24 September 2019 - Ordinary

Good evening everyone. Welcome to the ordinary meeting of Hawkesbury City Council for 24th of September 2019. I'd like to firstly acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land, the Darug people, pay my respect to Elders both past and present. I'll now hand over to the Acting General Manager to go through some procedural matters.

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 like to also advise members of the public that in accordance with clause 5.18 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 a person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations. The recordings are stored on Council's record management system. 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 Council chambers has a mobile phone, that they either turn it off or turn it to silent. Thank you.

Thank you. We have received apologies from Councillor Conolly and Councillor Rasmussen. Would someone like to move we accept those? Councillor Garrow, seconded by Councillor Semaan. All those in favour say aye. Declare it carried.

Are there any declarations of interest?

Nope. Okay. The minutes from the last meeting, would someone like to move those? Councillor Kotlash, seconded Councillor Reynolds. Any discussion on the minutes? If not, I'll put them. All those in favour say aye, those against, declared carried.

We have no items being subject to public address tonight, and we have no mayoral minutes. We have two items on block, items 182 and 184, moved by the Deputy Mayor, seconded by Councillor Kotlash. All those in favour say aye. Declare it.

Carried. So we'll move through the items in the order they appear in the business paper. The first item is 175, various committees and working groups. It's up for discussion.

Any discussion?

Councillor Wheeler.

I'll move the recommendation, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Do we have a seconder? Deputy Mayor. Councillor Wheeler, you wish to talk to it?

Just briefly, a couple of items. The Waste Committee, if I remember correctly, Courtney McGregor from the Hawkesbury Environment Network was added to the Waste Committee, and that isn't reflected in the report. If we could have that corrected, please. It may also be worth noting that the Animal Shelter Working Group concluded its business within the reporting period and has now been dissolved. I'm also wondering if we can receive more regular reports from the committees where Council has a financial interest. So WesROC , the Sports Council, for example. I think it's a bit difficult to expect councillors to maintain their fiduciary duty when we haven't seen minutes or a report or anything on any of these committees.

And I think the — sorry, I'm having a mental blank— Hawkesbury River County Council, thank you, is also one of those committees where councillors receive very little information back. And I'm not stating that as a criticism of the councillors that we send to those organisations, but I think in order for us to carry out our role, we need to see far more information coming back from those groups.

I might ask the Acting General Manager, do we receive regular reports from those groups, and how often do we receive them? Do we know?

My understanding from the County Council, we get an annual report from them, which would be as per normal procedure with organisations of that kind .

And an annual report from WesROC, and what was the other group you mentioned? The Sports Council. That's an annual report too, isn't it?

That's my understanding, yes.

So, Councillor Wheeler, you're asking for what, a six-monthly report, or... Could we have

Access to the minutes of those organisations, and none of those that I'm aware then come through the business paper and are made public. So I think there's probably a barrier for the community to access those reports as well.

That can be done.

We can look into that, yes.

Okay. Any further discussion? Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I was going to raise a similar thing about getting those reports back, both in terms of the minutes, but also probably from the councillors that go. It would be good to hear what happens in those, given that we have the minutes of all the other committees come up to Council and we can actually read what's been done. So that's good to see that being done. I did have some questions around the Civics and Citizenship Committee, and I think after discussing it with Mrs Stewart today, it's probably something that we need to move on in the future. But since our workshop we had earlier this year, which some councillors went to, And some didn't, where we identified about the problem with getting nominations and so on for the Australia Day awards and so on, and how better we could do that.

I've been asking at every event that I attend, speaking with people about possibly looking at who they could nominate and trying to put people forward for these awards. And there is something of a distrust about these awards with the council, and many people just dismissed it and said, Oh, why bother? or It's a foregone conclusion, or whatever. And it's quite concerning that there is this level of distrust. I don't know what the solution is, and ultimately, if we're restructuring the committees, I would think there's probably scope in the future to have an actual panel that's put together each year to determine these awards, made up of community members and councillors, so that we can try and rebuild the trust in our process of selecting who gets these awards.

I know that the nominations have been quite low in the past few years, and sometimes there is only one person. But I think it's a shame that there are people out there doing good work who may be missing out on being nominated because there's some sort of a barrier has gone up over the years that, you know, it's not as maybe transparent as it could be in how the selection occurs. Having said that, I know that the The committee, sorry I've got a throat. The committee now has some, or is getting some criteria to measure the assessment by, so that will make it more accountable, I would expect, and transparent. But I'd just like to reiterate that these meetings are open to all the councillors to go along.

I think there's a feeling that there's not the level of transparency and involvement to select our Citizen of the Year and so on. Not to suggest I've been on that committee and I know how it works and I've got no real issue with it. I'm talking about a public perception and us getting over that barrier of how we make our community believe that we're doing it in a way. So I'm just foreshadowing that either through the restructure with the committees or with a potential workshop going forward, or even an expansion perhaps in the number of councillors on the committee, that we make some sort of reshaping to try and rebuild some of the trust that seems to have gone and is as such keeping nominations from being put forward.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Councillor Richardson. Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I wasn't going to speak on this item, but I'm quite concerned of the Deputy Mayor's comments that she just made, especially targeting a committee that currently has three—when I've just double checked, it is three Liberal councillors on it—and to put the accusation out there that there might, there's no transparency or accountability. Point of order, Mr Mayor. Misrepresentation. Yeah,

Thank you, that there's no transparency or accountability in that committee and that there's a level of distrust in that committee. I take that very seriously, and I think that the members of the public who are in that committee should take that very seriously as well, because no other committee was highlighted in that speech except for that committee. So I would like to think that we're all doing our duty properly and making sure that the nominations put in front of us are all looked at properly and accounted for properly. And I just want to put on the public record that I'm very disappointed in those remarks.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. I wish to address sub-element 8.7 of the report, namely the Audit Committee.

I concur with the staff in that the, if you like, the head of power to enable the formation of the committee falls within the jurisdiction of Section 377 of the Local Government Act.

However, the Audit Committee is now a legislated, or shall we say statutory committee.

The reason I say that is that in 2016, the State Government enacted the Local Government Amendment, open brackets, Governance and Planning, close brackets, Act 2016, number 38. Let me refer to that for you.

Further reference is Part 4A, subtitle Internal Audit, Section 428A, big A of that Act, requires Audit Risk and Improvement Committee.

Subsection 1. A council must appoint an Audit Risk and Improvement Committee.

I therefore put it to you that it is a statutory committee. It has legislated responsibilities, which are outlined in subsection 2 of that section of the new Act.

And the legislated responsibilities are: A, compliance; B, risk management; C, fraud control; D, financial management; E, governance; F, implementation of strategic plan, delivery program and strategies; G, service reviews; H, collection of performance measurement data by the Council; and I, any other matters prescribed by the regulations. And there is a further subsection. As a result

Of those legislated requirements of the committee, the report as tabled makes no reference to those, and I am unable to vote in favour of the staff recommendation.

And may I suggest that the most appropriate manner in which this might be dealt with, given your good offices, is that AT7 be excised from the report

And that my concerns be addressed

Away from this meeting, and that if that were possible, I would be happy to concur with the staff recommendation and all other elements of the report as tabled.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. General Manager, would you, Mr. Mifsud, have you got an answer for Councillor Ross?

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. The report that's before Council is an annual report based on the committee that Council has requested, rather than a compliance issue under the Local Government Act or under the charter of the audit committee. The objectives outlined in the report are directly taken from the current adopted charter of the audit committee, and certainly if Councillor Ross wanted to have discussions about those other things outside of this meeting, that's possible as well.

Councillor Ross. Thank you, sir. It's not a matter of the items which were just addressed with due deference to the staff. This is legislation. I have it here in front of me. It is a legislated requirement. It was operative and is operative as of 2016. It is not

An optional extra or an option. It is the requirement of the government. Therefore, it is inappropriate for the AT7 to be expressed in terms of what it is covering. Because the report itself falls short of the requirements of the enactment.

Yeah. And what do you answer that, or would you want to?

If I could just clarify, what I was referring to was the submission of the annual report on this business paper is a requirement from Council, rather than a requirement from under the Act.

So, Councillor Ross, are you suggesting some action on this?

I thought I had done that most eloquently earlier. What I am suggesting is the excise of AT7 at this meeting to enable the concerns to be addressed, and that the rest of the report I will happily concur with the recommendation of the staff. Well,

First let me ask Councillor Wheeler whether she's happy to make that change.

I think I probably need further advice, Mr Mayor. It's my understanding that this is an annual report of what has happened in the audit committee for the previous 12 months. If we're in breach of the Local Government Act, then we need to address that by some other means rather than accepting the annual report, is my understanding of this currently. The audit committee is what it currently is. I don't think we can call it something else or say that it's been doing something else when it has done this over the last 12 months, and that's what the report reflects.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. So that's a no. So, Councillor Ross, Councillor Wheeler is not keen to change her recommendation, her motion, so what is your preferred action now?

Um.

I could foreshadow an amendment to the motion of my colleague, if there is any support within the chamber to do that, and I would propose to do that.

You could move an amendment, which would be the recommendation

Leaving out— The staff recommendation to be accepted with the exclusion of element AT7 for consideration at a later time.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler, you— Could I propose a way forward, Mr Mayor? You sure can. That we add to the recommendation, which I'm now trying to find , sorry

That the issue raised by Councillor Ross be addressed at the next audit committee, and if there's a recommendation required for some form of restructure, that that come back to Council as soon as possible.

And we leave the report in. Yes. Are you happy with that solution, Councillor Ross?

No, I'm afraid not, sir.

So we go back to your amendment. Is there a seconder for the proposed amendment?

Doesn't look like it. Sorry, Councillor Ross, no seconder. We go back to the original motion put forward, yes.

I could only suggest that I will not be able to vote for this report in that circumstance. Thank you.

Any other discussion on this matter? Councillor Wheeler, your light's on. Could

I add that additional recommendation?

You can add that,

Yes. Deputy Mayor, are you happy to second that? Yes Any further discussion on this matter? No. Councillor Wheeler, would you like right of reply?

I think the Deputy Mayor has a point of misrepresentation first, Mr Mayor.

You do. Sorry. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Councillor Richards must not have heard what I said. I most certainly did not make an accusation against anybody at all. In fact, I specifically said, and don't mutter about it

No talking across the room. I specifically All talk through the chair, please, not across the room. Well, could you

Ask Councillor Richards not to mutter when I'm addressing a point of misrepresentation ?

Please continue. I specifically said it was—

I specifically said it was a perception within the public, and I spoke to Mrs Stewart about it today because at all the events I go to, I speak to people and encourage them to nominate, and there is this perception there. So I didn't want to proceed with something because I'm well aware that there's people in here who can't ever see beyond a political divide and work for— That's a misrepresentation, Mr Mayor.

And that

It's not a point of order.

Sorry, just keep going.

That was not my intention at all, and I certainly didn't say anything. I said I was on that committee, and I had no— I had no problem with how it works. I'm talking about a public perception and a way forward of how we address that and encourage more people to nominate for our wards. That was what I said. Perhaps if you listen to the podcast,

You will hear

What I said.

Please don't get personal. No personal comments, please.

Well, that wasn't suggesting everyone listen to it is a good idea.

Your comment was aimed directly at Councillor Richards. Councillor Wheeler— Well, she was

The one who misrepresented

Councillor Wheeler, right of reply.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I just want to raise one additional point, if you'll indulge me. I know I'm not supposed to raise additional things. There is mention of Professor Ian Jack as a member of the Civic and Citizenship Ceremony Committee as the historical society representative. So I think we'll have to contact, following his death, I think we'll have to contact the historical society. That's for a specific, that's a specific award

That has his attendance, and I think that's probably the only thing that I need to add. That's

Your right of reply?

No, it's— If

You exercise your right of reply, I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please stand.

In favour of the motion: Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Mary-Lynne Buckett, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Sam Progneau, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards, Councillor Calvert. Against is Councillor Ross. Absent is Councillor Rasmussen and Councillor Conolly.

Move to item 176.

Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to put forward a motion that I've sent to staff earlier, if we can just get that onto the board. It's, I think that the recommendation in the business paper is probably not appropriate

In light of our—

Before you start talking. Sorry

Yes.

Can I— Do you have a seconder for that? Thank you.

No seconder? Councillor Sam Progner.

Thank you. The reason I put this up is that I thought it was probably a bit clunky to go through the process of having new people and new councillors and new representatives on the current committee structure when we're going down a path of gradually sort of aligning our committees to be more directly aligned with the community strategic plan. So it just means that we will just roll over and we don't go through that process. So it's fairly straightforward. Yeah, there's— in September 2020, I expect we'll start that process again when we get it all sorted out.

Thank you. Councillor Sam Progner.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I was unaware of Councillor Cotlash's motion, but I confess I was thinking this prior to the meeting, so I'm pleased to see this form of words up there. All I would add— is that as much as I endorse this motion, there should certainly be some mechanism by which individual councillors may wish to cede their membership of particular committees, or to seek representation on committees, and we could deal with those as amendments to this motion. But I'd need some direction from the Chair as to whether that was procedurally valid.

Acting General Manager.

Well, my understanding in terms of the motion being put forward by Councillor Kotlash is that we move all of the existing membership forward for the next 12 months. Alternatively, if you wish to go through a process of nominating individual changes, then we can do that. So it's up to Councillor Kotlash how she'd

Like to proceed. Mr Mayor, I was reflecting on the fact that in previous years this process has been needlessly torturous, and if we proceeded on the basis that things are status quo unless people declare a reason to seek change, that might expedite matters.

Thank you, and I believe Councillor Kotlash is suggesting that changes can be made, but they don't have to be made tonight. Would that be right?

Yes. Yes, Mr Mayor, exactly. We could make that more explicit if you wish.

I think it says that.

Yeah, it does actually.

That's my opinion. Any further discussion?

No further discussion. Councillor Kotlash, would you like right of reply?

Not necessary, thanks, Mr Mayor.

In that case, I'll put the motion as it appears on the board. If you're in favour, please stand.

In favour of the recommendation are Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow , Councillor Ross, Councillor Calvert. Absent are Councillor Conolly and Councillor Rasmussen. Declared carried.

Move to item 177. Any discussion? Councillor Wheeler. I'll

Move the recommendation, Mr Mayor.

Second , Mr Mayor. Okay. Councillor Wheeler, you wish to speak?

Just to acknowledge that this year we have a record number of applicants to the Heritage Assistance Scheme. In the past we've had to scratch around looking, but you'd think if you were giving people $2,000 there'd be a queue outside the door. But in the past we've had to drag people in to get them to take our money, and then the people who have applied have often got more money than they initially thought they were going to get in order for us to spend the money. So this represents a happy change to, I guess, people's view of heritage, and is really due to Council staff's efforts to engage with heritage owners and debunk the myths that owning a heritage item is problematic or that getting in touch with a heritage officer is restrictive.

So I really want to pass on my thanks to Mr Kearns and his team for an excellent job in really changing the opinion of heritage assistance within the Hawkesbury. And the staff should be really proud of their work here.

Thank you. Further discussion?

No further discussion. Councillor Wheeler, you still have right of reply if you need it.

Not necessary, Mr Mayor.

All right. I'll put the motion. If you're in favour of the motion, please stand. In favour are Councillor Ross, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Sam Probyn, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards, Councillor Calvert, absent Councillor Conolly and Councillor Rasmussen. Declare it carried.

Go to item 178, Deputy Mayor.

I'll move that, Mr Mayor.

Moved by Deputy Mayor. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Wheeler, was your hand up then? Yes.

Who seconded that, sorry? Councillor Wheeler. Okay.

Deputy Mayor, you wish to speak?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yes, I thought this was a— I'll be pleased to see this go out on public exhibition. I thought this was a really good document, actually, and set out really well with the framework and the participation plan. And I hope that it enhances our level of consultation. I think that it gives many options, and I just liked how it was delivered, and I think it's going to be a very useful tool for us in this council if we can translate that into greater involvement and greater feedback and community engagement coming from implementing what's in the documents and any feedback that we may receive going forward.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Councillor Wheeler. Thanks

Mr Mayor. Section 3.1 talks about how we notify people that DAs have been submitted. I'm wondering if we can expand what's stated in the report and say that a sign be exhibited for all DAs in or adjoining residential sites, rather than relying on people to either look in the local paper or use the planning alerts system or something similar. Many councils have a system of sticking, it's often a yellow sign on the front gate so that people passing can see that there is, in fact, a DA slated for that property. And I think that that represents a useful way of letting people know, particularly for residential areas where people's quality of life can often be impacted by other development. I've also got— so, and perhaps table seven could also be amended to reflect that. I also had a question about the photo of the Aboriginal man that's used in the report

Is that the photo of a local Darrug man, and has he consented to its use?

Acting General Manager.

It wasn't— it isn't a photo of a local Darrug man. It is a photo that we purchased for use that's reflective of the Darrug community.

Has the Darrug community accepted that? We did not have that conversation with the Darrug community. I think that's a conversation we need to have.

And Councillor Wheeler's other matter about

Yes, so any suggestions that will be considered through the exhibition phase, and we can make amendments following that.

Any other discussion? No. Councillor Cotlatch. Sorry,

Just a question, if I can. Councillor Wheeler's point about the 3.2, the development application signage, I thought that we already did that. I was a bit confused with what you meant. Sorry to talk across the chamber, Mayor, if we can get a bit of clarification on that.

Acting General Manager. Thank you.

Yes, we do. However, this is taken straight out of our development control plan in terms of our current exhibition. So we do do put notices, but where there are some DAs that do not require notification, we don't put those notices.

Further discussion? Councillor Sam Brogner.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I want to thank council staff for putting these documents together. Certainly, community engagement's been one of my biggest interests in my time on Council, and it's been a real learning curve to understand that so many decisions of very great consequence to our residents are coupled with an honest effort to engage with the community, which barely touches the sides. And we're all familiar with the statistics when we do surveys and we do phone polling and we do meetings in halls around the community, and we're still touching a small percentage, two or three percent of the people that would be affected by any given decision. So I can only return to what I've stated on many occasions, and that is that we have to move with the times.

I was greatly encouraged by a workshop that I participated in together with Councillor Lyons-Buckett, where we looked at revamping the Council's website, and that work is ongoing. And I think that will provide us with a new and valuable tool to reach out to the community and to meet people who are increasingly consuming information and news in non-traditional ways. Now, I'm a little disappointed that for all the work that's gone into these documents, there is still no overt undertaking for us to become more proactive and more electronic in terms of the way that we identify people by their demography or their geography, and then use a range of technologies, including email, social media and otherwise, to reach out to them.

Because certainly, I and many of my colleagues would be able to attest that people come to us regularly and they say, I only knew about this when it was too late, which means that we've still got work to do in terms of how we engage with the community. So this is a good start, but I'd like to suggest that there's still work to be done.

Acting General Manager.

Through you, Mr Mayor. Yes, I acknowledge your desire for us to get people's information and contact them electronically. So do we. So in every opportunity that we have where we're engaging with the community, we will try and get people's contact details via email. For instance, we were at the Business Awards function last week, where we had, I don't know, 500 people in a room, it felt like. We will be accessing those emails with permission and endeavour. So we're constantly trying to build our database of emails so we can be disseminating information more broadly.

Any further discussion?

Deputy Mayor, you wish to have right of reply?

Not necessary, thanks.

Okay, I'll put the motion. All those in favour of this motion, please stand.

In favour are Councillor Ross, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Samprogno, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards, Councillor Calvert. Absent, Councillor Rasmussen and Councillor Conolly. Declare it carried.

Move to item 179.

Any takers

I'll move that to go on for public exhibition.

Great. Seconder for that? Councillor Kotlash. Deputy Mayor, you wish to speak?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I read this in the draft form that we were given at the briefing

And made a few suggestions, which I'm glad to see were included, and a few changes. I think it's the importance of this document can't be understated in terms of it being something that we have to bear in mind that this is what we want for our area, our overarching document for the next 20 years and where we want to be in 20 years' time. I think there will be probably quite a bit of public feedback. I'm not sure about that, but I think that some things will be things that people want to comment on and may make submissions about. But I think that to get it out there, to get that feedback, there's a lot of work obviously has gone into it, and I know that we have to go through actually setting the, confirming the priorities and looking at all the various means of how we want to finalise this document before it's submitted.

So I thank the staff for the work that's been done and also for considering the input that I gave after reading it, and I look forward to seeing what other commentary comes forward about it once it goes on exhibition.

Thank you. Any further discussion?

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. There's a lot of meat to this document, and I'm really appreciative that Council has gone into so much detail, including rural lands, employment lands and residential land. We haven't had this. This is the level of planning that this Council has needed for a very long time. I'm a little bit concerned by the 2036 projection of 85,000 people in an area that is so heavily constrained by both flood and fire, and also expected to produce food and maintain a very pressured and, in some places, very unique environment. 32,000 households represents quite a leap for the Hawkesbury. There's lots of talk in here about the need for infrastructure, and I think it's very clear that it will be impossible for us to bridge any shortfall in infrastructure without serious funding commitments from the federal and state government.

We can't accommodate another 20,000 people without some decent transport planning and provision, and that will have to include a far better public transport system than anyone seems to be envisaging for us in the near future, or even in the long-term future.

I would like to see Council consult with the local Darug people about their representation, page 38 of the paper document that I have refers to, talks about the history of the Darug. We really need to make sure that if this is going to be a lasting document that that representation is something that they agree with. I'm also wondering why Wilberforce, Glossodia, Freemans Reach and Gloss and Oakville don't get a mention in the villages. As a Wilberforce resident, I do think that we're far more important than Ebenezer, and I think it's very sad that we don't get our own little square. And I'm sure the people of Freemans Reach, Glossy and Oakville feel similarly. Perhaps we could have another page.

I also really want to encourage the community to engage with Council during this exhibition phase. This is our vision for the next 20 years. Now we don't have oversight of planning matters anymore. This document is incredibly important. So for people who are listening to this, there's very few people here, for people who are playing at home, I know that this is long. It's got several parts. It's probably not something you want to read when you get home at night, but this really is crucial. If you have an interest in the future of the Hawkesbury and what it looks like, what our quality of life continues to be, and the place that we have for our children to grow up, buy homes and settle, then you really, really need to engage with this document.

Any further speakers?

No further speakers. Deputy Mayor, do you wish to have right of reply?

Just briefly, Mr Mayor, just to say that I didn't refer before to the other documents, but of course they're extremely important. And for those of us who were at the briefing to hear from the various consultants who were preparing the employment land study and the rural land study and the housing study, they really are documents that are determining our future. And the LSPS overall is encapsulating our direction for the future. And I reiterate what Councillor Wheelis said. It's an incredibly important document, and people should have their say at this point because this is what will be driving forward our land use planning in the future.

Thank you. That was right of reply, so I'll now put the motion. All those in favour, please stand. In favour, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Sam Prodnow, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, Councillor Calvert. Absent are Councillor Conolly and Councillor Rasmussen. I declare it carried.

Move to item 180, please.

No take, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll move that, but I do have a number of questions regarding it, which may I ask a couple of things first?

Certainly.

This happens whenever this comes up. I just have a real issue with our draft document. But the question is, in the last two years, if not three, the bushfire season's been brought forward to the 1st of September, not the 1st of October. And does anybody know if that's likely to become a change, and if so, when?

I'm not aware, but I could find out, do you?

Through you, Mr Mayor, there's no current change proposed to make that permanent. It's done on a seasonal basis, but obviously things can change in the future if that becomes a regular occurrence. However, I think probably gets the impact of having the season brought forward as a statement is probably more important.

Yes. So I'm thinking of this. Well, I'll move the motion, Mr Mayor, and then maybe it might be easier.

You said you had some questions.

Yeah, I'll ask the rest. I'll still move it

And amend it

If necessary.

Do we have a seconder, please? Councillor Wheeler. Okay, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I do feel that this draft general approval, I just don't feel it's strong enough for this particular area where we are so vulnerable with fire. And I just don't know whether it would be clearer if, as Mr Organ just suggested, a statement about the fire season. But I believe there needs to be a statement of some sort that accompanies it, which really raises the issues that are in it because, as everyone in here knows, I go on about it, but it really is an issue. There's some sort of gaps in amongst the approval where in certain areas you have to have the New South Wales Fire, not the RFS. But then if you're in an urban area that's not specified here, so like Glossodia or other sort of places, what do you do if you're on less than an acre?

You know, these things, and we know we've got people who aren't just burning vegetation. There's people burning their rubbish. And one of the things in this particular Act is that it shouldn't be, it should only be vegetation, and that people shouldn't be burning when they've got a waste disposal service available to them. So I just don't feel that we're giving the information enough to actually control our pile burning. And I understand it is a legislative, it's a regulatory thing that we have to do, but I just feel it needs to be strengthened. I don't know how to do that within the parameters because I don't have the information that the Rural Fire Service and the Fire New South Wales use .

But I just think it has a level of vagueness, and also it doesn't make it clear. We really want people only to be burning when that's their last resort, or if they're actually burning for a purpose. We have a community where burning is an activity for fun and recreation, and somehow we've got to get over that because it's both dangerous, it's bad for the environment, and it's very, very ongoing. I know people who burn weekly, and they're burning anything they can find. They're not burning what has fallen down off a limb off a tree. They're going around picking up things to burn because they love to burn. And I would imagine people that want to burn all winter until midnight want to burn and have fires just for the sake of it, not because they're actually carrying out some sort of safety precaution.

So I'm pleading for a tighter or accompanying something , and I don't know what it is because I'm open to ideas if anybody has any ideas. But I just think that this is quite vague, and I really don't know how it's policed. I don't know if it is policed. I don't know if anybody's ever been fined under it or not. And anyway , I'll see if anyone else has any suggestions on that. General

Manager, Acting General Manager, would like to comment on that.

Through you, Mr Mayor. So taking those points into account, the policy will stand in terms of what we can do. However, what Council can do is we can continue our liaison with the RFS and the New South Wales Fire Service to raise these concerns and through that see what education programs, you know, that they do that we can also support. We do do a lot of information on social media and, you know, those activities to let people know what they can and can't do. If we need to, I suppose essentially we can be more prescriptive around if you're in this suburb, you can do this, you can't do this, which then gives us information in relation to enforcement. From an enforcement point of view, we respond to complaints. So unless the complaints come in, we won't know where to act. So, but once we're notified, we do investigate those conditions, those complaints.

Further discussion?

None? Councillor Wheeler.

I'm just wondering if it's possible— I understand the purpose of this document, but it is very wordy. I wonder if it's possible for it to be accompanied by a very simple, clear statement of ‘you can only burn if,’ because I think that's the language that we need to move to, rather than ‘you may burn,’ ‘you can burn unless’ is what we've got here. I think we need to shift to a different frame which says, ‘you can only burn if this,’ and really set things up as a last resort rather than a—so maybe it becomes an accompanying document that goes out with this. I understand that this has legal implications and probably part of its wording is as a result of that, but I think in order to change the culture around burning, I think we need to change the language first.

Yes, we can do something like that and be part of a broader education program for the community. Yes, we can do that.

So could I perhaps, if the deputy mayor is willing, add that to the recommendation, that a plain language statement be prepared to accompany the notice of approval stating when the—running —not having any proper words—stating the conditions where

Burning is allowed.

Deputy Mayor, are

You happy to add

Something like that?

I'm happy to add that, and I think that the gist of what we want is probably there, but definitely in plain English. And also there is also a notice of motion that we had last at some point regarding that, so to tie in with whatever that was suggesting as well. I think that's really important that, as Councillor Wheeler has just mentioned, to shift the language to make people understand that burning isn't simply something you just go out and do. It's something you only do if you don't have another option.

Thank you. Any further discussion?

Deputy Mayor, would you like to exercise your right of reply? Sorry, Councillor Richards, just in time.

Thank you. I just had a question. If, sorry, Ms Preen said that the only way you go and have a look at something is if someone actually complains, so if you only get a complaint. If somebody complains and rings the fire brigade, which they usually do, instead of ringing the council, and the fire brigade turns up, is the enforcement then, or the fine, through the council and not the RFS? Or is there a doubling up of fines? I just want to understand that process.

I'm not sure if the RFS—or, I don't know their systems around fining. I'd have to take that on notice and find out. But we wouldn't be doubling up on fines. If the RFS are taking action, then they'll take action. And then whether we're notified of these actions is also something that I'd need to find out.

No further speakers. Deputy Mayor, do you wish to exercise your right of reply? No,

Thank you.

Okay. All those in favour, please stand.

In favour of the motion: Councillor Richards, Councillor Sam Progner, Councillor Kotlash, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, Councillor Calvert. Against the motion: Councillor Tree. Absent: Councillor Conolly and Councillor Rasmussen. Declare it carried.

Move now to item 181. Any takers for item 181?

Councillor Wheeler. I'll move the recommendation. Do we have a seconder for that?

Second, Mr Mayor

Deputy Mayor. Councillor Wheeler, you wish to speak?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I've probably got some questions, if possible. I just want to clarify some of the...

So it appears that we seem to be meeting several fit-for-the-future benchmarks now better than we were in the past. And so I'm wondering, for example, the operating performance ratio and the infrastructure backlog ratio , and we appear to be about 1.5% away from meeting the asset maintenance ratio. Are these benchmarks set by the state government? Is that correct?

Thank you, General Manager.

Yeah, that's correct. Thank you. Would we have met these without putting an SRV in place?

So I've done some analysis, and without the SRV, we wouldn't have met the OPR, which we have now met. And there's four further ratios that have improved as a result of the SRV as well.

Could you elaborate on those? Yeah

So the four other ones besides the OPR, the own source revenue, asset renewal ratio, the infrastructure backlog ratio, and the asset maintenance ratio were all improved as a result of the SRV.

Thank you. Could I ask what the implications are? So we haven't quite met the asset maintenance ratio. I assume we're on track for that. I'm wondering what the implications of us not meeting any or all of these benchmarks are, Mr Mayor.

So the state government stipulated a range of ratios that had to be met, and with the asset ratios that had to be improved from the 14-15 results. So obviously that has been the case. So at this stage, we've addressed the fit for the future criteria a year earlier than projected.

Got more questions? No

Thank you, Mr Mayor. That's very helpful. Thank you.

You don't wish to speak on the matter?

Only to say that I think that sounds like an excellent result. If we're a year ahead of schedule, then that's good. Hopefully the community is noticing that we are starting to clear some of the infrastructure backlog. I think we all still know that we have quite a lot of work to do, but it's been a pretty huge process to turn it around.

Any further speakers? Councillor Ross. Thank you, Mayor.

I won't be supporting this motion at all. I have a number of concerns. The first is the basis upon which I won't be supporting it, in that the treatment of grants , in particular the 3.9 million that Councillor claimed as resulting from the City's deal.

The council is not,

To my mind, following one

Of the absolute accounting conventions to which I had drummed into me since about 1962, and that is that an accountant is required to both

When accepting, if you like, reflecting revenue, must also reflect costs. The particular treatment afforded this 3.9 million is of an income grant

The grant isn't just a freebie; it has attached to it

Liability to the same degree. That's the double entry. What you get in the one hand is going to be expended on the other. However,

Due to apparently a vagary which is inconsistent with Australian accounting standards, local government can , up till the 30th of June,

Take the good. That is the income, and then discount the council's reserves and say, oh, well, there's no expenditure directly attached. It'll come out in the wash in a forthcoming period. However, what that does is that it unduly influences the OPR ratio and gives a false positive, if you like. In other words, there's $4 million or $3.9 million there of income that really has matching expense to be met. So therefore the OPR is, in effect, distorted, which is very bad from a long-term historical view of the performance of council. So I feel sufficiently strongly about that not to concur with the recommendation. I'm also very concerned at the situation regarding the 6.56% of debtors and so on being outstanding, which is 1.5% over and above the baseline, and no doubt it will be even further above some of the well-performing councils.

That has slipped substantially in the last year, most unsatisfactory, and despite the suggestion that this is all due to deferred payment arrangements, I think we'd need to see some evidence of that. I'm also very concerned about the other failing elements in regard to assets. The infrastructure backlog, which is now proclaimed to have been overcome, I think is suspect. I return staff attention to the Morrison Low report, which Council sought as a result of the fit for the future program, and it was reported to Council in November 2017, in that it stated quite clearly from their perspective that the asset situation could not be as good as has been shown if Council was fair dinkum about requiring a special rate variation.

I still think that the whole area of assets needs to be thoroughly reviewed and the basis upon which the asset management situation is evaluated, I believe, is not long-term sustainable.

Councillor Ross, your time is up. Are you nearly finished? Just about, sir. Thank you. Just about another 20 seconds or so. We could just about call it quits there, I think, sir. That suits me.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Mayor.

Any further speakers?

No. Councillor Wheeler, do you wish to exercise right of reply?

No thanks, Mr Mayor.

In that case, I will put the motion. All those in favour of item 181, please stand.

In favour of the motion, Councillor Garo, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Cotlass, Councillor Calvert. Against the motion, Councillor Ross, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards. Absent, Councillor Conolly and Councillor Rasmussen. Declare it carried.

Move to item 183.

Movers for 183.

Councillor Ross, you’re going to need—

I’m opening item 183 for discussion.

Okay, yes. Look, I wish to raise a point here. The conduct of this meeting was on August 29.

I’ll allude to the circumstances which caused my concern later in the course of another matter in the meeting, but I would just point out that—

Point of order,

Mr Mayor. Councillor Ross, we’re looking for someone to move something, and it’s been pointed out to me that item 183 in the paper doesn’t actually have a recommendation. We have a suggested one on the board.

Are you looking to move that

Or something else

Yes, I’d be happy to move that, yes, I’m not— Move

That. Do we have a seconder?

Councillor Wheeler. Thank you, Councillor Ross. Please continue.

I’m not averse to the recommendation. I would like to point out

That after discussions at the council meeting, to my recollection, of July 30, and subsequent correspondence,

It was agreed that committee minutes would be forwarded to the committee participants in draft. For their approval prior to tabling in Council for Council consideration. I would point out that the holding of this meeting was at the time that is stated here, but that process has apparently only has been overlooked in this instance. I just wish to draw that to everyone's attention.

The Acting General Manager would like to answer that.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. That was an agreement made for the Audit Committee. If it's a recommendation that we look at that for all committees, we would have to look at our processes internally, but we can do that.

Councillor Ross

Thank you, Mayor

It was not meant in that fashion when that submission was made at the open meeting of Council and in subsequent correspondence. This is just purely a matter of procedure and process, which is not and should not be foreign to this and every other committee which Council conducts. And I would have respectfully suggested that all committee chairpersons ought to have been contacted in the interim and advised that this amended process, which is more in keeping with good governance,

Is to be introduced. Apparently, Councillor Ross, this— This only applied to the audit committee, but if you wish—this is your motion—if you wish to add something to say that it should apply to all committees, you are welcome to do that now if you want.

Would that be in order? Because it would seem to me that maybe I would be obliged, under your guidance, to possibly direct my activity to a notice of motion at the next coming meeting of the council.

I'll ask the general manager.

Through you, Mr Mayor, we don't need a notice of motion. We can just change our processes so that draft minutes are presented to committee members before they come to council.

So that can happen if you want to add it to your motion.

Oh, I'd be very delighted if that could be accommodated by the seconder.

Councillor Wheeler, are you happy to make that change?

If it's possible under the current staffing requirements , yes.

Acting general manager, is it possible?

It just might mean that it might delay, depending on when the committee meeting is held and the timing of the council meeting, it might mean we miss the most immediate council meeting. It comes to the next meeting. That's all that will affect.

Okay, is Councillor Ross, you're still moving that, and Councillor Wheeler seconding it. Any further discussion? No.

Councillor Ross—Councillor Wheeler, you wish to speak.

Sorry, Mr Mayor. Page 124 refers to dog parks. This is something that came up in the Animal Shelter Working Group, the inclusion of dog parks and what dog parks actually look like and the expectations around dog parks.

Unfortunately, they aren't something that we do particularly well in the Hawkesbury. It's quite expensive to do dog parks well. They really do require more than a fence and some water and a double gate if you're lucky. They actually can turn into a disaster if they're not well designed and well planned, because as soon as you let dogs off the lead, they start to behave. They're no longer necessarily under the control of their owner, and they start to behave more like a pack animal than they do a pet. I've spoken to a number of animal behaviourists about our dog parks, one of whom is quite willing to give us some further advice and information towards designing them better. But one of the things that really is required is more informative signage and places where dogs who are stressed by the situation or stressed by the presence of another dog can retreat so that it's safe.

We don't afford that in any of our dog parks. So I'm a little bit concerned about the recommendation by this committee for us to be looking at double gate systems when really we need to be looking at a much broader issue around our use of off-leash parks, or places where people think it's fine to just put their dog in and let it get on with its various doggy business. We're going to end up with a problem if we are naive about how we implement this infrastructure.

Thank you. Any further speakers?

No. Councillor Ross, would you like to exercise your right of reply? No,

Thank you, Mayor.

Okay.

Yes, definitely. In that case, we'll put the motion. All those in favour of this motion, please stand.

In favour of the motion, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Sam Prodno, Councillor Kotlash, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, Councillor Calvert absent, Councillor Rasmussen and Councillor Conolly declare it carried.

Move now to item 185. Any takers for 185?

Audit Committee.

Nobody interested?

Page 163.

Councillor Sam Brogno is moving the recommendation. Do we have a seconder for that?

Councillor Wheeler, do you second it? Seconded by Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Sam Brogno, you wish to speak to it? Anyone wish to speak to it?

You still get a right— oh, Councillor Ross, sorry, you wish to speak to it.

Thank you. I won't be voting for this committee report for the following reasons.

The committee held its meeting and draft minutes were forwarded to the committee members some, I think, probably four or five days, working days later, which was an absolute first, for which I am appreciative. I

Made certain representations to the chairperson of the committee. Regarding the minutes, and those representations were accepted

In terms of points one to four, which is basically the whole of the submission I had made to the chairperson. I further had at the forefront, or at the commencement of that representation, a request that action items should become a standard component of all committee meeting minutes, so that there is a

Definition of whatever action is expected to be undertaken and by whom, and subsequent points are clearly indicated, and of course they are then drawn to notice . Now , in regard to the recommendations I made, which were, as I understand it, from the chairperson supported,

The minutes, however, did not appear to include the recommendations from the chairperson of the committee, and I find that quite unacceptable .

Staff apparently have decided to adjust the minutes at

Shall I say, at variance to the thoughts of the chairperson of the committee, and I find that particularly unattractive . And I am therefore unwilling to vote because I consider that the minutes that have been produced not representative of the matters which I attempted to address and with which I was also supported by the chair.

Thank you. Acting General Manager, do you wish to comment?

Through you, Mr Mayor. So my understanding of what occurred, and I stand to be corrected if Laurie's got further information, Mr Mayor has got further information, it was agreed in order to make this council meeting that the contact was made with the chairperson, that the draft minutes were sent out to committee members with a fairly short time frame in which to provide feedback, and that the chair would make the final call on any comments or changes that were to be made. Council staff received those comments, made those changes based on the feedback, and that's what we provided in the report.

Any further discussion?

Follow-on question, Councillor Ross.

The question might be — The minutes

Do not appear to have a great

Similarity to the representations of the Chairperson. Am I correct in believing that?

I'm not aware that you're correct in that assumption.

Councillor Ross, I think you need to be cautious about how you proceed with your accusations. If there has been a mistake made, then we can have a look at that. But I don't think you should pursue the idea that there's been deliberate changes made. I don't think that is very fruitful at this stage. If you'd like to discuss this after the meeting, we can go through the various minutes and see what the problem is. Okay

Councillor Wheeler Can I just clarify, Mr Mayor, that have these minutes been presented to members of the Audit Committee and have they approved them?

Yes, the draft minutes were distributed, feedback was obtained, and minutes were amended based on the feedback provided. Thank you.

Any further discussion?

This was moved by Councillor Zamprogno. Do you have any need for a right of reply? In that case, I will put this motion. If you're in favour of the motion, please stand. In favour of this motion: Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Cutler, Councillor Lyons-Bucketts, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Calvert. Against is Councillor Ross. Absent: Councillor Rasmusson and Councillor Conolly. Declare it carried.

We now have councillor questions with notice, which is item 186. Deputy Mayor, I think that was your question.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I submitted this question partly because of what a speaker had said last time they were here, but also because we have heard this over the last few years, in the last council term as well, I believe, in regarding people who, applicants who say they were invited by council to come in and have their land divided up. And I just wanted to have a record of the correspondence that had been sent to them from the council to establish what form this invitation had actually been in, because I had heard some councillors base what they're doing on the fact of saying that council invited these people to come in, and I've never seen where this invitation was. I'm aware that this survey was put out and I had also asked for that, which does invite people to participate in a survey, but it went out in December 2015, and some of the applicants who came to discuss it, right there, a little bit of eye contact across the room.

Sorry, I'm allowed to make eye contact across the room.

I

Think the problem is that we're discussing questions on questions, and if you would like to continue, please continue.

That's right. I'm explaining why I asked the question, because I

Haven't got the answer.

Well, I haven't got the answer. So I just want to confirm, a question on questions, if this is the only correspondence that has been sent to landowners from this council since 2011. Regarding that, in a general form.

Acting General Manager.

From my understanding, this was the correspondence that people are alluding to in terms of when they say Council requested them to come to them around this area. I'm not aware of any other documentation that's gone out inviting comments on the Cumberland Corridor area. Okay,

Thank you. And that was what I was alluding to, was that the applicants who were speaking had lodged their application in 2013 and this went out in 2015. So I was just trying to establish where this anomaly came from and who had invited them to divide their land up. That's all. I shall pursue it anyway. Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm just wondering if the results of that survey are published somewhere, or if councillors could be given those results.

I'll dig them out from wherever they are in archives.

Any further discussion? Could I have a question, Mr Mayor?

Thank you. I'd like to just inquire as to the probity of this sort of matter going out to the public without there having been a resolution of Council to

Result in the promulgation of this action.

There was?

I believe there was, but unless you have other information—

No, I don't. No, this is a genuine question. It's not a Dorothy Dixer or anything like that.

Acting General Manager,

Whatever her name is.

I'm not aware of the history, but— sorry, I'm not aware of the history that led up to this consultation process. I can only assume that there was a resolution, but I would have to look into what led into the survey.

That might be helpful to have that clarified, if possible, please. Yes, we'll

Get it. Acting gentleman is going to clarify that. Any other discussion? If not, we'll move on.

That ends the public part of the meeting. We now go into confidential. Would someone like to move we move into confidential? Councillor Sam Brogno, Councillor Kotlash. All those in favour say aye. Carried.

That ends the public part of the meeting. We now go into confidential. Would someone like to move we move into confidential? Councillor Sam Brogno, Councillor Kotlash, all those in favour say aye. Declare it carried.

I will ask Mr. Mifsud to report on the outcome of the confidential section of the meeting, please.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. In regard to item 1.8.7, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Coslash, seconded by Councillor Lyons-Buckett, that Hawkesbury City Council, the Council, resolves: 1. Pursuant to section 796(2), (3) and 5A of the Local Government Act 1993, New South Wales, the Act, that an election arrangement be entered into by contract for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all elections of the Council. 2. Pursuant to section 296(2), (3) and 5A of the Act, as applied and modified by section 18, that a council poll arrangement be entered into by contract for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all council polls of the Council. 3. Pursuant to section 796(2), (3) and 5A of the Act, as applied and modified by section 18, that a constitutional referendum arrangement be entered into by contract for the Electoral Commissioner to administer all constitutional referenda of the Council.

Voting in favour of the recommendation were Councillors Ross, Garrow, Reynolds, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Kotlash, Zembrogno, Tree, Richards and Calvert. Councillors Rasmussen and Conolly not present.

Thank you, Mr. Mifsud. Being no further business, I will close the meeting at 8 p.m.