29 October 2019 - Ordinary

Ordinary meeting of Council for the 29th of October 2019. I'd like to firstly acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land, the Darug people, and pay respect to Elders both past and present. I believe we have a leave of absence request from Councillor Rasmussen. Do we have any other apologies?

Is Councillor Ross an apology?

Mr Mayor, he has just sent a message saying he's absent due to ill health.

Okay. Apologies from Councillor Ross. Would someone like to move those two apologies? Councillor Sam Brogner, Councillor Kotlash. All those in favour say aye.

Clear, carried. Do we have any declarations of interest? Councillor Reynolds.

Yes, Mr Mayor. Item 189 and item 203, less than significant, non-pecuniary.

So you're staying in for both of those? Yes, please, Mayor. 189 and 203.

203.

Right.

Trade both ways.

No other declarations of interest? You're welcome. Confirmation of— sorry, we need to go to the

General Manager to go through a few 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 wardens. I would also like to 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 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, that they either turn it off or turn it to silent.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Confirmation of minutes. Would someone like to move we accept the minutes from last time? No one wants to move that. Councillor Wheeler, seconded Deputy Mayor. All those in favour say aye. Declare it carried.

We move on to items subject to public address. The first item is item 203, the Mayoral Minute. We have three speakers. First speaker is Kate Mackeness. Is Kate here? Thanks, Kate.

Good evening, everyone. I have to start by saying tonight's everyone's lucky night because my computer crashed about 15 minutes ago, so I'm doing this from memory, and it will therefore be much briefer than it was originally intended. So what I wanted to speak about was to support the Mayoral Minute, and for a couple of reasons. There are many reasons that it should be supported, but in the time available I want to address two. One is a matter of area, and the other is a matter of timing. There are big questions around this project, and there always have been. A small question relates to the 500 square metres that was designated as increased area by the RMS. Despite starting in 2012, we've never been able to actually work out where the 500 square metres was.

So when the RMS are currently saying that the increase of 9% will be reduced to an increase of 4%, we're not sure where that's going to happen either. So I guess in terms of timing, the first point about timing is that more time is required to get to the bottom of some of the matters that have never been clarified in this project, matters that take on new importance in light of the changes being proposed by the RMS. On that note, I'd reinforce the fact that this is a change to the conditions of consent. That is a very important issue, and the fact that the designated consultation time has been a matter of some 16 days is unacceptable for a change as major as one requiring a shift in the conditions of consent.

The other point I'd like to make very briefly is that it's also a matter of timing, and that is that when the RMS went to the Upper House inquiry, and when they prepared the business case for this project, they did so on the basis of the pre-2017 data, and yet they already had a proposed plan for the changes that we're currently discussing, the slip lane on Bridge Street. So the RMS has had a couple of years to work on this, and we're given effectively two weeks to work on it for something that has already proved highly contentious and should be subjected to serious scrutiny. So can I just say that I support in the strongest possible terms the Mayoral Minute and seek the support of all councillors in the chamber.

Thank you.

You happy to answer any questions? Yes, I am. Are there any questions?

Councilor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just confirming, if I'm at liberty to ask the speaker, what time she registered to speak today?

It was late this afternoon. Why?

Before 3 p.m.?

As far as I know, it was done before 3 p.m.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Thank you, Ms. Mayor. Thank you. Before we move on, Councillor Reynolds, you were declaring an interest in this. Would you like to

Tell us what it is? Thank you, Mr Mayor. Let me find the right one. Declare a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in that the item— basically, Mr Mayor, you can only lose your virginity once. The impact of what we're discussing is insignificant. Thank you.

Second speaker is Sarah McRae.

Sarah McRae.

Thank you, Mr Mayor and councillors. I'll start by saying I support the Mayor in calling for an extended consultation period for the proposed modification of the Windsor Bridge replacement project. I've always understood just exactly what was at stake when the government decided to bulldoze an arterial road through the Thompson Square Conservation Area. Yet it was only on a trip to Tasmania for the magnitude of what has been destroyed to actually break my heart. Visiting the World Heritage-listed Cascades Female Factory, I viewed gabions that were placed to represent the locations of lost walls. I watched reenactments of the life in prison, and I peered down onto archaeological remnants. And then, sadly to say, I sat down and I sobbed.

And I didn't sob for the conditions of the women that faced these horrible conditions in that prison, or the hardships of their lives. I sobbed because of what was happening in Windsor. For I knew, as precious and important as the Female Factory was to the nation, the significance of what is being ripped out in Thompson Square and what has been ripped out was even more important. And yet we've lost it. And we've lost it for a very bad project. And whilst the term on balance has often been used in this project to justify its destructive outcomes, there is very little that balances when you compare what we have lost to what we are gaining. So what have we learned from this latest stunt by the RMS?

We've learned that essentially the government is spending $137 million on a bridge that is not fit for purpose. Over 10 years of planning has resulted in a replacement bridge the government now tells us will, in just a few years, have intersections that are gridlocked and unsafe. How poor is their planning that they could get it so wrong? How is it that so many qualified professionals repeatedly expressed their concerns and objections to this project, only to be ignored, but who have now sadly been proved correct? Even in this chamber, the expert word of the late and wonderful Professor Ian Jack was dismissed in favour of the meaningless words in an RMS brochure. So now we face another loss of heritage parkland, which forms part of the Thompson Square Conservation Area.

Once again, we are faced with a lack of proper consultation, incomplete information, and most sadly, more RMS deception. Now is the time to take stock and do this properly. Now is not the time to rush through with little regard for heritage, the community, or proper planning for the Hawkesbury. We know the replacement bridge has been built in the wrong spot. We know we have faced incalculable heritage loss. And we know we face continued traffic congestion, because the RMS document tells us that. Poet Maya Angelou said, Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, you do better. So it is time to do better. I thank the Mayor for calling for this additional consultation time, and I urge all councillors to support this mayoral minute.

Thank you.

You happy to answer any questions? Yeah, absolutely. Would there be any questions? No. Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Harry Terry.

Mr Mayor. Councillors, councilors, council staff, gallery. When I was building wooden decks and walkways at home, and there were aspects that were not simple, Margaret would ask me what I had planned to do to meet those challenges. My reply was, I don't know. I'll work it out when I get there. Tonight, I will present a hypothesis for your consideration. Although one would assume a traffic survey is a relatively simple mathematical function, traffic modelling can be structured to meet the needs of the client. Following are some examples of the traffic model used in the project to support my hypothesis. In 2008, when the RTA was seeking public support for a replacement bridge, it stated traffic volumes across Windsor Bridge already exceeded the threshold requiring four lanes across the river.

In 2011, when the RTA was preparing the case for approval to proceed to the EIS stage, its traffic modelling was for A , traffic lights at Freeman's Reach-Wilberforce Road intersection; three, no right-hand turns at Thompson Square; and A, a stage two where there would be lights at Thompson Square and remodelling of Fitzroy Bridge for three lanes. In 2012, the RMS said the traffic performance of the preferred option is largely related to the Macquarie Street-Bridge Street intersection. It acknowledges that modelling shows this key intersection could not accommodate the predicted future traffic volumes. You notice the changes over time. In the 2012 EIS, it said its new plan was for a four-arm roundabout at Wilberforce-Freeman's Reach Road, replacing the traffic lights, a no right-hand turn off the bridge to George Street West, to be prohibited during peak hour traffic periods should traffic conditions warrant such a change.

To ban the right-hand turn off Bridge Street into George Street east, access would be via Court Street with a right-hand turn lane for northbound vehicles. In the future, when traffic levels increase to a point when additional capacity is required, the bridge would be reline-marked to provide two lanes southbound and one lane northbound. This was estimated in 2012 to be needed no earlier than 2026. In its 2013 submissions report, the RMS said it has recognised the project is not a long-term solution to traffic congestion in Windsor, and an alternative route around Windsor may be considered in the future, depending on growth in traffic numbers and local congestion. In 2016 December, it was announced the traffic issue would be busted by having three lanes from the opening of the bridge.

I wonder why they need to have any more changes. It was busted in 2016. Maybe they changed the definition of the word busted. In a written reply by the RMS to the question from the Upper House inquiry, and the question was how will the traffic from Macquarie Street wishing to travel north be affected by this project, the RMS stated in writing the updated traffic study of 2017 showed traffic out of Macquarie Street western approach travelling north to Bridge Street is unlikely to be adversely affected, impacted by this project. Unlikely to be adversely impacted. The proposed changes will only minimise the traffic issues, not solve it. As the major issues are the Macquarie Street lights and the George Street lights being so close together.

If the traffic remains a problem, what can the RMS bridge— sorry, what can the Windsor Bridge Replacement Project team come up with? What can they come up with next? I'm confused. I assume you are confused. It appears the truth is not an ethical obligation for the Windsor Bridge Replacement Project team. Is this latest move an act of desperation? The project team has lost my trust. The mayoral minute hasn't. Thank you. Thank

You, Mr. Terry. Any questions?

Delighted to answer any.

Would you like to answer some? Yes. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Terry, was all of this information clearly stated during the upper house inquiry? All of the information that you've discussed, the changes to traffic modelling and the spin around it?

Yes, I pause slightly because under the estimates at the moment in Parliament, that's the question that's being asked of the RMS. Was this 2017 traffic survey, which was started in March 2017— I'm sorry, we watched it. It was a very, very well-constructed traffic survey. The question they're asking is, was that information brought to the inquiry, the upper house inquiry? We haven't got an answer yet. The intriguing bit about that is the RMS is also claiming they did a second survey in 2019, and yet in their own document, they admitted that that was simply asked the company to check their figures. And we have no evidence of a report, a traffic survey being carried out in 2019.

Any further questions? No. Thank you, Mr Terry. That's the last of our speakers on this matter. I would like to commend the mayoral minute to you.

This mayoral minute arose because the RMS spoke to Council last week at a briefing session. It was only brought to our attention because someone on the staff noticed it somewhere and invited them to come along. Otherwise, we probably would not have been informed of the modification request. Only to read it in the Gazette this week would be the only way we'd know about it. So it was more of a coincidence rather than anything planned that Council was involved in the process. Now, the call for submissions only lasts for another week or so, November the 9th, I think, and this is the only Council meeting in that time. So I thought it would be pertinent to bring the matter up here tonight so the public could make their opinions felt and that we could actually inform the RMS with a bit more meaningful information on how the community feels about what they're doing.

The recommendation, sorry, has come about because when they've requested to have this modification, what came out of that was it highlighted that traffic congestion is still going to be a major problem in that area even when the bridge is finished. Some of us have been saying this for 15 years or so, that the bridge is not going to solve the traffic problem, and it appears the RMS may be agreeing with us on that matter. So the traffic congestion was highlighted, and my recommendation here is actually more about the traffic than it is about the bridge. And it has four main sections to it. The first thing I want to point out is on the first point on page seven, at the bottom of page seven. What I'm asking people to do is for us to work together to develop long-term traffic solutions for that section of road.

The bridge builders did not attempt to do that. Their brief was to go only to Macquarie Street, I believe, not any further. Whereas a lot of the traffic congestion there starts further back at Court Street and beyond. I would like us to address that whole issue of traffic in that whole area. I would like us to get together and work out some traffic solutions for the long term. Out of this modification request, it is obvious that we have a traffic problem, and I think we need to solve it. Some councillors may be very interested in talking about Thompson Square and the bridge, and I think what's happened at Thompson Square is a tragedy. I agree with you. But what this is really about here is about moving forward, addressing the obvious traffic issue, and working out how we as a council may address it together.

And hopefully we'll be able to pursue some innovative ideas on how that might work. And some of the innovative ideas are already reflected in the first part of the motion on page six. They are just some ideas that are being tossed around. I'd like to hear anybody else's ideas. I'd like us to work with the RMS to see what we can come up with. The second part of the recommendation is that we need more time to digest what they're putting forward. I think it's a bit rich to come to us accidentally and then tell us, Oh, by the way, it's going to be closed in a week or so. That's not taking the community seriously. It's not taking council seriously. We need an extended time to be able to answer their questions and to be able to say what we think about their proposal.

The third thing I'm asking for is more data. We need more comprehensive data which takes in the whole intersection, including Court Street and beyond. And with that data, we can then address some of the long-term traffic solutions. And fourthly, I'm asking that we talk to Robyn Preston, the local member, and work with her to try and find these solutions. I'm sure she'd be interested in doing that. I'm meeting with her next week. I'd like to be able to go to her next week with some kind of message from council about how we would like to proceed, and we have unity on this matter that we would like to proceed to address long-term traffic solutions. We've already seen in North Richmond that there was some work done there with realignment of the lanes and a bit of widening and making adjustments, and those adjustments have had a big impact on traffic flows in North Richmond.

Perhaps a similar thing can be done here in Windsor, and perhaps we can seek Commonwealth money to make it happen, just as Commonwealth money was used at North Richmond. The other things I'm hoping to get out of this mayoral minute, I'm not here to try and take a whip to the state government or to anybody else. I'm here for us to work together as one, one unified council, to focus on the traffic solutions, work with the RMS and work with the state government and the state local member to see how we can address that. That's the aim of my mayoral minute, and I hope you see it in that way, and I hope you support it. Are there any other speakers?

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just had a couple of questions. I do support, of course, the mayoral minute, although I did have an amended wording, because I don't think that, given what you've just said, I don't think it is anywhere near strong enough for the position that we have been put in as a council. The fact that you've just disclosed that it was accidental that we were notified about it means that they haven't, you know, they haven't even considered telling us or the community about this in the first place, and that is very, very concerning. So I think that it needs stronger action than simply writing to relevant state government agencies, because quite frankly, I don't think that that will do us a whole lot of good.

Even though in sentiment, I do agree with the content of what you would be writing about, but I think we need—and if I did send through the amended wording, it was received. It was just more, and I just heard you say you would be seeing the local member next week. So I think that we need to urgently contact in person both the RMS and the relevant state agencies and the local member to seek a suspension of this assessment application until such time as the additional information, which is listed there in point 2C, until that information has been provided, because it's very, very concerning that that simply is not available. Also, the request for an extension of the submission period, which in fact Mr Standen in the briefing said he would grant us if we contacted him.

So he's already stated verbally that he would allow us to have an extended period of time. And I think that we need to allow our community to have an opinion on this before we put our submission in. Obviously, we need, as we have in the past, wanted to and need to express our concern about this very narrow time frame. This is a denial of procedural fairness to not allow us to have the time to consult the community on issues of such importance, because we really have to be representatives in the best way possible. We can't simply be forced into a corner over and over and over again by being given a week to put in a submission about important matters. So I think that I would prefer to see us take a much firmer, stronger stance, and for you to personally represent in person.

these people so that, you know, we can really get some action on this. I think by the time we write and do all of these things, the period of time will be over and we'll have missed the boat yet again. And so I think we need to, we definitely do need to ramp it up. So I've suggested some wording. I'm happy for you to incorporate that or I will move it as an amendment because I just think it's time that Hawkesbury City Council stopped being treated as second rate by the state government and not being given ample opportunity to exercise our democratic right to have an opinion on things.

Thank you. The question is, do I accept the wording, I suppose.

I accept what you're trying to do, but I don't see that there's much difference between what you've put and what I put. We always were planning to go out to community, have community consultation, as it says towards the bottom of page seven. Once Council and the community have access to this information, they will be in a position to make a more meaningful contribution. The idea was to extend the time. I didn't say, I don't think I said in there exactly what time. We were looking for an extension that allowed us to engage with the community.

I'm just suggesting, Mr Mayor, that that would be better done by actually not just writing to state agencies, by making a very firm stance. If it takes a delegation of all of us that believe in it to go with you and to say that we feel that it's our democratic right to be involved in these decisions, it's just becoming beyond a joke that they are leaving us out and giving us one week for submissions on things.

Yes, I do agree with that. I actually said all that, and I'm going to see the state member next week, and I said that I would like to take with me a statement from Council of support of this position. So, in a matter of thinking, I was actually taking you all there in terms of your support. So, I'm not against the wording that you've put up there. If you think it is stronger, then I'm happy to think about it. What I might do is ask other speakers to speak and ask them to also not only comment on the mayoral minute, but on the proposal to change to what you've put, if that's all right.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. That is most accommodating of you. I just have one other question that might clarify something before, because I couldn't quite get the relevance of the intergovernmental agreement to this situation. I read it and I couldn't see how it applied at all to the current situation. And perhaps people aren't aware of it. It was only signed at the local government conference. Perhaps the gallery might enjoy an update of what that is.

Yes, and I might ask the general manager if he would like to do that.

Mr Mayor, the intergovernmental agreement, as the deputy mayor said, has only recently been signed. It does talk about councils and government working more closely together. It talks specifically about interacting and communicating with each other, and that's something that hasn't happened to date in relation to this particular matter. And we think that that's a vehicle to use to try and open this issue up for greater teamwork and a more joined-up approach to the solution.

Thank you. If I could just have a follow-on question, and I agree with the sentiment of that entirely. I would just wonder what the action in that respect would be, because to me the agreement seems that it would involve having some form of advocacy or involvement of Local Government New South Wales. Just from reading it, I don't know how we would implement anything because it's an agreement between the Local Government Association and various members of Parliament, the state leaders.

I think it refers to Local Government New South Wales and local government more generally. And again, what we're particularly, I suppose, keen to do is often these documents are signed at a very high level, but they haven't actually worked their way down to other parts of the organisation. And we're just wanting to make people aware that this document exists and what some of the objectives of that document are.

Thank you. Thank you. I would perhaps then ask the Mayor, would he like to include some sort of directive that we commence looking at how we could implement this? Because my fear with things like this, as the General Manager just sort of alluded to, is that they're a signed document and then they never are actually of any benefit or in fact implemented. They can become tokenistic quite quickly.

So it is mentioned in 2B. Is that not enough?

Yes, but I just don't see how that really has any possible tangible outcome, that's all, but anyway, it doesn't hurt to ask. How

Would you like to change that? Well

It was more if we as a council could have some understanding, I guess, of how such a document could be applied to the things we're involved in, because my reading of it was more that it was to do with specific partnerships where council is working with the government on something, which is understandable when we are. But in this case, I don't think we are. We are actually not working with the government. That's the problem. We don't have a partnership because we're not really, or maybe we do.

So you're looking actually to add a point four, which is that—

Or if you're keeping your mayoral minute with the, and including the other wording, it would be an alteration to your point two B.

But you're saying that it's not necessarily related to this topic.

Well, I can't see how. In general,

You want council to—

Yeah. Oh, we can leave that for another time. I'm happy to just leave that separately. I just really don't see it as being of any benefit in this instance.

Well, okay, but it's better in than out. Okay. No problem with that. All right. Thank you, Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I was just wanting to know— so I guess I'll start with the question. When we were briefed last week by the RMS, my understanding was that they didn't have to consult us at all about this change.

Is that a question? Yeah.

General manager.

It was just, I think that was how it was put, and they were sort of almost giving us two weeks as a bit of a favour. Is that correct?

Mr Mayor, the state government is under no statutory obligation to speak to us before they lodge a modification such as the one that's under consideration. However, it's not unusual for state government agencies to speak with Council and talk about modifications or other changes and explore what some of the consequences might be and how they might be mitigated. So, in this instance, it was determined not to consult with us.

Councillor Kotlash, you had any more?

Yeah. Yes, thank you. Thanks for that clarification. I guess I'm supportive of the Deputy Mayor's idea to make first point about urgently contacting the RMS. But I'd like to see to have that contact with the RMS also in the presence of the local member, just so we can start to sort of, you know, develop those relationships , possibly a little late in the game, but anyway. Just because time is really critical on this one, and I think that the local member for Hawkesbury, Robyn Preston, might have a better

Understanding and appreciation of the level of community feelings on this project. So if we can change it just a little bit and say, there you go, and have that as one meeting , that would satisfy me. At this stage, I'm fully in support of the rest of the Mayoral Minute, and I commend you, Mr Mayor, for bringing it to us. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I've just had another quick look through the— The, whatever this is called, intergovernmental agreement. And it appears that we're being encouraged to form strategic partnerships, which I think the first point of the Deputy Mayor's version, I'm not quite sure if it's an amendment at this point, says, puts

That idea in context, I think. And the idea, and I also favour Councillor Kotlash's idea of getting both the RMS and the local member in the same room at the same time. The strategic partnerships part of this document refers to, under 3.1, both the New South Wales State Infrastructure Strategy and community strategic plans. And our strategic plan clearly states that we are to provide representative, responsible and accountable governance, and encourage an informed community and enable meaningful engagement. The RMS's approach actively prevents us from doing that. Further, there are principles at 4.1, Principle B, that says consultation and communication will be open on the basis of mutual trust and respect.

There is no mutual trust and respect between the RMS and Hawkesbury City Council on this project. Nothing could be closer to the reverse of mutual trust and respect. And F, working together in strategic partnerships, other stakeholders will be meaningfully engaged. Now, don't think being dragged in because someone let something slip two weeks before the close of consultation constitutes meaningful engagement with a major stakeholder. What we have to keep in mind here, and what unfortunately neither versions of this Mayoral Minute state, is that the public represented by this council is losing 160 square metres, perhaps more, because I haven't quite worked it out yet, of public space that this council will manage.

Now, I don't know if they thought we'd be delighted at the reduction in lawn mowing costs, but this is, it's listed in here as high public amenity space about to be cut. This project just goes from bad to worse. It's farcical. The actions of the RMS are disgraceful here. They were repeatedly told that their traffic modelling was poor. As they confirmed in the briefing, the extra lane is for vehicle storage in a vain attempt to compensate for an intersection that will be beyond capacity on the day it's opened. This is such a disgraceful waste of public money. Supporters of this, members of the Liberal Party who've supported this, should hang their heads in shame at this wanton destruction of heritage for no improvement in traffic flow, despite the lies told to this community for a decade.

The Upper House inquiry repeatedly questioned traffic claims, and that was stated again in Senate estimates by the honourable Peter Primrose, who asked the Secretary of Transport for New South Wales whether this information was made public, and frankly, he was fobbed off for the better part of the meeting. Mr Staples said that this had obviously been a pretty substantial oversight. Well, there's the understatement of the year. I mean, come on. So they didn't quite know what to do, it seems, and they've put it back out to the community to see whether it's possible, because it would allow the throughput of traffic much better over the next five to 10 years. Their design was done in 2008, 2009, and this is a statement from Transport for New South Wales.

It's been many years since the original designs were put through. Maybe you should have had a look at it before you destroyed Thompson Square, perhaps. At the absolute maximum, it's a slip of land, 10 metres long approximately. Well, no. An hour or so later, they came back and said that that was incorrect. In fact, that actually, this is the Secretary of Transport for New South Wales, doesn't know what his own department is up to with respect to Australia's oldest square and has to come back in budget estimates yesterday and say that, oh, sorry, it's actually 160 metres. But still, only a slip, only a little bit. We're still giving back more park than you had before. Well, no, actually you're not.

You're giving us back land that's on a one in four gradient. The high public amenity usable space is being carved up to store cars. What a tragedy for Windsor. What a disaster this government is perpetuating on us.

So limited was the scope of their studies for this new plan that no modelling has been done on the effects of Fitzroy Bridge, one lane, the left turn from Macquarie Street into Bridge Street, one lane, or the impact of the no left turn into Court Street. As the Mayor said, we need to address the traffic across the whole area, not at two intersections in a cheap last-minute fix. I'm not sure that we have the answers to this, but I think what we need to have in whichever version of this Mayoral Minute we pick is a really strong statement from Council that we are deeply dismayed at the loss of public space for really no improvement.

Thank you. If I could just add one comment there. In the Mayoral Minute 2. 2C, triple I, second dot point, and also up here, that second dot point from the bottom, we both the Deputy Mayor and myself are making mention of Thompson Square and looking for a cost-benefit analysis of the options. I never intended to ignore Thompson Square, but if you want to address that point there, we could—

I'm not implying that you were ignoring Thompson Square, Mr Mayor. What I would like to see is a statement about Council's position on Thompson Square, which you've made clear many times previously, that Council doesn't support this project nor its impact on Thompson Square.

Well, if you'd like to write something, we'll see what we can do. Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think before I start, it's quite obvious to those in the room who does and doesn't support the Windsor Bridge replacement project. But I certainly won't be taking Councillor Wheeler's advice to hang my head in shame for supporting the project in its entirety. Well, I won't. Thank you very much. So now that we all know where the councillors sit, there's not going to be any grand surprises tonight in that aspect. My issue tonight is with the mayoral minute and the timing of the mayoral minute and the timing of the speakers. Now, this mayoral minute was received at 3.23 p.m. So councillors received this mayoral minute at that time. The community, I think it went online a little bit before that.

I have had prior discussions with the general manager to ask these questions, and I did take the liberty to find out what time the speakers were registered to speak on this item. I don't know if I can say the exact time, but that has been notified to me. But that is before 3.23 p.m. So let's put this into a little bit of perspective so that people can see if we had a Liberal mayor who had Liberal friends register on an item before the item actually was made available to the public and to the other councillors, there would be absolute left-wing outrage at that. So you know what? I'm calling this one for what it is. This is a farce. When you try and run an agenda where you want to include the community, as you say, for the journey through this council, but only those who agree with your opinions are alerted to the mayoral minute and its topic prior to it being made public, then we have a real big problem with transparency when it comes to how this council operates.

This is nothing more than a delay tactic, and nothing more than to allow speakers who support the mayoral minute the ability to come into this chamber and speak. Those who may have wanted to come into this chamber and not support the mayoral minute really had no time to do that. When the mayoral minute was at 3.23, speakers are locked out at 3 p.m., and those registered to speak today did so before 3 p.m. even took place. Eliminating this transparency and inclusivity for the entire community is a massive problem for this council. In fact, I think we need to be demanding an inquiry into this repeated mayoral minutes that keep coming up around 3 or 4 p.m. on the date of the meeting. Quite frankly, there's enough time to write a mayoral minute.

We had this briefing last Tuesday night. This is probably the third or fourth or fifth, if I can recall, mayoral minute that has come up a matter of a couple of hours before a council meeting. Now there are members of this council who work full time and won't have the ability to digest that information, let alone maybe go out to their members of the community that support their point of view and actually get someone to register to speak. So this is entirely poor practice and poor form. And quite frankly, we've had this issue debated around this chamber and in the last term of council, and most notably at a state election that was held in March, where the state candidate, Labor candidate, made this the number one issue that he ran on.

And let's have a look how the community, when you want to talk about it that way, responded. The impact made to the Liberal hold on this state seat, when this is a state project, was 0.3 percent. Labor could not even get a 1% impact on the hold on this seat, with the Windsor Bridge replacement project being the number one issue that was run at that state election. And if you look at the Labor candidate's primary vote, minus 3.39% on a primary vote. That's 3.39% less votes than the previous Labor state candidate, which was our very own Mayor putting up this mayoral minute. So if you want to go to the community, the best place to do that is when you go to the election. And when you had that project running as the number one issue at that election, I think the Hawkesbury community spoke loudly and they spoke clearly.

So quite frankly, the project is proceeding, it's going ahead, and let's let the good people of New South Wales and Australia get on with the job of governing.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Richards. Any further speakers?

Mr Mayor, could I just draw, because the whole amended section isn't there, I think maybe Councillor Richards hadn't seen my point two, which was for that purpose that I was quite aware that members of the public, I didn't know any members of the public knew that this was on, and so that was why I was wishing for it to be returned at the next council meeting, so that members of the public could address council on this matter.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Councillor Conolly. Look, thanks,

Mr Mayor. Just to be really brief and somewhat echo Councillor Richards, I think it's worth mentioning that we have had several mayoral minutes come up at the very last minute, and there doesn't seem to be any legitimate reason for this one to have come up at the very last minute, considering we all had this information on Tuesday night. It isn't proper that members of the public are able to register to speak on something that councils aren't even aware of yet. And it's not a good look when you're going to the RMS saying you have to give us a reasonable amount of time to comment, that we didn't put it out to the community until the day of the meeting at 3.30 in the afternoon, when we had this information for most of the week at least, longer than that.

If we'd organised for the RMS to be here on Tuesday, we obviously knew some time before that as well. So whilst I don't necessarily have a big problem in asking the RMS for more time, I think it's important that we also practice what we preach. And if we want them to be transparent and open and fair with us, we've got to do that with our own community as well.

Thank you, Councillor Conolly. Any further speakers?

No.

Going for the last time. Can I ask people, I won't be happy to accept Deputy Mayor's version of the mayoral minute. Is anyone against that?

Nope.

So the Deputy Mayor's version will now be the one that we're going to vote on, unless there's any further discussion on that.

No?

Questions? Did Councillor Kotlash's amendment to have a joint meeting with the RMS present with the local member, was that included? It

Should have been. Could we make sure it is? Yes,

I can't see it.

Nope. Just going to ignore it. So are we changing that?

Everyone's happy. Most people are happy. Okay. I'll have my right of reply then, if that's okay. This mayoral minute came about because we accidentally found out last week about this proposal. I was on the assumption that there might be a couple of meetings during the time of the submission. It was only about lunchtime yesterday that I suddenly realised, no, there's only the one meeting, and we need to get it out there tonight if we can. The general manager and I spent a good time today trying to write this and get it filled in with all the background information that he has so kindly provided. Even so, at the end of that, we really hadn't had time to polish it up as well as we liked, and that's why I'm happy to accept Deputy Mayor's changes because it still was an early draft, and I think she's improved what I had up there, so that's good.

Some councillors are saying that this wasn't done properly. It was done quickly. Some are also implying that there was a conspiracy, and I can say there was no conspiracy. I just wanted to get it up there as quickly as I could because we had this one meeting, and as the Deputy Mayor said, we now wanted to get involved with public consultation in a big way. I think it would be remiss of councillors to vote against this because they think there was a conspiracy. The matter of the traffic is still there, and the matter of us going to see Robyn Preston next week is still there and still alive. It would be great if I could go to see her and tell her that all the councillors agreed that traffic is a big issue and we would like to work with her to address it.

So no matter what you think of the process by which we got here, I would urge councillors to vote in favour of this mayoral minute anyway. I deliberately did not write it in a way that was critical of the state government. I deliberately tried to write it in a positive way that leads us towards more traffic solutions, and hopefully everyone is on board with that. If people saw this as a conspiracy, I think they're drawing a very long bow. Once again, I'm looking for unity on council's part. Perhaps I live in a fantasy world where we can all agree on something and all move forward. But I'm going to keep working on that, and that's still my position, and hopefully that's what will happen. So I'm going to move this Mayoral Minute now, and if you want to vote in favour of it, please stand.

Thanks, Chair and Councillors. The NRDC says the staff recommendation is too weak. It must be strengthened if the traffic study is a document that is to be taken seriously. Councillors, if all the facts and figures in the traffic study are correct, then a third point should be added to the recommendation. Something like, no rezoning of land will be considered till Bridges and Road works recommended are constructed.

The NRDCAA does not support destructions of the habitat, the flora, the fauna for a bridge across the Grose River, which is classified as a wild river. It would be deemed to be an act of environmental vandalism of the highest order, should it proceed. The traffic study reflects what most people knew, that there is overdevelopment west of the river. It has broken our hearts. The area was supposed to be precious for its scenic views, pastoral lands, open spaces, green canopy, a jewel in the crown for the three cities. It continues to be a pity that developers have more clout than communities in New South Wales. We must address traffic congestion. How many times have we heard that? Today, last week, last year, the year before.

What about we address the overdevelopment problem? That'd be a far better thing to be addressing. At point 4.5 in the general findings of the traffic study, and I just refer to points, the first three points, and it says the Grose River will be required by 2027 to accommodate future trips generated by the Redbank development and other committed developments to reduce congestion on intersections in the Richmond area, including Yarramundi Lane late in the PM. The second dot point, upgrades to the Bells Line of Road, Yarramundi Lane, Old Kurrajong Road intersection would be required in 2027 base case to improve the merging capacity for left-hand traffic from Yarramundi Lane onto Bells Line of Road.

The third dot point, the Richmond Bridge would operate at capacity in 2027, with average hourly traffic volumes around 1,800. It is anticipated that the duplication of Richmond Bridge would be required, particularly if additional development is envisaged in the longer term within the Hawkesbury area. I'll just leave it at that. And why I raise those points, I just had another point to that. In addition to that particular points, a correspondence dated the 8th of July 2018 from Andrew Johnson to Redbank Management, where he says, Traffic counts conducted by Hawkesbury City Council show the average daily traffic counts on Gracevale Road, taken between Pex Road and the Sydney Water site, were as follows.

August 2007, 4,561 was the average daily traffic. Eleven years later, August 2018, 6,724 is the average daily traffic. There has been little development in this area outside of the Redbank subdivision, and given that traffic volumes have increased by almost 50%, with only a third of the lots released, the impact of the development on local road network is significant.

Council's development engineer recommends the imposition of a condition requiring the full road construction of Gracevale Road for the length of the development. He also recommends that the Gracevale Road works are completed prior to the release of the 241st residential lots of this subdivision. Will this happen? We won't hold our collective breath, but let's hope it does. Councillors, the traffic study people and Council staff are raising red flags in relation to the traffic congestion with the current developments. With that in mind, surely Council would want to ensure the bridges referred to will be built. Redbank and the Liberal Councillors were all 100% sure the bridge at Nivuea would be built.

They would not listen to the 4,400 petitioners that call for the infrastructure to be placed prior to approval. Some Councillors know best. Look at the fiasco that is Windsor Bridge, Thompson Square, heartbreaking and despicable. Well now it is time to be cleansed from your past deafness, turn over a new leaf and truly listen to the community. The GM says the Grose Bridge will be built in 2027. RMS say the same about Richmond Bridge. These claims are all built on hope. We can't obtain a bank loan on hope, nor should Councils accept hope as the panacea to address the issues identified. Councillors, if all the facts in the traffic study are correct, then a third point must be added to the recommendation.

Something like no rezoning of land will be considered till the bridges and roads recommended are constructed, if it pleases.

Thank you. Mr Wand, are you happy to answer questions?

I am happy to answer questions, Chair, but the last meeting there was some exchange in relation to the NRCDAA's membership, etc. Well, that'll be

Up to me to decide whether it's a question or not.

I understand that, and you were very good in saying you didn't have to answer the questions. But our executive did endorse a possible information exchanges with the Liberal Party and with all the Hawkesbury Liberal government area Liberal Party branches. And if Councillor Richards wishes to contact our President to discuss the issue, she's invited to do so. But we do doubt, we do doubt the legality of exchanging any personal information. Mr Wand, you're

Going off the topic, please. Well, I'm just— You're happy to answer questions

Yes, I am.

Yes. Are there any questions for Mr Wand? Council

I may as well, since he brought it up. Thank you, Mr. Want, for your speech there, and you raised something that I addressed with you at a previous council meeting. So is your group a public group or not, the NRDCAA?

I've just said our executive has said, if you wish further consultation with us, contact our president.

So it's a public group, but you won't put the numbers on the public arena. Oh, I didn't bring it up, Mr. Want. Well,

It doesn't matter who brought it up. It's not on topic. Topic is this item here, not the background of NRDCCA. Sorry. So please stick to the topic. Okay

I'll stick to the topic. I have a question. You have a question

About this topic?

Yes. Well, about something Mr. Want said.

Go right ahead.

Mr. Want, you talk about no development west of the river because it will ruin the scenic vistas, or you didn't say ambience, but you mean the ambience of lifestyle west of the river. How do you reconcile that with, say, long-term locals who live on five or ten acres of subdivided land that was subdivided from a larger lot in the first place and have had the ability to enjoy that over, say, the last ten or fifteen years?

What's the question?

How do you reconcile your current comments about no development west of the river because it will destroy, or no subdivision or no rezoning west of the river? How do you reconcile that with the fact that other people, long-term locals, have had the ability to enjoy their land, which was originally based off a larger lot subdivision?

I reconcile it in relation to the community strategic plan. And there's a number of points in the community strategic plan where options are discussed, and I suppose plans are made to protect all these areas. So it's a council document, something I think you supported, so it's just reflecting on what the council's policy position is. It's not my position. It is my position, but it's also the council policy position.

Councillor Richards, you asked the question, you got an answer, okay. Any other questions? No. Thank you, Mr. Wong. Thank you. The item is up for debate. Councillor Reynolds. Yes, thanks, Mr. Mayor. I'd like

To move that—

Before you do, you need to disclose an interest,

I think.

Yep

Yes. Non-significant, non-pecuniary interest in that— Is this

The traffic study? Yeah.

Yeah, because one of the intersections studied is near my place. Thank you.

Thank you

If I may continue, I would like to move that this item be deferred to next week's Infrastructure Committee meeting. There are some issues which I'll get to in a minute, which I think need to be clarified before we go public with this. So I guess I need a seconder first, don't I?

You do need a seconder. Councillor Conolly is seconding that. Please proceed, Councillor Reynolds.

Okay. The first major question concerning the traffic study is

We want to— well, I mean, we all want this document and the modelling for the study to be accurate, because we're going to be relying on it. We know that the consultants who carried out the study used the latest available data from the RMS, including the data from the Windsor Bridge project. We know that last week's traffic— last week's briefing, the RMS came along and saw us, and it was discussed earlier that they needed to change the Windsor Bridge project because of the intersection of George and Bridge Street would be at level service E, which is just one above, you know, a lost cause in the 2027 period. However, if you go to page 17 of our traffic study, the document that's there, the one that's— the one that's here, you know, this modelling is based on the intersection as approved with no extra fourth lane.

You'll see that our study shows that it's level service A, and it's operating with

Ideal conditions. So there is a big question where we have the RMS saying their study says it's going to be at level of service E, and yet our study, which uses their information, says it's going to be at level service A. We need clarification on that, because either something is terribly wrong with our report,

Or the RMS are pulling our chain regarding the requirements for the changes at that intersection. The other issues are—

The rate of vehicle hours per dwelling for the project was used at 0.85 vehicles per

Hour per dwelling for all the modelling. But the RMS technical direction, the last one, which was from 2013, TDT 2013/04A, specifies the current RMS generation rates of 0.95 vehicle hours per dwelling. And while that doesn't seem like much, it's only 0.1, it makes a difference in traffic modelling at North Richmond of nearly 20%. We need that clarified as to why the vehicle generation rate was used at the lower rate, which is for regional areas and not for metropolitan areas, and Greater Sydney, which is what the Hawkesbury is regarded as in a traffic scenario. The other issue is the modelling at North Richmond. In the afternoon peak, the base scenario was modelled between 3 and 4 p.m. That was the period for which it was modelled.

Another scenario, it was modelled between 4 and 5 p.m. And yet another scenario was modelled between 5 and 6 p.m., when they all should be modelled during the same period. And this throws some doubts over the accuracy, to me and to other people, throws some doubts over the accuracy that we want from this report. And as I say, I'd like it deferred to the traffic committee for it to be discussed. Sorry, Infrastructure Committee, sorry, and I wouldn't do that to Chris. And I'd also like the Infrastructure Committee to be addressed by Chris Hallam on the matter, who is an RMS-authorised traffic consultant and author of RMS traffic engineering documents. Thank you.

So if I could just summarise, you wanted to defer and go to the Infrastructure Committee, and you would like us to invite Mr Hallam. General Manager, can that be done

I have to take that on board. I don't have the terms of reference or anything at the moment, but I'll speak to the council afterwards. Okay.

So we'll leave it in and see what happens. Okay. Any other speakers on the matter? Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

I must say that if ever there was a case of baffle somebody with science and numbers and diagrams and data, this traffic report really takes the cake. It was really hard going to try and decipher how it was constructed, and I take Councillor Reynolds' point that there are some inconsistencies that were quite baffling. I'm not sure I take the point that we can actually name somebody who we would like to— To go through and to do a sort of a quality control report on it, I think that's probably not appropriate. But it does need some quality control and some verification and some ground truthing, and I think that's essential. I don't think that that's probably— I don't think that will be able to be achieved by the Infrastructure Committee.

I think it needs somebody who's independent, who's, you know, who can easily put their eye over this. That process may very well have been done, so I'll just— I'm not sure whether that sort of quality control was part of the contractual arrangements. But I think I would support a deferral. I think it needs some further work. I must say that a recommendation that the traffic study report, which I presume is the modelling report, be made public , is the modelling report what we're referring to in point one of the recommendation, or is there another study? General Manager?

It's the actual report that's attached to the document. Right.

Okay.

Thank you.

Before we proceed, it's been brought to my attention that the traffic study is also linked to the Kurrajong-Kurmond Structure Plan, and if we defer it, it has other implications. General Manager, are you able to— Comment on it?

Mr Mayor, the document's actually a public document, so it's been circulated on the agenda, so it's out in the public domain. Council's deferring making a— and my understanding is that the intention was to get the report in the public domain, so that's been achieved. The deferral is about, I suppose, a quality assurance, a technical review that will be initiated at the Infrastructure Committee next week. And if there are some implications that will flow from that, then again, that information will need to be provided to the community. So I think we'll work with what we've got, but the document is in the public domain and we'll see what happens at the Infrastructure Committee.

Deputy Mayor.

I had a question similar along that regarding it's linked to other decisions that will be made. I was just wondering on a time frame, if it goes back to the Infrastructure Committee , obviously there could be more work required with it or it would just be validated in that committee. Given that often the committee minutes don't come for some time, is there a possibility to have the outcome of what you do reported back to the next council meeting

General Manager. If it's not detailed, I'm sure we can circulate some information to councillors regarding the outcome of the Infrastructure Committee. It may not be formally to the council, but we'll circulate something.

Thank you.

Question, Mr. Councillor Conolly. Just back to that earlier question, I wasn't quite sure I understood the answer. So what is the exact implication of this decision tonight on the Kurrajong-Kurmond investigation area?

Mr. Mayor, there's no decision in relation to Kurmond-Kurrajong other than there was a request for the study to be made public so that people could review that in the context of making any submissions on Kurmond-Kurrajong. So they'll be able to do that. We'll then have the meeting with the Infrastructure Committee next week, and then we'll circulate some updated information based on that.

Councillor Richards.

Can I please get the staff to confirm how much this report has now cost in totality, please?

Mr

General Manager . I'm suspecting it's in the— first of all, I'm suspecting it's in accordance with the budget, so the council did allocate funds for the budget, and I'm suspecting it was in the order of about— Chris has got the number.

Thank you, Mr. General Manager. The budget was $223,000, and we are under budget at this stage. We're looking at about $220,000 expenditure, so if there's to be any other variations, then we need to look at that.

So the initial discussion for this was $100,000. I understand that other budgets have been passed since. That's more than double the estimations of this traffic study when we first passed the motion to proceed with this study back when we first started our term. I think that that is a huge blowout. Where's that extra money, that extra $120,000, being shuffled from to come here? I know we're running on the smell of an oily rag, so where's that sort of— what's missed out so we can pay for that stage two to be completed?

Mr General Manager. Mr Mayor, I have to take that on notice, but I don't think there is a blowout here. My understanding is, and if I'm wrong I'll certainly correct it, my understanding is that Council approved Stage 1, knowing that there was a Stage 2. The Stage 1 was completed and Stage 2 was then approved in a subsequent year budget. So part was funded in one year and part was funded in the next. And my understanding is that it's all within the budget. But I'm happy to do an update to Council

As to just clarify that. Yeah, can we look into that? Because also happy to be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the estimations for this to proceed were $100,000, and that was what the basis of a lot of councillors voted on on that budget. To hear now that it's blown out to $220,000 is quite extraordinary. So if you can get some additional information, that'd be great. Thanks.

Any further questions or discussion? Councillor Wheeler.

Just briefly, Mr Mayor, I recall us allocating additional funding to this item, so I don't think it's a budget blowout. Further, when we decided to do the traffic study, we still had control of planning as a Council, something we no longer have. The fact that we've now been called upon by the State Government to rewrite all our planning documents so that they can be dealt with by either Council staff or by a planning panel shows the importance of having documents like this in order to back those planning documents with hard data, with decent evidence, so that we're not just making claims on a whim or simply pandering to one sector of the community over another. Data-driven planning decisions surely should be the goal of every Council, and so I think this is probably money well spent.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Reynolds, would you like to exercise right of reply? Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. First of all, just regarding Councillor Kotlash's comments regarding my request for Chris Hallam to come to the Infrastructure Committee, Chris Hallam was part of the working group which developed the terms of reference for the study. He was our expert that gave us advice at the time. And so having him come back at this time seems totally appropriate. But again, we'll let the General Manager talk about that.

Regarding costs, I mean, Councillor Richards, you know, is trying to deflect, I think, from one of the major outcomes which we can see here tonight, which calls into question immediately her government's request to butcher up more of Windsor with their fourth lane.

Point of order.

What

Is your point of

Order ?

I'm not deflecting from the conclusion that Councillor Reynolds has just come to at all, and I'd like to— Councillor Reynolds is offering — No, he said, Councillor Richards, and he continued. That is not true. Point of order. Councillor Reynolds is offering an opinion.

He's not— He said, Councillor Richards is trying to— No, I am not.

Councillor Reynolds, could you please rephrase that? Thank you.

In your opinion, Councillor. In my opinion, Councillor Richards is trying to ignore one of the outcomes of this report, which was that her government's request to butcher up Thompson Square and mess around with the intersection at Windsor is totally uncalled for. Yeah , she won't address that, but she'll talk about how much it cost, but she won't talk about the $120,000 worth of dredging reports that went in the garbage bin that her party ordered only about five or six years ago. So that was perfectly okay, but spending money on a report that will help the whole LGA with the traffic issues we have, no, that's no good. But it's okay to waste 120 grand on dredging up the river so her mates can have a chance.

Now, as far as, as well as that, the RMS is paying us to use this study for their North Richmond report, which goes to the veracity of it. I was wondering, do we have any idea how much they're paying us for the use of this?

Apparently not. No

No

Okay. So it's actually an income-producing study as well, because no doubt there will be further developments in the future if some people have their way. So I would again ask the councillors here to support the request to defer this to the Infrastructure Committee meeting next Wednesday. Thank you.

So you're happy with what's on the board there?

Okay. If you want to vote for this item, please stand.

We now move to item 196, and we have one speaker, Robyn Woods.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, Councillors. Just a word before I begin on this. I'm speaking as a former part-time teacher of restoration at Hawkesbury TAFE, apart from having taught science for many years. This is in recognition of a woman botanist named Teresa James, who died this year, tragically from cancer, and she was only in her 60s. And it has got a context with the Hawkesbury area. To the wide crowd of folk working in restoration ecology, Teresa was our champion, even if only viewed through the books she co-authored. She came from Exeter, England, like a lot of botanists, with honours, double honours degrees in science, botany and geography. After her early work in the National Herbarium of New South Wales for almost 20 years, she started her own consultancy, specialising in flora survey, plant identification, conservation assessment, peer review and botanical training within New South Wales, particularly the Greater Sydney region and the north coast.

She had a strong interest in the flora of Western Sydney, restoration ecology, threatened biota and the management of biodiversity within agricultural landscapes. An important part of her work was to engage with the community, increasing awareness of biodiversity and threatened flora and fauna through publications, botanical tours and workshops. She co-authored Rare Bushland Plants of Western Sydney and in 2013 self-published a guide to identifying the critically endangered Cumberland Plain Woodland, with further guides planned for other endangered ecological communities. Her parents lived in Bowen Mountain, which is where I live, and what we have of her work there is an amazing asset of the Book of Walks created by Rick Jamieson and co-authored with several others.

The maps are amazing enough, but added description of plants along the trails and pictures drawn by her father, and the walks double in value.

This is what made Teresa so valuable to us. As Geoff Brown says, Teresa, unlike other ecological consultants, wasn't afraid to help out conservationists. She was employed often by the EDO as an expert in their legal challenges. Her pro bono work for the Western Sydney Conservation Alliance helped to stop the development of the 181 hectare former Air Services Australia site at Cranebrook, which is now the Yellomundee Nature Reserve. The period in which her work was so connected for me and people I got to know was the late seventies and eighties, when talks were given to the Hawkesbury Society for Growing Australian Plants and later the Hawkesbury Rainforest Network. Botanist and ecologist were popping up all over the place.

Links were formed with planners and environment, and the Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Trust was formed, and that's a sad loss now. Publications which she co-authored went well beyond stale lists. They emphasised the small inconspicuous species that survive in patches of remnants along creeks and roadsides and in cemeteries. She was also concerned with the loss of species in our wetlands and river flats. These had been so decimated by early settlement that Governor King made his edict of 1803 to stop clearing on the riverbanks and floodplains. She was booked for a bus trip in August around Fairfield LGA to highlight the 17 different plant communities and four plant species identified as critically endangered under both state and federal legislation.

She died in her early 60s from cancer. Her work in training bush regenerators and restoration specialists will continue on through them. So I commend her memory to you, and I thank the

Deputy Mayor for bringing this to my attention.

Thank you.

Thanks for coming and giving us that history. I don't suppose there's any questions? No. Thank you very much for coming.

Could I just add something?

Yes.

That's the booklet that is for Bowen Mountain. It's now run out of production. Half of it is the list of species for Bowen Mountain along the walks. Thank you.

I have a question, Mr. Question. Thank you, Robin. Thank you for coming and speaking about Teresa. Would that book out of print, would, do you, I would think that's something highly of value. Do you wish to see it reprinted?

Absolutely. It was originally sponsored by the Grose Vale Supermarket, amongst other donations, so—

Of which, is there still one?

Well, there is still one, but they've changed hands several times. So, yes, definitely.

Well, maybe we'll perhaps look at some avenues of how perhaps council could help with having it printed.

That'd be fantastic.

Thank you. Thank you.

Deputy Mayor, you're moving this. Yes, I'll move, Mr Mayor. Councillor Wheeler. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you. I'll just speak briefly, Mr Mayor, and I thank Robyn for outlining much of the great work that Teresa did. When I was a member of the Western Sydney Conservation Alliance, I met Teresa and I was aware of the incredibly valuable work that she carried out. And I think it's very important to acknowledge those who contribute quietly to conservation efforts and to documenting and identifying the unique and precious native vegetation that Western Sydney has, or had in many instances, because as we see this area undergoing such significant transition, this is an important legacy that she has left to assist those who still seek— To ensure that we don't lose all the areas of valuable vegetation, to have given us such wonderful reference materials to utilise when we did that.

One of the major studies that Teresa authored was the Urban Bushland Biodiversity Survey Report, and that covered all the local government areas of Western Sydney, including Hawkesbury. And this looked at all the remnant areas of rare or threatened species ecological communities where there were rare or threatened species, and that has been really significant in assisting when development applications have come forward in maintaining the amounts of remnant stands of vegetation and some corridors that have been kept. I think she was very instrumental in contributing to that, and she worked with lots of councils and community groups, holding workshops and educating people, as Robin said. So I think it's very fitting that she's recognised for her volume of work and her efforts to encourage preservation and conservation of our precious Western Sydney bushland.

And I think that we should publicly thank her for her years of service to this cause. Thank you.

Thank you. Any more speakers?

Nope. Would you like to exercise right of reply?

No

Thank you. Didn't think so. So I'll put the motion. If you're in favour, please stand.

In favour of the motion: Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Calvert. Abstain is Councillor Ross and Councillor Rasmussen. Declare it carried.

Thank you.

Our next item is item 197, Notice of Motion 2. We have one speaker, Mr. Bill Snedden.

Thank you, Mayor, Councillors, Gallery. I'm speaking in favour of this motion from the Deputy Mayor. Initially, perhaps I should give a slight background. I have been driving and flying electric cars, boats and aircraft for over 30-plus years now. About—slightly less than three years ago, I took delivery of my BMW i3 car, which doesn't require a radio control set, although theoretically could still be driven from the side of the car park with an appropriate electronic interface. My BMW i3 range extender does 250 kilometres roughly on the battery pack, and it also has a backup motor that gives me another 150 k's on petrol, at effectively six litres 100 kilometres if the battery capacity is exceeded and I can't recharge it.

However, I have never recharged away from home. When I inherited enough money to buy the car, I also upgraded my then-significant solar system, and I completely recharged the car entirely at home off my roof. And today, after a couple of hours charging, I also exported nearly 40 kilowatt hours to the grid. I haven't paid an electricity account for over eight years. So quite frankly, I'm living the dream of being carbon neutral in most of what I do, and potentially I can be off grid if I wish to flick the switch. I choose not to, though, because I want to get the 21 cents a kilowatt hour that I export. So I'm speaking from a point of view of knowing what's going on. Also, there's been huge electric vehicle changes, and they're coming in Australia.

People still don't understand what electric cars, boats and other things are about. In fact, an article in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday emphasises the lack of understanding by people and the range anxiety. Range anxiety comes simply because there isn't enough charging infrastructure, and that's why I'm speaking in favour of a fast charger here, even though I've not used one. I structure my life around— to being able to charge at home. I've only ever done about 100 kilometres coming back from Newcastle with the electric battery discharged and needing the range extender. So the other thing about is that I recharge completely with renewable energy, and the other thing with all of these charge stations, anything that goes in, there should be a deal done to be able to be recharging with entirely green renewable power so that you are completely off the grid.

That's one of the arguments that people put about recharging electric cars, but Overseas , you can certainly nominate for green power. You can do it in Australia, but overseas there are also significant incentives to be able to do that. You can also charge off-peak, which still you can't do in Australia in most places. So there needs to be more things done. But quite frankly, the changes in the technology with lithium batteries, the rare earth motors, et cetera, that are allowing the electric cars to come on the market nearly as fast as the progress of technology during a World War. In the 50 years that I've been a trained scientist, I've been watching things happen that I never thought. In fact, even the way lithium batteries work is completely different to anything like lead-acid or anything else.

For a start, you're not water-based, so you can use a rare earth metal like lithium that will explode in virtually in contact with water. It also allows far greater charge densities, and the dream of four volts from the lithium cell is realised in this new technology. Similarly, in point two, the transition to electric outdoor tools is equivalently earth-shattering as what's happening with electric car technology. You can run much higher voltages by also using microcapacitors and other things. You can use brushless motors, which allow very high power output, better than, in the case of many of these tools, internal combustion motors. So with rational selection of the tools that are available as they come on the market, the tools are capable of putting out powers better than internal combustion-powered tools.

So they can be looked at rationally and be used, although the charge cycles have to be considered in heavy-duty use that council staff would have. There's also potential to lower council's carbon dioxide output count if they're recharging on renewable energy. So again, I'm highly in favour of that. In point three, I'm also very much in favour of council interacting. interacting with other adopters and users of the new renewables. Council hosting a forum would also have the potential to, one, enhance and publicise Council's activities regarding alternatives and sustainable activities, which are now benefiting ratepayers. The projects being done now are being done very rationally, with Hawkesbury Council considering the economics and picking the low-hanging fruit first.

I'm aware that we've also been nominated for, if not receiving, awards, and we should be highlighting that and being very proud of what's being done. I'm quite frankly admiring Council, and three years ago I was jealous.

Thank you, Mr Sneddon. We're out of time. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are you happy to answer any questions? Yes, sir. Any questions out there? No. Thank you very much. Thank you. Deputy Mayor, you're moving this. Do we have a second?

Yes, moved.

Councillor Wheeler. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think it's fairly self-explanatory what's included in the notice of motion. These are relatively minor steps to take, and really what they're about is to reinforce our declaration of a climate emergency by actually taking some steps in reducing emissions, to encourage and to lead by example for the community. We've got to take these small steps if we're to encourage transition to low and zero emissions transport. The installation of electric vehicle chargers in public places, which I have been asking for for a long, long, long time, is something that is essential in enabling those who choose to drive an electric vehicle or hybrid cars to undertake journeys. It's crucial within the tourism sector and to service our day visitor economy.

We've got to find innovative ways to be able to do these sorts of things. I understand that we are somewhat limited by resources, but we must have to be replacing equipment. So I believe that by declaring a climate emergency, therefore we should be encouraging any replacement equipment for the outdoor equipment to be electric versions of that equipment. It's lighter, it's quieter, it's quite able to be utilised because it charges quickly. So when workers have a break and have their morning tea, they can recharge things they may have been working with. We use all electric equipment at home, and there's no issues with—they go for a long time. Not that I'm doing the work, I have to say. But I think that point three is really quite important because we have declared a climate emergency, but we have to take some action.

And by doing it this way, it's not something that's going to be a big expense for councils. The idea of this is to have the Cities Power Partnership, of which we're a member, facilitate a gathering of like-minded councils. And it would be good, as Mr Sneddon said, it would be good to show that we are taking some leadership in this area, and we can work on having a climate action plan prepared. I'm happy to transfer this to the Sustainability Committee to follow up on if that's a more practical way to do it. But I think we need to progress with it, because this isn't a situation where we can simply wait and hang around and wait for things to change and so on. We've declared that it's urgent, and so therefore we have to act urgently.

And so the various issues raised within this notice of motion, I think are quite achievable things at quite low cost. We can get electric vehicle chargers. We have in the past been offered them free. Unfortunately, we haven't taken up— Taken up that offer or the offer of an electric car, but we have, we can access the electric vehicle chargers. And even if we start simply with one to show that we are on the track of doing something about climate change when we've made that declaration. I think that these things are just quite simplistic, but they are things that will make a difference because all of the emissions, any reduction in emissions is great. And I think that they will add up and they'll create momentum for other people to follow our lead.

There's some wonderful work that has come out of Darebin Council, which was the first council to declare a climate emergency back in 2016. And they have made, I did have it here somewhere, they have made an actual document which is like a template for councils working to see how they can adjust to deal with the climate emergency. So I think that, I hope that this gets support to proceed with these things, which aren't political measures. They're practical measures that enhance our tourism capacity. They show the community that we're doing everything we can possibly do, and it gives us a chance to showcase our leadership in this area by having a forum through the Cities Power Partnership, which is a wonderful organisation, which we don't pay to belong to.

We are just a member, and they have a fantastic knowledge hub, and they have a lot of information that they share, shared resources that we can take advantage of. And I would imagine in that case the cost to us would be provision of a venue and some food. Thank you.

Councillor Conolly. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I wondered whether the Deputy Mayor would be amenable to just changing point one slightly, that Council calls for a report to consider the installation of at least one electric vehicle charger and so on. Reason being is that, I mean, I'm not an expert in this area and across the economics of how these things work. You know, obviously your first reaction might be, well, if this is the way of the future, if it's so achievable, if it's so feasible, why does it need government intervention to make it work? Why does it need investment from the government before it can be a marketable, feasible product? Sorry?

It hasn't got government intervention.

That's right, but we're asking for government— Historical question. Well, no, no. The motion before us is for government intervention into this marketplace, for the government to go ahead and install chargers because it's not feasible for the industry to do so, I imagine. So I'd like to have some understanding of why that is, if that is the case, and if it's not the case, then why are we doing it? What is the cost-benefit to ratepayers? And actually, literally, what is the cost? Because it doesn't mention it in here. I think we should have all that information before we go ahead and make a decision. We should do these things based on data and a solid understanding of what we're doing and why we're doing it.

It seems like a reasonable proposition, but before we go ahead and spend ratepayers' money, I'd like to understand why their investment is required and what their investment is going to be.

Deputy Mayor, are you happy to entertain that change?

I can understand what Councillor Connelly's asking, and in a sense it's no different from a council providing any public facility like a toilet in a visitor information centre or an electric vehicle charger. If we want people to come here, we want them to be able to visit us, and just like we would have service stations, which of course we don't run, I understand this, but we want them to be able to charge their car while they go and have a coffee, while they go and look around our town. This is what other councils, most other councils, provide electric vehicle chargers.

Just require a yes or no answer.

Well, I'm explaining to Councillor Connelly because I'm going to say that I don't, I think that this is the very issue with this, the issue of calling a climate emergency is that then if we go off and we have another report, I'm happy to have a report. The information is available already on the cost of electric vehicle chargers. If that report could be done in a timely fashion and we could have it back very soon, I would be happy to. So I'll request a possible time frame of when a report could be available. If we're going down the line of report, do we do a report on our whole policy on this sort of thing, or I was simply wanting one electric vehicle charger. It's not for my electric vehicle because I can charge it at home, but it is a consideration that I have when, you know, you're going to other places. So a time frame. General Manager.

Mr Mayor, look, I just want to set this up by saying, as Councillors away from discussions, we've been making some significant progress. On this, in this area. And as a consequence, we've been focusing our resources on our electricity contract, and there will be some announcements on that front in the very near future. Following on from that, we're now in the planning stages for a council workshop to guide future planning, work programs, budget allocations, to guide a transition to net zero carbon over time in relation to both council and the wider community. And I understand the conversation here, but that's really what we should be focusing on. That workshop and moving in an orderly fashion towards the goal that we're trying to achieve.

And if we get distracted with having to produce reports, it's just going to slow down the bigger picture. So I'd prefer that we stuck with the position that we discussed six weeks or so ago, and that is that we're working towards that councillor workshop that will give us some trajectories over time within our current budget and also potentially some other opportunities, but building on the work that we've recently completed in relation to electricity purchase.

So , Deputy Mayor, I don't know whether that was an answer for you.

I'm not quite sure really what that meant. So, in other words, is the workshop different from this workshop? I don't know about a workshop. That's all. I didn't know we were planning a workshop.

So six weeks ago when we, or eight weeks ago, whatever it was, when we had the night that we had the two reports coming up, one was on the climate emergency and one was the mayoral minute on net zero emissions. We talked about a councillor workshop on that night, and we talked about trying to do something as soon as possible. Since then, we've been focusing on the electricity contract, and we've had those discussions about the outcome. And now we're focusing on that workshop, building on that body of work. And we'd like to do that sooner rather than later. And as I said, as soon as we get distracted with producing a report on something, it slows down that bigger piece of work.

So bottom line, I would think is that we don't want a report.

So that would be a no.

Yep.

That's

What I heard.

Just to clarify, just a question. I'm not quite understanding the sentiment from the general manager with regard to, is that because we do have already resolutions. We have a resolution when we joined the Cities Power Partnership that we pledged to do certain things, which was things like transition outdoor work equipment to install electric vehicle chargers. We've got things in our community strategic plan. Is the general manager saying that none of this should be done at this point, or—and if that were to be the case, then I would think that given that we have declared an emergency, I would be very interested in what sort of a timeline, because every delay is a tangible delay and it makes a farce of us having declared such an emergency if we're not actually ever going to do anything.

I was going to offer an explanation when it became my turn to speak on the matter. General Manager, did you wish to comment on that?

I think, Councillors know we're not doing nothing, and I think Councillors know that there's some progress, that's significant progress that's being made in recent times, and we'll be able to make an announcement on that in the near future. And that will demonstrate that we're actually doing something. And then that will provide the foundation to build the next stage of work on. And yes, we do have a lot of resolutions, and they do date back some time, but historically we haven't had resources to do these things. So we're putting resources— With skills to deliver on certain outcomes, and we're going to build on that. So I think, I think we are making progress, and I think there's more work to do to build on that progress, but it's got to be a plan, not just a series of resolutions and motions.

So no report on item one is what I get. Councillor Kotlash. Sorry,

Mr. Manager.

Sorry

Can I move that as an amendment then? You can do that if you want I did ask that as a question, that I'd like to now move an amendment that we call for a report to consider the installation of at least one electric vehicle charger, and then the rest of that sentence. And the report to include an explanation of the economics and cost of council being involved in the provision of electric vehicle chargers.

Do we have a seconder for that amendment? Councillor Zamprogno.

Can I just clarify that you are amending point one, or are you amending all three points of the—

Just point one.

So your amendment is the change to point one and then keeping point two

And— Yes, sorry, keeping point two and three.

Right. Councillor Zamprogno, that's your understanding? Yes. You wish to speak to that amendment?

If that's okay. Look, only—I mean, I just said it, but just to briefly come back again, given what the general manager just said, I understand that we might be doing other things and that the report might slow us down and get us distracted. I certainly am not suggesting to council that this is incredibly important work that needs to be done right now, but it's been suggested by others that it is. And I think if we are going to do it, we have to do it properly. And I think doing it properly means we have all the information in front of us. You know, obviously, I really don't think— It would even be in order to pass this resolution as it is to install at least one of something without having a cost attached to it.

I understand there's a note by management that says they'll, you know, they'll see if they can fit in existing programs, but Council doesn't know what it's committing to based on this resolution. I don't know how that can be in order. That's my opinion. I think that this is a potentially significant cost. It is at least a cost, and there's nothing in here that suggests, that explains why it's required and how much the cost is. And I don't think we can blindly just accept that and move forward.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Can I flag an amendment or ask for an amendment of the amendment?

Not until the first. You can ask the mover

Of the amendment. Big pardon? Yes , I've got another. You can ask the

Mover of the amendment if he wants to change what he's got there. May I?

Yes, okay. I will ask Councillor Conolly if he would consider, instead of asking for a report from Council, is that the three points in the Deputy Mayor's original motion be included on the agenda for the workshop that we have that was the outcomes of the Mayoral Minute for net zero emissions and the climate emergency which we resolved to act on. So in that case, we bring these three very valid points into— Into that consideration, and not only would that be advantageous, we get out of that doing sort of, you know, hodgepodge reports on various issues, and we actually deal with it in — Can

I cut you off there? You were asking a question. Consultation. Asking a question of Councillor

Connelly. Yeah, he's listening intently.

Councillor Connelly, your answer please.

I think my answer is going to be yes or no. Can I explain a little bit or not? Yeah, a little.

I'm going to say no, only because I don't think it's a terrible idea, but I don't think it's going to have the support of the Chamber necessarily, and we might end up with something else that's not as good as either of those options. So I'd be inclined to leave it how it is.

So Councillor Kotlash, you could foreshadow a motion if this one is lost.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Deputy Mayor.

Mr Mayor, I will take Councillor Connelly's amendment as the motion, given I thought he was alluding to ignoring item two and three, but seeing he's included those, I'll happily take the changes to point one.

Okay. So we now only have one motion. So Councillor Kotlash could move an amendment if she felt like

It. Will I do that?

It's up to you, Councillor Kotlash. Yeah

Thinking, sorry. I know making the noise. Yes, I'd like to make an amendment.

And do we have a seconder for that amendment? I

Thought I explained it beautifully before. Instead of— my amendment before was that we take these points, which I regard as being very, very good. Worth our consideration, but putting them into the mix of our discussions and our workshop on the climate emergency, because we might come up with two locations for electric vehicle spots, or we might come up with, you know, or it might be that, I mean, I don't know. I just wanted to, instead of staff going off and doing separate reports, or, well, just a report, I suppose, on the first one, that we include that in our very shortly to come up workshop on the climate emergency and our response to that.

Are you seconding this, Councillor Sam Prodnor? I'm looking, I'm looking for a seconder.

No? Sorry, there's no seconder. So we revert to the motion, the one that Councillor Conolly has said, but Councillor Lyons-Buckett has adopted. Councillor Sam Prodnor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Look, there is no doubt that the future is electric, and that our civilisation, if it has any sense, will wean itself off non-renewable hydrocarbons as a source of energy. The view that Liberals generally take about that transition is that where they are sound and self-evident economic decisions, and that they are driven by the market, they'd deliver the best outcome. And outcomes that are driven by a process of moral browbeating or social engineering are less likely to have that desired effect. The Deputy Mayor has purchased an electric vehicle. I've purchased a hybrid vehicle, and the point that is to be made there is that the barriers of entry to those kinds of technologies are low enough, is that people like us can contemplate those kinds of purchases, do some good for the environment, and and yield the benefits of not having to pay for fuel or paying for far less fuel .

This is similar to the decision that we've made recently to invest significantly in solar electric power. It's not merely a moral gesture; it's increasingly turning into a sound economic decision. So when I see a motion like this, I honour the sentiment behind it, but want to kind of nuance the argument by suggesting that, look at the way that car vehicle charges seem to be being distributed now. I go to many shopping centres, and there are some car spaces reserved with car chargers there. They are either placed there with a heavy degree of subsidy, either by vehicle manufacturers who want to give the purchasers of those cars the knowledge that there are these networks of vehicle chargers in increasing numbers of locations, or they're placed there by the commercial operators of a shopping centre because it's an attractive proposition for people to go to those shops.

Where there are commercial solutions that are driven by the market, I feel less need for a government to intervene in this way because it sounds more like the gesture rather than something that will do what we intend it to do. And of course, it isn't necessarily a simple matter to just install a vehicle charger at a place the Deputy Mayor suggests, the visitor centre at Clarendon maybe. There are two kinds of vehicle charger. There are slow chargers that charge the vehicle slowly. The kind of charger that would need to be installed in a location like that would need to be a rapid charger, or what's colloquially termed a supercharger that draws a significantly higher amperage from the grid so that the car can be charged or mostly charged in the space of an hour.

In other words, the time that a person on a tourist drive would probably choose to stay at the visitor information centre and have a cup of tea. And watch the aeroplanes fly over. They're certainly not interested in pulling in and plugging into a slow charger that would take hours for their vehicle to be charged. Well, that comparatively more expensive infrastructure is something that we'd have to look carefully at the economics of, and that might not be as easy as the Deputy Mayor thinks. I'm trying to pass the wording of the motion that's before me here, and I note the annotation by management says that if we pass this, Council can commence the research on these items in order to inform the development of the operational plan.

So I'm confident that if we pass this tonight, we're not mandating precipitous action or unnecessary bureaucratic report collation, but that it simply provides a direction for Council staff to incorporate this kind of planning into future operational plans. And it appears I'm out of time. Oh no, I've got another minute.

Who said that?

In terms of points two and three, I make a similar point. If we impose on Council staff the requirement to replace petrol-driven operational equipment with electrical stuff, that might not be a commercial or operationally wise decision. I trust that our staff are always seeking efficiencies in the way that they operate their plant and equipment, and that as soon as it is an economically viable, a self-evident decision. To move to battery-powered equipment or hybrid-powered equipment, vehicles or otherwise, is that that move would be taken because it offers a clear economy to the operation of the council, and that there's no need for us to impose that by point two. So as point three is concerned, I find that problematic because I don't agree with Council's resolution that there is a climate emergency, and certainly the behaviour that I saw recently of Extinction Rebellion didn't exactly paint them as shining diplomats for their cause.

I

Think your time's up now. Can I just clarify, Councillor Sam Proctor, that we are not calling for an electric charger. We're calling for a report on an electric charger, and secondly, we're not calling to change all the equipment. We're calling to investigate. So these items one and two are not asking for a quick change. Just point it out. Any further speakers? Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I won't be supporting this notice of motion tonight. If you look at it, part one, before the amendment was just money. Part two, money. Part three, money. But sorry, Hawkesbury City Council doesn't really have any money, and I'm not quite in favour of sitting here and writing blank checks that the ratepayers have to fill in. Basically, we need to be spent—oh God, they're the usual

Groans, they're getting boring.

Quite frankly, we're elected here to fix potholes, seal dirt roads, collect the waste, do the basics there. Now, when we can't even keep up with fixing the potholes and sealing the dirt roads, I'm certainly not going to be putting money towards these—well, agreeing to put money towards these sorts of things. I mean, the notice of motion in its original format, install an electric charger. What, no cost? I mean, I know we've debated that, but seriously, you put pen to paper without wanting a cost. We are here as the custodians of the ratepayers' money. We have an obligation for every single cent that we spend. And oh, lo and behold, someone's got an electric vehicle, so now all of a sudden let's install an electric vehicle charger. Point of order,

Mr Mayor. Councillor Richards has the floor. What's your point of order? My

Point of order—sorry, point of misrepresentation.

What is it?

Regarding what Councillor Richards just said.

About someone owning an electric vehicle, is that the—

About the inference that that is the reason I've brought this forward. I'm on the record from my first week in Council in 2012 asking for such.

I wanted to clarify what it was. We can deal with that at the end of the matter. Councillor Richards, you still going?

I'm still going. I would like— do the staff have any idea, if we are about to go down a path of spending this sort of money, how many electric vehicles are owned by ratepayers of the Hawkesbury? We can get that data surely from the RMS or something like that, who can let us know how many vehicles they are. I mean, we all know we don't live in a rich LGA. Are there people out there seriously in the Hawkesbury rushing to buy these electric vehicles? Like, is this such an urgent need for the demographic of the Hawkesbury LGA? I mean, they're the sorts of things we need to consider when we're talking about spending ratepayers' money. I think we have to get, you know, our priorities right. And look at this, hosting a forum next year, I know it says give in-principle support, but I mean, again, what?

We don't have a cost for that. I mean, holding a forum isn't cheap. So now we're holding forums so we can pat each other on the back and say how fantastic we are about the environment while we're spending ratepayers' money and again, not sealing dirt roads or fixing potholes. So quite frankly, I think the whole notice of motion is a farce. And if you really want to jump on the bandwagon of climate emergency, sort of like what Councillor Zamprogno just said, I mean, they're not giving themselves a really great credit, are they? I mean, today's chant in Melbourne was, 'We've got a climate fix: burn, burn, burn the rich.' Now, I'm not saying that that's anyone in this chamber is supporting that sort of ideal, but this is that left-wing jump-on-the-bandwagon stuff that they're doing.

So now they're giving themselves a justification for murder to fix the climate. I mean— Who are these people? It's in the news today. My

Request is

That withdrawal

Of that inference from Councillor Richards, that she is branding people of

A left-leaning as murderers. I would request she withdraw it. I think if you look back on my words, I said the chants in Melbourne said today—

I think she was just reporting on what was said in Melbourne.

And she said, 'Making them murderers.' I said they were justifying murder to save the climate, and I said not that anyone in this chamber probably agrees. So listen to what

I say. I don't see that as a point of order. She's expressing her opinion, which you disagree with, and every right to disagree with it, but that's her point of view. Okay, please continue.

Thank you. I'm going to end there. Oh, here we go, boring. Councillor

Richards, continue. Thank you.

Yeah, there they go again, same old boring

Councillor Richards, please don't interact with the crowd. Oh

No, I'm not. I'm just referring to what I'm listening to, that you won't pull up and actually stop because it's gone on since you became the mayor, and you're allowing the gallery to continue to interject.

I've already asked people to note that you have the floor. You do have the floor. Can you please continue?

Thank you very much. I'm going to wrap it up there. Absolutely no way. As someone who is looking after ratepayers' money, would I ever support something like this with a blank cheque?

Thank you, Councillor Richards. Any further speakers? Councillor Garrow.

I just wanted to bring up what Councillor Richards mentioned before about how many ratepayers have electric vehicles. I would see this fast charging stations as being a tourism push more than a ratepayers' fuelling station, of which Councillor Richards seems to be quite passionate about tourism. So if you want to jump on any bandwagon, there's one for you. We need to send a strong message to the Australian tourism industry, and we are so far behind, unlike so many other countries. We need this infrastructure to meet the tourists' expectations and offer travellers the facilities. Our long-distance drivers need super rapid charging infrastructure in public spaces. The lack of a robust charging infrastructure is a major concern for many travellers, and this is fuelling the range anxiety.

Yes, people can charge at home, but they need to charge whilst they're on their trips, and if we're pushing for tourism, then we should be pushing for this.

Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I want to follow up on some of the points raised by Councillor Zamprogno regarding point two in particular. There's clear not only are there cost savings for shifting across to electric-powered equipment, there's a number of occupational health and safety, or worker health and safety, advantages as well. This equipment tends to be much lighter. It has very little vibration because the engine involved in the machine itself doesn't vibrate. There's no emissions at the source, which means that council employees aren't exposed to the primary health risks given off by burning petroleum-based fuels. WHO recognises all of these, including the reduced noise and therefore reduced exposure to noise and the subsequent effects on workers' hearing.

It also reduces the need for flammable fuel use and storage, reduces maintenance, and the current projections are a payback time of 12 to 18 months. So not only does this make good financial sense within a 12 to 18-month payback period, particularly if council has affordable renewable energy, which we are looking to move to, but it also has really important implications for the health of our staff, and that should be a primary concern of this council. It also doesn't have to be particularly expensive. In fact, in many cases, it doesn't cost any money at all. We do have an electric vehicle charger in the Hawkesbury. It's a Telstra-specific charger that's at— sorry, at Tesla. Sorry, Telstra. Tesla-specific charger.

Yeah, no hope there. Yeah, two tin cans and a piece of string. It's a Tesla charger at the—oh, what's it called this week?—the Crown at Clarendon. So it doesn't suit all vehicle owners. Mittagong RSL is a nice case in point. The NRMA installed the charger on that site, as Councillor Zamprogno outlines. It's long enough for people to sit at the RSL, have a drink, have a meal, charge up and continue along their next leg of their journey. Mittagong is a good distance for most vehicles to get to, just as the Hawkesbury is a good distance for vehicles coming from, for example, eastern Sydney. There are no comparative chargers in the lower part of the Blue Mountains. The nearest charger is at the nearest all-vehicle charger is at the Fairmont, halfway up the mountains.

This is a drawcard for the Hawkesbury, a potential drawcard for the Hawkesbury, where people can come through the Hawkesbury, up through Bells Line and into the Upper Mountains, rather than bypassing us and going through Penrith. So I think this, from a tourism point of view, is really workable. This isn't for the ratepayers of the Hawkesbury. As you've heard from two electric vehicle owners, they charge at home. This is for tourism and for passing traffic, which we're desperately trying to attract to our town centres. I'm not convinced that the Clarendon Information Centre is the best place for this, so I'll be interested to see what the report says about that in terms of attracting traffic to our town centres.

No, I don't know that it will, because what I'm hoping is that people come, if people come and they spend an hour charging, at the same time they'll shop in our shops and eat in our cafes. On the comment that Council should stick to roads, rates and rubbish, that's a really limited view of Council's function. Council provides libraries, community centres, parks, pools, planning, childcare centres. Every time I hear the roads, rates and rubbish thing, I think we should close all the other services for a week just to reinforce the idea that Council is just a little bit beyond roads, rates and rubbish. And forums. Forums are an exploration of ideas for most functional organisations. They usually attract critical experts rather than backpackers.

So I think forum is always an excellent idea. It gives Council the ability to do many of the things outlined in its strategic plan in terms of providing leadership and engaging collaboratively with the community.

Thank you.

Must be my turn. I just wanted to point out the three points that are there. The first point is basically just to have a report. That's not committing us to any money. That's committing us to investigating whether we should have a charger and where it should be in a public space. I have no problems with that, and I don't see it as committing to any expense. Point number three about having a forum. Having a forum here attracts people that come here and it's good for the local economy. Point three is actually asking for, in principle, support for that forum. The note by management explains that it'll have to be considered in terms of the budget, and the management will get back to us and say whether it can be afforded.

So with item three, we're not actually committing any money either. Item two, however, is the one that I wanted to discuss because the mayoral minute that I put up a couple of meetings ago about net zero emissions had two parts to it. The first part was that we would set a time, a temporary time of 2050, along with the state government, but then we would have a follow-up set of workshops where we would examine that time and hopefully bring it back down to something closer to now, I'm hoping for something like 2030. Those workshops were also designed for us to look at developing a rational plan of how Council can achieve zero net emissions over time. And we were hoping to have that workshop later this year and maybe early next year for a second one.

I believe an email was sent out, I think by Mrs. Perrin, on that matter maybe two weeks ago , telling councillors about the workshops and what would happen there. The workshops are an attempt to rationalise how we move forward, to make sure that we move forward in a rational and ordered way and we don't just jump all over the place and suddenly think of something and say, Let's do that. It was designed we'd all get together and once again, here's me fantasising again, that all of us can get together and work together on this issue at workshops and all come up with a rational plan of how we can approach zero net emissions. That was what the workshops were about. I am surprised that you haven't all seen that email and that you didn't understand that.

And that's why point two, I was wondering whether point two should actually say something like— To make this an item of discussion at the upcoming workshop on reaching net zero emissions. Now I know

That— I think Councillor Kotlash has fallen off her chair.

And I was going to explain, Councillor Kotlash wanted all three items to go to the workshop. I'm only asking for point two. I don't think point one and point three belong at the workshop at all, only point two. And I'm going to ask Deputy Mayor whether you would consider making that change.

I'm happy to make that change.

Thank you.

So it is basically to make this an item of discussion at the upcoming workshop on reaching net zero emissions. Thank you for that. Are there any other speakers? Councillor Reynolds. Just a question, Mr Mayor.

The workshop you're talking to, is that the one on the 28th of November?

I don't think we set that date yet, did we

That's the operational plan.

Okay, righto.

General Manager, are we

Aiming for a workshop around that time? We're still looking at the diary and seeing how we're going to fit everything in before the end of the year.

The only thing you've received to date is the operational plan workshop for the 28th of November.

But you also received an email about having this workshop. We didn't set the date. Okay. Any further speakers? Deputy Mayor, you wanted to, before your right of reply, you wanted to say you've been misrepresented.

I think I did deal with it at the time, but thank you, Mr Mayor. It was Councillor Richards' inference that I would bring this forward only because I am the owner of an electric vehicle. That is totally incorrect. Everybody who knows anything I've said in here, I have been asking for electric vehicle chargers since I was elected in 2012, and I still continue to ask, even for one.

Thank you. Your right of reply.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, and thank you for the contributions from councillors and from Councillor Conolly for that. I'm happy to have a report. The reason I hadn't costed the electric vehicle was that we have perhaps missed it, but they were being given away free, so there was no cost in getting—not the electric vehicle, sorry, the charger—from the Australian Electric Vehicle Association and from the NRMA if we had registered for that. We seem to have missed quite a few opportunities in this area, which is very unfortunate because we could possibly have done more. As Councillor Wheeler and Councillor Garrow pointed out, these are a great tourism drawcard. When we look around at what other councils have done, they , for example, at Goulburn at the visitor information centre, they have the charging stations, they have their visitor information centre.

While you're charging, you can go and have a coffee, you can buy local produce, you can buy local produce and goods in their visitor information store, and you can visit the surrounding cafes and so on. It's a real drawcard. I've been there and the place is absolutely packed with people. And in Chatswood, they have solar on the rooftop of the car park, and the chargers are in underneath a variety of chargers. If we, as I believe, we're getting solar on the Clarendon facility, that would be an ideal place. But I agree with Councillor Wheeler, there are other places we should have them. In terms of people saying that government intervention into the marketplace in this degree shouldn't occur, I disagree with that.

We're not having a massive investment. I'm talking about one charger so that people can come to our area and not have the range anxiety that they're not going to be able to charge their car to get back home. I think that, with regard to—I'm happy for the workshop on the second one. I know we do have resolutions where we have alluded to that occurring. This was merely to try and propel that along more forward in that regard. It's not really a matter of coming up with spasmodic things that we are just coming up with and putting them forward. These are all things that have been discussed before. They're all things that we've committed to, and we have gone out there and said that we've declared a climate emergency, and we have to act upon that.

Councillor Richards, in criticising this notice of motion, I think that Councillor Richards is becoming one of a rapidly diminishing group of people who are still saying those climate denialist statements. Even the Prime Minister seems to be shifting. Could we

Refrain from personal comments, please?

Okay. It's not for the—it's not for the ratepayers. It is for visitors. It's just like providing anything that we would be providing as a local government area to anybody. And with regard to point three, maybe a forum's the correct word. As I said, the expectation from us would be to provide a venue and a bit of food for the councils that attended, which is to have it for a few like-minded councils to get together with the aim of sharing the resources, sharing the knowledge, and working together to come up with an action plan. Instead of us having to go out and pay a consultant to come and facilitate or anything like that, we can utilise something that we're a member of, we're a member of that group.

So why wouldn't we utilise that? I mean, why can't we take some steps where it's at minimal cost to at least get us started? I agree with having the workshops, but we're still waiting to have an urban resilience workshop from January 2018. I think that we have got to try and do what we can do, and as councillors, we are the people who direct the priorities of expenditure, and this is very minimal. And I think that we should just stick by what we resolve if we're speaking on an issue as important as climate change.

Thank you. I was just trying to play with the wording of point two. I don't think it's brilliant at the moment, but are we all happy with the way it reads?

It's not exactly what

That's fine. You're happy with that?

Mr Mayor, I have a procedural motion.

Please go ahead. Well

When we're at that juncture, I feel that, as usual, one of the defects of this motion is that it mixes different points of varying merit. So I'd prefer to see them put in seriatim. Okay.

It's been moved by Councillor Zamprogno that it be moved in seriatim. Do we have a seconder for that? Councillor Conolly. All those in favour? Those against? I'll declare it carried.

We will do it in seriatim. Okay. Now, we move item number one. All those in favour, please stand.

In favour are Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Calvert. Absent is Councillor Ross and Councillor Rasmussen. I declare that carried. If you're in favour of item two, please stand. In favour are Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Calvert. Absent is Councillor Ross and Councillor Rasmussen. Declared that carried. Item number three, if you're in favour of that one, please stand.

In favour of item three, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Kotlash and Councillor Calvert. Against are Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree and Councillor Richards. Absent is Councillor Ross and Councillor Rasmussen. I declare that one carried as well.

Well, thank you.

Hope I got your names right. The next item is items on block. We have two items on block moved by the Deputy Mayor. Items 191 and 192. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Tree. All those in favour say aye. Declared carried.

Next item is item 188.

Would someone like to move something on item 188?

Mr Mayor. Yes

Would

It be at all possible, I'm not sure procedurally of how this would be, but Councillor Ross had sent us some information. I was just wondering if we could have some clarification of that from the General Manager. General Manager Regarding the delegations, before we go ahead.

Yes. The Mayor did forward me Councillor Ross's email. I wasn't included in that email. So the email makes a number of observations in relation to delegations and the audit committee. So the first thing, I think, is the role of the audit committee. And the audit committee, the charter, is a supportive role for Council. Council is the policy body. Council sets the strategic direction, and the audit committee supports the Council in doing so. So the audit committee has got a role in terms of setting the audit program, and the audit program is making sure that the Council organisation does deliver what the Council want. And so the program sets various audit projects. And out of those audits, management actions come, and the audit committee has oversight of those management actions.

To date, the current configuration of the Audit Committee, since Centium were appointed to do our external audits because we used to have an internal auditor, they've completed 14 audits, and in doing so, we introduced that process improvement aspect of our audits. So it just wasn't a matter of yes or no; it was yes or no, and what could you do to do it better. And so we had audit actions from each of those 14 completed audits. Of those audit actions, 221 have been completed— sorry, 154 have been completed, and 67 are still open. And those actions don't all go back to the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee just has oversight to make sure that they're progressing. So Council's certainly got the option of saying, Look, refer the policy back to the Audit Committee, but that isn't the normal process.

The normal process is the Audit Committee says, Right, how are we progressing? What's holding it up? Okay, it's finished. Well done. Move on. So there's the issue with that. The other items in there talk about the actual charter. The charter's been amended on a number of occasions since it was first adopted, and actually it's reviewed every two years. So the charter has obligations in it that are statutory, set by the Local Government Act. It also has details about the membership. The only members that have voting rights under the charter are the external independent members and the Council members. Council staff don't have any voting rights at all. They're there just to service the committee, answer questions.

The committee has responsibilities in terms of developing the control framework, which is making sure there are adequate internal controls in place, making sure that management has relevant and appropriate resources, making sure that there are appropriate policies in place, and again reviewing whether management has taken the steps to embed the culture, which is ethical and lawful, into the organisation. And it also has a role in internal audit, as I said, in terms of setting the audit, reviewing the program, and making sure the program's completed. So again, the Audit Committee is servicing its function and I believe that the work that we're doing today is consistent with that function. We'll certainly be reporting this to the Audit Committee as part of our regular reporting program to indicate the status of our management program.

I understand Councillor Ross is not here tonight, and I'm happy to speak to him in greater detail on that. And there's an Audit Committee meeting tomorrow night. And again, some of the matters that Councillor Ross has raised have also been listed for the Audit Committee tomorrow night.

Thank you, General Manager. We still don't have a motion on this. Councillor Kotlash, you had your light on. Did you want to move?

Yeah, I'd like to move the recommendation with—

Seconded by Councillor Conolly.

Yeah, and I'd like to extend point one, if I can, in the recommendations, that the draft policy be adopted. But I'd like to see the draft policy with a few corrections and a bit of augmentation to make it a bit more readable. I was, for instance, on page four of the policy, which is on page 18 in the printed business paper, it refers to delegations – general, and I was just wondering whether that meant delegations / general manager's delegations, because some of the terminology in this policy I don't think is clear enough. But I'm happy to have this policy adopted if it can just be checked, so some of the meanings of definitions and a bit clearer explanations of things, which we can do offline. Is that possible? General Manager? Mr

Mayor, the policies are not set in concrete, and if people can identify ways of enhancing them, we're certainly open to that. I've actually been given a copy of another policy this evening that comes from Blacktown, and I'm happy to look at that and see if we can incorporate any additional features in our policy. We've developed a policy template, but again, it's a work in progress, so happy to take any feedback. As I said, I will be speaking with Councillor Ross, and if I need to report anything back to Council, I will. The other thing I might point out as well is there was a question asked of me about the application of these policies. This policy only applies to staff delegations. We've got other delegations that relate to various committees and things like that.

They're not included in this. The management report from the audit committee was about having a policy statement in place for staff delegations.

Councillor Kotlash

If I just can, extending on your reply to my question before, in the definitions it's got administrative delegations. Are those delegations that do not derive their authority from legislation? Are they included in this policy? Because they're not explicitly listed, and that was my dilemma before.

So, Mr Mayor, they're included in the delegations register. So there are certain administrative functions that we allow staff at certain levels to perform. They're not specifically mentioned in the Local Government Act, but in terms of the operation of the organisation, it makes good sense to codify some of those administrative arrangements so that people know what they can and can't do.

Excellent. So if we can have those definitions and have that split so that it's clear that some of the delegations are under the Local Government Act and some aren't, and I think that would be a great improvement. And thank you for taking that on.

So you're moving that with those proposed changes, and Councillor Conolly, you're happy with that? Any further speakers?

Councillor Wheeler

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I've obviously missed something. I don't really understand where attachment two fits into this document. If we're not actually looking at the delegations, is that because they're under the Local Government Act? I don't understand this report well enough to pass it at this point. I would really like to see it come back to us at a briefing, and so I'm going to—we've not got an amendment on the table, have we? I'm going to move an amendment that this be deferred to a briefing, and I would like it to go to the Audit Committee as well.

Before you move the amendment, maybe the General Manager can answer that question. Maybe that will help you out.

I don't think he can. I don't understand this report sufficiently to be able to pass it this evening.

Okay. So you don't want an answer to your question about attachment two?

No, because he's already tried, and I clearly didn't understand it. So I obviously need some remedial instruction. I can see him shaking his head at me.

That wasn't what we discussed. It

Was what I was attempting to discuss.

I'll clarify attachment two. Attachment two is mentioned on page 12 of the report, and attachment two is mentioned in the context of the council resolution on 25 July 2017, where council delegated to me various functions under the Local Government Act. And that's what attachment two is about. It's about the various functions that council's delegated me under the Local Government Act. We also had that conversation about the nature of the delegations. They are of just staff delegations. They're not related to any of the committees or anything else.

So do you wish to proceed with your amendment? I

Do, because I am still not convinced.

Can you restate your amendment, please?

That the matter be deferred for consideration at a briefing and also the consideration of the audit committee.

Do we have a seconder for that? Councillor Reynolds. Councillor Wheeler, would you like to speak any more on it?

This is a delegation of our responsibility as councillors to the general manager. I am not attempting to infer any lack of trust in the general manager's abilities or his intentions, but I can't speak for other councillors, but I simply don't feel comfortable passing this report with my current level of understanding. Perhaps that's my fault and I should have got more information on it before this meeting, but at this point I don't feel that I can fulfil my obligations under the Local Government Act and pass this with the level of understanding that I currently have.

Any further speakers on the amendment? Councillor Reynolds.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I support the amendment. As I understand it, the audit committee has not reviewed this. Is that correct?

That's correct, and they wouldn't normally review it. Why is that? Because they don't actually get into that level of detail. As I said earlier, the audit committee set the audit program, they review the audit reports and the management actions in the audit reports, and they make sure that those audit reports are completed, but they don't actually get into the review of the results of the management actions. As I said earlier, we've had 160-odd management actions. Very few of those go to the audit committee unless there's a specific management action that says refer it to the audit committee.

Councillor Reynolds, anything else? Can I ask, General Manager, if this is deferred, will that have any implications on the running of Council?

No, Mr Mayor, not at all.

Any other speakers on the amendment?

No. Councillor Wheeler, right of reply. Not necessarily

Mr Mayor.

Is there a problem?

I'm just wondering what's the motion? Who's the motion?

We're discussing an amendment.

I didn't know you had right of reply. No

Sorry, she doesn't. I got that wrong. Yes.

Councillor Kotlash moved the motion. She has right of reply. Thank you. Councillor Kotlash, do you wish to exercise your right of reply?

No.

As long as we got it right. You don't wish to? No. Okay . Yes,

Thank you. Yes, Mr Mayor.

So in that case, we'll move the amendment. If you're in favour of the amendment, please stand.

I suppose I can't be in favour of the amendment.

The amendment to defer. Are

We all right? We know what we're doing.

In

Favour of the amendment is Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Sam Paragno, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Calvert. Against is Councillor Conolly and Councillor Kotlash. Absent is Councillor Ross and Councillor Rasmussen, declare it carried.

The motion disappears because it was replaced by the amendment. Okay.

Sorry? Vote on the motion. That's not the way I would do it. The amendment replaces the motion.

You'd like to vote on the motion, okay.

The motion being the amendment. So we're all in favour of that. I need to read the names again. Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Calvert. Absent: Councillor Ross and Councillor Rasmusson. Declare it carried. We'll need to discuss that one. My understanding is once the amendment is passed, the motion disappears. You don't need to put anyway. We

Will discuss it.

Item.

One ninety

Sorry, which one are we up to? One ninety. Council resolutions. Councillor Wheeler, you asked for this to come up. Did you want to move something?

I'm happy to move the recommendation in the business paper. I just wanted to flag a few things for the record. I'll second that.

Seconded by Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Yes, you wish to speak.

Sorry, looking, looking, looking.

I did, but now I can't find... I guess the overwhelming response when I read this is how proactive this council has tried to be over the last three years, and how stymied we frequently are by a lack of resources. And that is, that's actually really, as a councillor, I find that a really depressing outcome . So many good ideas, so many attempts at real change coming from this council, and never enough money to actually do anything. And I'm sure that that's as depressing for the staff as it is for us. There are outstanding resolutions from quite some time ago, and some of them were important. Some of them were urgent motions that were moved. And I note, for example, that we still haven't got signage up on swimming holes in the Hawkesbury.

Notice of motion that came last summer following a drowning. The swimming season has already started. The space between swimming seasons gets shorter and shorter. We've got people swimming in the river already, and still we don't have the signage that council requested. And I — That I find deeply troubling. There's.. . I don't have a solution to this, but I find it , I just find it really depressing that we work really hard and there's just never enough to do some of the very necessary things. And then there are all the motions that require us to ask, to beg the state government to do something on our behalf. And letters sent, reports submitted, requests sent, and absolutely nothing happens from that state government.

And I'm looking at things like state pensioner concessions. Nothing. This has been an ongoing issue for decades. Still nothing. We've discussed it with the local member. The local government association has tried. Nothing happens. And still councils are accused of not performing their functions when clearly the problem for councils isn't doing their work. The problem for council is funding the work in an increasing environment of cost shifting and loss of legislative control of really basic council functions like planning. So

While I'm proud of many of the things that we've put up as a council, I'm still disappointed that we don't have as much to show as we would like.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just with regard to what Councillor Wheeler has just raised, I understand how complex and how difficult it must be for staff to keep track of these. I like that we can see them set out in this format, but I was hoping we would have some sort of online or some sort of monitoring thing to see how they were going. But this is good to have this. I think in terms of, I just had a question of what system is there and how could we perhaps either assist or have some involvement , aside from not ever bringing anything up, which I think some people would think was the answer, but how can we... Know the priority of these sort of things. So if we have workshops, should we have a workshop where we go back through them and prioritise, and the staff tell us what's achievable, what could be left till later, what ties in with something else?

I just feel like there's so much there, and as Councillor Wheeler says, so much of it is good, and we do understand the resource limitations, and it's not fair to expect staff to have delivered it, but on the other hand, when do we revisit what's a priority and how do we do that?

Mr Mayor, I think the good thing that this Council resolved to do is to ask for this report on a six-monthly basis, and as staff we don't have any problem with that. The challenge for us has been to get it into some sort of manageable format. So we started a process of building a database, but that just became an enormous task because we were trying to build this functionality at the back end that would allow councillors to get an update on a fortnightly basis, or even as they required it or requested it, based on the resolutions they moved. We're now going back and looking at actually our document management system and seeing if we can put an index, because we're already doing everything through the document management system, but it hasn't been designed as a reporting tool for councillors.

So we're seeing if we can put an index over the top of that that will allow us to pull resolutions out and allow councillors to see the progress. But the other thing we've been doing for the last six months is we've changed the way we've- Stored the information in the document management system, because part of the problem was how we're actually storing information. Because again, we were storing it for a single purpose. Now we're storing it for more purposes so we can get that information. Once we can report it, then it's there for councillors to see, hopefully, and if there's a particular issue that's not moving as quickly as they want, they can alert us to that. So hopefully that increased transparency will make the system better work for everyone overall.

And

I will go out on a limb here and say that we're hoping that the January-February report for the period July to December will be in that new format and will be the start of something that will be more meaningful for councillors.

Thank you, but there was another element to my question. Yep.

Can you just remind me of the second element, sorry?

It was about the prioritising.

So part of the priority is set through the community strategic plan and the operational plan, but we can't just say it's in the operational plan or it's not in the operational plan, therefore we can or can't do it. We do have to have some capacity to respond to issues as they arise, and then we're going to rely on councillors, I suppose, to help us with those priorities. But things do come up. That are unexpected, and, you know, we have to deal with them. And I don't have a magic bullet, but I think we'll have a sense of what the priorities are.

Until we've got the system and we can start using it, I don't think I can give you the answer you want, other than we'll continue to work with councillors to understand their individual priorities, council's priorities, and see how we can keep those things moving.

Thank you.

Further speakers?

I just wanted to indicate that a lot of the policies we have are tied up in resolutions as well, where people have changed policies or added policies, added to policies, and once again, nothing seemed to happen. And so there is a review going of our policies and trying to organise those, and that's tied up with this matter, that the two things are tied together very strongly. And it's a big task, and I know the staff have been working on it for a long time now, about a year or so. And it's not as if they've forgotten. They actually are working on both those matters, and hopefully it'll come to a workshop where we can start to identify some of our priorities. Thank you, General Manager, for your update on that. Any further speakers? Councillor Wheeler, do you want right of reply?

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I just want to highlight a couple of examples of what I was talking about before about where Council either carries an extra burden or is stymied. So Resolution 276 from 2018 was about Streamwatch. We, at the local government conference a couple of weeks ago, we were approached by Conservation Volunteers Australia. So Streamwatch was funded by Sydney Water for a while. They dropped the funding, and that was part of the motion that I brought to Council. So we've now got some resolution on that, it seems, albeit short term. So Conservation Volunteers Australia are taking over Streamwatch, but funding is fairly short term and insecure. It looks like it will be only for a year or two at best.

They've made an informal request to the Deputy Mayor and myself, just because we were the ones walking past at the time, I think, to engage with CVA to ensure that Council participates. And they would like us to nominate five sensitive sites across the LGA that they could monitor with the help of the community. So it'll run as a similar program. It'll just be administered by a different organisation and be a bit less secure. The other example of Council having to find additional resources to sort out something that looked like a good deal to begin with and has turned into a very large kerfuffle is Resolution 024 from 2019—sorry, Resolution 116 from 2019, which is the Heritage Near Me program.

That's far from sorted out. Unfortunately, it's been an ongoing headache and cost for Council, and a significant loss of goodwill between Council and heritage owners. The State Government originally offered owners up to $100,000 each for work on heritage items. That's now turned into—we had 18 applicants from the Hawkesbury. That's now turned into $250,000 divided by 18. So clearly not $100,000. We've met with the local member, who was very receptive to our concerns. I can only assume that she was going to take those concerns back. to the minister, and I can only assume that she's met with the same brick wall we have because we haven't heard back from her. So this has left Council with an additional cost where Council now has to administer this fund and work out how to allocate it.

The heritage owners are dismayed. The staff are wondering how to do this along with their other functions. It's a shambles handed to us on a plate by the state government, and I think that's a real shame, and that's sucking up resources from strategic planning that could be used doing one of the other things that's listed on this list of resolutions from this Council. And that's where we keep getting stymied time and time again, and I think that's a great shame.

Thank you. That was right of reply. If you're in favour of this motion, please stand. In favour are Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Kotlash and Councillor Calvert. Against are Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards. Abstain are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Rasmussen and Councillor Ross. I declare it carried. Move to item.

Item 193, Councillor Wheeler, you brought this up. Did you want to raise something?

I just wanted to speak on the sustainability, some of the content of the Sustainability Committee's minutes. There's two items. Do we have a seconder

Please? Councillor. Thank you

There's two items that are relevant. Item G, which refers to the Mayoral Minute. It's fair to say that the Sustainability Advisory Committee was horrified by a net zero target of 2050 and called on us. They, in fact, called for a rescission motion. Work had already started, so a rescission motion wasn't possible. They want us to revert to the 2036 target set in the Community Strategic Plan. Now I know that there's a rationalisation of those two differences in the business paper. I don't know if I read it with the same glasses that I read the delegations report, but it didn't really clarify why we would have two separate targets. I must say I agree with the Sustainability Advisory Committee that 2050 is a really poor target.

We really need to show far greater leadership than this if we're ever going to get past the crisis that we face. And I think we should take the advice of our committee, one of our advisory committees, which in this instance is made up of professionals working in this space, advising us that 2036 is a minimum target for us, not an aspirational goal, and that 2050 simply isn't good enough. I would also note that the Sustainability Advisory Committee recommends an additional forum to discuss measures to deal with the climate emergency as per the... As per the earlier motion. And I'm pleased to see that the Mayor clarifying his position on the 2050 target, but also support from the majority of Councillors for an additional forum, which fits nicely in with the Sustainability Committee's recommendation.

General Manager, did you wish to comment on the officer's comment?

They are two quite different targets. One relates to the local government area and one relates to the organisation. The wording is not unclear , and they're two quite different tasks. The task for the organisation moving to net zero is much more under our control.

And the target is 2050 or sooner. That or sooner keeps getting dropped off every conversation, but that was deliberately put in there. And the other target in the Community Strategic Plan is for the local government area, and that relates to every resident and business in the local government area. And that's a much more difficult objective because it relates to a whole range of stakeholders that we will have to bring along with us, rather than the situation where we have greater control on the actual organisation. And so we're suggesting we go and meet with the committee and explain to them the situation and explain to them what progress we've been making in relation to the organisation.

Deputy Mayor

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you for that explanation. I actually would have thought the targets would be the other way around, if that were the thing. If we've got more control, I would think that the organisation would have the lower target. And it is difficult to transition an entire community , and it does require leadership, which I just reiterated my previous notice of motion, which was about making some changes and getting us on the board to show the community the direction we're heading was related to that. I think the Sustainability Committee for their work as well, because I was reading through some interesting things there. Thank you.

It appears that the Sustainability Committee and some of the councillors have misunderstood the mayoral minute that came out on this topic. My aim, as I said earlier tonight, my aim as always, to try and get all the councillors inside the tent working together. I knew the state government had a target of 2050, so I thought by setting one of 2050 or sooner, I would get all the councillors on board, and indeed all the councillors over there on my right did come on board. It was actually two councillors on the left who decided not to support this, and I was quite surprised. My aim was to get all councillors on board with the idea that we are going to aim for zero net emissions, and we would set this interim target, and then we would have a workshop where we would sit down together and work out how we would proceed.

We'd work out a rational way to proceed, and we would work out a much lower target. As I said earlier, I'm hoping the target will be 2030, maybe even earlier. How could anyone believe that I would want to set a target of 2050? I never did. 2050 was our talking point, our way of starting the conversation, getting everyone on board. Perhaps I didn't write it as clearly as I should, and perhaps that's why there's some confusion. But I need to point out to the Sustainability Committee and everyone else that 2050 is not the target I'm aiming at. I'm aiming at a much earlier target, and hopefully we will all work together in those workshops to get there. That was my aim. Unity. And once again, maybe I do live in a fantasy world, but it would be nice if we all got together on this issue, and that's what I was hoping would happen.

And I do take on board that the Sustainability Committee probably had the right to say what it said because it misunderstood what I was on about. But hopefully that'll be corrected now. Any further speakers?

Nope. Councillor Wheeler, right of reply.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I still don't quite see why we can be more ambitious for the whole LGA and not ambitious at all, frankly, for ourselves. That seems the reverse of leadership to me. And so I will understand the Sustainability Advisory Committee asking us to hold ourselves to a higher standard. Now, we may well all have misunderstood the meaning of the mayoral minute, and I'm very pleased to see the Mayor clarifying that he wants a much earlier target. But I think there is a place, there is a time and a place for unity. There is a time and a place to attempt to get people on side so that they work with you. And then there is an emergency when you simply have to act. And if people can't get in the tent because their ideology forbids them, then you need to move on without them, because it's frankly too dangerous to hang about.

We need, as an LGA, to set clear, ambitious goals. It's our job as a civic leader. It's our job as a custodian of this place, and our job as a representative of the people. Whether— It's our job to be well informed and to act whether everybody thinks it's a grand idea or not. The fact that the state government has a 2050 target is, I think, probably the worst thing going for the 2050 target. This is the state government who still thinks that coal is a grand thing, who is still willing to state publicly, repeatedly, its own ministers, that coal is a grand thing. We should not be holding them up as any sort of example, regardless of whether we want to get in the tent or not.

I would claim that I've been misrepresented there. We don't have a 2050 target. Anyway.

194. Councillor Wheeler, I note you brought this one up. Do you wish to— I'll

Move it, Mr Mayor.

Deputy Mayor, you wish to move it? Yep. We have a seconder.

No seconder. Councillor Reynolds is seconding it. Okay. Deputy Mayor, you wish

To— Thank you. This is just the Flood Committee minutes, just a brief rundown. Again, the issue of insurance premiums came up and the discussion regarding the increasing insurance premiums people in flood areas are receiving, and also the inevitable cost to government in times of disaster due to increasing numbers of people not taking out insurance anymore. With regard to this, and since the release of the regional flood study, the committee is to contact the council, seeks to contact the Insurance Council of Australia to see what changes the availability of this data has had, the impact this has had on any change in premiums for insurance. Another issue was about to seeking clarification for the closure of the Hawkesbury bridges.

We're still trying to actually get the exact data on when the bridges close at what flood height. We had an update from Infrastructure New South Wales, which was about the campaign that people may have seen recently that was about the flooding. There was a lot of concern expressed in the committee that the Hawkesbury had largely been ignored. We had the only form of the advertising we had was the drive-through billboard, which came through five times apparently. Whereas, for example, in Riverstone there were billboards up on top of buildings, and a lot more in Penrith and so on. There was a real concern that the very people who may be hardest hit had missed out on getting this valuable information from Infrastructure New South Wales.

Their representative, Stephen Yeo, who was there, said that he would take that back to the committee. I'm not sure if this will— If this will be followed up and if there'll be any changes. But I did see a wrap on the front of the Gazette that had the picture as well. Just some feedback personally when talking to people is that the campaign has been quite alarmist. Many people I've spoken to have said, If it's going to be that bad, what the heck? It's not really doing the job of assisting people in preparing to be ready for flooding. I think that if they dealt with the more minimal floods and the impacts of flooding, because this was only about inundation, it wasn't about the impacts. There was no mention of the impact of loss of power.

When we don't have power, how that affects people in a flood, of public health considerations or anything like that. It was simply just that we flooded before and we're going to flood again. And that's great to bring awareness to people because many people don't know that. But it could have gone further in actually addressing other aspects of what happens in a flood. Based on around that sort of thing, it was suggested by a member of the committee that we do a trial run of the evacuation routes, and Kevin Jones from the SES was following up on that, and he had offered that he would run that himself if the SES wasn't keen. So that's basically from all the areas where the evacuation routes are, that we just do a trial run, that they're clear and concise and people can negotiate them sufficiently.

Again, the issue of the loss of power in the event of flood was raised, and we will be requesting that Council clarify this once and for all from Endeavour Energy, because we had people on the committee who had received contradictory information on that front. I then gave an update on the Get Ready Street Connect project, which is a resilience-building project of which I am chair. It's funded by the Office of Emergency Management and the Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal, and that was just an update on how that... Now that's going along. So that's what's in the minutes.

Finished Thank you. Any further speakers?

No further speakers. Would you like a right of reply?

Yes, no.

The report is being moved by the Deputy Mayor, seconded by Councillor Reynolds. If you're in favour, please stand.

Favour, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler , Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Samprogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards, Councillor Calvert. Absent, Councillor Ross and Councillor Rasmussen, and declared carried.

Move to item 195. Move that,

Mr Mayor.

We have a seconder? Councillor Wheeler, thank you.

I'll just speak briefly on that. I'd just really like to take the opportunity to thank our waste education officer, I think that's his title, Justin Murphy, on delivering the updates on the programs that we run. These are really popular. The waste education projects are incredibly popular within the community. They're always well attended, and people are always giving positive feedback about both the programs and about Justin's engagement with them. So that's a really good piece of feedback, and we are doing so many good things in the waste area. An integrated waste management strategy is currently being undertaken. We were given a draft survey, which all committee members are going to fill in regarding the proposed changes to the committee structure, and that was explained to the committee members, and I believe will be explained to all the various committees as they come into their meetings.

And the other thing to mention was the Hawkesbury Remakery has opened in Lower House, which is wonderful for the local area. Secondhand Saturday is on the 16th of November, and there's a large degree of interest in the online reuse and repair directory that we set up, so that's very popular with people. And that, combined with the Remakery, has given us a really good momentum in the recycling/reuse sector within this township. So the other thing that was raised was some committee members were seeking to have informal meetings between the twice-a-year committee meetings, but that doesn't involve staff. I think what it was was for some of the people who work in that space just wanting to meet outside and come up with some ideas that could be then presented or canvassed.

Just that they happen to be on the Waste Committee, so I don't think that's anything of great import. Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I want to echo the Deputy Mayor's praise of Mr Murphy, who's a real asset in this space. He seems to run these things on the smell of an oily rag. They're always oversubscribed. People are asking for us to run waste workshops during the evening or weekends so that people can access them if they work. So I think that's something we really need to look into, because it would allow us to hit a different demographic entirely, people who are not available at 10 a.m. on a Thursday morning, which is lots of our LGA, I suspect, and probably people who are dealing with the biggest waste burden, which is people with young kids, with food waste, nappies, the endless parade of plastic next needed-to-have thing.

So if we could access those people, I think that would be really worthwhile. I also want to comment on the remakery. I attended the opening along with Councillor Reynolds on Saturday night. It was a fantastic event. There was such a positive vibe in Thompson Square—sorry, not Thompson Square—in Windsor Mall. Lots of the businesses stayed open, some of them quite unexpectedly. So apparently because of the wind, it was quite a dead day in Windsor, and so shop owners were considering closing. They thought it would be all over in 15 minutes. And some of them were shocked to find that they were still open and selling two hours later. So it was a really, really good event. Lota House looks beautiful.

It's lovely to see it back and open. The stuff exhibited by various makers about the place, from high-end art down to recycled jewellery by one of the members of our— Animal Shelter Committee to raise funds for her organisation. Items priced between $450 and $5, so a really broad range of stuff, all kept out of landfill, which is lovely, and good for us because then we don't have to pay any extra. The other thing that came up in the Waste Committee meeting, which is of note, is the remote collection of hazardous waste in the McDonald Valley. So the McDonald Valley Association is working with Council to put on a trial day where everybody, instead of bringing all their stuff down to either the tip or to the chemical collection day at Clarendon, we go up to the McDonald Valley and pick it up.

It meets one of Council's other objectives, which is to try and get hazardous waste off flood-affected properties in particular. So this is a nice partnership between the McDonald Valley Association. We discussed this with the EPA at the Local Government Association meeting, who were really interested in the project and are keen to link up with both Council and the McDonald Valley Association to learn from that trial and hopefully to consider it as a trial site for collection of asbestos waste, which was a recommendation that came up at the Local Government Conference as well. So it's a nice example of Council doing something that's a little bit innovative that engages those far-flung communities.

So I think waste is a huge problem for councils. We seem to be getting a lot of this right, and that's really positive going forward. So I think the Committee is very keen to see the waste review as it comes out next year.

Any further speakers? Deputy Mayor, do you want right of reply?

Not necessary, thanks. Then

I'll move the report, moved by Councillor— by the Deputy Mayor, seconded by Councillor Wheeler. If you're in favour, please stand. In favour of the report, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Calvert. Absent, Councillor Ross and Councillor Rasmussen, and declare it carried.

We move to questions from the last meeting, I believe. Councillor Wheeler, question number one, page 98.

No, I'm fine. Thanks. No thanks, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Ross is absent. Did anyone else wish to question anything about the answer, Councillor Ross's question? Nope.

I suppose I'm supposed to move that as a separate item. No? Procedural, yes. Item 199, questions for tonight. Deputy Mayor,

You have a question?

No questions.

And there's two questions from you. You're neither of those?

No questions on either,

Thank you. Okay. Someone like to move we accept all that? Moved Deputy Mayor, seconded Councillor Wheeler. All those in favour say aye.

Declare it carried.

Go now to the confidential section. Someone like to move we move into confidential. Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Richards. All those in favour, say aye. Carried. Move to confidential.

In regard to item 198, whilst in closed session Council resolved— sorry, in regard to item 200, whilst in closed session Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Kotlash, seconded by Councillor Reynolds, that: one, Council agree to enter into a new lease with Alison Griffiths, Daniel Griffiths and Clifford Griffiths for the property known as Shop 5, Wilberforce Shopping Centre, as outlined in the report; two, authority be given for the lease and any other relevant documentation associated with this matter to be executed under seal of Council; three, details of Council's resolution be conveyed to the proposed tenants together with the advice that Council's not and will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as appropriate legal documentation to put such a resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by all parties.

Voting in favour of the recommendation were Councillors—

Councillor Garrow, Reynolds, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Kotlash, Zamprogno, Conolly, Tree, Richards, and Councillor Calvert. Not present were Councillors Ross and Rasmussen. In regard to item 201, whilst in closed session Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Kotlash, seconded by Councillor Reynolds, that: one, Council agree to enter into a lease with the Icebox Liquor Proprietary Limited for the property known as Shop 1, Glossodia Shopping Village, as outlined in the report; two, if the lease with Icebox Liquor Proprietary Limited as outlined in part one above proceeds, then Council agree to surrender the current lease with Joe Dell Enterprises Proprietary Limited; three, authority be given for the lease and any other relevant documentation in association with the matter to be executed under seal of Council; four, details of Council's resolution be conveyed to the proposed lessee and current lessee together with the advice that Council's not and will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as appropriate legal documentation to put such a resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by all parties.

Voting in favour of the recommendation, or the resolution, are Councillors Garrow, Reynolds, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Kotlash, Zamprogno, Conolly, Tree, Richards, and Calvert. Not present were Councillors Ross and Rasmussen. In regard to item 202, whilst in closed session Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Kotlash, seconded by Councillor Reynolds, that Council appoint Amicus Advisory Proprietary Limited as its investment advisor for a period of two years and eight months commencing on the 1st of November 2019 and ending on 30th of June 2022. Voting in favour of the resolution were Councillors Garrow, Reynolds, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Kotlash, Zamprogno, Conolly, Tree, Richards, and Calvert.

Not present were Councillors Ross and Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr. Mifsud. Being no further business, I'll declare the meeting closed at 9.47 p.m.