynolds.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. A question for Director of Planning. One of the speakers mentioned possible illegal earthworks on council land. I remember at our briefing we had a little while ago last week, I don't recall that being mentioned. I was just wondering if you have any thoughts on that?

Mr Owens.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. That is being followed up with the Water NSW and Department of Primary Industries, as the different authorities have different requirements in there, so that is being followed up. Is there any sort of

Like ETA on when we might get a final report on that?

Through you, Madam Mayor, the appropriate authority is one of the state authorities, and we're pushing them to take action, so that's being pushed by council for them to take action. Council can only has certain powers; it doesn't have the same powers as them, so we're pushing them to take the action.

Councillor Cotlash. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm speaking for this notice of motion. I think it's a really good start to have a workshop of this nature. Just a couple of comments. I would like to see some more clear objectives of the workshop, because there's such a big list of stakeholders and— Such a wide range of issues that go on in the workshop in a wetland. I could see this workshop being getting a little out of hand because each one of these stakeholders is going to look at this wetland from their own perspective, and whilst that's good, to be able to come up with sort of a coherent set of outcomes after such a workshop is really quite a skill. And I think somebody needs to lead it. And at the moment this doesn't read like there's anybody actually taking the lead.

That could be something we just keep, you know, keep in mind for the third point where it says the stakeholders should ask to suggest discussion topics, etc. So I think we need a little bit more pre-planning in that particular aspect of it. Also, I would like to say how unhappy I am with the last point in point 2, which says that the Hawkesbury City Councillors would be observers. So if you could scrub out observers, I'd be most happy. But apart from that, I support it, and I look forward to some outcomes, some workable outcomes that will really make a difference to the lagoon.

Thank you, Councillor Cotlash. Further discussion?

I'd just like to— Councillor Reynolds, you can go. Yeah,

Just following on from— I speak in favour of the motion. Following on from something Councillor Cotlash just said, I was wondering who would be facilitating this workshop

Mr Conroy.

We'll be looking at engaging the services of an independent facilitator.

Thank you. I'd just like to thank Councillor Wheeler for bringing forward this notice of motion. It was very apparent of the concern of the community and people concerned with the environment when we saw the media reports and, in fact, saw firsthand, for many of us who drive past, just what the condition of Bushells Lagoon was. So I'm really, really pleased that this will progress forward, and I agree with Councillor Cotlash. It is a huge scope of things to be looked at and so on, but I guess that, you know, one of the first things would be to establish what the objectives and so on was. I would just like something to be considered in that, which is because there clearly are changing agricultural practices and so on, that we really somehow need to have some very clear guidelines, and of course the regulations do exist, but we need something that's very apparent to people using these pesticides, how they should be stored, how they should be used.

All of this needs to be really simple information that people can get so that nobody can say they can't follow it, and that they're aware of the side effects and the dangers associated both to people and to the environment. So I would really look forward to it, and I echo particularly what Councillor Wheeler said, that we did have that wonderful presentation where we all saw the value of our very, very precious wetlands and their importance in our floodplain and our area overall. So I think that it's dreadful that such a drastic event has occurred to Bushells Lagoon, but I think that if this can propel us forward to really look at the wetlands and really come together and move forward in a positive way to rectify and remediate those sort of things, this will be a very, very valuable workshop.

So thank you, Councillor Wheeler.

Councillor Brasmussen.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and I'm speaking for the motion as well. And I thank Councillor Wheeler for putting it forward. I'm not sure that we need to get too hung up about the fine details at this point. I think there's enough detail there to figure out where it's going and what is intended, and I think it'll be up to the independent facilitator and perhaps a little working group of council to sit down and try and come up with a straw man on how it might proceed and where the outcomes might go. But could I just ask also that we perhaps add residents on that list of stakeholders? Not everybody is part of one of these groups. Everybody, I assume, who is part of that list of groups are perhaps residents.

But I think there might well be people out there who are equally interested in this area and our lagoons, not just this one but others. I know, in fact, that there are. So I just wonder whether we could add residents who might like to nominate themselves as well.

Councillor Wheeler, are you happy to add that?

I am. Do you want me to address all of those suggested changes, or shall I just keep making— Have you

Finished

Everyone's

Had a turn

Yes, I have.

Okay. If there's no one else, we'll go to right of reply. Councillor Wheeler, is there any further discussion? No, right of reply. Question, Councillor Cotter. Sorry, yeah. Look, I just wanted

To say I think we have to really be careful that we don't overcook this, because whilst the residents are important and, you know, they can have an input, it gets back to the objectives of the workshop. If we have this huge sort of array of perspectives, we're not really going to get anywhere. I think even this list is probably a bit too big because we're talking about, you know, there's aspects of how you might remediate, there's aspects of how you might protect it in the future. You know, there's the notion of whether this is actually a contaminated site is something. I mean, there's lots and lots of different ways you can look at this issue. And I think bringing residents in or widening it is just a little bit fraught at this point in time.

I'd like to see it maybe start with a narrower set of objectives and then move from that in a way that's productive. I think if we get too big, it'll be just too— not that I particularly want to turn people away, but, you know, at the moment we've got such a cast of, you know, of thousands anyway. So, sorry, just to reiterate what I said.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Right of reply.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Okay, I'll start at the top. Clear objectives. I think it's worth noting that this is a first step. This isn't a solution. This is about getting all the people. This is about Council doing its job as a facilitator and a community leader, bringing all the people who want to be involved. And yes, this is a long list, but I don't think they'll all come. And I think, and in developing the list, which I did in conjunction with HEN, the goal was to try and cover as many bases as possible, knowing that many of these people are busy, many of them are volunteers, many of them actually can represent two organisations at once, and they possibly won't all turn up anyway. So even though it looks like a lengthy list , it may turn out to be a little bit smaller.

In terms of the objectives, I thought about putting out a clear list of objectives, but that would be me setting that clear list of objectives, and that's not the purpose of this either. The purpose of that is to get the stakeholders to determine what those objectives are so that we can move forward. This is the beginning, not the solution, I suppose. And what that solution turns out to be will hopefully be one of the things that is thrown up at the workshop. We could, I could possibly amend three so that it said that when we got the feedback from the organisations, we could set some objectives for discussion if, and maybe the Sustainability Advisory Committee might want to be involved in that as well, if that's workable.

I'm happy to do that. In terms of adding the residents, Councillor Cotlash has picked up the key issue with that. This isn't an education session. This is a workshop to try and get some outcomes. I think education of residents can come down the track. I think that's probably something that will come out of the workshop as a recommendation, and that's when we would open this up. But at this point, this needs to be a much tighter discussion amongst people with expert knowledge in the field to tell us how to move this forward, rather than having to start that discussion much further back and educate before we can talk about what we can do next. The guidelines for pesticide use can come out of part of that discussion.

Council could provide them, but there's plenty of guidelines for pesticide use that are not being read now, and that's not Council's. And the final thing is councillors as observers. I understand that some councillors have expertise in this area, and I would suggest that perhaps they tried to come on behalf of one of the other organisations. But the idea is not for us to be driving this. The idea is us learning from the stakeholders and moving on after that. Sorry. You can come as the HRCC person. So if you want me to amend point three, I'll do it. Otherwise I'll just leave it as it is.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. I'll put the motion, which is Councillor Wheeler's notice of motion. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried.

Just before we move to, that was our only item with public speakers, just before I move to items on block, Mr Mifsud just wants to make a correction on one of the items on block.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Just in regard to item 65, there's a typographical error in the recommendation. It indicates that it's under section 31(2A) of the Local Government Act. It should read section 31(2) of the Local Government Act.

Thank you, Mr Mifsud. They all noticed and they were all going to ask that question.

Madam Mayor. Yes. Procedural matter, and this is my fault. Could I ask that item 64, which is our motion on the access to information policy, be moved out of the on block part and be subject to some debate?

I'm not sure if you'll have to be reprimanded on not asking for that earlier, Mr Conroy.

It's within council's power to do what it wants to do.

Certainly, Councillor Zampronya, you may indeed do that. So we shall someone move the other items on block excluding item 64. Move Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Councillor Connolly. All those in favour? The motion is carried. So we will go then to item 64. Councillor Zampronya.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and I move the recommendation.

Seconded, Councillor Connelly . Thank you, Councillor Sanpranja.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Look, I just wanted to make some remarks relating to this motion and the motion that we considered at our last meeting, which was our digital communication strategy. And what I'm attempting to do here is join some dots and to encourage Council to begin to move in an exciting new direction relating to the way that we use data, data being the new oil, data being the new resource , to improve the way that we govern here.

One of the things that we had in our digital communication strategy was a commitment to open government. And although the subject of this item here only relates to us ratifying changes to the way that Council handles things like GIPA requests, there is a broader point that needs to be made here about how information can unlock a sense of engagement with the community and can lead to some unexpected and very positive outcomes. I make these remarks off the back of attending with Councillor Rasmussen only this week a Smart Cities conference, and data and information was one of the key things that they pointed to as a way in which councils can be really innovative in this space. Things like smart parking, things like e-democracy.

Things like providing access to data in ways that is then remixed and augmented by activist citizens to do things that weren't even anticipated simply because there was a commitment to open government. So what I wanted to do is, in endorsing the recommendation in the business paper, is to actually go further and to foreshadow my commitment to encouraging Council to do things like provide information through the Council website in a tabulated form that can be remixed by people in new and interesting ways. I'm talking about financial information that currently we make available to the public in our annual report, but that's usually in the form of extracts. And once they've been baked into a PDF, they're hard to extract and to remix in these interesting ways.

We should be providing open access to tabulated data in some delimited format like a spreadsheet so that people can go out there and they can break down those numbers and they can work out where Council's revenue is coming from, break it down by area, work out how Council's money is being spent, break that down by demographic or by area, and see for themselves that they're getting value from the rates that they are paying. At the moment, that is very hard to do. I'd also like to see geospatial information suitably cleansed so that there weren't privacy issues associated with that, because we've seen in various other places around the world geospatial information used to create new communities of interest or to identify issues that require attention from local government.

And again, at the moment, that information is fairly opaque. There's a lot of really good information that Council is keeping close to its chest that could be made more open to the public in a way that is going to do some good. So I just wanted to make those remarks and say that that's the kind of commitment that this Council should be making, and this access to information policy is simply a small part of that.

Thank you, Councillor Zamprogno. Any further discussion?

Right of reply. Thank you. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried.

Item 66, the Sustainability Committee. Councillor Wheeler, moved Councillor Wheeler, seconded Councillor Kotlash. Discussion, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I just wanted to add a little bit of background to the discussion, given that it's been flagged as having implications for Council at some point. And I want to note the new format for these reports and say how much easier they make it for us to sift through the reports and find items that Council does need to deal with that aren't just a general discussion of something relevant to that committee. So I'd like to thank the staff for that change. I also want to note that Clean Up Australia Day was a big success. Those of us who went along picked up all sorts of disgusting things out of all sorts of disgusting places. But what was really nice to see was that the staff had those piles of rubbish cleaned up before Monday morning, which hasn't happened, I don't think, as quickly in the past, and really left volunteers thinking that their efforts were valued.

So this seems like as good a place as any to put that on public record. The item that's come up from the Sustainability Committee, or the now newly badged Environmental Sustainability Committee, is the matter of dam dewatering. So this came to my attention when we had the problem with the turtle trapping at Yarramundi Lagoon, and I had a number of turtle experts contact me. And amongst the other things that they told me was that Council should have a clear policy on dam dewatering that is readily available for people who are about to remove a dam on a property. Usually because of subdivision. So it seems that other councils, Liverpool in particular and Blacktown are doing some good work in this.

Hills seems to have a good document that details what should be done, guidelines for preparing a dam dewatering report that takes the form of a fact sheet. What we need to be doing is looking at areas like seepage and runoff, identifying possible contamination, but in particular we need to identify the fauna, both terrestrial and aquatic, and we need to have an action plan for how they're relocated if species are detected. And apparently that is a big problem with turtles. So if you just let the water out, those various species are left high and dry, often a long way from any other habitat, and they perish. And that isn't good enough. And there's organisations like Turtle Rescue who will happily come in, collect up all your turtles and take them to a nice cosy new home.

So I think we need to get onto this. We flagged it with the staff who are going to report back to the committee, and so it's come up because it will take some staff time to do. But it's particularly pertinent in relation to subdivision in rural areas like Kurmond and Redbank. So I thought I'd best bring it to Council's attention.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Further discussion? No further discussion. Right of reply? Sorry. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. Item...

67, Councillor Richards. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I move to defer the item. Seconded. Councillor Kotlash. Thank you. I think that, Barry, Councillor Calvert, who's the chair of this committee, really should be here to discuss this item in its first instance. And secondly, unfortunately, the item actually doesn't have attached to it the report that was submitted to the meeting at that committee, and it's asking us to endorse the recommendations. But there's 21 strategies in that report, and they're not actually listed here. So I think that it's beneficial to Council that we actually see the copy of that report. And I think rather than going on, I've got a lot to say about it, but I'd like to save it for when Councillor Calvert is also able to address the matter because he's put a lot of significant work into this, and I think it's only fair that he's here to actually discuss it.

Thank you. So just deferring to the next meeting. To the next meeting, thank you. Thank you. Any

Mr Conroy. Madam Mayor, just to clarify, it was never intended to present the actual report to tonight's meeting. It was just presenting the deliberations of the advisory committee. The report's actually going to come to Council in a separate report directly to Council. But that doesn't— I'm just clarifying it, that's all.

Okay. Thank you. Further discussion? No further discussion. Right of reply, Councillor Richards. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Against. The motion is carried. Item 68.

Councillor Reynolds.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor.

Seconder

For yours

Councillor Garrow. Thanks

Madam Mayor. The budget statement, as recommended by Local Government NSW, will provide a breakdown of expenditure, both capital and recurrent, and distinguish between payments for services provided on behalf of the state and those provided to local government for its own purposes. This is one step to increase budget transparency in New South Wales and also to help reduce cost, or reduce cost shifting, and enable councils to budget and prepare more readily. Thank you.

Thank you. Discussion? Further discussion?

Councillor Tree. Thank you. I'm just wondering if within that we could also get added into the report the number of initiatives that's been put forward by council that have duplicated state government or federal government processes already, that are already in existence. Just wondering if that could be added.

See if Councillor Reynolds would consider that.

I don't think that that—this is about endorsing a Local Government NSW recommendation. It's not actually calling for a report, but I would support such a motion to find out the information Councillor Tree mentions, but I don't think it actually meshes in with this particular notice of motion.

Could be a separate one then. Further discussion?

Can I ask a question? So if this report's talking about wanting to know what the cost shifting measures are from, you know, state and other tiers of government, federal, wouldn't it be relevant to see what sort of things we're doing that duplicate monies that would normally be spent by those other tiers of government that is in fact internal cost shifting in a sense?

I don't know that Councillor Tree's actually looked at the motion, in that it's endorsing the Local Government NSW recommendation to provide a detailed annual local government budget statement with each New South Wales budget. That's it. We're not calling for a report.

Thank you. Further discussion?

Councillor Richards. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think what Councillor Tree was alluding to, and it probably doesn't need to be, there is no report being called for. I get that it's an endorsement of the Local Government NSW in this case. And it does have merit to what it's saying. We are all councillors and we are elected to represent local government and what it stands for and what our duties are under local government. We are the caretakers of ratepayers' money. We need to make sure that that money is spent wisely. So I think the point trying to be made there was that in also taking on board the fact that we do need to have that conversation about cost shifting and where the burdens are being placed on local government across New South Wales, that Council probably does need to also, in that broader subject, not contained in this notice of motion, but in the broader subject, also identify where it is duplicating money that the state government is spending and wasting, or spending ratepayers' money in instances where it doesn't need to, such as a duplicate conservation management plan for Thompson Square.

Let's just use that as an example. So I think that that is, if we're talking about cost shifting as an issue, I think that that is an important part to also take note of. And while I understand it's not something that needs to be part of this notice of motion, I think in the broader debate that it is a point that needs to be made. Thank you. Perhaps we could take

That as a foreshadowed notice of motion that you or Councillor Tree could put up at another time. Further discussion? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I think we can discuss the other motion when it arises, but it doesn't seem to be consistent with the aims of this notice of motion, which is largely to endorse the work of Local Government NSW in attempting to redress the balance of cost shifting, which relates to many of the services that we will have to cut if we are unable to secure an SRV. And that's come about through decades now of cost shifting. Roads, libraries, sewage, public health initiatives, homelessness services, pensioner rates rebates, all costs shifted onto councils. In 40 years, library funding has been cut to less than 10%. It used to be at around 50% from state governments, and that's just one example.

Pensioner rates rebates have been frozen at mid-1990 levels since the mid-1990s, and councils have been told to either tell pensioners to suck it up or to tell the rest of the ratepayers to suck it up, and that's what cost shifting means. The state government has been very, very firm with councils: we either meet their fit for the future benchmarks, and in our case we meet the metropolitan benchmarks whilst being funded and paid as councillors, regional councillor salaries. We must meet their benchmarks, and all the while they do that, while sitting on a fat surplus and castigating councils for not being efficient. In fact, the state treasurer, the member for Hawkesbury, stood up at a public meeting at Oakville and told the community that this council was inefficient and that he would attempt to stop a rates rise.

In effect, he stated that he would prevent council meeting his own government's fit for the future benchmarks. And he's dodged meetings with the mayor and the general manager so that the details of the SRV can be explained to him. So , what local government is trying to do, and this isn't just a problem for Hawkesbury, this is a problem for councils right across New South Wales, who have now, in some cases, asked for SRVs of in excess of 70% in order to make ends meet because of excessive cost shifting. We've now got a whole local government sector who is saying, We cannot take this anymore. $670 million in cost shifting in 2014 and rising.

At the same time, FAG funding was frozen,

And the federal government cost shifted approximately $289 million to council. Now, this isn't just the great lefties screaming at a Liberal government. This has been going on for four decades, and the impact really is not on us, but on the ratepayers and the staff who have to do more and more with less and less, and our ratepayers who have to put up with poorer and poorer services as a result. So, I think we need to get behind Local Government NSW, who are fighting in our corner, and that's what this notice of motion asks us to do. And it also asks the New South Wales government, each time it issues a budget, to be upfront about what we're going to have to deal with, because we have to be upfront with the ratepayers.

We have to come up with budget statements and tell people what we're going to spend where, and we have to tell the state government how we're going to meet their financial benchmarks. So, how about they be a bit transparent with their workings as well? That's all this asks for. I don't think that's too much.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Further discussion?

No further discussion. Right of reply, Councillor Reynolds.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Mayor. I thank Councillor Wheeler and Councillor Richards for their comments. I think it's important that the community and ratepayers are not aware of the impacts of cost shifting on a council. I mean, I wasn't before I came into this place. I mean, local government New South Wales, in its last report, estimated that cost shifting costs New South Wales councils $680 million a year, and it's expected their next report will show the figures ballooned even further. In 2016, IPART themselves delivered a report to the minister on the burdens and regulatory requirements of local councils, and in that it says, the extent to which local government encounters unnecessary or excessive burdens in undertaking its regulatory responsibilities is greatly influenced by how the state imposes its planning, reporting and compliance obligations.

This means that improvements to the state's approach to devolving regulatory responsibility to councils would greatly reduce these burdens, in particular when imposing regulatory responsibilities on local government, the state should work as a partner with local government, and then it goes on to list various ways it could do it. Now that report's been sitting on the minister's desk for two years and nothing's been done, and still the cost shifting keeps going. It's quite clear that the government is not working as a partner with councils, as recommended by IPART, and the fact that, you know, we found out reasonably recently that cost shifting to this government—this council, rather—in the last financial year was $6.9 million.

That's 23% of our income from rates. That's nearly a quarter of our rates ripped out of our pockets that should have been spent on roads, services and facilities. So, and I must, I have to say, the unmitigated gall of the Treasurer to write to members of the community after he's pilfered this money and then turning around to appointing council saying they're inefficient. I mean, it's, I mean, you know, theft. Theft is defined as the wrongful taking away of personal goods or property of another, or to take and carry away without permission with the intention of keeping. And that's what's happened. That's what's happened to local ratepayers. Now, I understand people don't like paying rates, or paying more rates.

I mean, I don't want to pay more rates either. But if this hadn't happened, we wouldn't have to have an SRV. We clearly wouldn't have to have an SRV. And so that's the main issue here. If this stops, the SRV would stop. But it's not going to stop. You can't have someone come into your house , take, as I say, a quarter of your pay packet, then expect you to meet your household budget. So I think that we need to support Local Government NSW in this matter, and I think we need to support requests the support of other local councils. Just last week, the news came through that the Council Port Macquarie, $12 million they were cost shifted, and it's got them in trouble. So I hope that this can be addressed, or helped to go some way to being addressed by this notice of motion.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Reynolds. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Against? The motion is carried. Questions.

On questions from last time.

No questions on questions? Oh, Councillor Ross.

I was concerned in reference to question number one, in regard to the intended closure of the outdoor pool at Oasis, continuing to be prior to 30 June. I was under the understanding that there were going to be moves made last year for that to be extended to the end of June. I'm just a little bit concerned about that one.

Mr Mifsud.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I don't believe there was any council resolution to close that pool later than the intended date of the 29th of April.

Thank you. Councillor Conolly. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Just in relation to question 12 regarding council's financial support for the— trying to find the right word—the iDAHO event at McMahons Park. I appreciate the answer. However, the question wasn't how was it funded, the question was what was the cost. So I've been given an indication of what's happened so far in terms of staff time and said that because it's being funded out of the budget we can't cost it. I don't believe that's correct. So I'm not looking for an answer on the spot, Madam Mayor, but perhaps that could be reported again with an answer to the question of how much is it costing.

Thank you, Councillor Conolly. Any further questions on questions? Councillor Ross. Yes

I've got a question in relation to item—question number four.

Yep. I'm just wondering how much time do we need to gather evidence? It looks like it's been in excess of maybe months, and what will appear in relevant minor matter.

Mr Rollins. Thank you, Madam Mayor. The matter is under part primary industries jurisdiction and part council jurisdiction. And without going into great detail, there is some problem gathering the evidence, which I can explain to Councillor Ross another time.

Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions on questions? Questions for next week—next meeting. Councillor Ross.

Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Garrow. Yes, can we get a cost to date in this term of Council for the code of conduct complaints that have been put forward, including those that have been unfounded?

Also, I'm hoping that this signage request doesn't create the hysteria that we've heard in the past. But following Clean Up Australia Day, it's noted that there is not much signage around our parks promoting the Do the Right Thing initiative or the like. Can we consider some sort of signage strategically located around our parks, and possibly notifying how to report a tosser and the fine amounts, and if there is any state government grants that could help fund such said signage?

Thank you.

Oh, one more, sorry. Also, this is probably Mr. Organ. Is it possible to find a solution for the mowing of the litter into 11 trillion different pieces, a request from somebody who was at Clean Up Australia Day? Thanks, Councillor Garrow

Councillor Reynolds. Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Madam Mayor. On the 30th of January, a Mayoral Minute was passed regarding Thompson Square archaeology, and there were a number of motions that resulted that Council write variously to the RMS, the Premier, the New South Wales Government and others. Could we have some follow-up on that, please, in particular Motion 3, and I can forward these if that's easier. Has Council received a reply other than recognition of receipt of correspondence from the New South Wales Government and the RMS? Motion 4, has Council received a reply other than recognition of receipt and correspondence from the Premier and RMS? Motion 5, has Council received a reply other than recognition of receipt of correspondence from the Federal Minister, Mr Frydenberg?

And Motion 6, has Council received a reply other than recognition of receipt of correspondence from the Premier and And Mr Perrottet, thank you.

Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Zambrano.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. A couple of things, one of which follows directly on from Councillor Garrow's suggestion. After Clean Up Australia Day, there's been a request for signage at Friendship Bridge in Pitt Town, probably in relation to either do the right thing or maybe flagging the fines that would ensue being caught for dumping in the creek there. What was pulled out of that creek was just truly extraordinary. Next, also in Pitt Town, the old timber fence in Bonavista Park is in a very decrepit state, and it's been put to me that it's now unsafe . I know that it's a historic fence. I know it's a fraught issue. I don't know whether the remedy is to repair it or to relocate it, but we've been asked to conduct a safety inspection on the fence, the rotting timber fence in Bonavista Park.

And lastly, could we please get the graders out to the dirt section of Brendan's Dam Road at Vineyard because the corrugations are now an active hazard to vehicles.

Thank you, Councillor Zambrano. Councillor Connelly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards. No further questions. Someone move we go into confidential. Move Councillor Kotlash, seconded Councillor Rasmussen. All those in favour

Enter into a new lease with Property New South Wales for the property known as Suite 3, Level 1 of the Deerubbin Centre at 300 George Street, Windsor, as outlined in the report. Two, Council agree to enter into a new licence agreement with Property New South Wales in regard to car park spaces located at Deerubbin Centre, 300 George Street, Windsor, in accordance with the proposal outlined in this report. Three, authority be given for any documentation associated with this matter to be executed under seal of Council. Four, details of Council's resolution be conveyed to the proposed lessee, together with advice that Council is not and will not be bound by terms of its resolution until such time as the appropriate legal documentation to put such resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by all parties.

Thank you, Mr Mifsud. The meeting is closed at 8.53. Thank you, everyone. 7.53, thank you. Daylight saving not quite. Thank you, 7.53.