30 October - Ordinary

I'll declare the ordinary meeting of the Council of 30 October open, and I'll begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of this land where we hold the meeting and pay my respect to Elders both past and present. I just want to indicate while I'm doing that that I've been speaking to a few community members lately, and also I've been to a few other places around the state where the acknowledgement of Indigenous heritage has been fashioned or designed to meet the actual location. It's been more of a unique acknowledgement, and I'm looking to invite the community to work with me to perhaps make that happen here. What I want to do firstly is to ask the community whether they agree that that might be the way to go, or should we just leave the acknowledgement as it is?

And if that is the way to go, I'd ask the community to give me advice on what the process might be, who we should talk to and how we should talk to them. And I'm going to also run that through the Reconciliation Action Plan working group. That's not something I expect that we'll have done in a week. That could take a very long time, but I'm just notifying the public and councillors that it's something we're going to start very soon. I'll now ask the General Manager to give some remarks, please.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. 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 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 the Council are recorded. In the 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, and the recordings are stored on Council's record management system. For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the 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 to both your address to Council and any answers given in response to questions from Councillors. Finally, it is also requested that if any person in the Council Chambers has a mobile phone, they either turn it off or turn it to silent.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr General Manager. Are there any declarations of interest? Yes, Councillor Richards.

I remembered reading through the business paper, but I hadn't written it down yet. It's the item where we are giving donations to— sorry, funds to community organisations. I've just got to find it.

Anyone could help me? 252,

Is it?

252, yes. I have an interest in one of the organisations there, and it is a significant non-pecuniary. Thank you.

Okay. That item is going to be on block.

I have one.

I haven't finished yet. Oh, sorry. To Councillor Richards, that item is going to be on block, and we will have to say it again later. Deputy Mayor.

I have a significant non-pecuniary interest in item 259, Council-owned childcare centres, and I'll read it when it's the time. Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler. 258, pecuniary interest

Okay.

Thank you. Any more? We'll get all those, if you could fill in the forms, and we'll get all those read out each time it comes up.

We need the confirmation of the previous minutes. Do we have someone to do that? Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Councillor Conolly. Any discussion? I'll put that then. All those in favour say aye. Declare it carried.

We're up to agenda item subject...

Public address. We have, firstly, item 2.5.1, Pitt Town Community Precinct. We have one speaker, Mr Peter Ryan. If you come up, thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Calvert, councillors, for the opportunity to speak on this important issue that affects the whole of Pitt Town. I'm representing the members of the Pitt Town Progress Association Incorporated. I would like to compliment Joseph Litwick here for his team for preparing the report and thank him for the opportunity to discuss this with us on a meeting on the 30th of August. The Progress Association supports, in principle, the recommendations of the report to council. However, I would like to comment on a couple of the recommendations.

The

Association supports the proposal of selling off the current community centre site and to co-locate the community centre site to the sporting complex on the Fernadell Park site, providing that all the funds, all the proceeds and funds of the sale of the current site are directed into the new community centre, in addition with the funds that have already been allocated. The sale should be conducted in a way that maximises the funds available to go to the community centre, and we should be provided with full financial details of this. The community must be given the option of a single building or two separate buildings, with pros and cons for each of the options. There are obviously financial advantages in the co-location of the two facilities.

However, there are also potential disadvantages in a single building, including the frequency of use by both sporting bodies and non-sporting activities. At October's meeting of the association, this matter was discussed with the members, and they showed a clear preference to the two separate buildings. Both the community facilities were in the 2008 and 2015 Section 94, which I think it's called the 711 now, and the works were scheduled to be completed before the end of the Fernadell development. Well, that's well and truly completed. Residents now have a reason to expect the project to be fast-tracked and given the timeline of completion. The next meeting of the association will be held on the 5th of November.

The General Manager, Mr. Conroy, has offered to come along and provide an update on these issues, including the community centre site and the Fernadell Park development. All councillors, you're welcome to come along, and to that meeting and any further meetings, it's an open invitation to you. I'd just like to thank you for your attention and look forward to working together to cooperate and get these projects up and underway. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ryan. Would you be interested in answering any questions?

Yes, that'd be

Good.

Councillor Reynolds. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Thanks for that, Mr. Ryan. Has the association communicated or consulted with other residents about the development of the community centre and the sports field?

Yes, we have. We're actually running a web page and a Facebook page now, and I think last week I spoke to the person who runs it for us, and we've had 1,756 hits on it, mostly all favourable. So yes, they're very well aware of it, and we're keeping them updated probably on a weekly basis.

Okay, so your report from tonight back to them as well?

The report from tonight will go into the community.

Are you aware of, apart from the Facebook page, of sort of a rough idea of how many people have shown interest in it?

Well, it was 1,756 showed interest, and they were all pretty much positive. We had a few people that thought other projects should go ahead, but I feel that this is probably one we really need to work on to get it to go ahead and really get it there out there for the community. So the community as a whole, you

Think is

I think it's a great thing because we don't have a playing field there. Brinsley Oval is now condemned for soccer. They cannot play soccer on that oval because of the condition of it, the slope and the hardness of the field. I spoke with Anthony Rornjack, the president of the soccer club, and they have 456 players, and over 500 when we take in the referees, the coaches and all that, and they're the second biggest one in the Hawkesbury, and they now use fields outside the Hawkesbury. And really, I've got a fear for the young fellas at Pitt Town, the young people, that if we don't supply them this playing facility, they're going to slip through the cracks. And I'll tell you the truth, I was a police officer.

I worked in some really hard places, Moree, Cabramatta, Fairfield and all them, and if they did not have facilities there, that many of them could just take the easy way out and slip through the crack. We're not going to let that happen in Pitt Town. We're a strong community, and we want to keep it that way. The members of the association have been really working hard to lift the profile since the new people started, and it's great that they are really working with us. Okay, thanks very much for that. Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler, do you have a question? Councillor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Ryan, for that information . I just wanted to ask, when you said about the separate buildings and that it was your preference for separate buildings, have I got that right?

That was the association. Yeah , we spoke on that, yes.

What was the reasoning behind that? Was it noise, or because I think in maybe we have the possibility of designing a facility that might be able to cope with different levels of activity and different types of activity. And I just wondered whether that, what was your major, some of your issues with wanting two separate facilities?

Our major issue was that we've been down, we've looked at the ponds, and you can see how much work we've put into the work we've put into our submission to Joseph here. And one of our people actually was the treasurer for both the ponds down there, and was for quite a good while. And her concern was that we may have football teams or that who are finishing a game, and we could have a wedding. We want to make sure that they don't cross over, and we really want to work on this so that it is a profitable complex . We don't want to have something that's a white elephant because we haven't thought out about it properly. If you have a look at some of the submissions there, we're looking at putting a community hub in there, so people who work from home, which I was surprised when I did a bit of a walk around or run around to see how many do, they don't want people to come to their home.

They would sooner rent an office at the community centre. That would help it become more viable, and even a conference there. They were really keen to do that. And one of the movements came up with an idea where they now work is they can book it with a key card, and it's automatically invoiced to them.

Thank you. Councillor Ross, you had a question.

Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, Peter I want to follow on from the previous questioning. Would you not see, from a security point of view, that even if the community centre provided the facilities which you suggested may be appropriate, that that would, in fact, provide a greater degree of occupation, shall we say, of the site generally, and therefore result in less, if you like, problems of any waywardness in the area?

I'll take that on board. My feeling of it is that if we get these people involved with it and actually let them do some work on it, they take ownership of it. And to have them separate, I can't see an issue with security. They probably may be separated by a car park and the playing fields, and if a lot of those young people are training for soccer, football, cricket or whatever it is, I'm pretty sure they'll take ownership of the community centre also. Another thought that I have: the community centre, we've got that big pond, and look, it's not pretty, but we could actually build a community centre overlooking that, taking advantage of that and really make it something that people would come to for weddings, for all those sort of things that would realistically make the whole infrastructure more viable.

But also, with the sports council, they tend to look after the sports people themselves, don't they? And with the funds that we give them from council and that, and probably to combine them, we might have an issue with who's going to pay for the power. Oh, we'll break this week, so we're not going to pay for the power. The community centre can pay for it. I don't think that would ever happen, but that's sort of going, perhaps if we can avoid a problem, it's better than having one.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Conroy wanted to mention a sheet of paper you've got on your desk.

Yes, thanks, Mr. Mayor. Councillors, we did receive some inquiries regarding the report and the recommendations of the report. We've therefore circulated a document that we hope clarifies the details in the report, and we also circulated at the bottom of that document a revised recommendation to again just clarify the proposal. So again, that's circulated for the advice and assistance of councillors.

Thank you, Mr. Conroy. The matter is open for discussion.

You're looking for a motion, Mr. Mayor?

Either a motion or—

Okay, I'll move the recommendation.

There's the recommendation in the book, or there's this recommendation here?

Yeah, circulated amended recommendation,

Mr. Mayor

That one, yes .

Okay, moved by Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by Councillor Sen Proctor. Councillor Rasmussen, you wish to speak?

Mr. Mayor, a number of emails that I've received, and I'm sure other councillors have too, and what we just heard from the speaker here tonight, I think council staff have got it pretty right in terms of functionality, what should be there, how it should be organised, and the future of this centre. And I think if we can get this thing up and running, I think it will be very well used. And I'd particularly like, apart from the other aspects as well, but particularly like the business hub. I think that has great merit for people who more and more run their own small micro businesses and can often, or maybe work from home, but find that doing work from home is a bit distracting with everything else going on.

So a place where they can go and meet clients or just do some quiet work in a community centre like this, modern , current. 5G , all those good things being embedded into the structure would be of great advantage. So, Mr Mayor, I think this has got a lot of things going for it and I think we should be supporting it.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. Any further speakers? Deputy Mayor.

Question, Mr Mayor. I did send some questions through, which I had a few things arise from the report, but I did just hear Mr Ryan ask about the fast tracking of the project, and the response I got to a question regarding the likely time frame of the community actually seeing a community centre in place was around April 2021. I've just got a question as to whether there is a fast tracking process that can bypass. I know there has to be a rezoning planning proposal done, but if there are any other ways that the community can get the facility any earlier.

Mr Conway, do we have an answer to that? Mr Littman.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I guess the determining factor as to whether the entire project can be delivered is the rate of development for the outstanding Section 94 contributions. So, at the moment I understand that four of the eight precincts have been developed, two have commenced and two have yet to commence, and there's still approximately 250 to 300 lots requiring development. And I guess those lots would raise the balance of the contributions required to deliver the project in full, but that doesn't mean that the project can't be commenced, because there's certainly elements that can be commenced in terms of a staged development, and that would really depend on the completion of the master planning process and the plan of management for the site, which is scheduled to be undertaken this year and hopefully completed by the end of the financial year.

And the reason for the start date from April 2021 is just the pure time taken to plan, design, develop the documentation for a DA and the technical specifications for a tender.

Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just a series of questions, really. Could one of the staff perhaps outline the process involved in reclassifying land from community to operational so that the community understands what's involved, please?

Mr Littman .

Thank you, Mr Mayor. The process involves a public exhibition where we're required to notify the community of our intention to reclassify the land from community to operational. There has to be a public inquiry held, chaired by an independent... person , and then that report goes to Council. If Council agrees to the reclassification, I think I may be a bit lost here, that it may have to go for, to be reported to the—do you know this bit?—to the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel, and then probably to final approval by the Department of Planning.

Thank you. What's the scope—what sort of scope is there then, once we've begun this process? It's not a done deal, is it? It's what happens if the community, for example, doesn't want this site reclassified? I certainly don't want this to go out to the community as some sort of fait accompli. So what mechanisms are there to make sure that the community's wishes are paramount in this process?

Mr Lidtwin.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. That would depend on the outcome of the public hearing and, I guess, the recommendations or findings of that hearing. I'm not completely 100% sure, sorry, Councillor Wheeler, but I do believe that if there are objections, then there may be ministerial approval required to complete the process.

Thank you. Is there a mechanism in place, Mr Mayor, for specific consultation with those who live opposite and adjacent to the precinct who are most likely to be affected?

Mr Lidtwin.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Is that in relation to the reclassification or the—

The whole project.

Well, I guess that would be related to the process for the master plan. So I suspect if that's the wish of the Council, then that provision can be made within the consultation strategy for that development. Thank you.

And one more, Mr Mayor, if I could. It seems that the community wants quite a significant facility on this site, with facilities that we don't have in any of our other town centres at this point, including the Deerubbin Centre, which is probably our flagship at the moment. I think we need to get some indication before we go out promising something we can't deliver of whether we can afford to maintain such a space in the long term, not just provide it.

So are you speaking against the motion?

No, I'm not. I'm just, I guess I'm making a point, and I'm hoping that Council includes in any report that comes to us, that the staff include in any report that comes to us, the likely maintenance costs of such a facility.

I'll defer that to Mr Conroy. I've made a note of the comments, and we'll include that in the assessment process.

Thank you. So could I perhaps move an additional recommendation

That Council specifically consult with residents who live opposite and adjacent to the Pitt Town Community Precinct site, and specifically the former community centre site.

You're putting this up as point six?

Point six, yes.

I'll second that if it's an amendment.

Well, Councillor Rasmussen might. Yeah, I

Think we can add that as

Point six. Point six. Who seconded it? Councillor Sam Brogna, are you happy with it?

Subject to some questions that I'll ask later, yes.

Okay. Councillor Wheely, do you want to talk to point six?

No, I think I've said enough.

Councillor Kotlash had her light on before.

Just a quick question, thank you, Mr Mayor. Could I just get an indication of whether something like a wedding function centre is permissible in RE1, public recreation? It just, I hadn't, it hadn't occurred to me that weddings would be held in this, and I was just wondering, does that come under multi-function community?

Mr Conroy. So what we're proposing is a community facility for use by the community, so it'll be consistent with that community use. You'll be able to book it and use it for certain activities, but those activities will vary from day to day and week to week. Yep, so it's consistent with that.

Councillor Sam Proven .

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm just trying to reconcile the form of words that I see here. So on page 19, under point 4, it says that due to unresolved flood evacuation issues, it's unlikely that approval would be granted to amend the RU2 zone to a residential or other zone to permit the intensification of development beyond a single residential dwelling. Now that's a reference to the smaller site at the southern end, the 4,300 square metre site. So if we imagined a situation where this larger facility on the larger portion of land wasn't happening, that would seem to imply that we wouldn't have been able to secure the appropriate zoning, even to rezone the small site for a community building, and that doesn't strike me as right.

And the reason I ask is this recommendation before us this evening specifically charges council staff to prepare a proposal that removes the need for the smaller site to be used for a public amenity purpose. In other words, it could just be used for a residential block. My understanding— of the desires of the Pitt Town community, and my personal desire is that that land too be serve some community purpose, whether it was commercial, civic or otherwise, but to just say that it was just going to be turned into another residential block. So I'm trying to work out whatever could have been done on that land if, as the report says, that because of flood evacuation issues, we never could have moved it out of RU2, when at a certain point it was the location of the putative community facility.

And Councillor Wheeler's proposed point six may serve the purpose of clarifying what the desires of the Pitt Town community are in relation to this small portion of land. I would like to see some consultation done about precisely what it could be used for. This affects not only the yield if it's sold off for a particular purpose, but also the fact that there could be some other complementary civic purpose that could be satisfied that otherwise we're not looking into.

Mr Conroy would like to answer your question.

So the sensitivity here is the residential activity. So the flood controls are very focused on residential activity because people are asleep in their properties overnight and things like that, and that's when floods can strike with very little notice. During the day when businesses are operational, there's a lot more public awareness of flooding and, you know, water movements and things like that. So there's not as much sensitivity about commercial, and again with community uses, the uses is consistent with the zone. The commercial and residential... relate to flooding in terms of the number of people that are likely to be on the property. So again, we've talked about ideally exploring an aged facility .

The issue with that is that'll be a significant intensification of the existing use. So you'll get a significant increase in the number of residents on the site. So that becomes a problem in terms of the flood control. So what we're trying to do here is balance the flood controls, the sensitivity of the land use, and the community's desire to generate some income from the property. Ideally, that's sympathetic with community objectives. Now, that may be a very difficult puzzle to solve, and it may well be that we get a solution that generates money, but maybe doesn't generate aged housing and maybe doesn't generate any other particular community objectives other than putting funds into the community facility.

But these will all be issues that will be worked out on the way through. But at the moment, the zoning gives us the flexibility to explore some of those.

Thank you for that explanation, Mr. Conroy. I'm just not completely satisfied that the six points before us at the moment specifically charge staff to continue to consult with the Pitt Town community to get a better sense of what the best use of that smaller community centre site could be. The only reference that's here is for it to be sold off for an additional residential block, and I think we could do better.

Do you have a suggestion, Councillor Zamprogno?

Well, again, what I'm trying to do is read into the points before us, including Councillor Wheeler's amendment, and to see whether that... That gives staff the flexibility to take on board the need to consult with the Pitt Town community to ask that question. If the answer is yes, then we'll leave it as it is.

Mr Conroy, is the answer yes?

My copy is moving around on the screen. Not the screen. No, no, that was a different one at the back. So

I think if point 6 was modified to say something like, specifically consult with residents opposite the site regarding the nature of the uses and their compatibility with, you know, adjoining residential properties, I think that would...

That isn't going to do what Councillor Zamprongio intends, I think, which is to ask the entire community about what they want from that site. Is that, if I understand you correctly?

You do, Councillor Wheeler. So, given Councillor Wheeler's scepticism of the ability for point 6 to address that, I'd like to add point 7, which is that the consultation specifically seeks to address the wishes of the Pitt Town community about the best uses of the 4,299 square metre site.

Councillor Rasmusson, are you happy to take that on? Yes

Mr Mayor. I thought we had a thorough briefing on this not so long ago, and these questions I thought had been answered at the briefing. But anyway, I'm happy to add another point 7 if that's going to get it over the hurdle, over the yardstick, that'll be good.

The question may have been asked at—I answered at a briefing, but Councillor Zamprogno is trying to get the recommendation or the motion to be accurate. Are you happy to—you're the seconder of that motion. Are you happy to have that point

Seven? I am, and to answer Councillor Rasmussen, yes, it was brought up at the briefing, and I raised this specific question, but now it's before us in the form of a motion that's going to be acted on by staff. Then now's the appropriate time to add it on.

Okay, so we have a motion with seven points. Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to, going back to that briefing, I thought I understood from that briefing that this was coming to us on the basis that this was following community consultation and that the community were broadly in support of this idea. Now, I guess there's no problem going out and asking again. I'm just wondering if that is the case that we've consulted on this or haven't we consulted on this, I guess is my question.

Mr Littlin.

So the recommendation in relation to the community centre site is, I guess you have to separate that it's purely in relation to removing it from the Section 94 plan. It does not mean that it still can't be used for a community purpose. Just that it's no longer in the Section 94 plan that we're required to use it for a community centre. So it can be used for whatever purposes are compatible with the zoning, and the part of the master plan for the Fernadell Park could include provision for what the community believes would be the best options for the future use of that site. So the proposal to reclassify it is just to extend the future possibilities of the use of that site.

So just a follow-up question. Just, I appreciate that. I guess my question would be if we're doing that to take out of the Section 94 plan and we're using the funds that we were going to use on that site elsewhere, like where's the money coming from to do something with this site?

Thank

You,

Mr Mayor.

I think the idea was that the funds from the sale of the land, if it was to be sold, and the recommendation doesn't really say that; it just says go down the path, would be used for community facilities in Pitt Town. Then that land would, because it would be reclassified as operational, it could be leased or sold on a commercial basis to an operator for a community-type facility.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Well, maybe. I guess that was my understanding, is that the idea was that we were going to use this asset, liquidate it and use the funds to build better facilities on the other lot of land. But now I think if I understood point seven, now we're talking about keeping this land and doing something else with it. I wonder, well, what's the point? If there's no extra funds coming to this other lot of land, why don't we just keep both and do both? Why would we not do something with this lot of land if we're not going to have any more funds to do something with this larger lot?

With your indulgence, Mr Mayor, selling the land and yielding some profit and then diverting those funds into the larger community facility, it isn't mutually exclusive. I'm simply saying if you sell the land for a residential block, then it serves no civic purpose whatsoever. If you sell the land and you do something else that is of some broader benefit to the community, then Council makes just as much money and the community gets a benefit along the way.

Thank you for that explanation, Councillor Sam Brodner. Councillor Garrow had...

Mr Mayor, can I just get some clarification? In point B, the reclassifying of the site, does that process not involve consulting with the residents, of which would be duplication of Councillor Zamprogno's request?

Mr Litwin. The consultation with the residents is purely about the reclassification of the land rather than the future use of the site.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Conolly. Yeah, look, if I could just make one comment, I guess, and take some advice and then I'll be finished, I promise, Mr Mayor. But my concern with this point 7 is that if it may be our intention to sell it, as Councillor Zamprogno has indicated and said it's not mutually exclusive, why would we give the community the impression that we're going to have some control over its ultimate use when we will not? If the plan is potentially to sell it, then we're going to give up any rights to say what happens on that lot of land. Whilst it's always good to talk to people, I think it would be giving the wrong impression that we're going to be in control of that. So I guess my question is to Mr Litwin, through you, Mr Mayor, if the plan is, how would that consultation go, I guess is my question.

Bearing in mind the comments I've just made, how do you think that would work? Mr Litwin.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I suspect that if we undertake consultation around the future use of that site, that would be reported to Council. And then I suspect there may be ways of Council ensuring that its future use is compatible with the requests of the residents, and it doesn't prevent Council from actually undertaking a commercial lease, which would mean that the land is still retained by Council, but it still generates income.

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Another question, point 5. Can someone inform us when we are likely to hear whether we receive that $4 million grant or not?

Mr. Litwin, Mr. Conroy,

Mr. Orbe. The grant application's been made. I understand that the process is this stage an expression of interest, and the shortlisting done between now and the end of the year, but that would be in the hands of the funding body. But the next stage would then be to comparative assessment of those projects and applications that have been shortlisted.

So it could be quite a while still before even hearing?

It could be some time. I understand there's a second round of applications waiting in the wing for about 12 months' time, so that would be, I guess, the maximum, I guess. Okay.

Thank you. If, like Councillor Connolly, I was under the impression we had sort of made some form of decision of selling off the smaller block of land, I'm happy to consult always with the community, and I had in fact sent in a series of questions regarding asking about that. And I think, to clarify just what's in the recommendation, just to ensure that I've got the sequence right of what would be occurring and whether it's occurring concurrently or not, is that if we are to approve this, the Council begins the preparation of the planning proposal regarding the various reclassification and so on, which has one form of consultation about reclassifying the status of the land. And then at the same time, you would be commencing the preparation of a master plan and plan of management, which would actually be more to do with the actual location and design of the community centre, and in which case the residents in that precinct would be involved in the consultation regarding that, as well as consulting further with the Pitt Town Progress Association and the point six which Councillor Wheeler raised, which was to directly consult with the residents opposite, who of course have perhaps had some concerns about vehicular traffic entering and exiting, if it's a bigger facility than what they were originally anticipating may be where their outlook is.

So is that, have I got that correct? I just want to have it correct in my head before I'm voting on it.

Mr Conroy. Mr Lutman.

Yes, that's correct. They both concurred. Okay,

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Councillor Rasmussen, would you like right of

Reply? Yes, I would, Mr Mayor. Thank you very much, Mr Mayor. I thank councillors for their contribution. I think we've got a hopefully unanimous agreement on this. And for those councillors who are perhaps a bit concerned about what the community might feel about this or want in the future, I'm sure the Pitt Town Progress Association group will talk to their community and try and work out exactly what is going to be in the long-term best interest of the whole of the community of Pitt Town, because I think it's a very united, in my experience, a very united and very cohesive group of people who actually do work together for the betterment of Pitt Town, and I think that will work itself through as we begin the community consultation. And I'm always for more and better community consultation.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. We're going to vote using our buttons. Could you use your buttons on the count of three. One, two, three.

The recommendation is passed 12-0. In favour of the motion is Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Samprogno, Councillor Connolly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards and Councillor Calvert. There are no one voted against it. Thank you. We now move to the second item of.

Yes.

Yes, certainly. Sorry.

With reference to the document which we were provided as a supplementary document in the last matter, how will that be incorporated within the business paper or minutes later on, sir, please

Mr Mayor, the recommendation at the base of the document is the basis of the recommendation that was moved by Council. So that's how that will be incorporated into the proceedings of Council. The material above it is just for clarification of Councillors. That won't be included in the documentation from the meeting.

Okay. We move to item 2.5.

Nine, and I think, Deputy Mayor, you wanted to declare an interest?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Declaring a significant non-pecuniary interest. I'm a member of the North Richmond Community Centre Management Committee, which operates one of the childcare centres.

Thank you. Oh

Yeah, 31. Move the motion, Mr Mayor. We have two speakers. Mr Mayor. Yes.

Mr Mayor, I'm sorry, I also need to declare a pecuniary interest. I'm sorry, I was unaware of, I didn't make the connection between the North Richmond Community Centre. I have a pecuniary interest. I'm sometimes employed as a gardener at the North Richmond Community Centre.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Anybody else? We have two speakers. Is Dr Sebastian Holmes here?

Would you like to come forward? Thank you.

Hi. So, I'm not sure how much you've read. I've sent all the councillors an email this afternoon because the information was sent out to the childcare and preschools at very short notice. I'm a parent of a child who's at South Windsor Preschool, and she's been there two years. So, the councillors proposed that the preschools, the nine community preschool and childcare centres, be put on a lease. The lease is charged no money, but they should be paying a sinking fund, which is for major works to be done to the childcare and preschools over the next 10 years. They produced a document. The document looks very good. I think the idea that the preschools and childcare centres should— Could or should contribute towards a sinking fund is fine.

However, what's not clear in the document, and this is where I think the document is misleading, is that now all of the preschools and community centres will be required to pay all of the daily building maintenance costs. Right . So the community preschools work on a not-for-profit basis, where any income, any excess income, is reinvested back into the preschool or into the daycare. Okay. And this means that there will be extra staff for the children. So instead of just adhering to one to ten or one to twenty ratios as dictated by government, you might have staff at a one to five or a one to eight ratio. The equipment that's provided will be much better quality, okay, and there's much more care about the children as well.

And if any of you are in any doubt, I would invite you to visit any of the centres and then visit a commercial daycare. And it's clear, just without any kids there, just by looking at the facilities that are there, there's a clear difference. And what I believe what the council has proposed will cause is effectively you will lose your community preschools and you will lose your community childcare facilities. There's another issue as well. I'll come back to the costings which have been put in this document which are incorrect. Commercial childcare facilities can double dip. That means they will get childcare support from the parent and from the government, and they will also get preschool funding.

Right. This means that the actual income for a commercial enterprise, after you've factored out the cost, staffing costs, is more than double that for a preschool. And in the email I've sent out of giving you that information, I've just done back-of-the-envelope calculations, but it's quite clear. Now, in this proposal from the council, it says it wants a contribution from each of the preschools, and it'll cross-match the funding, and over ten years there will be sufficient funds to undergo major works and major works will be done under that period. And it estimates that the cost per child per day for the preschools to make this contribution is of the order, I think it's of $1.35 for the preschools, and I think it's $2.51 for the childcare facilities, the long daycare facilities.

However— If you then include that the preschools and the childcare facilities now have to cover all the maintenance on the buildings, okay, and I just picked a number out of my head. I said, okay, for a South Windsor preschool, let's say it's 20 grand a year to cover the maintenance costs, and I think that's a low estimate, not a high estimate. You're now looking at, instead of a cost of, I think it's 135, it's $3.56, okay? This might not seem like very much, and it doesn't, okay, so, you know, you have to charge, say, an extra, you know, $4 per child per day. But if your preschools and community daycare or childcare facilities tend to be dominated by parents on a low income, okay, not a significantly low income, but, you know, sort of low to middle income, and this means that money can make a contribution of that sort can make a significant difference.

You have to remember that these community preschools and childcares have to compete with the commercial sector. So if we charge more than the commercial sector, then parents are going to be left with the choice of, well, it's going to cost me more to go to the commercial sector, or it's going to cost me more to go to the community sector, or it's cheaper to go to the commercial sector. Where am I going to go? Parents want community preschools, okay, and they want community childcare. And I think that Hawkesbury Council has supported preschool and community childcare by providing them with facilities for free, and by doing all the maintenance is admirable, and I think it should continue as such.

And my other concern is the centres have been given a week's notice to respond to this. I think that's unreasonable. It's been sitting with the council for two years. I think we should be given, with a chance to come back with what the costings, what we actually produce in terms of profit or income within the childcare centres, and what we propose will be a solution to the problem.

That's it. Thank you, Dr. Holmes. Are you willing to take questions?

Councillor Conolly. Thanks for that, and thank you for your email. I did read through that earlier today. I had a question. I wasn't really following your calculation, so if you could step it through for me. Yes. In your email, you've got that a commercial rent of $260,000 would be cheaper for the childcare centre. Yes. Than paying the $20,000 building maintenance and the $40,000 contribution.

Yes. All right. So the council in the document, in the proposal that's produced, has said that the lost income, the lost rental income, if it was to charge a commercial income to the nine facilities, would be $260,000, right? And all I've done is I've said, all right, well, there's nine facilities. What's $260,000 divided by nine? And then what I've done is I've only got information for South Windsor Preschool because I'm on the board there, and so I just knocked this up quickly this morning. If I divide that $260,000 by nine, I then divide it by 40 because preschool runs for 40 weeks of the year, and I then divide it by the 250 places that the children have. I end up with a figure of $2.89, okay?

So that's the cost if the council were to charge a commercial rent to the preschool, okay? That would be the additional cost per child. At the moment, on my calculation, what the council is going to want for the sinking fund for South Windsor is $1.69 per child per day. If I estimate maintenance costs, annual maintenance costs of $20,000 a year, that's an extra $2. So we end up with a figure of $3.69 as opposed to $2.89. And

My second question was just in regards to your statement that these childcare centres are mainly patroned, most of the families are low to middle income. Do you know, is that a statistic from somewhere? I mean, because I'm looking at these centres and they're not means-tested in any way, and they're normally cheaper. So I'm just wondering why you would think it would be mainly low- to middle-income

Families, not just

Anybody who could get

In . This is information I would like to bring to Council. But, for example, for South Windsor, 25% of the kids there are classified as Aboriginal, so we'll get Aboriginal funding. My daughter, as me, started preschool at three. We pay full fees, so that's $55 a day for a three-year-old. The majority of other three-year-olds in there receive additional funding of some sort because of low income. I think this year we have four or five full-paying three-year-olds. So that would give an estimate. Given sufficient time, if you give us a month, I think we can produce all of this information, show it quite clearly and cleanly. And what I'd like to see is I'd like to see a negotiation with Council and with the councillors to what's a reasonable resolution to this situation.

Sorry, Dr. Holmes, can you just confirm for me what the consultation timeframe was that you received? A week A week.

So we received this information 3 p.m. last Tuesday.

Thank you.

Councillor Conolly. Thanks. I guess, and this is just talking way out of turn, but just to throw something at you, I mean, from Council's point of view, and my particular personal opinion is that child care is obviously not a Council

Responsibility. Are you asking a question?

I am. I'm just going to ask Mr. Holmes's opinion on something. Given that child care is not a Council responsibility and that these centres are open for anybody at normally a reduced rate to the commercial sector, if Council was to continue to offer some sort of subsidy, would you be in favour of Council somehow implementing a means test for who could access that subsidy?

Microphone's gone off.

Sorry

Thank you. I don't have a problem with means testing. I think that's fine. I think it's, in reality, it's open just for any, like the people who attend the preschools or the childcare centres are local residents, irrespective.

As a parent, to be honest, it's actually more, for the four-plus-year-olds, it's cheaper than commercial childcare. But for the three-plus-year-olds, it's not, or it works out equivalently the same. So when Esme was in daycare at three-plus, we would pay $110 a day, okay? So when she's in... but we would get 50% of that back from the federal government as childcare rebate, which still exists, and we're a wealthy family. Our income is just below $200,000 joint income, okay? So we, you know, so we're getting, you know, a substantial rebate, you know, and so if we're on a lower income, it would be a greater rebate. And so for a three-plus-year-old, paying $55 per day is more expensive than, or of the same ilk as paying daycare.

For $27 for four-plus, yes, that's cheaper, but I think means testing or local residents or something like that is fine. Is it the responsibility of council versus federal government to do childcare? I would say that's debatable. I would want to see all local councils trying to benefit their local community, and I think having childcare and having community-based childcare is of benefit to any local community. You get better childcare, you get better cohesion, and you get better follow-through in primary school and secondary school.

Thank you, Dr. Holmes. We might need to move on. Thank you very much for your presentation. Thank you for your time. Danielle Shepherd, please.

Mr Mayor, Councillors, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the opportunity to respond to Council's Fit for the Future Plan, including the proposed five-year childcare Centre lease and 10-year annual sinking fund and building renewal fund. My name is Danielle Shepherd and I am the Director of Hobartville Long Day Preschool. I am representing and speaking for Wilberforce and Richmond preschools, Hobartville, Green Hills, Golden Valley, Elizabeth Street, Wilberforce and McGraths Hill Long Day Cares. Since taking the role of Director in 2016, I am reminded daily of the essential community role that services like mine provide for the community. We provide education and care to the most vulnerable of our citizens, our children.

We provide a support network for parents who may be isolated from community, facing family and financial challenges, and those new parents who may simply need a smiling face and a little encouragement to say, Hey, you're doing a great job. We provide assistance and support for low socio-economic families, families that require inclusive, non-judgemental and responsive care for their children with additional needs such as autism. We liaise with many professionals such as HECCS, speech therapists, psychiatrists, paediatricians and teachers from local schools to ensure our children have every opportunity to reach their optimum learning outcomes. We work closely with family and community services where we advocate for and provide a safe learning environment for children surviving under extreme circumstances.

We provide affordable and accessible care and support for members of the local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and families who are culturally and linguistically diverse. Accordingly, these services support and employ many Hawkesbury residents from educators to cooks, cleaners, gardeners and even some Council contractors. We recognise Hawkesbury City Council as being generous and considerate of its citizens and community when providing childcare service buildings for free to the not-for-profit incorporated services that use them. I'm sorry. Further, after negotiations with Council, those services are not opposed to contributing to renewal funds or signing tenure agreements that will ensure the longevity and financial stability of essential community services.

However, the sliding increasing scale that is proposed for the building renewal fund will in short render some services financially unstable and inoperable. This year, many services, due to legislative changes, government rebate changes and general upheaval in the childcare sector, will make a deficit. We have no idea what next year holds for us except that our numbers of enrolments is extremely low despite our best efforts, indicating that operating systems will have to change. This could include staff reductions and large parental fee increases to cover the sinking fund and the additional expenditure once the lease is final. The fee increase will not be in line with Council's proposed 60 cents a day per child, rather $3 per day in the first year escalating to a hefty $10 a day increase in four years.

These actions will negate our premise of affordable and accessible childcare. In addition, there are no guarantees in the proposed five-year lease that the funds from each service will be used accordingly within each service. Rather, Clause 6 of the proposed lease states Council, in its ultimate discretion, may apply or retain the annual sinking fund contribution over the term of the lease. We seek to appeal to Council to delay the payment schedule to allow services to accumulate funds and notify our parent community of the fee increases as we were only notified ourselves last Tuesday. In closing, Gough Whitlam once said, ‘Preschool is the greatest single aid in removing or modifying the inequalities of background, environment, family income or family nationality or race.’

I sincerely hope that Council will be open, informed and considerate while negotiating with the nine childcare centres it intends to make arrangements with, as I’m concerned that Council’s fit for future plan may indeed diminish the future quality affordable childcare in the Hawkesbury. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms Sheppard. Are you willing to take questions? As

Best I can.

Any questions? Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just a quick question. You might not be able to answer this, but how much time would you need to consult with this sort of change to your operating?

I think a fair window, considering I don’t think that Council’s asking for unreasonable things, would be at least six months. We can’t manage to pay Council what it wants in January 2019. We need time to put our fees up and to redo our budgets. And there’s a consultation time in our policies and our constitution that we need to let parents know about this stuff. Okay

Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Miss Sheba, thanks very much for that, and I appreciate you coming and speaking. A bit nervous there, I can tell. Good on you. Very much. How much time would you need to go back to your childcare centres that you speak on behalf, and try and figure out where this might go and what a better outcome might be? I mean, how much— so I'm thinking perhaps in terms of deferment, because my understanding that consultations had been taking place over a period of time, and you are telling me, and the previous speaker told me, you might had about a week's notice. Is that right

So, from what I can tell you, as I said, I've only taken over directorship about three years ago. What I can tell you is I know that a meeting happened, I think last year or it could have been the beginning of this year, but there was only three of us that turned up. I wasn't one of them, out of the nine childcare centres, and those ladies were told that an agreement was going to take place, but it wasn't communicated effectively to the rest of us. And the letter that I did receive, the letter mainly spoke about the new air conditioning schedules, and then very down the bottom it said that we would be notified about the agreement, but it's just so late in the year. We've had no time really to prepare or plan.

We didn't know what to prepare or plan for. With the changes in childcare this year, with different, for instance, preschools have gotten different funding to long daycare and whatever, we've, myself, we've seen enrolments become very low compared to past years. So we will make a significant deficit this year. Everything that we do usually make, as the doctor said, does go back into the preschools, but we just haven't had time. We don't feel to get our act together. We're not disputing it, we're just asking for some more time. Okay,

Thank you very much. So some sort of deferment to talk to your childcare centre representatives and so on, and then get back to Council. Council to discuss would be a better option at this point.

Yeah, could we defer till next Council meeting?

Yeah, or longer. We'll talk about

That anyway. Okay, six months would be awesome. Yeah, okay.

Thank you. Okay, we'll see whether we can head in that direction. Thank you.

Councillor Ross had a question.

Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, Ms Shepherd. You've mentioned on two occasions now that there is a falling off in the patronage of your services. Yes.

That is a concern to me, and obviously to yourself. Can you provide

Us some insight as to why this is happening? Presumably,

The population is increasing. I don't think the birth rate is declining, and I would have expected that you would have at least a modest increase in your patronage.

Yeah. So, speaking for my service alone, we are long day care, and the government has given community preschools funding for three years. So this made it very inviting for a lot of parents to take their four-year-olds to the community preschools because they are a lot cheaper per day at the moment than what long day care can provide . So we've lost patronage through there, and if, from my experience, a lot of parents have told me if they could get their children into preschool this year, they would. We have not lost the babies that come through and the smaller children, but we have certainly felt the loss of the preschool children. With that as well, for my service, with the new childcare subsidy that came in with July, there was a lot of instability in the parent community.

They just did not know whether they could afford childcare because they were scared of what was going to happen with the new means testing and all the rest of it with the new childcare subsidy. So enrolments have reflected that.

Thank you, Miss. We might have to end it there. You did a good job. Now you can relax. Thank you.

Before we move anything, Mr. Conroy would like to introduce—

Sorry, Mr. Mayor, sorry to interrupt. I just realised I do have an interest I should disclose on this item that just came to mind. It's a less significant non-pecuniary interest in item 259. I do have— there is a family member of my wife who is employed at one of these centres. It's not a pecuniary interest for me. It's nothing— You're going to

Stay in the chamber. Okay.

Mr. Conroy. Mr. Mayor, we did discuss the recommendation this afternoon when we received the submission, the email, the copy of the email that was submitted by the doctor this evening. What we're proposing is the intention was to consult, not negotiate. So the recommendation we suggesting could be changed, and the officers do have a copy of this, to read: proceed to consult with the relevant parties regarding the execution of a lease with childcare service providers operating from council-owned buildings in accordance with the framework outlined in this report, the outcome of the consultation to be further reported to Council. So the change is from negotiation to consultation. The intention was to consult.

So Mr Conroy has suggested the recommendation in the book had the wrong wording and it should have read as he just indicated then. Would someone like to move either the recommendation

Do we have a time frame on that consultation period?

The intention is that that consultation starts immediately, and we'd like to give a report back to Council before the end of the year regarding the progress to date. So there'll be a further report coming back to Council

So as I was saying, you have a choice of three: the original recommendation, the recommendation that Mr Conroy just read, or some other recommendation that you might want to put up, Councillor Garrow.

I'd like to make a recommendation that we put a six-month consultation period in there.

So you would like to move Mr Conroy's amended recommendation and add six months to it. Yes,

Please.

Second that, Mr Mayor.

Does that still read Mr Conroy? Well

We know. Anyway, Councillor Garrow, talk to it, please, if you want.

Just from listening to the speakers, the six-month period seems fair for them to make the adjustments they need to make to their business structure and to notify the parents and the community of the changes that will need to be incurred. I think the one-week period that was initially consulted was very short. I know we've changed that, we've modified that since, but still coming up to the next Council meeting is only two weeks away, so I think that's still too short for these centres to make these adjustments.

Mr Conroy is suggesting a word change. Could you have a look, Councillor Garrow, and see what you think?

Just reading between the lines, I think what the Councillor is suggesting is that we implement the outcome of the consultation in six months' time, not that we consult for six months, because if we consult for six months, we still won't have a decision until, you know, May, and then we'll be still giving service providers a month's notice of any change. I think the idea is to give them as much notice as possible. So I think we need to start the consultation as soon as possible. I think we need to report the results back as soon as possible, and then when we report them back, Council can talk about an implementation date, whether it's, you know, next year, halfway through next year, or whatever.

Could we have a look at the proposed wording before we move it?

So

I think it can stay as it is because we're going to report back to Council, and at that stage we'll identify when the likely implementation date is going to be.

If I could be permitted, please, Mr Mayor, can we just get confirmation from the centre management whether that works for them? Is that possible?

Yes, you can do that.

Okay, so I'd take that as a three months of consultation before writing the report? Does that work? Do

You want to provide some words for that?

Mr. Conroy might provide the words. So if,

What we're going to do is we're going to provide a three-month...

So can we proceed with the consult with the relevant parties for a period of three months regarding the execution of...

Changing on the screen in front of me.

La la la la la. Does that work?

So yes, I think if we change point two to read, the outcome of the consultation to be further reported to Council in February 2019. How's that, Councillor Garrow? That's three months

Well, that's three months

Councillor Rasmussen, did you second this? Yes, you have. Yes, Mr. Mayor. You happy with that? I am indeed, thank you. Okay, Councillor Conolly. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

I think we're getting a bit carried away with, and maybe we need to sort of readdress the facts of this matter. This first went on community consultation, I think in very late 2015 or early 2016, this proposal. So to say it's been a week is not correct. I mean, I'm happy to take advice, and I would ask Mr. Mayor through you, from Mr. Litwin, when this was first raised directly with the centres, but it was certainly put on public exhibition some years ago, and it's been a long-term plan of Council to get to this point. It's being phased in as it is. It's not being lumped on in one year. If we were to... To delay the implementation of this by three months, what we're really saying is we're going to delay it by a year, because of course you can't.

There's no help to these centres to wait until March or April next year and say, Yeah, we want our levy this year. That's not going to help anybody, and they can't do that. So we'll be in the position where we're going to agree on something and it will be implemented the year after. Now, we've adopted a fit for the future strategy. This obviously is real money. It's not our money. We've told the state government and our community we're going to do these things to address our financial situation, and then at the last minute, before we even get to negotiate the leases, we're backing out and saying, No, no, we'll give them another year. So I'd like to know first, Mr Mayor, if it's possible, when was this first raised directly with childcare centres?

If it was only a week or two ago, why on earth would that be the case? Mr Litwin.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. The provision in the Fit for the Future plan, you're correct, was included and has been subject to public exhibition. The— The reason why there was some delay in providing specific advice to the childcare centre was the need to prepare a draft lease, and that draft lease was not ready until the beginning of this month. There was some advice provided to the childcare centre as the council was going down that path, and that may include a provision for some sort of charge. So I guess the simple answer is that it was not possible to provide detailed information to the childcare centres with the relevant— the actual level of the charge and our analysis of affordability and capacity to pay until such time as the lease was prepared and we dealt with all the requirements seeking advice from the audit of financial statements and stuff like that.

So the purpose of the report was purely to indicate that the information had been collected and to seek council's approval to consult further about the provisions in the draft lease. It was never intended for the thing to commence today for your decision. So the speakers were quite correct in that detailed information was not provided to them until about a week ago.

Councillor Conolly. To me that is completely unacceptable, Mr Mayor. I mean, we don't need a lease agreement to project what this might have looked like. Council had committed in 2016 to charging a percentage of the appreciation charge to these centres. And now, I tend to agree now with Councillor Garry now having that information, that we would not have— It actually threw me off for a second, Councillor Garry.

That it does seem unreasonable for us to be doing this and putting this on next year. But I would ask, and my support would be continued on a point three to this motion, that the general manager or somebody conduct an investigation into how this has happened, that council committed to this course of action in 2016. We're now going to miss out on one year of our fit for the future strategy because nobody at council consulted with childcare centres until the week before.

Councillor Gara, are you happy to add point three?

Yes, I am. Thank you.

Councillor Rasmussen.

Mr Mayor, I'm reluctant to, but I will because otherwise we probably won't get it through. But yeah, okay, I will.

Just that point three doesn't actually influence point one and two. They still go ahead the same as you indicate. Councillor Ross.

Mr Mayor, may I seek a point of clarification, please? Yep. Thank you.

As I understood it from Dr Holmes,

Council is not imposing just— sorry, let me rephrase that more correctly. Council is not imposing only, if you like, a contribution, or seeking to impose a contribution towards the depreciating value of the assets and their

Reinstitution at a later time. But it is also, if I understood Dr Holmes correctly, to say that the centres are also being asked to

Fund their own individual repairs and maintenance expenditures. I'd just like to see clarification of that because as I understood it in the briefing, I felt that

Staff had indicated that... It would be fine for the centres to call upon council authorised contractors to

Do such work, but then that

Because of the relationships, that council would in fact be reimbursing the contractor for that work.

Thank you. Mr Litwin, can you provide an answer?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Council's current process is that we arrange for repairs and maintenance for normal wear and tear, and then we on-cost those charges back to the childcare centre, so they're currently paying building maintenance costs. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Happy with that answer? Yes,

Thank you, sir. May I— sorry, also trouble the chamber with a further contribution on the— One other answer. One of the points that seems to have come up through the course of this debate is that, if I'm led to— if my understanding is correct, is that there has been some change in the federal government provision of funding to these organisations or to the users of these services over time. In other words, some diminution, I gather. I'd like to just clarify that, and the point of raising that with you and the meeting is that given that we know there has to be a federal election in the forthcoming year, And a new government will no doubt be striking a budget in the later part or mid part of May. I don't think that Council would rightly be in a position, bearing in mind that these are community services, to consider levying any charge prior to 1 July, frankly.

Mr Litwin, are you able to comment on that?

I'd have to take that one on notice. I'm not fully across the changes, and I'd have to prepare a memo for councillors.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I would have been happy to support the original motion , but like Councillor Conolly, I'm prepared to accept Councillor, well, the General Manager and Councillor Garrow's reworked version of this, because I now profess to be confused. The report before us this evening says that if you look at the revenue and the expenditure across nine childcare centres, is that their revenue is well in excess of their expenses to the tune of $400,000, and yet we are hearing from operators in this sector that they're running at a deficit and that their financial situation is far tighter. So I'd like some clarification on that when this comes back to Council. I would point out, like Councillor Conolly, that this is a fundamental plank of our fit for the future strategy, and that by even deferring this by three months, six months, or what will probably be a year.

That we are foregoing far more revenue, and we have spent a lot of time in this chamber on previous occasions agonising over far smaller sums. If the revenue that had been factored into this for the 2018-19 or the 2019-20 year is between $40,000 and $84,000 to Council, then we are deferring that amount of revenue by not proceeding in the way that was recommended in this business paper. And yet we've tied ourselves in knots over far smaller sums on other occasions. It's also worth pointing out that every cent of this levy, if you want to call it a levy, is being sunk back into a building renewal program, and that over a 10-year period, we are looking at spending $3.4 million on building renewal, and the sum total of this charge applied to the childcare providers is 42% of that.

I think that's reasonable under the circumstances. Nobody here around this table argues against the social good that childcare centres do, or the fact that they are generally poorly resourced, or that their workers are poorly paid. As an educator, I'm right behind them. But as a Council that has to be financially responsible, we have to balance the degree to which we will subsidise these enterprises. And as Councillor Conolly has said on many occasions, it isn't our core business. If we do this, it's because we feel that we have some bandwidth to do this, but it's calculated and it's prudent. And by asking for this levy, we're asking those providers to kick in a reasonable share. So I'll support this, but look forward to it coming back to Council soon.

Thank you. So despite what you said, you're actually speaking in favour of this recommendation. Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, that's the impression I got too. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The fit for the future schedule that has been talked about, I'm sure the Child Care Centre Director and other people listening to this debate probably are not on top of that particular schedule and what is being talked about here. So, Mr. Mayor, I would ask this question: could we be, could the council meeting be informed as to what exactly is going to be the impact on the so-called fit for the future, and whether or not there is scope to build in a deferment of some of those charges? Because fit for the future is not just the childcare centre. It has many other components to it, and some of them will not be realised.

Some will be realised, some will be over-realised, and I just want to get some idea, because if this is already built in, and we built this in some many years ago, then clearly there is zero scope for any consultation or negotiation or talking to the childcare centres, because clearly we have already made up our minds, because we've got a fit for the future that can't budge one inch. Now, I don't buy that, so I would like to hear a bit of an explanation as to how fit for the future schedule is going to be impacted by deferring it for, say, let's say 12 months. I don't think it will be 12 months, but in that order.

Thank you. Mr Litwin, are you able to answer that?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So on page 86 of the business paper, it has the summary of the building renewal charge. So if the charge is deferred until 1 July, the loss in income would be $41,049. So if it was deferred for all of next year, then it would be half of the figure as well in 18-19.

And if I might just add, the reason why there has been some delay in implementing this project was that originally the building renewal charge was meant to be implemented from 16-17 and then from 17-18, but that schedule was set back because of the requirements to consult about changes to the rating structure and the special rate increase. So the actual income from this particular proposal was not included in Council's budget until this financial year. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yes, follow on.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So are we talking about for a— let me just get it correct. Are we talking about forty-odd thousand if it's delayed for six months, and double that if it's delayed for 12 months?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. If it was delayed for 12 months, yes, it would be $41,000 for the first six months and then a similar amount for the second six months

So around about $80,000 is the impact, would be the impact on the Fit for the Future schedule that we've reported to government. Is that what you're

Saying, Mr Litwin? Yes, that would be the income that would not be collected that we are anticipating to be

Collected. Right. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Could I then ask also, Mr Mayor, are there any other elements of the Fit for the Future that is likely to deliver more than— Projected , budgeted for in the order of $80,000?

Mr. Litwin.

I don't think I can answer that. I'd have to take that on board and consult with the CFO.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Look, I think that can be reported when it comes back to Council. It can, yes. Yeah. Thank you. You have a supplementary question . Yeah. Oh,

Sorry. You have another question?

Oh, sorry, Mr Mayor. Thank you for your indulgence on this. Yeah, the other question I had is that we were told tonight by one of the speakers that if this proceeds as rapidly as Council is proposing, then many of the centres, maybe all of the centres, would close. Now, what would be the, if the centres do in actual fact close as a result of this impost, what would be the impact, the total impact, of receiving no income on the Fit for the Future schedule?

Mr. Litwin.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I suspect it might be positive in that we would no longer be subsidising the operations of nine childcare centres, so the income foregone from the building renewal charge would probably be less than our current cost in providing those facilities free of charge to the centres.

And I would think the answers would come back in the report, wouldn't they, Mr. Litwin, I would think.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think that's a good one. Would all those sorts of issues, would they be dealt with in the report? Yeah Thank you.

Councillor Ross. Thank you. I seek your indulgence again, Mayor. Yes, you have it. Thank you. In regard to the proposed changes to the ordering , if you like, by these centres of their maintenance requirements, is that going to proceed now on an understanding basis, or is that subject purely to the initiation of the leasing, the more formal leasing arrangement, please? Mr Litwin.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. It's the latter. So once the lease is executed, that's when those provisions will commence.

So there's no change in the near future. We wait for this report.

Right. Just to clarify that, and for the certainty, because these folk are also doing monetary projections, is that they will be paying for maintenance services exactly on the basis as they have up till today, through until the leasing is

Completed. Yes, that's the understanding. Thank you. Any further discussion? No. Will we have a motion put by Councillor Garrow. Would you like right of reply, Councillor?

Not necessary, thank you.

In that case, I'll put the motion. All those in favour say aye. Aye. Those against? Declare it carried.

We move on to the next item for public speaking, which is notice of motion one. If we could ask Councillor Wheeler and Councillor Deputy Mayor to come back in, please.

Thank you. We have four speakers on this notice of motion. First is Mr Jeffrey Lattimore.

Thank you, Mr Mayor and Councillors, for the opportunity to speak. I would first of all like to thank Councillor Wheeler for bringing the issue of cuts in funding for asylum seekers before Council. What are the entitlements of people seeking asylum who have come by boat to Australia? The Status Resolution Support Services provide monetary support of just $35 per day, which is 89% of the Newstart allowance, and the Newstart allowance itself has not risen in 25 years. Newstart is way below the poverty line. The payment is provided to asylum seekers living in the Australian community while the government considers their claim for protection. As well as the monetary allowance, it provides casework support, assistance in finding housing, and access to torture and trauma counselling.

What does the cuts in SRSS funding mean? People will lose SRSS funding unless the most extreme circumstances warrant their continuation. So this means— For pregnant women, unless their pregnancy is complicated, will lose their funding. If you are a single mother and your child is over five years of age, or a family, all your income support will be cut off. Single men and women will also have all income support cut off. The rollout of this is staggered, and the following timeframe now applies. From June 27th, 1,500 people were notified of cuts to their support. From 27th of July, income support stops for those 1,500. From the 1st of August to November , the next group of 5,500 people who are part of a family were notified of their cuts to support.

We leave no other group in Australia without a basic support network. But this is being done to people who fled to Australia, taking whatever means was available to them because of war or torture in their own country. Charities are being stretched to the limit in seeking to assist these people who have now lost all income support which they previously had. Along with sector partners nationally, the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre back in July this year was already feeling the pressure and seeing human impacts of the cuts. Sharon Clarke, who is Director of Humanitarian Services in that organisation, said, For the first time in our 17-year history, we have acquired sleeping bags for people to use if they need to sleep rough, as the demand for our housing program skyrockets.

We can't meet the demand, and I am appalled to have to see families with children sleeping rough. When fully rolled out, SRSS cuts will affect 12,500 people. These people arrived between August 2012 and July 2013. They have been waiting for six years to have their asylum seeker claims considered. In the first three years after arriving, these people were denied the right to work.

In that time, they lose their skills and confidence to be able to work in a job. When finally given working rights, the other issue they face is that they only have three-month bridging visas. Who is going to put the time and effort into training them if their visas run out and they need to return to their own country? Can you imagine how it would be if you received a letter saying that your only means of support will be cut in a matter of weeks?

As each group of people receives their letters, they will also be informed that they will lose access to critical torture trauma counselling and case management. So they have come from the most vulnerable situations in their home country, escaping war, torture and persecution, only to find here in Australia, which they thought would be a safe haven, has instead turned into another nightmare. Such treatment of these people by our government is appalling and disregards the basic human rights of people seeking asylum.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Latimore. Are you willing to take questions? Yes. Do we have any questions? Councillor Reynolds.

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor, and thanks, Mr Latimore. The government says that its reasons for withdrawing support is that work rights have been restored to almost all bridging visas. You mentioned in your talk to us just then that bridging visas is for only three months. Is that right? Sorry , microphone, Joseph, sorry.

I'm not fully au fait with all the types of visas. I think bridging visas are three months. There's also temporary protection visas, which I think are longer, three years. But all the same, whether it's three months or a longer period, three years, it's still just a short-term period in which to do training of people.

Okay, and the government also says that those asylum seekers, you know, who are job ready, should be obliged to work. In your experience, how do they determine job ready?

That's a good question. I really don't know the answer there. Okay

Thank you. Thank you.

No further questions.

Thank you, Mr. Latimer. Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Frederick McInerney.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and councillors . I'm here tonight to have a discussion with you, or to talk to you, rather, about the treatment.. . of the asylum seekers that our government has locked away. The treatment of these people is cruel, unjust and inhumane.

This is not the country that I grew up in. We were always a caring country. We were always looked after the people, especially those who were underprivileged and couldn't look after themselves. If someone was down, we'd be prepared to pick them up and help them.

In August 2017, I had the privilege of attending a launch. The launch was called Walking with Refugees and People Seeking Asylum by the Bishop,

The Catholic

Bishop of Parramatta Diocese, Vincent Long, who himself is a Vietnamese refugee. The Bishop was extremely direct and articulate in his address to his flock, and he said quite openly, Enough is enough. Not in our name anymore will we tolerate our leaders treating these people in this disgraceful, cruel manner. And he turned around and questioned, What has happened to the Aussie fair go? He repeated it. What has happened to the Aussie fair go? And I can only ask you people the same question, because we were never a country like this. We were always a caring, looking after one another and doing our best. So from this launch, he encouraged all Catholics within the Diocese of Parramatta to form what was to be called Table Talk. Where a refugee would be invited to come along, we were placed in small groups. We'd have a discussion amongst ourselves.

We'd listen to the refugee's story and make comment on it. From that point on, we also had a guest from the Refugee, Jesuit Refugee Services, who were experts in this field to answer any questions that came up. I'm pleased to say that last Sunday, at St Monica's in Richmond, where I'm a parishioner, we had our table talk. I had a friend of mine who's lived in the Hawkesbury all his life declare to me that this is going to be a hard gig to sell to these people, and I don't think we'll get too much response. So we were hoping, we formed a small group of people to get this going. It was partnered by the Sydney Alliance, who ran the table talks, and we had a discussion on Sunday last. We were hoping for about 45 to 50 people to turn up, and we were also told by the Alliance that we're probably on the day we'd have a 20 percent drop-off.

I'm pleased to say that 85 people turned up to our table talk to listen to Refugee George tell his story of how he fled his persecution in Syria. And finally, to have twice his application for refugee status rejected. Finally, on the third occasion, him and his family came here as refugees. I understand he's now working or going to university. He's a qualified engineer. With his degrees not being recognised here, so he's back at university, I understand, doing an engineering degree, mechanical engineering. There's no doubt this man will be a great Australian citizen. Is a great Australian citizen.

I believe that Bishop Vincent said to us, What happened to the Aussie fair go? I really don't know where it's gone to, but it's certainly not evident in Canberra. Yesterday I watched the evening news to see a former Prime Minister of ours turn around and tell us what a lovely place Nauru was. Tropical paradise. Well, if he'd like to get his budgie smugglers and his bicycle and go there, I think he'd be most welcome. I'd like to thank you for this opportunity tonight to be able to address you and talk about something that I believe is very serious. At the recent Wentworth by-election, there were three topics that were main topics that unsettled the succeeding candidate. The first one was a knifing of the Prime Minister, obviously.

The second one was climate change, and the third one was refugees. I believe that it will be an issue at this forthcoming election. I understand, Mayor, that I have the opportunity to answer questions. I do feel, however, there's more people more eminently qualified than me to answer such questions, so I've declined graciously. Thank you for listening.

Thank you. Thanks for your speech.

Third speaker is Joanie Liam Griver .

Did I get that right? Close enough.

Good evening, everyone. It's an honour to be here. My name is Joanie Limegreber, and I live in Glossodia with my husband Matthew and our three children, Isabella, Emily and Toby. I'd like to ask who here has children in their lives? A lot of us. Then we do all understand that our family means everything to us, and the well-being of our children is our top priority, just as it is for families all over the world. As a family, politics isn't something we are heavily involved with, but Matt and I have worked hard to build our family around the values of caring for others and doing what we can to contribute to the well-being of our community. We are trying to raise our children to be kind and gracious and to think of others.

It has been difficult explaining to our children why our country is not enveloping these fundamental characteristics when it comes to many asylum seekers. Our daughter Emily is 12. She's sitting right across here. She's full of excitement about life, friends and the possibilities her future brings. She's just started high school and looks forward to one day being a chef, a missionary or a poet, or maybe all three. When Emily turns 13 next week, there will be a whole bunch of family and friends celebrating how far Emily has come and all the opportunities and open doors which await her. We will be celebrating the fact that she is free, she is loved and she is safe. Now, I'd like to introduce you to another 12-year-old, known only to us by her first initial, S.

S is also on the cusp of becoming a teenager, but unfortunately, as we speak, S is suffering from a post-traumatic stress disorder and has repeatedly attempted suicide on Nauru, where she and her family have been detained. She refuses to eat and, by many reports, is dropping in and out of a comatose state. She is also suffering from the wounds sustained when she tried to burn herself to death earlier this year. Please remember, S is 12. When she turns 13, there will be no gathering for her birthday dinner, no party or presents or celebration. She isn't being educated and her life has come to a standstill. I'm not sure where S is right now, but one thing I do know is that there are many more children and adults still on Nauru who are suffering just like her, and they need us to speak up for them.

Over the years, I've spoken with many people who have come to Australia for safety. For example, Duke and Hua came to Australia after the Vietnam War. Having spent a short time in Villawood, they married and started working towards buying their own home and starting a family. Another friend of mine, Olivier, lost almost his entire family in the Rwandan genocide. He arrived in Australia traumatised and angry, trying to deal with the atrocities he'd witnessed. Brought over on a sponsorship visa in the late '90s, Olivier also fell in love and married, eventually becoming a high school teacher. For Duke, Hua and Olivier, Australia was, and is, the land of opportunity. They now call Australia home.

In the past, we've often done this so well. According to the UNHCR Statistical Yearbook, between 1996 and 2009, Australia took in more refugees per 1,000 residents than just about any other country in the world. Our efforts in this humanitarian crisis in the past have been great. Unfortunately, though, the government policies of recent years and the way we treat asylum seekers on Nauru is working against the kind and generous precedent we have previously tried to set. I believe there needs to be a high level of wisdom and diligence employed when processing asylum seekers, but that need not come at the expense of kindness and human rights. While our opinions are wide and varied and we may never all agree, one truth remains: whether a person votes for the left or the right is irrespective of this issue.

We've all tried to find a solution, and we've all seen our fair share of failure. And now we have an opportunity to stand together to say that we, the Hawkesbury community, welcome refugees into our schools, homes and businesses. Treating refugees with kindness is not a political issue; it's a human issue. This is our opportunity to make a real difference. As a member of the Hawkesbury Regional Australians for Refugees Group, many members of which are here tonight, I'd like to ask that the Hawkesbury City Council reaffirms its commitment to the Hawkesbury being a refugee welcome zone and in support of the requests outlined by Councillor Wheeler. I've heard it said that politicians believe that our region doesn't care much about refugees or asylum seekers.

I'd like to add my voice to the conversation and say, we do care. We care very much, and I'd like to ask the Hawkesbury City Council to affirm this message wherever and whenever possible. In closing, Fyodor Dostoevsky once said, The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons. Heaven help us if we are ever to be judged by the conditions of our detention centres. Thank you.

Thank you , Ms. Laimgruber. Are you willing to take questions? Sure. Any questions? Doesn't look like it. Thank you very much for that. Thank you. We have one further speaker, Mr. Michael Want.

Thanks, councillors and Chair. I can't follow the three speakers, no way, but everything they've said I endorse. I have met with them all except one, and I endorse all their comments and the facts that Jeff Latimore presented to us. Councillors, it is a fundamental belief of most individuals that all people are entitled to dignity in all our companions in our journey through life. Extreme poverty and destitution is an insult to a person's dignity. It's for this reason that I support the notice of motion, but would like to see some words added that would ensure replies are received and easily accessible for the community from the Prime Minister, the Minister for Home Affairs, the New South Wales Premier, Susan Templeman, the member for Macquarie, and the member for Hawkesbury.

I think it's essential that if we write to these people asking them for information or to do things, we should get a reply and the community should be well aware of it.

Some of the payments that Mr Latimore referred to, I think it's also worth adding that the friendly Home Affairs Minister, Mr Dutton, directs who will receive the payments that Jeff referred to. He can also change the criteria for the payments. As we know, one of the values he refuses to use is compassion, unless you have connections. Unlike payments in social security system, where there are clear and transparent eligibility criteria, the support resolution support services criteria can be changed at the discretion of the Minister and do not require Cabinet approval or legislative change. Finally, Council, a true story for your consumption from the St Vincent de Paul website.

Wai and Sed and their four children are Tamils seeking asylum who originally came from Sri Lanka. They escaped the civil war in that country by travelling to India, where they were told they must return to Sri Lanka. Now , knowing that this was not an option due to the fears for their safety and the ongoing persecution of the Tamil people, they came to Australia by boat to seek asylum. They spent time in detention before being released into the community. Their application for a Safe Haven Enterprise visa has been refused, despite clear evidence that people of Tamil background continue to be persecuted in Sri Lanka, especially those who have returned after seeking asylum elsewhere. The status resolution support service payments to the family of six were cut the moment the initial decision to refuse their application for Safe Enterprise visa was made.

They are appealing that decision, something that is very costly and currently have no income whatsoever. As Mr McInerney said, and what Bishop Vincent said, enough is enough. I would hope that the support for the notice of motion and the words added to ensure replies and accessibility is adopted unanimously by this Council. The Australian Government have no reasons to continue their demonising of asylum seekers and refugees. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Watt. Are you willing to take questions? Yes Any questions?

Mr Watt, thank you. You realise you were registered to speak against this.

But you've actually spoken in favour of it.

Chair, I'd ask Council, maybe they change their — when you sign up, because I wanted to move an amendment, as I did, or asked for an amendment to be moved. But you can only speak for or against it. So I put down against because I was moving an amendment.

Do you want to outline what that amendment is?

Yes, I did at the end, but

I'll do it again

Mr Mayor, point of order. Yes. If Mr Want wants to move an amendment, he should stand for Council.

Thank you, Councillor Zamprogno. During his speech, Mr Want indicated he would like the mover of the notice of motion to consider adding some words to that, and I'm asking Mr Want if he could tell us what those words might be.

Certainly. Just in short, I'd like to see words added to the notice of motion to ensure that replies and accessibility to those replies are received from the people, the Premier, Member for Quarie, and those people we're writing to. That's the short of it.

Thank you, Mr Want. It's the end of our public speakers. Councillor Wheeler, I assume you're moving this. Do we have a seconder? I second it Deputy Mayor. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. If we could perhaps see the motion on the screen, I can add some words to points 3, 4 and 5 that may satisfy Mr Want's concerns about replies.

And while that happens, I want to thank the speakers for their excellent coverage of the notice of motion. That really was an outstanding effort on their part to detail the cuts that are proposed, the impacts of those cuts, and the deplorable circumstances that vulnerable people are finding themselves, but also the community's views on this situation. So if we could add to points 3, 4 and 5 a comma after the 3 seeking asylum, comma. And seeking a reply confirming that this has occurred.

That reply to subsequently be posted on Council's website.

And I think those words could probably be simply added to points four and five as well.

Yes.

The Deputy Mayor and I, along with 85 members of the community, attended the Table Talk event that was held at St Monica's Church. It was an excellent, quite moving and actually, given the subject matter, a very positive event. It was a real privilege to sit with members of our community and discuss our values and then watch people think about those values in the context of the story that we were told by the man who came and spoke to us, George, who, by a great twist of fate and a reflection of just how small the world is, has ended up at university in my son's tutorial group. He being the only redheaded Syrian that he knows, he was pretty easy to spot.

To hear the story of a young man whose life has been put on hold for a number of years, to hear, to look into the faces of his little sisters, who narrowly missed being killed when their school was blown up because the family chose to keep them at home for the day, to hear his story of travelling to the university on the bus and having his brother shot in the arm when snipers opened fire, and then to know that your country refused aid to these people not once but twice because they couldn't fill in the paperwork successfully, that's pretty— That's pretty gutting,

To see that these people are still hopeful, still positive, still grateful. That's, I think, I find that extraordinary. I don't know that I would view Australia in the same light.

We are incredibly lucky to have these people. I think it's time that this council reaffirmed its commitment to be a refugee welcome zone. According to the statistics, we don't have any refugees here. I'm sure that if we counted those that are travelling in and out of Western Sydney University campus at Richmond, that wouldn't be the case. I think it's also important that we acknowledge the work being done by Rural Australians for Refugees, a Hawkesbury branch of which has now met twice and has been running for a couple of months, and they're already, as you can see, active and busy. And they're providing refuge not just for refugees, but for people who are so disgusted by the behaviour of their own government that they need a facility to meet and talk and process what's going on.

And I also think that we must acknowledge the work of the Parramatta Catholic Diocese in educating the community about this issue. Bishop Long has really been incredibly good at calmly , quietly and very decently telling his story and bringing people along on this journey of acceptance. And it was terrific to watch on Sunday that happen with some of the people in my group who were very much, Why are these people coming here? Why shouldn't Lebanon take them? Why shouldn't Turkey take them? And watch them change their minds as the real stories came out. This is grassroots action to change the policy of government. Local government is the tier of government most accessible to the people, and it's entirely appropriate that we use our voice to pressure the federal government.

This action is happening across the country. It's time that we led on this issue. We are not a cruel people. Many of the people who attended Sunday's discussion talked about their experience coming to this country and how welcome they were made, both as economic migrants following the Second World War and also as refugees. Many of them were in tears, thinking about their own experiences and contrasting them with the current experiences, particularly those of children on Nauru, where in excess of 50 children are still languishing in the most deplorable conditions with dreadful mental health implications. The changes that are being proposed by the government and rolled out will affect about 15,000 people, according to Vincent de Paul.

The current payment is $243 a week. The changes mean that anyone accessing this payment will need to be assessed as being at very high risk to qualify. Vinny's estimates that 8,000 people will lose their only support and calls the new system draconian.

What we are seeing already is the impact of payment cuts, because they're already being processed, on homeless services. So approximately 37% of people seeking asylum in Australia are currently sleeping rough. 63% are considered at risk of homelessness. We're already seeing services having to fill the gaps. If these payments are cut, there will be more pressure on services. We've got a service here that's assisting, that's providing around 650 incidents of service in our local community already. And this will affect local communities, communities like ours, where we're known to be a safe place for people to come to if they need refuge. So I urge you to support this. It's the decent thing to do.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Do we have anyone who wishes to speak against the motion?

Deputy Mayor, you wish to speak in favour of the motion.

In favour of the motion.

Please do.

Yes. I'd just like to echo what Councillor Wheeler just said. This is a matter that has just escalated within the media in the recent times, and of course it could be argued possibly by some people in here, but in the past issues like this have been argued that they're not really within the domain of local government. However, I'd like to draw people's attention to the actions of the Canterbury-Bankstown LGA, which has implemented a program being 12 months free childcare for refugee children. And that is because for the people who have lost the SRSS funding, they are offering free childcare. Now, sometimes if other levels of government won't deal with things, and that governments become dependent on the goodwill of individuals and charities, then perhaps local government can play a small part.

We don't as yet have a large or identifiable group of refugees in our community, although I'm sure they are there. But hopefully that will change and we can play our part in welcoming and supporting refugees in this area. To see a government take away the capacity of people to live with dignity is extremely concerning, and if 8,000 people are losing their only means of support, then that burden will fall upon the charitable sector and upon the goodwill of fellow Australians to assist and help these people to survive. There's been people who don't have any medicine because they can't access Medicare. There's all sorts of horrendous stories, as we've all heard. And so if we can play our small bit by reaffirming our commitment, which was introduced several years ago, to be a refugee welcome zone, and also thanking the various people mentioned that Councillor Wheeler has mentioned for the wonderful job they're doing at raising awareness and for speaking out, because it's time now that everybody speaks out.

This has gone beyond a political issue. It's a humanitarian issue, and everybody should be prepared to stand up and declare that we treat people with a certain amount of decency. And so writing to the various people, just saying that we would like them to make the noises that need to be made so that these people can live with some dignity into the future.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Some people might question the— by might, Councillor Connolly— some people might question the relevance of this item to local government, but to me the relevance is obvious, that if the SRSS funding is cut, then a lot of the burden is going to fall back onto local government, and there's been enough cost shifting over the last few years, so to me that makes this issue very relevant, Councillor Connolly.

Sorry, Mr Mayor, just a question then. Could you just unpack that a little bit in terms of how income support for people waiting on asylum and claims being cut will impact local government finances ? Sorry, so we'll just unpack that point you made about how the cuts to income support payments for these people will affect our finances, if you could unpack that for me. Just elaborate.

Elaborate. I'm not in a position to elaborate in great detail, but I see it as if the people who are classified as refugees don't have that support, that financial support, then they won't be able to access as many services. And to get those services, they will have to turn to the local government to provide them, which we will be pressured to provide for free.

Sorry, just a supplementary question. I'm not sure I fully understand. Like, what kind of services would local government be providing that we would not before on the basis of a reduced income support payment?

As I said, I'm not in a position to go into great detail. I suspect it would be things like childcare.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Okay, well, as much as our refugee population's impact on our childcare needs to be considered, I would say, make the point that's already been made by Councillor Wheeler and the Deputy Mayor that this is not a council issue. I understand that there's very strong views on this matter. I can, you know, my personal views might be different to some people, but this is not democratic, what's happening here. To make out that this has not been an issue at federal elections is ridiculous. This has been one of the biggest issues in the last three federal elections: asylum seekers, their treatment. So to make out that somehow this issue has been missed by our federal representatives and we need to tell them is ridiculous. It's been a huge election—

Point of misrepresentation, Mr Mayor.

Well, I didn't actually say that the Deputy Mayor said anything.

Excuse me, Deputy Mayor, what is the misrepresentation you're saying?

Well, I don't recall anybody saying that what Councillor Conolly is referring to in that anybody said that this hasn't been an election issue before.

Sorry, I'll clarify, Mr Mayor. I wasn't suggesting that you'd said that, Deputy Mayor. What I was suggesting was that the only reason that the Council could sit here and say that we need to make our voices heard and have a legitimate case would be that if somehow we thought our federal representatives, who are elected for this very purpose, had somehow missed this issue, which is, of course, a silly proposition. Councillor Wheeler herself ran for federal Parliament and, you know, polled very, very poorly in the Hawkesbury. She represents the views of about five percent of the Hawkesbury on federal matters, but now wants to come in here and misuse her position in order to try and represent— I'm sorry, I should say I'm not trying to imply you're doing anything wrong in terms of—

Oh, so I'm not misusing my position, Mr Mayor. That's good that he's clarified that.

That's correct, Councillor Wheeler. I didn't mean to say that, and I clarified it. He's re-considered that . Can the members of the audience please keep quiet, thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor. You've got some trouble with your branch members. My point was, of course, that Councillor Wheeler ran for federal parliament, did not get the support to get her federal policies over the line, has been elected to council with a slightly higher proportion of the vote, and is now using her position on council to try and influence federal government policy. We have federal representatives who we elect to take our views on federal matters to the federal government. I have never told anybody in my community—well, I shouldn't say that because I have told them my views on federal issues—but I've never stood on my federal issues.

People in the community wouldn't reasonably be expected, when they vote, to know what my views are on most federal issues, and I suspect that's the same for every councillor here. So to turn around now and suggest that we, in this room, with a grand poll of 30 or 40 people here, are in a position to represent our community on federal issues is not correct. I think regardless of your views on this, it sets a bad precedent when we try and pretend that we are federal representatives when we are not. We are elected to do a job, and this isn't it. We always get the same excuse that we're the level closest to the people, we've got to have a voice, the people can talk through us. The people have federal representatives, and the people have voted consistently for Labor and Liberal representatives who have had the same policy pretty much on asylum seeker treatment for the last decade.

There's been very little difference between the two major parties, and the people of this area have voted for those two major parties over 85% of the first preference vote. So I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I know better than the people, or it's my job to represent them on federal issues when it isn't. This point has been very well made. I believe the federal member used to have views similar to yours and then recanted them when she was the candidate, and that's fine as well. She might be the avenue for your concerns, given that she might be partial to them, but this council is not the correct avenue. It's not democracy what's happening here. It's completely anti-democratic for us to pretend that we are federal representatives.

Thank you for your frank and forthright view, Councillor Connolly. And I assume you were speaking against the motion. That's correct. Councillor Tree.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Sorry, Councillor Connolly, I can't agree with you. I think that whilst this may be put up to establish a little bit of, it could be perceived by some, if you wanted to be cynical, that it's been put forward to be a bit of a political hot potato. I think that

Both major parties are dealing with, have done and are dealing with this very poorly, and I think that part of the problem is that there's a lot of propaganda which is negative and induces a lot of fear and ignorance in the community, which takes away the human face of the issue, which I think makes it all too easy for some of us to write off these faceless people because if you don't have a background story or a human side to it, we just say, well, they're just painful people. We don't want them to be included in our country or of our way of life. I actually think it's a very serious issue, and I don't think that we have to have some of these issues just dealt with in particular tiers of government because

These are things that impact people on a really serious level, on a daily basis. If you come into contact with people who have been impacted with the post-traumatic stress and other issues that they've come to our country with, and they've got an opportunity to make good in their life when previously they've never had that opportunity in the past, I think we should be able to voice this concern at every level, at any stage. I think it's very difficult to dismiss it once you've had the opportunity to come into contact with the real people. Councillor Wheeler is not asking anything outrageous here. She's just asking to say, look, we do support this. I supported it when it came through the last time, I think.

If I didn't, I did in my head. But anyway, the point I'm making is that I don't think she's asking a lot. I think we're saying we don't accept that this is a good way forward. It is a statement of fact that the way that we're processing people who are seeking asylum or coming into Australia as refugees is not effective. It's not fast enough. And there are lots of reasons behind that. I understand that, but what is happening is not acceptable . So I'm sorry, I completely disagree, and I'm supportive of this. And I think that I really would like to see both major parties look at it from the perspective of the human side rather than just, say, have these faceless negative stories about all these people who are trying to invade or do the wrong thing by our country, when I just don't think that, for the most part, that is at all factual.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Tree. Do we have any other speakers against the motion? Otherwise, we're all going to sit here all night agreeing with each other. Councillor Reynolds, you had your… Just more as a point of clarification in response to

Councillor Connolly's claim

That what we were doing is basically, I think he said it was undemocratic and not our responsibility, but he refers to our community strategic plan. Section 2.4.1, it says that Council will work in partnership with government and community organisations to improve services and facilities for disadvantaged and vulnerable groups and to build stronger and more cohesive communities. It also

Says, point 1.4.1, Council will foster positive relationships with all tiers of government and peak bodies to ensure a thorough understanding of the challenges and local requirements of the Hawkesbury. So I think that counts out Councillor Connolly's argument.

Just as a personal point, I remember being at South Windsor Primary School when I was about seven years old, and this young fellow joined us. I won't say his last name. I won't say his last name because he's now a rather successful local businessman, but he couldn't speak English and his family had fled from wars in Yugoslavia, and we had to teach him English as kids. And it was a wonderful experience as a kid to go through that. I know that there's one of the most popular eateries in the Hawkesbury is run by people from Vietnam who came here in boats. One of my relatives had their knee replaced by an Afghani refugee at Norwest Hospital who's now regarded as one of the preeminent orthopaedic surgeons in the country.

These people, these refugees, given the right support, are going to be the ones that teach our kids in the future. Maybe even look after some of the people sitting opposite here when they're old.

I think I agree with Councillor Tre. We have to not try and let those in other tiers of government that we have taken a pledge to work with hide the humanity that's being affected here. And I'd like to thank Councillor Wheeler. Moving the motion, and I'd also like to thank the speakers for their words too.

Just a question, if I could, Mr Mayor. Councillor Richards had her light on.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. This motion, when I first saw it appear in the business paper, certainly raised issues for me that I'm going to express tonight in terms of why they do it. I need to make it clear from the outset that it doesn't bother me to support the motion because the intent of the motion is not actually, and the statements within it, they're not burdening us as a council. They're not causing us any significant financial implications. However, the motion itself lacks a lot of detail, even though it looks like it's a long motion. So the fact that point one is reaffirming Council's commitment to be a refugee welcome zone, there's two parts of that sentence that don't offer us enough information.

So reaffirming its commitment, so when did we affirm that commitment initially? So I think that not only for members of council, but for members of the public reading that motion, that would have been important. I mean, considering it wasn't moved in the two years I've been elected, I did ask Councillor Tree if she remembers that, and it was in a previous term. So I think that that information needed to be part of this motion. Commitment to be a refugee welcome zone. The motion doesn't actually give us any information about what that is. So therefore, having to look that up online, which is fine, and learning that information, but it's not there in the content . It doesn't give us any information on what the Rural Australians for Refugees Hawkesbury branch is, and to be fair, in all of the things that exist in the community or that I do in the community, I didn't even know that this organisational community group existed.

I'm glad that I do now. That's fantastic, but I didn't even know it existed. So therefore, I don't know what its roles, its intents, its purposes were, and things like that. The other part here in point six, the local government mayoral taskforce supporting people seeking asylum, again, there's no information on what this is. Something that we have to look up again. So when we as a council are sitting here committing to ABC and XYZ, we need to know the bulk and the detail of the information that we're committing to. There's no doubt though. That the intent is fine, and as I said, that's why I'm going to support it. But I have sat in this chamber multiple times on issues and said this is not something that a local councillor is elected to sit here and debate upon.

While we are elected to have voices and be advocates in our community for certain issues, I don't think it's up to us to sit here and debate the policy or what it should be. And I've always held that this, and I will stay true to this affirmation, that it is a federal government's single and sole and most important responsibility to primarily take care of its citizens. So we elect our representatives because we want them, those 150 people in the lower house and our senators, to make decisions that are going to make sure that we are safe, that our taxes that we spend are going to be spent properly. So how do you therefore then balance a federal government's commitment to its citizens with its obligations, therefore, under the United Nations?

And we absolutely, as a nation, sign up and accept those obligations that come in terms of actually accepting those refugees. However, what do we do with those refugees and how we process them when they come to our shores? And let's not forget they are coming to our shores. We are an island nation. They are not walking across a border, which is easy to do in Europe and other countries like that, flying. Where do they get the funds from? But they're refugees. Do you know what I mean? So these are questions. I'm not being ignorant. I'm asking, you know, these are fundamental things that need to be answered. So how does the federal government balance the need to look after its citizens with the need to process refugees and make sure the people that we're bringing into our country are actually going to be able to assimilate and have the skills and be able to sit with society?

So that poses the question of, are we as local councillors meant to be using the best of our time to be actually trying to debate this policy? I don't think we are, and I've sat in here on other issues and said this is in our domain. But again, we can be advocates, and this notice of motion does nothing more than reaffirm a previous commitment and write to some MPs asking about cuts. So that's fine, but as I said at the beginning, it's opening more questions to me because it's lacking in information and content than it's offering in the motion. But in terms of a commitment to the refugee welcome zone, I'm fine to support that. But I mean, Councillor Conolly's arguments certainly bear weight into what is our role in this chamber, and I think it's going to consistently keep coming up with all the different things that we debate when we've got state and federal elections literally knocking at our door.

So I just wanted to pose all that. I'm not voting against the motion, but I think I've made my issues with it quite clear. Thank you very much.

So I regard that as speaking in favour of the motion. I think that was my last Councillor Conolly, do you still have that question you wanted to ask?

Yeah, just through you, Mr Mayor, to Councillor Reynolds. He read out two sections from our CS, from our community strategic plan. One was that we should be able to foster positive relationships with other levels of government and /or create partnerships with other levels of government. I'm just wondering which one you think's applied. Is this motion going to make our relationship with the federal government better, or are we somehow offering a partnership with the federal government?

Actually, Councillor Conolly, we don't want debate across the room, please.

I did ask the question to Councillor Reynolds through you, Mr Mayor.

Yes, and I'm answering. That that would be debated across the room. Councillor Reynolds has already made his point clear, I think. That's in the strategic plan

So when do we stop being able to debate in the council chamber? I'm just not following that part of it. You've spoken

On the matter. You're now asking Councillor Reynolds to answer a question, which he is under no obligation to answer. No, I understand that. And I would see that as being debate across the room, but I will ask Councillor Reynolds if he feels free to answer that. It's up to him.

Yes, I'm free. I'll read it out again. Foster positive relationships with all tiers of government and peak bodies to ensure a thorough understanding of the challenges and local requirements of the Hawkesbury. Thank you. That led to, as the Mayor mentioned, that if people receiving this support don't receive that support, there's a chance they'll end up on the street, and our streets, and that's the challenges and local requirements of the Hawkesbury. It's pretty straightforward.

I'm still looking for a speaker against, otherwise we may end the debate.

No speakers against? Councillor.

I want to change something, if I may. Is that against? Amendment?

Yeah, that's considered to be against, yes

Thank you, Mr Mayor. It's a really tiny point, but in point six, I was under the , have the understanding that the Local Government Mayoral Task Force was a Victorian thing, and I wondered whether there was a New South Wales equivalent that I wasn't aware of. And I just thought maybe we should leave that point as being—look, I mean, I have, the rest of it's fabulous. I just wondered whether we should leave point six for the Mayor to decide on maybe what sort of organisation better suits our— Our situation, because I think there's just eight councillors in that task force, am I right?

I might ask Councillor Wheeler to do that in her right of reply, actually. That was a speaker against, so we can now have a speaker for, if there's any such person. Councillor Ross.

I'm just not sure that the most comment is reflective. Are we talking about a change of gauge situation as we have in the railway system?

Which last comment are you talking about, sorry? Councillor Kotlash's comment.

Yes, Your Honour.

Okay. I'll take that as a comment. Any other speakers against?

Councillor Wheeler, would you like to exercise your right of reply?

Thanks, Mr Mayor, I would. Where to start?

The idea that this is undemocratic , and where are all the speakers against if this is so undemocratic? Everyone has had the right, everyone has had access to this business paper since Friday, plenty of time to do some research into the contents, which we're expected to do as councillors. I don't think we need an egg-sucking lesson after each notice of motion. Plenty of time to tell us if they don't like this motion and instruct us on how to vote. We get plenty of emails from Pitt Town telling us how they think we should vote on issues. I'm sure people are capable of sending us Facebook messages or emails or telephone calls telling us that they don't want us to support this. If the people who vote for you have done so, well and good. But no one has contacted me.

The idea that I am misusing my position, that in 2013 I ran as the federal candidate and therefore can't voice those views in this chamber is simply ludicrous. That was, what, five years ago? At that point— Councillor Conolly

Please don't interrupt.

At that point, we didn't have what was a month ago in excess of a hundred children locked up in a tropical hellhole. So this is a moving landscape, and I think it's quite reasonable for us to come in here and express our views on it. The Meril Taskforce is moving into New South Wales. There was one of the Victorian councillors; it came out of the City of Greater Dandenong, and there's now a push to extend that into New South Wales. So he was going around and buttonholing anybody he could get hold of at the local government conference. He'd come up specially in order to try and push this through into New South Wales. There's no financial requirement if we become part of this taskforce, but what it will do is enable us to participate in some joint advocacy.

And should we be in the position where we have a refugee or asylum seeker population in the Hawkesbury, to provide them with some support through that network as well.

The idea that this won't impact on local government is just short-sighted. We know from our own experience with increasing numbers of homeless people in the Hawkesbury that it does impact on local government. We're now looking at a proposal to establish a homeless hub. We are under increasing pressure to hold events discussing issues like mental health and homelessness with the community. These are federal and state government responsibilities, but increasingly local government is being expected to step up and meet them because they're not being met elsewhere. The community expects us to meet these requirements, and we should.

We've heard the same old fear-mongering stuff about how people get here and about the influence that these people might have money. We've heard that great word again, assimilate. How do we know these people are going to be safe? How do we know they're going to assimilate? Because God forbid anybody might come to this country and continue to speak their own language in their own home, or teach it to their own children, or cook their own food, or carry on their own religion, or be their own sort of person. I thought that was the country that I belonged to. I thought that was the Australia, the land of the fair go that we were proud of. And still we go back to this idea that people must assimilate and they can only come here if they've got the backside hanging out of their pants and they look like they're really, really poor and needy.

Isn't getting shot at on the way to school enough? How low do we have to stoop as a nation before we can just simply pass a bog-standard notice of motion asking our own federal government to support the needy? Shame on you if you can't support this.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler.

Being moved by Councillor Wheeler, seconded by the Deputy Mayor, I'll put the motion. All those in favour say aye. Those against ? Carried.

Do you want your names recorded by any chance? Yes. Councillor Zamprogno and Councillor Connolly voted against.

We move now to the last item that's subject to public address, which is notice of motion 2, and the public speaker is Mr Bill Snedden.

Mr Mayor, thank you for the chance to speak, councillors and the gallery. I'm speaking in favour of this notice of motion regarding raising of the Warragamba Dam wall. The New South Wales government appears to consider the dam wall raising a fait accompli in passing enabling legislation to flood the Warragamba Valley in exceptional circumstances. This is putting the cart before the horse. This was not needed before the EIS costings and all the community consultation was gone into, completed and verified. If a real process, and I use the term in brackets, was intended, the legislation for an uncertain decision should not have been processed and passed in advance of the process and consultation.

So we really have to ask the question, who's making this decision in advance of actually having the result? In fact, I'm reminded of an old joke from the 70s and early 80s about a burglary at the Russian Kremlin. The big concern by the Communist Party was that next year's election results had been stolen.

Apart from the joke, I've spoken before about the misguided and simplistic desire to raise the Warragamba Dam wall 14 metres for potential, and I quote, flood mitigation. This is a black and white solution in a shades of grey world. And as a scientist, I've trained to always understand that when I see a simple black and white answer in the real world, it's the absolutely dead wrong solution because it's not going to work. It doesn't take into account all the variables. The new documents released, September the 10th flood strategy, this lovely document here, community update, at least now list all of the major five flood signatures that we can be subjected to and the Choke Valley outlet. However, not mentioned are the storm surges on the coast during flood times, slowing river outflow, and I'm advised that there was a storm surge of about two to three metres that also affected the 1867 flood and worsened things.

The other point that's not mentioned is sea level rise affecting our tidal river areas. On the other hand, we know we don't have to worry about that now because the US President Donald Trump doesn't believe in climate change, so we can count that out. I continue to see simplistic agenda going back to the old dam committee days here. There was only the one objective: raise the dam to save us all. That was 17 metres, and it was ruled out as being uneconomic to do. A raised dam wall is a most uncertain insurance policy, and don't forget the dam is built on a grounded fault line. We really have to be very concerned about the engineering of the proposal. We have no way of predicting timing of the floods in the valley, nor where the catchments producing the flooding will come from and their interactions.

And when I say we have no way of predicting, I'm talking about over the next year, two years, three years, five years, twenty years, not just the simple gathering of meteorological data on a daily basis that would give us an indication of a weather change. I'm talking more in terms of climate change and long run. We would actually do better to spend the dollars on upgrading evacuation ability and places for those evacuees to go, especially to the west, as plans I see mainly focus on moving residents east across the floodplain. Even in flood times, we want to move people into harms way across the floodplain. Road improvements to the west are needed for better flood evacuation, as are improved and resilient infrastructure.

Water, electrical power. Electrical power at the moment is really problematic in big flood times and is likely to cut out to the west. We need more medical and more emergency accommodation to the west if we're going to be serious about evacuating from our flood environment. The environmental damage into the World Heritage areas in the back of the dam when it fills up is also well publicised, and it's unconscionable in our first world country. The parallels to my origins in the Hunter River area are many. I'm living more than half my life now in an area that has similar sort of flood patterns to the Hunter. My big concern with a raised dam wall, it has the potential to produce a false sense of security for our floodplain residents.

I'm seeing steady pushes to put more people onto the floodplain and into harm's way. New people. With no flood experience, and there's more than $100,000 in the new city's parkland deal alone. There's also going to be progressively more push to put more naives onto the floodplain into the coming future. I don't trust any guarantees from our state government, this one or anyone into the future. We're putting people onto land that should be left unpopulated and used as flood spill area, maintaining our rural nature. And this could be focused upon for retained recreational and agricultural uses, agricultural uses in particular going back to Sydney's food bowl for the growing Sydney population.

This is also a partial return to

Government Macquarie's objectives in the founding of our five flood resilient towns to feed Sydney, the Macquarie five towns.

Thank you. You're well over time. Thank you. You willing to take questions? Yes, sir. Any questions, please? No. Thank you very much. The notice of motion has been put by the Deputy Mayor. Do we have a seconder for it? Councillor Ross. Deputy Mayor?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Recently in this chamber, we know we had a notice of motion from Councillor Zambrano, which was asking us to take a firm stance in support of the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall. At the time, the majority said no , they did not want to take that stance, and generally that was based on the requirement of getting more information about what is going on with this process. Since that time, and actually since I wrote this notice of motion, there has been a lot of frantic activity. There's been a lot of media coverage. There's been a lot of questions asked in State Parliament. There's been an update at the Flood Committee. There's been a change, I believe, in Labor Party policy.

So all of that's happened. So I'm just saying at the start, I'm open to strengthening this notice of motion if anyone wants to contribute to it, because since I wrote it, a few things have changed. We saw a bill enter the Parliament. It had a parliamentary inquiry in the Legislative Council. It then passed both houses, and all of that was done within one month, which is quite an extraordinary time frame for the passing of a bill. So what was the big rush on this bill, was the question people have been asking, and quite an unusual state of affairs when it comes to legislation to do so so rapidly. And the reason given was that it was required to change the National Parks Act to enable inundation upstream behind the dam wall.

It was needed for that legislation to be changed to enable the EIS, the Environmental Impact Study, to be completed. An odd suggestion, I would have thought. And during the parliamentary inquiry, this question was put to the Chief Executive of Infrastructure New South Wales, Jim Betts, who said, No, that is not necessary. We do not need that legislation changed to proceed with the EIS. So there was no real need. There has been no real need to push that forward. And as we put in a submission to the inquiry , that we were concerned with the limited amount of time that was given to stakeholders, of which we are one of the major stakeholders here, that we didn't feel there was enough time to contribute our position on that particular bill and the inquiry that was attached to it, and that we're still waiting on the release of the regional flood study, which is being prepared by Infrastructure New South Wales, and also that to date we have not been given any of the findings of the environmental impact study, which has been done to date.

All things that, as major stakeholders, it is quite important that we should be being told about. We know from the recent briefing

That we had from Infrastructure New South Wales at the last floodplain meeting, we know that the mapping is underway for the flood study, that possibly this is going to be released by the end of the year. We saw some of the graphs, we saw the extent of the flooding. It's quite detailed. However, it does not include consideration of localised flooding or cumulative overland flooding, and so that's a gap. It also does not, of course, encompass the inundation from the other catchment areas such as the Macdonald Valley or from the Colo River, and even as we heard when we went out to St Albans, the possible inundation from the Hunter region from the rivers down there. So why is the government withholding this information and not giving it to us?

This is a huge issue for us in this area because if the business case is solid and if the environmental damage is minimal and if the real driving force behind this project is not development, then why can't we see it? Why can't we see what these studies are bringing forward? We've seen a huge degree of change in land use in the floodplain, which is not necessarily being considered. There appears to be an assumption that the modelling for the flooding is going to be that we presume that floods will occur as they've always occurred. And this isn't necessarily true because now we know that there are changes due to unprecedented climatic changes and that floods are not the same. Our climate is in a state of severe disruption.

The evidence is there that the climate is so disrupted that we simply cannot rely on past events. And we've seen this in the floods that they had in Forbes, and we've seen them in the floods in Japan. It's not characteristic. You cannot just think that a flood is going to come the same as it's always come. The intensification of the water cycle and the changed land use, so the amount of vegetation and soil that has been removed, the grading of the land and the construction of drainage networks all feeding into the streams that feed into the rivers all will change the flood behaviour. Now. From what I gathered from our update the other day, this is not being considered. Those specific changes are not being considered.

The flood modelling is being done on different scenarios, but I believe it's being done on past flood information. So we need transparency in this regard. And when you get to point three, we need to see what data has been used when the other options as alternatives to the raising of the dam wall have been carried out. Minister Ayres has said that all infrastructure and non-infrastructure options have been looked at, but where are the data and where are the conclusions? Because in the strategy itself, there's footnotes that say that this has occurred, but the documents that form the footnotes are not available to the public, and I believe they're not available to parliamentarians as well. So the level of concern within the community is growing.

At the start, people were wanting to know, to see what the business case would be, to see what the environmental impact statement would bring up, and then suddenly the government has thrown in this projectile of a bill passing rapidly through, which will actually allow upstream inundation of a World Heritage location, which is of huge concern. So that leads people to making an inference that this is all about development. So this is the big question. Many believe that it is. There's mixed messages coming out through the media. We saw when the corridor meetings were on, we had Infrastructure New South Wales telling us one thing and Department of Planning telling people in the room another thing.

Why would the government be proposing to put more people in a floodplain? It just goes beyond belief. And so there were various, I just looked up some various statistics and so on about how much. There were questions asked in Parliament recently about how many hectares of land in different local government areas are actually flood prone. So in the Hawkesbury, there are 23,900 hectares of flood prone land, 11 and a half thousand hectares in Penrith LGA, and 4,700 hectares in Blacktown. And so how many hectares of land. .. which are currently flood prone, will have development potential if the Warragamba Dam is raised by 14 metres. That appears to be the question, but I'm pretty sure this question wasn't answered.

And so we have to wait until the Department of Planning has done a study, which is called a regional land use planning framework, which is part of the floodplain strategy, which is fine. That would be good if that was done, but my concern is relating to the absence of information feeding into the order of how the information is coming out. It does seem that the government has yet again made a decision and gone back to be filling in the gaps and finding the things to justify their decision as it's going on.

Another question that I thought was interesting and which I think that we should be getting explanations for is regarding the amount of properties in the North West Priority Growth Area which are flood prone. So 21,000 dwellings in the North West Growth Sector are on flood prone land. Now that's a lot of houses. And then we have had from the government, and it came out in the inquiry, that they're anticipating putting another 134,000 people in the floodplain. So I just find a lot of this. I was pleased to read, though, that MP Kevin Conolly did say in a speech the other day that only lower density development zones are being located on flood prone land, with zones for medium or higher density development being placed above the PMF.

That was encouraging, given that there's proposed new developments in Marsden Park North and Dean Park, which could be flood affected as well. So I've brought this forward. I think that we deserve to have these questions answered. I think that if we are a major stakeholder, and this is a major public expenditure of public funds, that we should be seeking this information. And I think that we're owed that information about the future for planning. I know we've asked about it, for example, for the Oakville area. We've asked what the future is there. We need to know what they are intending to do. We deserve to know, and they should not be making major decisions like this without actually telling us what exactly the future plans are.

If the future plans are to put development there, well, say that to the people and let the people decide if that's the risk they want to take in the floodplain, because that's what that's all about. But you can't hide it and infer it's for one thing and then have a hidden agenda about that. And just to finish off, also the other thing was often in the media and the parliamentary speeches, there's references to the Brisbane floods and what happened in Brisbane. And when we're at the floodplain management conference, it was quite clear that there were issues with the dual use of a dam in Brisbane being for water storage and also for flood mitigation, which is exactly what this is proposed to be.

And I don't think using that as a referral is a very good way to sell the proposal to people anyway. So last weekend, amid a flurry of various media articles that have come out, was an article by Elizabeth Farrelly in the Sydney Morning Herald, which I expect Councillor Connolly will call a left-wing paper, but before he does, I'd just like to point out that the Sunday Telegraph's front headline last week was Get kids off Nauru. So things are changing. So I want to read just this quote from Elizabeth Farrelly. Which she said, floodplains are fertile, so they make good farms but bad suburbs. Destroying farmland for sprawl was dumb to start with. Destroying wilderness to protect and propagate that sprawl verges on mindlessness.

So our call to the government is to give us the information so we as stakeholders can properly engage in the decision that they're making and that we know the truth about what the intentions are for this particular project.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Councillor Sam Brogden.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll be speaking against the notice of motion.

It is critically important that this council shows leadership on the floodplain, as the Deputy Mayor pointed out, as having the largest proportion of flood-prone land in the Sydney Basin, and that we show our strong and consistent support for capital works that will mitigate against the effects of floods. Now the report that came out, Resilient Valley, Resilient Communities, laid out a multi-pronged strategy, and when this came before us in the chamber before, much was made of the fact that there were these other elements that were supposedly being neglected. So I don't want us to become distracted. Better flood evacuation routes are a part of that strategy. Public education is part of that strategy.

But a very important part of that strategy are capital works that will mitigate against the effects of floods themselves. And the modelling has clearly shown that the frequency of a severe flood will be reduced by 75% if Warragamba Dam is raised by the amount that is being suggested at the moment. There was an EIS that was conducted in 1995 that took seven years to compile, and whose findings were ratified by three independent and international experts and which modelled a raising of the dam that is higher than the current proposal. It said that raising the dam wall was the best way to mitigate against floods. More recently, at the Flood Risk Advisory Committee meeting, we had the opportunity to see an early and as yet unreleased version of the flood modelling, and I posed the question, so were there any surprises?

The anecdotal evidence might be that, with all of this extra development that's occurred at various points on the floodplain since the 1990s, has it changed the hydrological landscape all that much? And the answer was no, not really. Perhaps in small localities, but the shape of the floodplain basin is more or less as it was, which means that we can place some confidence in the findings of earlier studies that modelled the effects of severe floods. The new EIS will come out in due course. I think it is extraordinary for this council to be in a position where we are seen to be wavering, if not opposed, to a measure that will save lives in our own community. It's especially extraordinary for the notice of motion to be brought by somebody who is the chair of a committee which resolved only last year to take on these commitments and endorse them and to promote them, which included the capital works that were in the Resilient Valley, Resilient Communities study.

Now, the Deputy Mayor makes much of the fact that the way in which this legislation has been brought through the Parliament is unsatisfactory because there hasn't been enough consultation. I am sure that the Deputy Mayor has read the Minister's second reading speech, but for the benefit of the Chamber, I'll just read this paragraph. Community consultation is an integral part of the process. This year, Water NSW's project team has been out and about at shopping centres, community centres, and at sites of key events across the region to provide information and seek community views about the proposal. The team has also been holding a series of briefings with key stakeholders, including local councils, local Aboriginal groups and special interest groups.

Water NSW is ensuring that the assessment process and methodology are robust and address all the key concerns raised by all stakeholders. There will be many more opportunities for people to provide feedback. These are the early steps in the consultation process in the lead-up to the release of a formal environmental impact statement for public comment in 2019. The government welcomes the community's ongoing interest and feedback. Following consultation, the government will consider the business case for the dam raising in 2020, subject to the success of the environmental and planning approvals. That, to me, seems to lay out a strategy of ongoing consultation of which we have only seen the first phase.

So I don't believe that the Deputy Mayor's concerns about there being a lack of consultation hold much water. It is true. That in 2006, the previous Labor government raised the permanent storage water level of Warragamba Dam, and these objections were not raised then about inundation in the Colo or areas above Warragamba Dam. And it's also true that when we had the opportunity to go up to the Gold Coast earlier this year, I went on a field trip and saw the Hinze Dam, and the Hinze Dam has been raised twice, including most recently in 2011 when it was raised by 15 metres for the purpose of flood mitigation and by a Labor government. It is really important that this council shows leadership and supports these capital works that will save lives and property, and it is disappointing to me that we are again rehashing this and missing the elephant in the room, and that is that it is a statistical certainty that a severe flood will visit us again in the future.

The

Effects of climate change may make the severity of that flood worse. In fact, it's more likely that we will be subjected to more severe weather events, not less. And yet we have here a rare consensus between state and federal governments to invest serious coin to build something that will save lives and property in our neighbourhood, and yet we don't have the moral fortitude to back it as we should. I'm disappointed.

Thank you. Do we have a speaker in favour of the motion?

No. Yeah . Councillor

Reynolds

Apologies, Mr Mayor, for that. Just in response to Councillor Zamprogno, he claimed that the resilient valleys, resilient communities, I think I've got that the right way around, said that a reduction of 75% will be achieved by raising the dam wall. The point is that the same reduction can also be achieved by different methods, such as

Expanding the desalination plant that we're all paying for while it's in mothballs, firing it up and lowering the level of the existing dam and keeping it at a level so that it provides flood mitigation. Regarding the issue of development, it's interesting in that in one of the slides that we saw at the Floodplain Management Committee last week, this is despite Infrastructure New South Wales saying that floor plans or building levels will not change, one of the slides said, let me find it, let me find it, let me find it, the flood study use of results used by local councils for property-based assessment of flood risks such as setting minimum floor levels. Why do we need that if they're not going to change?

The director of the Western Sydney Dialogue, Mr Chris Brown, said a little while ago, if I find it, because he said that there's a capacity to use a value capture funding method to reduce the impact on taxpayers of raising the dam wall. A levy on land released that was previously considered flood prone so that we might be able to do it at a cheaper rate than what the government is talking about.

I also raise the issue, Councils and Pragnos said that the modelling used by Infrastructure New South Wales that we were briefed on at the last Floodplain Risk Management Committee, they said that nothing had changed, or very little had changed at the macro scale. But, I mean, just anecdotal evidence, you know, some of us here, you know, went through floods in the 60s and 70s and whatever, and the McGraths Hill flats never went underwater before Windsor Bridge went under. Never. I lived at South Windsor and I could always get to Windsor High School. The kids on the other side couldn't because the bridge was flooded. Now that's completely reversed. The McGraths Hill flats are a metre underwater, and Windsor Bridge, the river's a metre underneath it.

Everything has changed. Even former Mayor Kim Ford asked, What's happening regarding the impact of the runoff from the developments at Ropes Crossing, Jordan Springs, Hills of Carmel, Marsden Park? We won't know that for two or three years. And to say that that doesn't impact on us, of course it impacts on us. And I was really disappointed. I thought a study of this magnitude and quality would include that information, and I find that rather disappointing. As far as the legislation itself goes,

There's a process here. You know, there's a process that these infrastructure things go through. Preliminary studies, and then there's the EIS process where reports are developed, the EIS is released, then submissions are made in response to the EIS by members of the public and other professional people, independents, whatever. Then there's a response to those submissions, which is tabled in usually called a preferred infrastructure report or a response to submissions. Then after that, the Department of Planning goes through independent reviews. And after that, then it used to be the Director General of Planning, it's now I think the Secretary of the Department of Planning, makes a recommendation to the Minister, and then they decide whether to go ahead or not.

And it's around that time that you would consider changes to the legislation, not before anything else. Why are they doing it now? This is what this government does, is they make a decision and then they massage everything to make it fit their decision. We've seen it at Windsor Bridge, we've seen it with Roselle interchange, we've seen it with the Powerhouse Museum. Where is the cost-benefit analysis? As far as flood evacuation routes not providing the same cost-benefit, I mean the government's report itself says the only guaranteed way of saving lives in a flood is evacuation. Evacuation routes aren't only used in a one in 2,000 flood or a one in 100 flood. They're used every day, and none of that cost-benefit of everyday use has been taken into account.

So this whole thing raises more questions than it answers, and the fact that they've changed legislation before the process... Basically, it’s even started. The EIS process has even started, is sending off alarm bells, and I think that people have a right to be concerned, and I support the motion.

Do

We have any speakers against the motion?

Councillor Connolly. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Not strictly speaking against the entire motion. I feel like we’re getting caught up in a debate about the merits of the raising of the Warragamba Dam, whereas it’s not necessarily what the motion is about.

Yes, the motion is point one to write to the Premier condemning the manner in which the recent amendment was introduced, specifically the lack of consultation. I haven’t seen— first of all, I haven’t seen any evidence of that, that there’s been a lack of consultation. Certainly, Sydney Water have been consulting for a long time. Secondly, I don’t think there’s any value to Hawkesbury Council in passing that motion, so I wouldn’t be in support of item one. However, I think the rest of the motion is quite reasonable things for us to do: to seek a commitment that Council be consulted about the information arising as part of the EIS. I mean, I would hope we would, but there’s nothing wrong with seeking that commitment.

To call for the release of all data and documentation relied upon to eliminate other options. Definitely agree; we should have that. Certainly they must have it, so it can’t be a big deal to release it. And four, to write to the Minister and the local member seeking any information on any proposed amendments to planning legislation. I would be very much in favour of that legislation. I mean, the reality is I don’t think it does exist, because I don’t think they’ve indicated that they would be changing anything by legislation. But that doesn’t stop us from advocating that they do so. And as someone who is advocating and has been advocating for this project for a long time, I would be very happy to put to bed any speculation that this is about development by changing the legislation so that it can’t be.

I did want to clarify a couple of things, though, which is that to say that it goes beyond belief the government could be considering putting more people on the floodplain, the government is saying they're not doing that. So if it's beyond belief and the government has said they're not doing it, then let's not believe it. Yeah. So, but like I said, I don't have a problem with point four, but I do think that sometimes to throw a bit of a red herring in there and say it's about development, so you can't believe it, and also nobody has said it's about development, is a bit much. To say that we should be putting on the desalination plant as another option, like I said, I don't think we should get bogged down into the specifics of whether or not we should be raising the dam wall, but that's— it's already been quoted, the cost on that was outrageous because of the capacity that we would require.

However, turning it on isn't free, and we might not just need one, was the answer that was given in Parliament. So I would be happy to either vote on this each part at a time, or to move an amendment that is just points two, three and four, on the basis that I think it would achieve the exact same outcome and is something we could all get behind and wouldn't have to signal that we were taking a position one way or the other.

So, Councillor Connelly, you said you'd be happy to do that, but exactly what are you going to do?

Well, Mr Mayor, if you're happy to put the motion up—I can't remember the word—in seriatim, if you're happy to put it up in seriatim, I'd be happy just to leave it at that and vote accordingly. If you were inclined to rule that that would be out of order, I would move an amendment.

Well, I'm happy to put it up that way, but I don't know about the mover of the motion.

I'm happy for that. Okay

There you go. We'll do it at seriatim. Seriatim. Got that right? That'll do. I'll take that as a speaker against. Do we have a speaker for the motion?

Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah, thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll be hopefully very quick, and what I want to say is that I agree with most of what Councillor Connolly said. This motion is not about raising the dam wall. I don't know where councillors, or one particular councillor, saw the words, This is about raising the wall. I don't see that in this motion. And yet we got a big speech about raising the wall and how important it all is and da da da, which I think it is. I think it is, but this is not what this motion is about. Anyway,

I think points one to four are fine. Look, do we want amendments on this magnitude to be rushed through Parliament? No, probably not. Probably not, nothing wrong with that. So no, we don't like that idea. We should all not like that idea. Do we want to be consulted on raising, like Councillor Connolly said? Of course we do. Why would we want to be left out? Release the data. Yeah, of course we want to see the data. We're impacted, and so on. So, Mr Mayor, I think the motion as it stands is fine, and I just remind people again, it is not about raising the wall. Anyway, we will do the ad seriatim, I guess, and we'll see what happens. Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen.

Any speakers against the motion? Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll also be brief on this one as well. I completely understand that the motion is not asking for a debate on the merits of the raising of the dam wall. However-

I would be happy to vote for this point by point as well, if that's going to be the intent. I just want to make it extremely clear that when we're talking about the raising of the dam wall, though, in the broader context, that to me—and I am so happy to say this and let everybody know—that as an elected person to this area who has been elected to make sure the best interests of my community are looked after, I will always value property and people over gum trees. And I will put it as simply as that, because that is what is important. Down in this floodplain is making sure that we do all we can, and our state government does all that they can, to make sure that we mitigate any damage to those sorts of things.

And I've been reading a whole ton of flood reports here, and when you look at what the raising of the dam wall can do to make sure that our community is put in a safer place, then I will 100% continuously stand up and say that I don't care if some gum trees get water around them, because I will make sure that the people of the Hawkesbury are safe.

Thank you, Councillor Richards. Councillor Wheeler, in favour of the motion?

Yes, please.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I want to thank the Deputy Mayor for her notice of motion. There's a lot of confusion, I think, or there's a lot of misrepresentation perhaps around what's really going on here. This notice of motion largely seeks more information from the state government. But it is a state government that is increasingly talking about development on the floodplain. And not just our floodplain, but the South Creek floodplain, which we know is connected to the floodplain that we live on.

Professor Jamie Pittock from ANU stated during the inquiry that this is predicated on allowing more people to move into harms way, and the New South Wales government's confirmed that when they moved this legislation, when they stated that 134,000 people and growing lived on the floodplain. If the state government is so concerned about lives, why don't they stop releasing land and building corridors on floodplains? When you're in a big hole, the best option is usually to stop digging. Everybody who's married knows that. Instead, the New South Wales government has continued to shove people into the floodplains all through the South Creek catchment, and yet at no stage has it done any modelling linking flooding in that catchment to flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean, nor have they looked at the lack of absorption in that area.

Now it's all covered in hardstanding. Those houses not only lie in their own floodplain, but they lie all along the flood evacuation routes for the Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain.

In New South Wales, the government seems to think that the best option is to defy nature and raise the wall. It's unproven, it's uncosted, it's unsupported, and to date it's entirely lacking in transparency. And that's what this notice of motion is asking for: some transparency. We need to see the data that this idea is predicated on, and we need to have it in a form where academics can determine whether it really supports the raising of the dam wall. Anyone who has written a scientific paper, or better still analysed one, is well aware that you can manipulate data and you can manipulate modelling to get any answer you like. The late Douglas Altman wrote an excellent paper called Lies, Damned Lies and Evidence-Based Medicine.

Having worked in that field for two decades, I know just how easy it is to manipulate modelling and/or to fiddle with data so that it tells you what you want. The idea that this is just about gum trees is frankly offensive. You clearly haven't heard the words of the Gundungurra people, who are devastated about the impact on their ancestral lands.

They've already lost much of their heritage. Now, we know that heritage doesn't mean a great deal to the New South Wales Liberal government, but we would hope that the heritage of a culture 40 to 60,000 years old might rate a mention. What we need is some sensible planning and some decent roads that can get us in and out in a timely fashion every day, and that's that message that we need to be clearly conveying to the state government. Mr Stedman is quite correct. We will give people a false sense of security through this. Hinze Dam, incidentally, was raised 15 metres not just to improve security, but to double capacity and provide increased water security for the growing Gold Coast region.

That's fresh off their packet. That's on their very own brochure on their website. So let's call a spade a spade. This is just as much about development as it is about flood mitigation. Let's admit that. The desal plant is currently costing every household in New South Wales that is connected to a Sydney water supply $100 a year. Let's get the wretched thing out of Mothballs. Let's use the flood mitigation capacity that the dam already has. And let's start making some sensible planning decisions and stop shoving people into floodplains. And let's hold this government to account before it slips any more dodgy legislation through late at night with one week consultation periods.

Thank you. I assume there's no further speakers against the motion, in which case we'll end the debate and ask Deputy Mayor, would you like to exercise your right of reply?

I most certainly would. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd just like to begin by saying to Councillor Zambrano that leadership does not just mean supporting the policy of the party that you're in. I'm not in a party at all, and when I went into the beginning of this and the commitment to the Resilient Valleys Task Force and strategy, it was a true commitment that these things be investigated. That's what the strategy says. It doesn't say raise the dam wall. It says to proceed with investigations. That's what maybe they think is the best thing, but to go through a process of looking at it through the EIS and the business cases and so on. And what we're not getting back in return for having said that that was a thing that our council would support is that we're not getting a transparent process giving us the information along the way.

We're getting trickles of little different bits and pieces that are given to us every now and then. And I don't point any form of blame at Infrastructure New South Wales or Water New South Wales because they are delivering the information that they obviously are directed to give and what they can give at the time, and possibly the information that they have . But it all needs to slot together into a proper process that we can follow and be involved in, and that's what this notice of motion does. It calls for us to be a party to all these things because of our status as a major stakeholder.

When we were looking the other day, there's been mention of the modelling that was given to us, and it came out quite clear when we were looking at the mapping that the raising of the wall will result in much longer inundation times when people are affected by flood. So there were some floods where the time that people may be cut off could be five to six days, and the economic impacts of that and the environmental impacts of that can be quite considerable. So the government and governments of all persuasions have known about this issue for years, and yet it's 2018 and we still don't have the flood evacuation routes in place. Now, it will flood, as Councillor Zanbrano says, and it's quite likely it'll flood before the dam wall can be raised.

So what we need is we need some certainty, and we need to have those things in place as soon as possible. Now, they are working through it in the task force. I agree the signage is going to come out soon, but if there's not the roads to go on when we follow the signage, then they won't be able to get everyone out. So we could have a dual solution to the congestion in this area by having some better evacuation routes, which also serve to alleviate traffic congestion, and that would probably be a very welcome expenditure of public funds by the community. I think they would welcome that incredibly to enable us to be safe, and that is, as I think Councillor Reynolds said, the safest form of flood mitigation is to be able to get the people out.

So, if you're concerned about safety, I cannot understand why there is a

Proposal to increase the number of people living in the floodplain by 135,000 people, which was what Minister Ayres has said, and which, when the government committed their policy to raising the Warragamba Dam wall, that they said would allow floodplain urban expansion below the dam and inundate the wilderness above the dam. So, I'm not debating the merits of the dam wall raising, as Councillor Conolly said, but I think that we really, really need to get this information so that we can feel that this decision is being made properly. We know that the changes are coming, and we know the impacts of climate change and what this is doing. And I wanted to use this word because it was a new one I hadn't seen. So we know that we have got this intensifying water cycle, and now they're calling it precipitation whiplash,

Because that

Is what used to be known as drought and deluge, where we've got the longer dry spells and then we've got the intense, quite heavy rainfalls. Yeah, thank you. Sorry, I had to get that in. But really, essentially, it's the growing uncertainty that people in the community are feeling about this, and the widening gap between the emphasis on flood mitigation and references to development, and that's what's causing the concern. With no consideration of the local impacts and the cumulative overland flooding being put into the modelling, that is also another concern. So, we want to see advocacy on our behalf. We want to see delivery of information and data. And with regard to the first point, I'm not sure if Councillor Conolly was at the briefing where we discussed, because it had to be so rapid, it wasn't time for a council meeting, but we did submit to the— The parliamentary inquiry, and we did actually send in to that a council letter that all councillors who were present agreed on, that we were concerned with the limited time being given.

And I think it's always concerning, regarding regardless of whatever the topic is, it's very concerning for any government anywhere to rush through legislation without proper consultation. And it's not a precedent that should be set in our parliament by any party over any issue, because we really need to do this properly. So I'm happy to have the items heard individually, and that's it. Thank you.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. So we're going to move these four items separately. Start with item one. All those in favour, please say aye. Those against? Declared carried. Item two. All those in favour? Those against? Declared carried. Item three. All those in favour? Those against? Declared carried. Item four. All those in favour? Those against? Declared carried. Thank you. I'm wondering whether someone would like to suggest we have a five-minute break. Seconded. All those in favour say aye. Thank you.

General consensus, we have a quorum. Those councillors out in the foyer might want to join us.

Yep .

Councillor Rasmussen.

Councillor Ross missing in action.

Councillor Richards disappeared.

Well, I might start then. The next item is actually a mayoral minute. I think you've got a copy of it on your desks.

It concerns the death of Mr. Aubrey Voller, and I'll just read the letter that we received from the Wilberforce School of Arts.

I am writing to you on this occasion to advise that our president, Mr. Aubrey Voller, has passed away this morning. We are deeply shocked at this, as he has been a wonderful supporter and a curator of our facility here in Wilberforce, leading this committee and performing their duties to maintain the hall in the standard suitable for the needs of this community and visitors to the hall. Mr. Voller's parents were involved with the School of Arts long before the reopening of the building in 2000, after being restored back to the community. His passing, along with that of his wife, Mrs. Dorrie Voller, recently has made an impact on our committee, and we are grateful for the work and leadership that was put into making community life here at Wilberforce so accommodating for various patrons who use the hall.

Mr Voller's funeral will take place on Thursday 25th of October 2018 at the Lawn Cemetery, Richmond at 11 a.m. Now, I've heard of Mr Voller, but I couldn't say that I actually know him. Do any of the other councillors want to say something? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. This is very sad. I knew Mr Voller. I've known Mr Voller since I first moved to Wilberforce 20 years ago and joined the School of Arts Committee within four days of moving in because Mrs Mitchell came across the road and told me that I had to, and I was too scared to say no. And it's that committee, actually, that began my political life in the Hawkesbury, so they probably have quite a lot to answer for. Mr Voller was a really lovely man. He was a common sight in Wilberforce walking up to get his paper every morning. He'd always give you a wave, and later going up on his mobility scooter. I noticed the other day, actually, that his lawn was getting a bit long and I thought how unlike him that was.

And so this is—I was unaware of his death, and I'm very sorry to have missed his funeral. The Wilberforce School of Arts is a thriving community facility due to people like Mr Voller, who stood up to Council back in 1998 and demanded that their heritage-listed building remain standing and be restored for community use. Council had planned to demolish the building and erect another one across the road, which the community didn't want. He was an excellent and very fair chairperson with a sometimes strained committee, and under his chairmanship the School of Arts went from strength to strength and it is now— A beautiful building, which is frequently, which is very well maintained, very well used.

There've been lots of improvements made to it, and it's a really valued facility by the community. And Council, I think, should acknowledge Mr. Volla's contribution to that and the community of Wilberforce. He lived his whole life in Wilberforce. I think he is really the end of an era of people who were born, grew up and lived here and raised their families here, and his passing is a really sad thing.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Is there any other? Councillor Sam Brogner.

Mr. Mayor, I'd like to add to these remarks, but it will be on your indulgence, and you'll shortly know why. I was unaware that you were moving a bereavement motion for one prominent member of our community , and I don't think that we should let the occasion pass without also commenting that it's our first meeting since the passing of Ron Rosoli, who was a very prominent member of the Hawkesbury community, and particularly of the Richmond School of Arts and Richmond Players community. And I think that if we're passing a bereavement motion to commemorate Mr. Volla, without wishing to detract from his contribution to the community, we should move in omnibus form a similar motion to pay our respects to the passing of Ron Rosoli.

Thank you, Councillor Sam Brogner. So you would like this Mayoral Minute to be amended so it also says we convey our deepest condolences to the family of the late Ron Rosoli, and did you want to also mention his work with the Richmond School of Arts

If you're amenable to that, Mr. Mayor, I don't want to detract from your motion commemorating Mr. Volla, so a second and nearly identical motion, or an omnibus motion at your discretion. Well,

We can move both of them. Together as one motion. Okay. Everybody happy with that? Does anyone else want to speak? No. Oh, sorry, Deputy Mayor.

Just briefly, Mr Mayor, also to support what Councillor Zamprogno said about Ron Rosoli, who was a very long-term friend of mine as well. And just to let people know, if anyone wants to go to Thursday at the School of Arts in Richmond at 1.30, they're having a celebration of his life. And I thank you for including that with Mr Fowler, who also I had heard of but not had the fortune to meet. So very sad that we've lost a couple of very big community contributors in the Hawkesbury just lately.

Okay. Any further discussion? I'll move that, Mayoral Minute. I don't think Mayoral Minutes need a seconder. So I'll move that. All those in favour say aye. Those against? The motion carried. We now move on to the movement of items on block. Move

That way, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Rasmussen and Deputy Mayor.

Yes, and some people—

I have declared an interest in some of those items. Please speak up now, thank you.

Item 258, pecuniary interest, the commercial use of Council's libraries. My husband is employed in Council's libraries. Councillor Richards.

Someone took my interest. I'm just going to find the item number again. It was the funding one, 252, significant non-pecuniary. I'm a committee member of the Hawkesbury Relay for Life this year and I intend to be next year, which is what the funding is applicable for.

Okay, so who's moving the items on block? The Deputy Mayor, seconded by Councillor Kotlash. All those in favour say

Aye

Those against? Declared carried. We now move to item 253, Australia Day, and I'd ask Mr Conroy if he would like to introduce that item.

Suzanne Stewart will introduce that item, probably why she's sitting here.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. This report has been prepared to advise Council of the plans for Australia Day 2019. Last year, the Australia Day events included the citizenship ceremony, the Australia Day awards, and the inaugural Australia Day on the Hawkesbury evening event. All of these events were held on the banks of the Hawkesbury River at Governor Phillip Park. The event was hosted by Hawkesbury City Council and sponsored both through in-kind and financial contributions from Windsor RSL, the Richmond Club, Crown Plaza, the RAAF Richmond, the Hawkesbury Race Club, and the Hawkesbury Gazette. We are well underway in planning the event for January 2019. It is proposed to hold Australia Day awards and the citizenship ceremonies on the preceding evening of Friday the 25th of January at the Central Library and hold the Australia Day on the Hawkesbury event, which in 2018 was celebrated with more than 4,000 people, on the afternoon of Australia Day between 4 and 9 p.m.

at Governor Phillip Park. The same level of in-kind and financial contributions for 2019 have not been received as they were last year. In order to deliver a similar event for the coming year, it is recommended that Council approve the transfer of $20,000 from the Banner Program to the Australia Day Program.

Thank you. The recommendation is on page 57 , and it's quite simple, that Council approve the reallocation of $20,000 from the Banner Program to the Australia Day Program within the 2018-19 Operational Plan. Does someone like to move that? Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Deputy Mayor. Any discussion? Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I support the separation of venues and accept completely the recommendation in the business paper relating to economising on the hire of a marquee. It was lovely what we did earlier this year on Australia Day, but if a lack of sponsorship means that we need to look at an alternative arrangement, I have no problem with that. I do, however, have a problem with moving the citizenship ceremony away from Australia Day proper, and I would point you to two particular resources that I've looked up. One is the Australia Day Event Organisers Toolkit, which was issued by the Australia Day Council, and which says that citizenship ceremonies are an integral part of Australia Day celebrations.

And also the Australian Citizenship Ceremonies Code, which is issued by the Federal Ministry of Home Affairs, which says that it is a That Australia Day is a significant day for the holding of citizenship ceremonies. I would also, of course, point to media commentary where councils have sometimes, with political motivations, sought to de-emphasise citizenship ceremonies on Australia Day, and have been sharply cautioned by the federal government that to do so is a breach of council's obligations under the Citizenship Ceremonies Code. If there is a need to use a different venue, such as Windsor Function Centre, then let's do that on the morning of Australia Day and then move everybody and invite them down to Governor Phillip Park or the outdoor venue that we choose for Australia Day celebrations and get it done in one day.

Councillor Zamprogno, I take your comments on board, but the recommendation is purely about the $20,000.

With respect, Mr Mayor, the recommendations in the business paper include a foreshadowed intention to hold the Australia Day award ceremony on the evening before Australia Day, so I would be prepared to add this as an amendment to the recommendation in the business paper, that the planning that moves forward from this recommendation includes the planning for the citizenship ceremony to occur at a venue of council's choice, but on the morning of Australia Day. Well

That's very insightful of you, because that's exactly what I was going to suggest, that if you want to do that, you need to move an addition to the recommendation.

I so do, with the form of words that I've just mentioned. Okay

Do we have a seconder for that amendment? Councillor Connolly. Okay. Councillor, Deputy Mayor, you're speaking in favour of the recommendation or against the—

In favour of the motion and therefore against the recommendation. Not that I have a huge problem— sorry, against the amendment. What did I say? Recommendation, sorry. I was only going to speak firstly to say I called this issue up and I made a mistake. I had meant to call up item 252, but anyway. I think that— I don't think that it's necessary to have the emphasis on the particular day. We have a lovely citizenship ceremony in July, which is no less important or no less meaningful to the people who attend. And I think that for practical purposes, having it in the cooler evening on the night before is a much better idea. And I think that much of the Australia Day celebrations, for those who are really heavily into it, begin on the night before.

And in fact, I don't know what day of the week it falls, but if it's on a weekend, then people start on the Friday afternoon and they carry it through until the end. So I'll be supporting— I don't really have a problem with— I don't know what the amendment actually said, so I don't think I need to support it. I'm happy to support just what the recommendation is in the business paper. And as always, I thank the event staff for their hard work in bringing together such a wonderful event for our community.

I think we're waiting on the amendment to come up on the screen.

Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Sorry.

It's getting late. It's getting late. I was just wondering, and I'm sorry if this is in the item and I haven't been able to find it, but what are we forgoing in the banner project that would cost us $20,000? What aren't we doing

Thank you, Mr Mayor. The banner program pays for banner poles and for flags to go onto those banner poles.

Okay, so to have a— how much is the banner pole budget?

The banner pole budget is $20,000.

So we won't have any budget for hanging flags?

No, this year we wouldn't because—

Yeah, this year we wouldn't. We already have flags at the moment, and we've had those up on our poles.

Thank you.

Councillor Zamprogno, did you want to give any assistance to the—

If they are having difficulty with the form of words that I was proposing, the amendment that I'm suggesting is that it includes the wording of the recommendation in the business paper and adds a second point that planning includes the holding of citizenship ceremonies on the morning of Australia Day at whatever venue seems best, but on Australia Day.

Is that all right?

Yes.

And that was moved by you, seconded by Councillor Conolly. Australia Day, not Australian Day. Yes.

It could be both.

It'll get there. Can

I just seek some clarification, sorry, through you, Mr Mayor, to Mr Stewart. From an event perspective, what are the logistics of trying to run two events at two different locations on the same day, even if they're at different times?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. It will be a challenge. Australia Day this year, in 2018, was a challenge and we were running the events in the one location. So yes, it will be a challenge.

Any further speakers? I see the four against the recommendation

Oh, you found me. Thank you. My question is, and my issue is in line, I agree with Councillor Improngo that it should be— I wondered what that was—it should be on Australia Day, but I agree with Councillor Garrow, and that was my question to the staff in terms of an operational nature. We can't push our staff to work 5 a.m. till 11 p.m. again. We just can't do it. So how do we find a medium in balancing both those objectives? Because both the night and the citizenship ceremony are both fantastic things, and it is awesome to do it on one day, but we can't do that to our staff. So I don't know if there's some commentary from the general manager or anything in terms of how we're going to reconcile those two points.

Mr General Manager. The program that's been put forward, or outlined in the report referred to, is the program that's been developed by the staff, and it is about trying to balance all those competing issues. And it is true that last year we had staff start work— At 5 a.m., maybe even earlier than that, and not finish till after 11 o'clock at night. And that's a long time to work, but then you've got to factor in people driving to and from work. And we're not a big organisation, so it's the same people doing all of the work. So the reason why we're exploring this approach this year is that it breaks it up over two days, and what we're proposing in the evening on both nights takes advantage of the cooler conditions in the evening, and it also has the added advantage of showcasing the library.

We're looking at holding it in the main atrium area of the library, that large space in the library, and again that's hopefully going to contribute towards the activation of the town centre as well. So it really does tick quite a number of boxes, and again the Commonwealth Government itself does hold events on the evening before, so the Australian of the Year is announced on the evening before Australia Day. So we're not too far out of kilter with what's happening, and we think this is a good compromise. This is only the second year we've run this event, and it will be a review again, and it may be a change again because we're learning each year, and again we've got to look after our staff in the process.

Councillor Ross, you wish to speak?

Yes, I would hope that we could vote for this, add Siri, item please.

That we don't need to, Councillor Ross, because that— The motion is point one and the amendment is points one and two. Okay. Sorry.

Look, yes, thank you, Mr Mayor. I would just make the point that I think we should hold the citizenship ceremony on Australia Day, and because that is the significance of Australia Day. It's more significant to me to have the citizenship ceremony than the big party on Australia Day. I understand it might be challenging, but the whole time I've been on council, they've always— that I've been on council, they've always been on the same day. We've always had multiple events in multiple locations on Australia Day. Yes, we have. We've always had a citizenship ceremony in the morning and awards later on, other things happening, and it's always been possible. I understand there could be some staffing issues, but I think that could be resolved if the council wanted to have the citizenship ceremony on Australia Day.

Any

Further discussion? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I've got a few concerns that I think we probably just need to examine if we're going to do this every year, and if every year we're going to put this amount of money into the event, I think we need to have some pretty solid discussions about how long we prop this event up , and how much of a budgetary commitment we want to make to this event in the evening. Is this going to be a long-term flagship event for Hawkesbury Council? If so, then we need to fund it appropriately in the budget during the time that we allocate the budget. How big do we want this event to be? We're hearing that we want to build on what happened last year. Now, I didn't attend last year's events. By all accounts, they were very successful.

I went to the citizenship and the award ceremony in the morning, but chose not to attend the events. In the evening. And I think we also need to consider the impact on existing events. For example, the Australiana Pioneer Village, who felt that this had a negative impact on their gate takings. And it

May be for

Them that an event, that the citizenship and awards ceremony the night before works better for them, that people then are freer to attend their event during the day and then go on to our event in the evening. So I think these are discussions that Council has to have about what our expectations of this event are and how we're willing to fund it, because I don't think that we should be shuffling money halfway through the financial year because what we hoped for in sponsorship has fallen over. I can see that this is a reasonable solution. We're only two years in, and I'm happy to support the reallocation of this fund, this money, but I think we have to be realistic about what we want the event to look like.

And the fact that getting it to, you know, to 0.5 years on where it might be much more self-sustaining is going to cost us money before it gets to that point, and that's the experience of most of these events. If that's the case, then we just need to swallow hard and get on with it. I think we have to be practical about the awards ceremony. We're hearing from the staff and from the general manager, whose job it is to make sure that our staff work under decent conditions, that this isn't practical for our staff. We can't ask staff to work from five o'clock in the morning to eleven o'clock at night. Our events team is small and it's only just emerging. It's not reasonable to ask people to put in those hours.

And let's remember it's a public holiday when everybody else is enjoying themselves, and we're asking staff to put in, frankly, unsafe and unreasonable working hours. It's January. It's hot. What sort of lunatic is sitting in a plastic marquee at 10.30 in the morning in their best clothes? I mean, the choir were beetroot coloured this year.

We also need to be, I think we also need to be very careful that we're not making council decisions because we're frightened of what shock jocks might say on a radio station the next morning. Let's be a little bit bolder than that. We're making a practical decision, not a political decision. This isn't some grand statement about what day Australia Day should be held on. We're not voting to move Australia Day, just voting to move a citizenship ceremony to a more reasonable, more practical time of day, and so that people might actually enjoy it rather than feeling like they've been slow roasted.

Councillor Reynolds. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I take Councillor Zamprogno and Connolly's points about the idea of holding the citizenship ceremony on Australia Day, but just having a look at Parramatta's schedule, and last year they held citizenship ceremonies on the 26th of January, 26th of February, 18th of April, 4th of June, 29th of August and 31st of October. This year, next year it'll be 26th of January, 10th of April, 26th of June, 21st of August and 9th of October. And it says City of Parramatta aims to hold a citizenship ceremony every second month. So I think that holding it on the 25th, on the eve of Australia Day, is not that big a deal, not that big a deal at all.

Any further speakers? Deputy Mayor. I

Just wanted to say how wonderful it'd be for those people to wake up on Australia Day and be Australian citizens.

Any further speakers? Councillor

Richards.

Thank you

Because I only asked a question before I hadn't finished before you went on to another councillor

But anyway ,

Thank you. My question, my second point was that if there is an intention in the room to have it on Australia Day, logistically and staff-wise and all those sorts of things, can we not— what time was the Australia Day ceremony meant to start of a night, the food vans and things like that?

The Australia Day on the Hawkesbury ceremony on the evening of Australia Day is scheduled to start at 4 p.m.

Could we not have the ceremony at 2? So therefore— Yeah, I know where there's an issue, but I'm just trying to think of the staff and to accommodate all needs and desires and wants and, I don't know, but then is that the cost of a marquee? Is that an additional thing? Yes,

And that's a big cost, which is why we've tried to move it to a venue.

Could we do the venue at 2 o'clock, or you need the staff setting

Up prior? No, it would be better for us to have that in the morning so we've got the time to set up during the day.

No, that's okay. I just wanted to explore that idea. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further speakers? No. The motion was moved by Councillor Rasmuss,. Do you wish to exercise your right of reply?

Not necessary, Mr Mayor, thank you.

I'll put the amendment then. The amendment is the bottom one, which includes points one and two. All those in favour of the amendment, please say aye. Those against? Declare it lost. I'll put the motion, which is the one on the top, point one. All those in favour of the motion, please say aye. Those against, declare it carried. We move to item.

All those in favour say aye. Those against, declare it carried. We now move to item 253, Australia Day, and I'd ask Mr Conroy if he would like to introduce that item.

Suzanne Stewart will introduce that item, which is probably why she's sitting here.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. This report has been prepared to advise Council of the plans for Australia Day 2019. Last year, the Australia Day events included the citizenship ceremony, the Australia Day awards, and the inaugural Australia Day on the Hawkesbury evening event. All of these events were held on the banks of the Hawkesbury River at Governor Phillip Park. The event was hosted by Hawkesbury City Council and sponsored both through in-kind and financial contributions from Windsor RSL, the Richmond Club, Crown Plaza, the RAAF Richmond, the Hawkesbury Race Club, and the Hawkesbury Gazette. We are well underway in planning the event for January 2019. It is proposed to hold a Australia Day awards and the citizenship ceremonies on the preceding evening of Friday the 25th of January at the Central Library, and hold the Australia Day on the Hawkesbury event, which in 2018 was celebrated with more than 4,000 people, on the afternoon of Australia Day between 4 and 9 p.m.

at Governor Phillip Park. The same level of in-kind and financial contributions for 2019 have not been received as they were last year. In order to deliver a similar event for the coming year, it is recommended that Council approve the transfer of $20,000 from the Banner Program to the Australia Day Program.

Thank you. The recommendation is on page 57 , and it's quite simple, that Council approve the reallocation of $20,000 from the Banner Program to the Australia Day Program within the 2018-19 Operational Plan. Now, someone like to move that? Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Deputy Mayor. Any discussion? Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I support the separation of venues and accept completely the recommendation in the business paper relating to economising on the hire of a marquee. It was lovely what we did earlier this year on Australia Day, but if a lack of sponsorship means that we need to look at an alternative arrangement, I have no problem with that. I do, however, have a problem with moving the citizenship ceremony away from Australia Day proper, and I would point you to two particular resources that I've looked up. One is the Australia Day Event Organisers Toolkit, which was issued by the Australia Day Council, and which says that citizenship ceremonies are an integral part of Australia Day celebrations, and also the Australian Citizenship Ceremonies Code, which is issued by the Federal Ministry of Home Affairs, which says that Australia Day is a significant day for the holding of citizenship ceremonies.

I would also, of course, point to media commentary where councils have sometimes, with political motivations, sought to de-emphasise citizenship ceremonies on Australia Day and have been sharply cautioned. By the federal government, that to do so is a breach of the council's obligations under the Citizenship Ceremonies Code. If there is a need to use a different venue, such as Windsor Function Centre, then let's do that on the morning of Australia Day, and then move everybody and invite them down to Governor Phillip Park or the outdoor venue that we choose for Australia Day celebrations and get it done in one day.

Councillor Zamprogno, I take your comments on board, but the recommendation is purely about the $20,000.

With respect, Mr Mayor, the recommendations in the business paper include a foreshadowed intention to hold the Australia Day awards ceremony on the evening before Australia Day. So I would be prepared to add this as an amendment to the recommendation in the business paper, that the planning that moves forward from this recommendation includes the planning for the citizenship ceremony to occur at a venue of council's choice, but on the morning of Australia Day. Well

That's very insightful of you, because that's exactly what I was going to suggest, that if you want to do that, you need to move an addition to the recommendation.

I so do with the form of words that I've just mentioned.

Okay. Do we have a seconder for that amendment? Councillor Conolly. Okay. Deputy Mayor, you're speaking in favour of the recommendation or against the— In

Favour of the motion and therefore against the recommendation. Not that I have a huge problem— sorry, against the amendment. What did I say? Recommendation, sorry. I was only going to speak firstly to say I called this issue up and I made a mistake. I hadn't meant to call item 252, but anyway. I think that—I don't think that it's necessary to— Have the emphasis on the particular day. We have a lovely citizenship ceremony in July, which is no less important or no less meaningful to the people who attend. And I think that, for practical purposes, having it in the cooler evening on the night before is a much better idea. And I think that much of the Australia Day celebrations for those who are really heavily into it begin on the night before.

And in fact, I don't know what day of the week it falls, but if it's on a weekend, then people start on the Friday afternoon and they carry it through until the end. So I'll be supporting. I don't really have a problem with— I don't know what the amendment actually said, so I don't think I need to support it. I'm happy to support just what the recommendation is in the business paper. And as always, I thank the events staff for their hard work in bringing together such a wonderful event for our community.

I think we're waiting on the amendment to come up on the screen.

Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor

Sorry

It's getting late. It's getting late. I was just wondering, I'm sorry if this is in the item and I haven't been able to find it, but what are we forgoing in the banner project that would cost us $20,000? What aren't we doing?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. The banner program pays for banner poles and for flags to go onto those banner poles.

Okay, so how much is the banner pole budget?

The banner pole budget is $20,000.

So we won't have any budget for hanging flags?

No, this year we wouldn't because—

Yeah. This year we wouldn't. We already have flags at the moment, so, and we've had those up on our poles.

Thank you.

Councillor Zamprogno, did you want to give any assistance to the—

If they’re having difficulty with the form of words that I was proposing, the amendment that I’m suggesting is that it includes the wording of the recommendation in the business paper and adds a second point that planning includes the holding of citizenship ceremonies on the morning of Australia Day at whatever venue seems best, but on Australia Day.

Is that all right?

Yes .

And that was moved by you, seconded by Councillor Connolly. Australia Day, not Australia Union Day.

Yes. It could be both.

It’ll get there. Can

I just seek some clarification, sorry, through you, Mr Mayor, to Ms Stewart. From an event perspective, what are the logistics of trying to run two events, two different locations on the same day, even if they’re at different times?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. It will be a challenge. Australia Day this year in 2018 was a challenge, and we were running the events in the one location. So yes, it will be a challenge.

Any further speakers to either for or against the recommendation, or—oh, look, there's a light on

Oh, you found me. Thank you. My question is, and my issue is in line. I agree with Councillor Improgno that it should be— I wondered what that was. It should be on Australia Day, but I agree with Councillor Garrow, and that was my question to the staff in terms of an operational nature. We can't push our staff to work 5 a.m. till 11 p.m. again. We just can't do it. So how do we find a medium in balancing both those objectives? Because both the night and the citizenship ceremony are both fantastic things, and it is awesome to do it on one day, but we can't do that to our staff. So I don't know if there's some commentary from the general manager or anything in terms of how we're going to reconcile those two points.

The general manager. The program that's being put forward, or outlined in the report referred to, is the program that's been developed by the staff, and it is about trying to balance all those competing issues. And it is true that last year we had staff start work at 5 a.m., maybe even earlier than that, and not finish till after 11 o'clock at night. And that's a long time to work, but then you've got to factor in people driving to and from work. And we're not a big organisation, so it's the same people doing all of the work. So the reason why we're exploring this approach this year is that it breaks it up over two days. And what we're proposing in the evening on both nights takes advantage of the cooler conditions in the evening, and it also has the added advantage of showcasing the library.

We're looking at holding it in the main atrium area of the library, that large— space in the library. And again, that's hopefully going to contribute towards the activation of the town centre as well. So it really does tick quite a number of boxes. And again, the Commonwealth Government itself does hold events on the evening before. So the Australian of the Year is announced on the evening before Australia Day. So we're not too far out of kilter with what's happening, and we think this is a good compromise. This is only the second year we've run this event, and it will be a review again, and it may be a change again, because we're learning each year. And again, we've got to look after our staff in the process.

Councillor Ross, you wish to speak?

Yes. I would hope that we could vote for this, add Siri item, please.

That we don't need to, Councillor Ross, because the motion is point one and the amendment is points one and two. Okay. Sorry.

Look, yes, please. I would just make the point that I think we should hold the citizenship ceremony on Australia Day, and because that is the significance of Australia Day, it's more significant to me to have the citizenship ceremony than the big party on Australia Day. I understand it might be challenging, but the whole time I've been on council, they've always— that I've been on council, they've always been on the same day. We've always had multiple events in multiple locations on Australia Day. Yes, we have. We've always had a citizenship ceremony in the morning, and awards later on, other things happening. It's always been possible. I understand there could be some staffing issues, but I think that could be resolved if the council wanted to have the citizenship ceremony on Australia Day.

Any further discussion?

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I've got a few concerns that I think we probably just need to examine if we're going to do this every year, and if every year we're going to put this amount of money into the event. I think we need to have some pretty solid discussions about how long we prop this event up and how much of a budgetary commitment we want to make to this event in the evening. Is this going to be a long-term flagship event for Hawkesbury Council? If so, then we need to fund it appropriately in the budget during the time that we allocate the budget. How big do we want this event to be? We're hearing that we want to build on what happened last year. Now, I didn't attend last year's events. By all accounts, they were very successful.

I went to the citizenship and the awards ceremony in the morning, but chose not to attend the events in the evening. And I think we also need to consider the impact on existing events. For example, the Australiana Pioneer Village, who felt that this had a negative impact on their gate takings. And it

May be for

Them that an event, that the citizenship and an awards ceremony the night before, works better for them, that people then are freer to attend their event during the day and then go on to our event in the evening. So I think these are discussions that council has to have about what our expectations of this event are and how we're willing to fund it, because I don't think that we should be shuffling money... Halfway through the financial year, because what we hoped for in sponsorship has fallen over. I can see that this is a reasonable solution. We're only two years in, and I'm happy to support the reallocation of this fund, this money, but I think we have to be realistic about what we want the event to look like.

And the fact that getting it to, you know, to a 0.5 years on where it might be much more self-sustaining is going to cost us money before it gets to that point, and that's the experience of most of these events. If that's the case, then we just need to swallow hard and get on with it. I think we have to be practical about the awards ceremony. We're hearing from the staff and from the general manager, whose job it is to make sure that our staff work under decent conditions, that this isn't practical for our staff. We can't ask staff to work from five o'clock in the morning to eleven o'clock at night. Our events team is small and it's only just emerging. It's not reasonable to ask people to put in those hours.

And let's remember it's a public holiday when everybody else is enjoying themselves, and we are asking staff to put in, frankly, unsafe and unreasonable working hours. It's January. It's hot. What sort of lunatic is sitting in a plastic marquee at 10:30 in the morning in their best clothes? Oh, the choir were beetroot coloured this year.

We also need to be, I think we also need to be very careful that we're not making council decisions because we're frightened of what shock jocks might say on a radio station the next morning. Let's be a little bit bolder than that. We're making a practical decision, not a political decision. This isn't some grand statement about what day Australia Day should be held on. We're not voting to move Australia Day. Just voting to move a citizenship ceremony to a more reasonable, more practical time of day, and so that people might actually enjoy it rather than feeling like they've been slow roasted.

Councillor Reynolds. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I take Councillor Zamprogno and Conolly's points about, you know, the idea of holding the citizenship ceremony on Australia Day, but just having a look at Parramatta's schedule, and last year they held citizenship ceremonies on the 26th of January, 26th of February, 18th of April, 4th of June, 29th of August and 31st of October. This year, next year it'll be 26th of January, 10th of April, 26th of June, 21st of August and 9th of October. And it says City of Parramatta aims to hold a citizenship ceremony every second month. So I think that holding it on the 25th, on the eve of Australia Day, is not that big a deal, not that big a deal at all.

Any further speakers? Deputy Mayor

I just wanted to say how wonderful it'd be for those people to wake up on Australia Day and be Australian citizens.

Any further speakers? Councillor Richards.

Thank you, because I only asked a question before I hadn't finished before you went on to another councillor , but anyway .

I'm very sorry.

Thank you. My question, my second point was that if there is an intention in the room to have it on Australia Day, logistically and staff-wise and all those sorts of things, can we not, what time was the Australia Day ceremony meant to start of a night, the food vans and things like that?

The Australia Day on the Hawkesbury ceremony on the evening of Australia Day is scheduled to start at 4 p.m.

Could we not have the ceremony at 2? So therefore... Yeah, I know where there's an issue, but I'm just trying to think of the staff and to accommodate all needs and desires and wants and I don't know. But then is that the cost of a marquee? Is that an additional thing? Yes, and

That's a big cost, which is why we've tried to move it to a venue.

Could we do the venue at 2 o'clock, or you need the staff setting up prior? No, it

Would be better for us to have that in the morning so we've got the time to set up during the day. No

That's okay. I just wanted to explore that idea. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further speakers? No. The motion was moved by Councillor Rasmussen. Do you wish to exercise your right of reply?

Not necessary, Mr Mayor. Thank you.

I'll put the amendment then. The amendment is the bottom one, which includes points 1 and 2. All those in favour of the amendment, please say aye. Those against? Declare it lost. I'll put the motion, which is the one on the top, point 1. All those in favour of the motion, please say aye. Those against? Declare it carried. We move to item...

Yes, 25.4, the conference. Mr Conway, did you want to speak on that?

Yeah, Mr Mayor, the conference is in Fremantle, and I just note for the benefit of Council, it is a significant cost to get people to Fremantle, and given the position of our budget, I'd just be encouraging us to be aware of the cost when we're thinking about attending. If one person attends, they can report back to the whole Council.

Okay. There's a recommendation on page 60.

Someone like to move the recommendation? That way, Mr Mayor. Mr Rasmussen, seconded . Discussion on the recommendation, please. Yes

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I would speak against the recommendation. I don't think it is responsible for Council to be spending money sending anyone to Fremantle in this day and age. Sometimes there's value in face-to-face conferences, but any of this information can be gained another way, and it's just a very extravagant expense. So I would suggest that Council should not resolve to attend, to have nominated Councillors or staff attend. You're suggesting an amendment. Well, it's a direct negative of the motion, so I'm just speaking against the recommendation. Okay. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Councillor Garrow and I, who are both on Council's Town Centres Committee, discussed this matter today and discussed it with the relevant staff members, and actually none of us felt that it was necessary for us to attend this conference. We've attended it twice previously. We're now at the point where we feel that we need to implement what we learnt at the conference rather than just go and hear another round of it. We have flagged that the conference should be back on the east coast next year, which is much more economic for us to attend. It'll probably be in Sydney, which will be far less exciting than going somewhere like Melbourne, but never mind. What we have flagged to the committee and to the staff, and the staff were overjoyed with this idea, is that we intend not just to attend that meeting, but to present at it.

That we will have significant town centres work done by that time that we can present. I suspect that Hawkesbury's work using the Place Score survey will probably be presented at this conference, highlighting the unprecedented support of the Hawkesbury community for actually responding to that survey. But that's, I'm sure Kylie Legge is quite capable of doing that without us clapping in the audience. So we're all happy to stay home, is the short answer.

Before we proceed, are there any councillors who are expressing an interest in going?

No? If not, maybe we could change the recommendation to we receive and note the information . Councillor Rasmussen, move that way.

Happy to move that

Way, Mr Mayor. Okay. Yeah. You have a problem with that, Councillor Conolly? Okay. So the motion is that we receive and note the information. All those in favour say aye. Those against? Declared carried. Now we move to item 2.55.

City Council LEP review report. Move the recommendation, Mr Mayor. Mr Conroy might introduce. Ms Perrin is going to introduce. Go right ahead.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Due to legislative changes to the EP&A Act in March of this year, every council has to review and amend their LEPs to ensure consistency with the Greater Sydney Region Plan and Metropolitan of Three Cities and district plans, which is in our case the Western City District Plan. It's a prescribed process which commences with the LEP review health check, which is the purpose of this report, and continues through to the requirement to prepare a local strategic planning statement, which will set out a number of issues such as a 20-year vision for land use in the local area, the special characteristics which contribute to local identity, shared community values to be maintained and enhanced, how growth and change will be managed into the future.

The report for consideration tonight is more of a technical report, i.e. how the current LEP, the Hawkesbury LEP, reflects the new region and district plan and identifies the types of studies required to inform an LEP amendment process.

The report outlines that whilst there are a number of the directions and actions of the Western City District Plan that are not directly relevant to Hawkesbury LGA, there are a number of identifiable amendments will be required to the LEP in order to ensure consistency. To inform these amendments, a series of studies and strategies will be required, the majority of which have either commenced or will be commencing shortly, but which have been funded by Council. Essentially, the recommendation is that Council receives the information in the LEP review report, endorses it to be forwarded to the Greater Sydney Commission and Department of Planning for their consideration, and commences the preparation for the local strategic planning statements, with further briefings and reports to be submitted to Council as part of the process.

Thank you, Councillor Conolly. You wish to move the recommendation, seconded by Councillor Rasmussen. Any discussion? Councillor Connolly. Councillor Wheeler, yes please.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I want to move an amendment.

So it's the motion as it stands in the business paper plus an additional point, four, that Council write to the New South Wales Department of Planning and Environment, the Minister for Planning and Environment, Mr Anthony Roberts, and the Member for Hawkesbury, Mr Dominic Perrottet, expressing our disappointment that Council did not receive the funding to carry out this LEP review, unlike six other councils, and the impact that that will have on our staff.

I'll second that.

Seconded. Deputy Mayor. Councillor Connolly, I don't suppose you want to add that to your

Motion ? Quick comment from the staff on that and how that's the information to be. Do we have someone? That's right. Just a clarification from the staff on that funding, how it was allocated and why we didn't get it.

It relates to the funding that was allocated under the City Deal, and the councils that received the funding are the large growth councils, so the ones that are going to take up a lot of the housing demand in the next two to three years. So Liverpool , Fairfield, Camden, Wollondilly all have very large allocations of housing in the next two to three years, so they've been given the funding. We're working as part of the planning partnership under the City Deal where we're trying to get some of that funding used in a way that helps us to offset the costs of some of our LEP work. We're not guaranteed that's going to happen, but that's what we're trying to achieve through the City Deal.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. On that basis, I don't think we want to be a large growth council that's getting funded to take on a lot of city's housing growth, so I wouldn't be inclined to adopt that point of the motion. Okay ,

So Councillor Wheeler is moving that amendment, seconded by the Deputy Mayor. Any discussion? Councillor Rasmuss.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Firstly, let me say very clearly that I think this report is an outstanding piece of work, and I want to congratulate the staff, whoever put this work together, because there's clearly an enormous amount of work in putting all the various studies that are impacted and putting it all together, and putting that jigsaw together to come up with this report. It really is a great summary of all the various strategic studies and impact studies that impact in our LGA at the moment and how it will then impact into the future. So that is a really good piece of work and a good summary. Having said that, Mr. Mayor, there are a few things there that I guess I'm a bit concerned about, disappointed about.

Let me go with the disappointed about, and that is that the Grose River doesn't get a mention. Colo Wilderness River gets a mention, but the Grose River doesn't. It's a significant part of, and it doesn't get a mention anywhere in the report. And that's fine, I guess, although I think because it is such a significant part of the river system that it at least should get a mention in this sort of summary of what the Hawkesbury is about, because it is a good deep summary of what the Hawkesbury is about. The other bit that I would like to see a greater emphasis is on the strategic positioning of the Hawkesbury, or the University of Western Sydney University's lands at Clarendon reaching into the Yarramundi paddocks.

Now , there is some mention of that, but it is not put in the frame of probably the most significant parcel of land in this area that will obviously influence where the city grows or not grow in the future. We have constraints on our lands in many, many areas, whereas this area here certainly has significant impact. And I have raised it a few times that we should be getting some briefings from the university as to what their strategic positioning is or what their strategic future for those lands are, so that we can at least build that into our framework. Hopefully that is taking place by way of background. The time frame, it seems to me that the time frame that is set up for all this work, and there's quite a few, quite a bit of work to be done there.

I counted 11. There's actually more than that. There's 11 studies, strategic frameworks to be either reviewed, amended, or new ones to be started, commenced, and I instance the rural land study. That's one of them. It's been around for a while now, but hasn't been commenced yet. But all of those studies, I think, on the timeline to be completed within Nine months, I think, and then there's some dotted months there that go for another six or seven months, which might give it about 15 months of doing reviews and new studies and so on. I think there are actually 12 or 13 studies. A couple of them are listed in another part of the report, but not in the main body of the report.

And I think that's a big workload. And I'm not sure if maybe I missed something in the budget, but I don't know that the funding is there allocated, or is that still to be brought to Council so that we can fund these 11, or I counted 12, studies or strategic reviews. Whether that's being accounted for or not, I'd like to see the costings of that. But more important is the time frame. So whether or not we are going to pour in lots of resources, I don't know, but I'd like to see where that is all going. But Mr Mayor, I think overall the study is a really good piece of work. And having sat on this Council for a number of years, it is probably the seminal work that most councillors, if they joined Council, would love to have seen over the years.

You know, when you join up, to have that whole summary put in place and then projected forward to where these studies might impact the future growth of this LGA. Very important stuff for all of us, and at the strategic level that we should be really, really digging into in great depth and detail. But anyway, congratulations and thank you

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. It's my understanding, and I'll ask Mr Conroy to correct me if I'm wrong, that this document is more of an administrative tool, which is designed to provide information to the Greater Sydney Commission, and it's not designed to be a policy document. Would that be a fair summary, Mr Conroy?

Yes, that's, as they say, it's a health check. It's a status report, and all the councils in Metropolitan Sydney are required to undertake this role. Councillor Garrow.

Through you, Mr Mayor, to Mr Conroy, can you please clarify that if receiving the LEP review funding, does that confirm Hawkesbury as being a large growth council, or is it just that the current large growth councils have received expedited treatment in funding allocation?

The councils with the large housing targets have genuinely received the funding, and we don't have the housing targets that Fairfield and Liverpool and Blacktown and Penrith have, so we haven't received that level of funding.

And I'll just add the timeframe they have is only two years, and for councils that don't have that funding, we've got three years to finish the work,

To finish the whole LEP review process.

Councillor Garrow's question was more, if we receive the funding, does that make us a—

No, it wouldn't. No, our targets are set. If we would get the money, it would just assist us in employing more consultants and having some work happen more concurrently. Thank you. That was the question I was asking

Any further discussion? Deputy Mayor.

I just had a question first, Mr Mayor, just with regard to what Councillor Rasmussen asked about the time frame. The nine-month time frame does not include doing the actual studies, does it?

I'm just getting clarity on it for that.

Mr Kearns

So the nine-month time frame is to prepare—we have to, even though we're not on the accelerated program, the other councils that received funding, we have to have prepared the draft Local Strategic Planning Statement by June next year. So that's the nine months. It recognises that the number of the studies will still continue past that, and I guess we also need to recognise that the Local Strategic Planning Statement isn't a static document. There will be changes to it throughout time in terms of, you know, further studies and changes in terms of circumstances that necessitate changes over time.

So essentially it will include what information we have from the studies we've done or which are underway, and we submit it within that time frame regardless of what's complete and what's still being done.

Submitted as a draft, obviously recognising that there's then a process to finalise that Local Strategic Planning Statement as well, so allows time for those further studies to continue as well. But June next year is when we have to have the draft prepared, but it is an ongoing process

Sorry to harp on, but we have the statement done, and then the three years is to actually review the whole LEP. Is that correct?

So, yeah, the three years is to complete the whole process. So it's prepare the Local Strategic Planning Statement, prepare a planning proposal that amends the LEP to produce the required changes, and to finalise that LEP amendment.

Thank you. I'll just speak in favour of the amendment, which I think it was disappointing that we didn't get the funding because I think that all councils should just get it when it's something imposed on by the government. Regardless of that, I'd also like to congratulate the staff on the extensive work done in this and to welcome the shift in planning from the regulatory focus to the strategic planning framework. We've seen in the past the detrimental impacts of not having approvals going ahead when we haven't had proper strategic frameworks which would ensure the delivery of proper services around it. So this is a welcome move, particularly also the identification of the studies regarding employment and environmental studies and so on.

One thing I did notice, and I am assuming now from what you've said that it will come at a later time, but the overriding inclusion in all of these sort of studies to address the risks and liabilities associated with climate change, I don't see any reference to it anywhere, and I'm just assuming that that will be something that is fundamental to all these studies taking place, particularly, for example, the building, housing and employment strategies, the rural land studies and so on. Am I too early in thinking that that should be being mentioned at this stage?

A question, Mr. Kearns?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, yeah, climate change adaptation is certainly something that will have to be considered as part of all those various studies.

Councillor Wheeler

You should speak. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I haven't yet spoken on the amendment. The purpose of writing to the Department of Planning and the relevant ministers isn't to say that we want to be a large growth council. That corollary doesn't follow from that statement. What it says is that as a small council with a small staff and small budget, we need some financial support to get this done. We were talking to councillors from a couple of other councils who have been given the two and a half million, and they're not quite sure how they're going to spend it. What a terrible position to be in, I feel for them. This is really expensive work. It's very time consuming. And as we all know, it's long overdue for us, and it's going to have a very big impact on our staff and their ability to do this on the state government's time frame and carry out their routine work.

And it would have been a show of good faith, I think, from the New South Wales government and the Department of Planning to give all councils the money to enable us to do this. Unlike the six other councils, all of whom have more staff, less planning constraints, smaller areas and larger budgets within which to absorb the work required, we don't have any fat in our planning system. So this is a much harder ask for us, and giving us a 12-month extension isn't going to cut it. So , and I think we need to get that message across quite clearly to the relevant ministers. I think point four wasn't quite complete, so it says, as did other councils, and detail the impact on council's staff and routine function.

We need to make sure that adherence to the district plan doesn't mean that there's some sort of sameness or loss of identity across Western Sydney, particularly for the Hawkesbury. Our LEP has to ensure that our local identity, our natural environment, our heritage and our unique features are maintained and enhanced through a commitment to existing liveability and environmental sustainability, as per our CSP and what the community's told us in our community engagement sessions. What we don't want is for the Hawkesbury to align with the urban sprawl that surrounds us. We don't want to look like everybody else. Bits of our LEP might, but we certainly don't. And any documents that we produce must ensure that the Hawkesbury stays as the unique local government area that it is.

Thank you,

Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Can I just suggest just a change to point 4? I think what you've said, Councillor Wheeler, I agree with that. You know, we still have to do the work and it really is irrespective of how many houses we intend to put into our LGA. But can we write to the Minister and not say we're disappointed, just ask for a review? You know, let's go on the front foot. Sorry, I know — harp on that—but let's just say, for those reasons you've outlined them all, so just go for it.

Mr Mayor, if you would allow me, I was about to suggest the same thing and withdraw my motion. If point 4 could read, after Member for Hawkesbury, advising of Council's requirement for funding to carry out the LEP review as received by other councils.

It's a bit of a love-in going on here.

So, Councillor Connolly, would you like to make it clear what

So was that— that was, yeah .