26 November 2019 - Ordinary

Good evening everyone and welcome to the ordinary meeting of Hawkesbury Council for the 26th of November 2019. I'll hand over to the General Manager to go through some procedural matters.

Sorry, I forgot. Before I do that, I'd like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land on which we hold our meeting and pay respect to Elders both past and present. Now I'd like to hand over to the General Manager for some procedural matters, please.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Members of the public attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, you will be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit, following the guidance of our 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, and 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 any persons who will be addressing Council tonight, it is expected that you will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting. This request relates to both your address to Council and any answers given in response to questions from councillors. Finally, it is requested that if any person in the Council chamber has a mobile phone, that they either turn it off or turn it to silent.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mr

Conroy. I believe we have apologies from Councillor Garrow. That's correct. Would someone like to move that? Deputy Mayor and Councillor Rasmussen, all those in favour say aye.

Carried. Do we have any declarations of interest, please? Nope. The minutes of the last meeting, would someone like to move we accept the minutes? Councillor Zamprogno, seconded

Councillor Kotlash. Any discussion? If not, I'll move the minutes. All those in favour say aye. We don't have any.

Items subject to public address. We don't have any mayoral minutes. We have two items on block, items 214 and 223. Deputy Mayor's moving we accept those two items, and Councillor Rasmussen is seconding. All those in favour say aye. Declare it carried.

We now will then work our way through the rest of the items in the order in which they appear in the business paper, unless somebody wants to suggest otherwise. And the first item is item 215, Western Sydney Health Alliance. Does anyone wish to move anything on item 215, please?

If nothing gets moved, the item will lapse. Councillor Sam Progna. You're moving the business paper?

I am.

Councillor Rasmussen, do you wish to speak to it, Councillor Sam Progna?

Only briefly. Arrangements of this kind are a good idea, but if it's one of these rare opportunities for us to talk about health services in the Hawkesbury in the broader context of our region, I think that it's important that whenever we have such a voice, that we advocate for the retention and development of services in our area, rather than meet the risk of losing them to adjacent areas. In years to come there will be a new hospital at Rouse Hill. My understanding is that that should be a full service hospital, and I think that at that time it will be important for the Hawkesbury to have a strong voice in saying that that should come with no diminution of services that are available through our own local hospital. If this kind of collaboration gives us that kind of voice, then I'm all for it.

Further speakers? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm not entirely sure of what to think of this. Having spent 20 years working for the Western Sydney Area Health Service, I find— I find this push for councils to do more in this space, and yet this creeping control of councils by the state government potentially troubling. I think that there's a lot of good intent in this, but I'm not sure how it's going to translate to practice in the long term. I note that the anticipation is that the Western Sydney City Deal and the alliance that results will be a 20-year partnership for this council. That's a very long time that we're signing up for, with not a lot of detail in a space that seems to be constantly moving, and that I think is troubling.

Health isn't exactly roads, rates and rubbish, but we know that we do a lot in this space, but increasingly around mental health. I also note that council didn't pay to be part of this health alliance previously, and I'm wondering if we know what the financial contribution of the other councils was. So we've not— it says in the report that we didn't pay a financial contribution and have not been a former member of the steering committee. I'm wondering how much the other councils paid. Do we know?

General Manager. The size of the councils varies, and I believe that the contribution was between 10 and 20 thousand.

Thanks. I'm also concerned about the potential staff time commitment here, given that much of this isn't core council business. I'm also concerned that a lot of this is about gathering evidence and... As a scientist, I'm really keen on gathering evidence, but that assumes, at the end of the day, that the government will listen to that evidence, and that appears currently to be a very long bow. What this report does do is highlight the problems with a private provision of public health services, especially when that provider has ideological interests that prevent access to healthcare. And you will note that it's stated in this report that St John of God does not provide a full suite of reproductive health services in this area.

So let's hope that Rouse Hill Hospital does, because the women of the Hawkesbury deserve to have full access to publicly funded reproductive healthcare in an institution that is funded by the public dollar, without an overlay of someone else's ideology preventing them from achieving services. And this is the sort of information that if this council enters this alliance, we need to be bringing forward. I'm also not sure that healthy food is the only way to remedy the Hawkesbury's problems with obesity, poor, fair to poor health, and being physically inactive. It would appear to me that one of the key problems for the people of the Hawkesbury is poor access to public transport, to active transport links, and we'll note later in the quarterly review that funding to cycleways has been cut by the state government, and that better access to jobs, both within and without the LGA, and public transport to get to them would substantially help the healthcare of these people.

So again, I hope that council That Council pushes its place in this. I see that we're also making decisions by consensus, but I'll bring that forward into the governance agreement at item 216.

You had another minute, by the way. Okay. Any other speakers? Councillor Ross.

I've got some questions, if I may. The first question is,

Is this alliance directly associated with the Cities Deal?

General Manager ? Yes, it is.

Thank you. My second question is, why does not this

Alliance

Fall in under the

Item 216 to an extent where we have the mayors, if you like, overseeing the Cities Deal arrangements? I'm just wondering, for the purposes of the functioning of this so-called alliance, why it doesn't fall within the purview of the mayors' overall control, and also to enable whatever output is going to come from this alliance to— to be looked at in the light of those senior folk. Mrs

Perrin?

Through you, Mr Mayor, all activities under City Deals do get reported via the Mayoral Forum and through other governance arrangements as part of City Deals. So the activities of the health alliance will be reported via the Mayoral Forum, as well as the implementation board and the other governance levels within City Deals.

So the Mayor's Forum, or whatever it is the correct description, will act as the, if you like, the arbiter of the outcomes that these people are coming up with in the Alliance.

The matter under consideration tonight is literally just starting. So the City Deals were signed 18 months ago. The Commonwealth, State and Local Government have been meeting on this for about 12 months, and out of that meeting process, they've decided that the priorities for the City Deal region, getting people active, and that can range from how you get to work to how you get to school to what you do after school or what you do as a family on weekends. There's all sorts of dimensions to each, to being active, as well as the other three priority areas. And those groups will work up programs, and the results of that work will be reported through the Mayoral Forum and ultimately be reported back through to the councils as well.

So it's just starting. These are the priority areas, and there'll be further reports in due course which will go past the Mayoral Forum, in addition to other forums.

Further

Questions Yes. Why would this not be just described as a working group under the—

I think working group's a term that's common to Hawkesbury Council, and other forums have different terminology, and this is the terminology that's been determined by the stakeholders who have participated in this process.

Councillor Ross. Yes. I take it that this is in fact a, if you like, a joint initiative of the Australian Government through Primary Health Networks, both Nepean and Southwestern Sydney, and the New South Wales Department of Health through Nepean and Southwestern Sydney.

And I would take it that both of those governmental agencies would regard this as being just part of their particular bailiwicks in each case. Is that correct?

It's certainly, I suppose you'd say, core business for elements of the Commonwealth and State Government agencies, but what it's starting to do is to land the work of those agencies on a particular geographic location. And that geographic location relates to the Western Sydney City Deal area, as does the focus of transport, as does the focus of environment. What it starts to do is align all of these considerations into a common geographic location and starts to attempt to remove some of the artificial boundaries that currently exist across that geographic location. And it allows the councils the opportunity to participate as partners in that process. So it is, to a degree, business as usual, but it's a different approach.

Councillor Ross. Is it the intent of the recommendation proffered by staff at page 36 that this council become a full member of the so-called steering committee?

The proposal is that we do become a member. That's correct. But our understanding is that that will not come as any additional cost to council.

Is that not contrary to the understandings within the document itself, that there are indeed financial and possibly contributions in kind in terms of staff, shall I put it, labours indeed? So

The financial contributions have been historical. That's not the situation going forward in all likelihood. And there is a works, you know, a works in kind, if you like, an in-kind contribution. But again, I think the point for council to— Consider here is that there's a cost of whatever decision you make, and if you make a decision to participate, the cost is the participation of the staff and the benefits are the outcomes that you get. If your decision is not to participate, that may be a reduced cost in one sense, but it may also be reduced benefits as well. And I think historically that's been one of the challenges for this council, is that it hasn't participated perhaps as much as it should have, and it hasn't benefited as much accordingly.

Councillor Ross. Yes, thank you for that. I do notice that the other councils have contributed both in monetary and personnel terms, and I would understand that

We would be

Placed in a similar position

Is this a question, Councillor Ross?

Yes. I'm just wishing to try and ascertain that and ascertain what I mean. I

Also see that the council report would indicate that the alliance is talking about an employment of at least a coordinator, if not a reporter, if not some other secretariat-type function, which would involve us contributing financially too as part and parcel of the deal.

As I've outlined, the understanding at this point in time is that there's no additional cost to council,

So

We already make... Some contributions to the City Deal generally, and we've done that for a number of years. But this particular project, at this particular point in time, does not anticipate any additional financial cost to council, and that's—

Might I add that those staff members are actually being covered by the current contributions that have been made by the other parties in the deal, in the alliance.

Thank you for that.

Thank you. Can you

Turn your microphone on, please? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to make

Some general comments. The document doesn't seem to be particularly well drafted. It appears at section 9 to talk about a work plan, which is why I was asking questions about whether it's a working group, in fact. I would have thought that there would have been some clear aims indicated through the document. They don't appear to be there. I also question section 6.2, which reads as follows: The chair of the alliance will be drawn from one of the local councils. I suggest that word be deleted. Councils represented on the steering committee. A decision about the chair will be made annually in September by members of the alliance. The chair will rotate between councils that are members of the alliance.

Now, it is not clear from that whether the chair— In fact, is the council representative, or whether that person can be drawn from within one of the member councils, but not be the delegate of the council in the alliance . Do you understand what my point is?

And I'm seeking clarification of that. I

Thought you weren't asking any more questions. Do you have an answer to that, please?

Well, I just find it strange, thank you. It's unclear.

I'm happy to take those comments on board and we can pass them back to the group for dealing with it. Well

I point out that that is unclear. The other point about 6.2 is that the chair will rotate. Now, does that mean annually or otherwise? And the deletion of the word local, I think would be appropriate in terms of council. And then 6.3, the Alliance steering committee will meet on the first Tuesday of each month unless otherwise agreed . Why can't it just say the Alliance will meet monthly? Leave it at that, and they can sort out when they're going to meet. No problem. Now , 6.7.1, sorry, 6.7.1, a maximum of two NGO partners at any one time may be appointed to the steering committee. I would suggest as associate members may be needed to be required there. 6.7.3, associate members do not have voting rights.

I would add on the steering committee. I think it's not a very well worded document, and I think it does need a bit of honing. And I'm surprised that such a flimsy presentation is part and parcel of the city's deal arrangements, because I thought it would have been very much more professional, frankly. And I'm not quite sure that there's much benefit to be gained. I mean, it seems to be conducting a series of surveys and so on . And heaven knows how anyone gets anyone to be active at anything these days. I mean, it just seems to be a forlorn hope these days, particularly with youth, except for participating sporting activities. Even the occupation of the inclusive play space in South Windsor has fallen away pretty substantially over time as people have become accustomed to its presence.

So I have some doubts about it. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor

Reynolds. Yes, thanks, Mr Mayor. I have a couple of questions. Looking at the thematic health priorities, you know, number one is getting people active and it's livability, access to health and wellbeing services, promoting healthy food access and choices. There are already.. . Several government departments or organisations that seem to cover those areas. For example, there's the Office of Preventative Health, there's Get Healthy New South Wales, there's Go for Fun, there's HealthShare New South Wales and there's, if I can say it properly, Lives Lived Well. So is this the idea of this alliance, is that to bring all those things together within the boundaries of the councils involved in the alliance, or is this another layer of bureaucracy on top of what already exists?

The intention would be to build on activities that are happening and see how we can have them focus on a place-based perspective, and then we'd be looking at, from a Hawkesbury point of view, what could we be drawing in and accessing for our community.

So couldn't we do that already with what already exists?

The benefit of doing this through partnership is we can actually share the load.

Further speakers? Can I just point out that what they're trying to push through here is a regional structure to address regional issues. For example, I went to a diabetes forum recently, and Western Sydney has the highest incidence of diabetes in Australia, I think. Might be just New South Wales. And the idea of this MOU would be that something like diabetes could be addressed across the region by all three levels of government at once, in a coordinated approach. And by having all three levels of government involved, it has the potential to attract more funds. It provides a vehicle for those funds to come from, especially from the Commonwealth Government. Other councils have had MOUs with health departments and health areas for quite some time.

I know the Human Services Committee was asked about two years ago why other councils have an MOU with their local area health and we don't. So this is not a new thing. What it's doing is rounding up all those MOUs of which we were never part and making a regional structure. It's a brand new idea. It's a brand new approach, and whether it actually delivers what we hope it will deliver, I think we need to get behind it at this stage and push for it because hopefully it'll give more services to the people of Hawkesbury. It puts us in a bigger pool. At the moment, people are sent out to Penrith or somewhere else, but by getting into this pool, it's possible the services will be brought into us.

So there are a lot of advantages for Hawkesbury to be part of this, and I don't see any deficits, any problems of joining it. So I can't see why people can't support this in its current format. Whether it is well written or not, the concept is still pretty good, I think. So I would back this. I hope you do too. Any further speakers? Councillor Sam Probyn, right of reply.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I will be brief. I rather fear that we're overthinking this. Let me just recap. This is not a 20-year agreement. It's a three-year memorandum of understanding. So yes, but the MOU that we're being asked to endorse this evening is a three-year MOU. It gives us a seat at that table at no cost. It brings council into the fold at a level that we're rarely asked about. Councils have relatively little to do with the provision of health services, and yet we do have a valuable perspective to bring and to advocate from our geographical perspective. The discussion in the business paper says it very clearly: the Hawkesbury is frequently overlooked in the Nepean Health Region, resulting in limited state funding.

Well, I agree. So for us to have a seat at that table, I think is altogether a good thing. I think that the focus areas that have been identified in this MOU are certainly very relevant to this region, especially when it refers to access. And I'll return to my original theme. If we have this seat at the table and it gives us the ability to advocate for full service through our local healthcare resources in the area of emergency medicine and rehabilitation and maternity and nuclear medicine and oncology and aged care and whatever it is that our community needs, I think it's good that this vehicle will exist for us to be able to advance our community's interests. So I do endorse the recommendation.

Thank you. It has been moved by Councillor Zamprogno and seconded by Councillor Rasmussen. If you're in favour, please stand.

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

Now move to item 216. Is anyone interested in moving something

Move that way

Mr Mayor. Councillor Rasmussen is moving the recommendation. Do we have a seconder for that?

No. Councillor Conolly, thank you. Councillor Rasmussen, you wish to speak?

Pardon me, Mr Mayor, having set up the eight councils and having the need to work together in a sensible framework of business-like activities, I guess a framework like this is absolutely necessary. And I think it covers the big issues, it covers the broader issues, and I think from me reading it, it really should be supported by us. We certainly need it to frame what we have to do within that alliance, or the City Deal, and the sooner we, I think, we adopt it, the sooner we can move on and get down to the nitty-gritty of actually achieving something and getting some benefits for the local community for this area under the City Deal. So I would certainly advocate that we support it.

Thank you. Any further speakers?

No. No further? Deputy Mayor.

Sorry, Mr Mayor, just a question. The term Western Parkland Councils, the setting up of it looks very much like a ROC. I'm just wondering if, and the governance of it also does. I know it has different functions, I understand what it is. I'm just wondering, is that the formal name of it now, Western Parkland Councils?

Mr Conroy. Yes, it is. Okay. And like all things, it's a negotiated name.

That's an unfortunate name. Yeah, okay. And there was only verbal confirmation from the state and federal government in that. Will that be confirmed in the document?

Can I just get some clarity on the question?

In, I don't know, I was reading it on my iPad, so — is it? I'm not sure in the paper copy where it is. I read it this afternoon , and in the— oh, I'm on the wrong item. Forty-two, yeah.

Yeah . First paragraph. Yes. So verbal confirmation of ongoing funding. I think it would be more pertinent to have that in writing because verbal confirmation can be withdrawn at any point of time.

It's certainly— we've received verbal. It's in the minutes, and one of the people that provided verbal was Stephen Kennedy, who's the new head of Treasury at the Commonwealth. He's gone from the City Deals to Treasury, and the other person who provided the verbal was Tim Reardon, who's the Director-General. So they're happy with the minutes. The minutes say that it's there, but we'll get the letter just to be sure.

Okay.

Thank you. Further speakers? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Yeah, I guess I'm wondering where this fits with our ongoing commitment to WesROC as well and what the— What the perceived future is for all of these councils involved, there appears to be increasing overlap in both governance and strategising between both those organisations, and I guess at one point we're going to have to assess where our allegiance lies. I'm also wondering about what steps have been taken, if any, to engage Parramatta and Blacktown in this process. I know they're not on the list and they're considered to be too big to need this additional assistance, but it seems to me silly to be planning for health and planning and various other agreements without the major players in the region. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who's thought of that, so I'm sure there's some attempt to fill that void. I'm just wondering what that is.

So the city deal relates to the Western Parkland City as outlined in the state government's Strategic Plan for Metropolitan Sydney. And in that plan there's an Eastern Harbour City, there's a Central River City, and a Western Parkland City. And the city deal relates to that Western Sydney area, and what it is doing is focusing education , transport, employment, environment and health into that Western Parkland region. And those other councils are not in that parkland region, so they're not involved in that particular process.

But is there liaison between those two? Particularly major jobs providers, major centres for Western Sydney around these issues. So,

No system is perfect, and when it comes to the planning partnership, Blacktown are involved because there are still substantial areas of Blacktown that are subject to urban release provisions. However, when you get to things like economic development, you've got to be really careful about the message that you're sending to the market. Parramatta would have you believe that it is Western Sydney and that it's the beginning and the end of Western Sydney. But when you're actually trying to get resources into the Western Parkland City, it doesn't always suit to have Parramatta in the room, because they're already big enough to survive in their own right. We're looking at getting the jobs in Western Sydney, not in Parramatta.

We're looking at the transport being in Western Sydney, not in Parramatta. And again, there was quite a push to get the rail link from Parramatta to the airport, and what the City Deal was successful in achieving was getting a north-south link from the airport up to St Marys, with the scope to go to Campbelltown in the south and Rouse Hill in the north, which is a better outcome for Western Sydney than a line from Parramatta to the airport. So I think sometimes it suits not to work with Parramatta, but to work in that Western Parkland Sydney context, and that's what this is about.

Thanks. I think that answers the question. The other thing that I think is a bit of a red flag is the decision-making process that's outlined in this report. I think the focus on consensus decision-making is potentially a bit naive, coming from an organisation that relies on consensus decision-making. I am very well aware of its many, many perils and just how time-consuming. And that's the thing about consensus decision-making, is that it requires two things: it requires time and goodwill. And often they're missing in political forums, in particular. Local government is always short of time and resources. At the moment, we seem to have an abundance of goodwill around this, and I suspect that's because it's the beginning.

The councils, it appears, have been quite conciliatory and very keen to work with each other for the betterment of Western Sydney, and that is to be applauded. But it may not last, and I'm concerned that we haven't fleshed out really good conflict resolution mechanisms. I'm also not sure that we have sufficient accountability mechanisms in here either. This seems to be putting a lot of onus on the mayors. When you send a delegate, particularly to a consensus decision-making forum, you must have really strict accountability mechanisms. And I say that not as a member of Hawkesbury Council, but as a councillor of a Western Sydney council, and I think all the councils should be concerned about this.

Councils need to set parameters for their delegates to work within. They all need to ensure that the mayors represent their councils and not their affiliated political parties. I'm not sure what we do with conflict resolution when politics gets in the road, which it inevitably will. We've seen that over the years with Westrock. We will see it again. In this space, and I don't think that saying we'll work towards consensus, and then we throw the baby out with the bathwater and we go back to majority vote. There's a world of difference between consensus and majority voting, and it's a bit of a leap to jump from one to the other. I would strongly recommend that majority vote has to be recorded as being a different outcome to a consensus decision.

A majority vote should never be misrepresented as consensus. It would be far better to work towards a modified consensus over a simple majority if what you're looking for is an agreement from the majority of councils, rather than just 50% plus one, which is what's proposed here if consensus doesn't work. So I think while it's nice to be pushing for this, I think it's a bit naive. So I'm hoping that the mayor can take that issue forward. But as a council, I think we need to have some measures for parameters to send the mayor in. It's really difficult as a delegate to prosecute an argument to a group of people who may not necessarily be on your side when they think that they can pressure you into doing something.

If we send our mayor in with strict accountability guidelines and strong parameters for him to negotiate within, that actually leaves us and our mayor in a much stronger position than when the other people that he's up against think that they can bully him or push him or cajole him into doing what they want. So it leaves him in a much better position than he would ordinarily be. But we also have to have mechanisms for him to report back to us. So I would really like to see some feedback to this council about how we're going to manage this process, because currently this isn't sufficient.

Any further speak, Councillor Tree.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. My understanding with the West Rock Constitution is that because you're a board member of that particular board , the decisions that you made were based on the information put forward at the board. You weren't actually representing, although you came from feeder councils, you weren't representing the— and you were not required to represent the political will of whatever the council is that you came from, actually. It wasn't. You were obligated to work under the constitution of the West Rock board, not the other way around. So I think that sometimes these things that are set up— oh, it doesn't matter. Anyway, that was just the point I was making. West Rock is not as it's been suggested.

Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm sorry, I should have framed a couple of questions in my address. So if you've got some

Questions, have you? I've got a couple, I think. Okay, please go ahead.

Is that okay, Mr Mayor? Thank you very much. Mr Mayor, I referred to fit for the future strategic, or strategy considerations. In there refers to— that's on page— yippee-doo— the last page, 43. It refers to an amount of $95,000 potentially becoming available as a result of terminating the RSA. And then it goes on to say, in the course of developing the next budget , 2021, Council could consider reallocating that amount of money. Are we actually, is this 70F flag or are we setting the rails up for doing that? And if we don't as a council, given that that will probably be a new council, are we setting something up there that maybe we don't want to do right now? That's the first question. And second question, it talks about councils contributing 20,000 in 19-20, and subsequently a yearly contribution of 40,000.

But in the report, it says that we've, this financial year, we've allocated 30,000. So the question then becomes, did we not know what the contribution was likely to be going to be when we formulated the budget, and that's probably the right answer, or is there some other answer to that?

The latter observation is correct. We didn't know what the financial obligation was going to be at the time we framed the budget. So we've got 30,000 in there at the moment, and pro rata this is looking at 20,000 for the year. And in the long-term financial plan, we've got an allocation of $95,000 per annum for the RSA, and when we look at the budget, council can consider whether it wants to put a portion of that towards the City Deal going forward. So there's a way of funding it. The other thing is the agreement does give council the option to withdraw with three months' notice. So if we frame a budget and there's no allocation, we may well decide we don't want to be a member as well.

Thank you.

Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. As one of this Council's representatives to WESROC, I do recognise the similarities between this proposed arrangement and our membership of WESROC. WESROC has as a defect, for example, the fact that many of the delegates sent to that body are not the mayors of their respective councils, and it has been said that that body is less effective because the people dispatched on behalf of those councils aren't senior enough to be able to kind of own and carry the heft of that back to their member councils. But on the flip side, one of the advantages of WESROC is that because each council sends two delegates, it's often the case that those delegates may be, as is in the case here, from opposite ends of the political spectrum.

And I think that SALT gives extra value to our debates and deliberations. As a member of WESROC, and with the greatest respect to the Mayor, who's currently the Chair of WESROC, I think WESROC is struggling for relevance, and that this kind of arrangement will begin to continue to erode into the territory that WESROC had staked out as its own. And it may come to the point where this or a future council is faced with the dilemma of being able to justify the membership of one or the other of these bodies, but probably not both. But that will be a consideration for a future council, I suspect. I don't have any particular objection to this governance structure, although I do agree with Councillor Wheeler that if it uses the word governance, then it has to be both democratic and accountable.

And there will be occasions where consensus is not possible, especially if there are You know, 100-pound gorillas in the room. No, large gorillas in the room who will exercise their weight to skew the decision in a particular way. I would prefer to see a governance structure like Westrock, where there is perhaps multiple delegates, and that the mayor is obliged to be one of those delegates, and that another delegate with voting rights pads out and possibly accounts for the fact that at any given meeting, one or the other may not be able to make it.

Deputy Mayor. Thank you,

Mr Mayor. I'm just wondering another question. At what point, in terms of the preparation of the delivery and operational plans, at what point would there be consultation with the individual councils with that? Prior to it being drawn up or after it's done? I mean, it says it's done

In the mayoral forum.

It's just, I'm just wondering. I've got concerns, mainly because when we first went into this, it was shrouded in confidentiality, which was a really awful position for a mayor to be in, and yet the promises were that once it was underway, it wasn't going to be like that. And yet this document seems very much like that. It lacks accountability, and it lacks consultation with the individual councils. And I think that's actually unsustainable unless there's some mechanism put in there to consult and be accountable to those individual councils. And I take on the point that Councillor Zambrano just said about the need for that level of accountability. I think that's really important, and because it's at this stage, and I did think that having been at the initial, when this was being drawn up, I did think that there was a stronger emphasis on accountability to individual councils at that point.

So that seems to have been lost, and I am concerned that it's too late when it's something that is no longer in the initial stages of being drawn up. It's too late to come back when a budget for this is done for us to probably change it. So I'm just wondering at what point that's intended to be in consultation with the individual councils.

So the issue of the confidentiality has been a challenge from the outset of this particular project, particularly in the lead up to the signing. Since that time, there's been a regular approach from the councils to the Commonwealth and State Government representatives about the need to have more regular and more direct and more line-of-sight reporting. And there's a report format that's being finalised that hopefully will address that situation so that, in respect of every initiative, there's a regular update that can be circulated to all councillors. We're certainly, once that's available, we're wanting to do more presentations to councillors at briefings. The other thing that we're also aware of is if there's going to be any allocation of funds, council needs to be comfortable about that allocation.

So we're already, again, talking to other partners in the City Deal about the need for upfront notice to councillors so we can feed that into our budget process. And as we did in the last couple of budgets, start to put things into the operational plan. So again, they're there for everyone to see. So that's what we're wanting to do, is to make sure that we do get that clarity about the actions. We can put them in the operational plan, we can put the budget allocations in where applicable, and we can certainly start reporting on a more regular basis to councillors and the community.

Thank you, General Manager. Really, what I think that we would want to see, and I'm sure a lot of councillors in other councils would want to see as well, is some sort of preliminary engagement with the councillors of each council before there's a budget entered into, to have an idea of what is going on. I mean, we don't really have any real information about what direction it's intending to go in, and I have no issue with the things that probably will be being done, but I just think in terms of, it seems to be losing accountability and, in some sense, using local government as a tool rather than a partner. And I'm very concerned that it has shifted to that extent. That may not be the intention by the other levels of government, but the whole crux of being in it was for us to have a seat at the table as an equal partner in a tripartite sort of system.

And it does seem like that we, because the other levels of government, of course, have their departments and I'm sure they're all briefed on what's going on, and then we are accountable to our electorate, and there's 12 of us, and we don't know what's going on. I think that's the issue I have with it. I would be much happier if there was some firmer, more stringent arrangement around consultation with the individual councillors before there's any budgetary engagement on that behalf. And I also think that would make the Mayor's job easier, to have gone through it beforehand rather than have to come back with things that there may not be agreement in this council from.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'd like to move an amendment, please.

Yes, please.

So the recommendation summary to be in two parts. Point one to be the recommendation in the business paper, that the report recommends Council enter into the deed of agreement, etc. And that part two, that Council staff draft a reporting, consulting and accountability mechanisms for presentation to Council.

Do we have a seconder for the recommendations?

Oh, sorry, I'm looking at the wrong page.

So at point five in that case, to be that Council staff draft reporting, consulting and accountability mechanisms to be presented to Council for consideration.

Deputy Mayor, you're seconding that?

I've got a question, Councillor Wheeler, if I may. You may, yeah. What does that actually— like, do you mean a report for us or a mechanism that is connected to this?

A mechanism for the Mayor to consult with Council so that he is sent in to discussions with a series of parameters from this Council, so that he's representing the interests of Council. But he also— it's not designed to disempower the Mayor, and it's not designed as a mechanism to control the Mayor. It's designed as a mechanism to empower the Mayor, so he's there acting on behalf of Council. Because it seems to me that if this goes wrong, this could be political suicide for the person who is sent in without the backing of Council. If you go in as a delegate representing an organisation, you need to have parameters to work within to argue a case. But we as— You're

Speaking on the amendment. I don't have a seconder yet.

I'll second it.

Deputy Mayor, yes, please continue, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks. So, in order to empower the person that we send into these discussions, be it the Mayor or the Deputy Mayor as the alternate, I have to have parameters to work within. Instead of constraining that person, it actually empowers the person. And we, as the directors of this board, also need to have feedback mechanisms so that we know what information— we need to know the relevant information so that we can then pass those decisions on to the Mayor. This is too much responsibility, I think, for an individual to bear, and it really could go pear-shaped without the backing of the rest of the councillors. So I say this not as a means of leaving the Mayor hamstrung, but in fact of making this potentially a safer and more empowered process.

Councillor Conolly. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'll speak against the amendment. Whilst I probably wouldn't have a problem with—I think a feedback mechanism is good, and I guess there's— I can see where Councillor Wheeler is coming from, but I think the Mayor is elected to be the official spokesperson for Council and to be able to speak for Council in between Council meetings when things come up. And we elect a person to go away and represent Council's interest in a whole range of matters without a direct mandate from the Council. I think that it's actually protecting Council. I think, to go back to the way WESROC works, it actually protects Council that we haven't given direction to our delegates to WESROC, because then when WESROC comes up with all the rubbish it comes up with, it's not the position of Council.

We're not stuck with it. We didn't come up with it. We didn't endorse it. It never came to us, and we're quite free to say nothing to do with us. And I think this can work the same way. If we're not giving the Mayor—who is our Mayor rather than a delegate; it is slightly different. It's the leader of the body who's elected to speak for the Council—if we're not giving him a mandate and endorsing a position beforehand, then we're not stuck owning it should this body decide something else. It's got nothing to do with us. I can see both sides of it. I don't think it's necessary that we add an extra layer to this, which is already, in my mind, an additional layer of governance and bureaucracy we're creating from nothing at the moment anyway.

Can I just say, Councillor Wheeler, I agree with your sentiment, but I can see that the first four points of this recommendation are about us signing up to a deal, if you like. Point five that you're putting up is more about our own internal arrangements and what we're going to do about reporting backwards and forwards. And we can do that anyway. We can do that any time, and I don't really think we need to attach it here. So if you put this forward, I would vote against it not because I disagree with your sentiment, but because I don't think it's necessary to attach it here right now.

I'm happy to take both those points. I'll withdraw the amendment.

I'd like to make a couple of comments, if I may. The first is in regard to the fit for the future considerations, page 43. The statement there is in direct conflict with page 2 of the quarterly budget review statement, because the quarterly budget review statement says the dissolution of the regional strategic alliance, a favourable variance of 150,000 is reported. So it's the 95,000 plus 55,000 in a hollow log from an advertising campaign. So if we approve the quarterly budget review statement, that fit for the future strategy consideration is rather cast aside. Now the second point, and I bear in mind the— Comments of both you, sir, the Mayor, and my worthy colleagues who have spoken in this regard

I draw your attention to discussions held in this council, I think two meetings ago, in regard to the very salient topic, delegations. It just gets better from here. What is required is a comprehensive

Set of delegations afforded to the Mayor by this elected council, and that should be part and parcel of delegations. And this was one of the points I think that really came up at the previous meeting, and it is salient in this context. As would be delegations for the Deputy Mayor or anybody else in those hallowed roles. So I just draw your attention to that, and I think it is correct for the Mayor to have made the point that he has made. And the appropriate forum is for us to sit down and have a decent set of delegations organised, both for the General Manager, the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, as Council sees fit. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Can I just say, having just recently been re-elected as President of WesROC, I feel I should come to its defence. But I actually genuinely believe this, whether I was President or not, WesROC has actually been growing lately and is looking— is becoming more relevant as we carry on. WesROC and the city , Western Parkland City, is a very different concept altogether. What's happening here is that the State Government is setting up a new city. They're setting up three new cities, actually: the Central City, the Harbour City, and the Western Parkland City. And they're setting up the administration that goes with it. And the administration, in my opinion, is top-down administration.

It has this Commonwealth and the State Government sitting at the top of the table, and the Mayor's coming to a forum. The Mayor's also then send one or two delegates above. to the state meetings. So it is a top-down structure. It's not as if you can sit here and come up with some kind of resolution, send it through and get them to discuss it. It doesn't work that way. It's about the whole city and setting up the city. WESROC works the other way. It's more of a bottom-up approach. WESROC represents us. It represents the councils who are members. You, as members, can write or send resolutions to WESROC about matters, and they will be discussed by WESROC. And if the other member councils say, yes, that's an important issue, we will back Hawkesbury on this, and as a WESROC region we will push that forward and we will lobby for it and we will try and make it happen.

Just in the last few weeks, WESROC has been successful on a couple of matters. The first matter is the levy on asbestos in our tips has been removed by the state government, which is a great thing. But WESROC has been lobbying and pushing for that for many years. I know we didn't do it single-handedly, but it was something that WESROC's been working on for this council and other councils. That's very different to what would happen in the Western Parkland City. That's not the same structure. Also, WESROC is looking at things like power partnerships, power arrangements, and reducing cost of electricity, and looking at getting renewable energy across Western Sydney. They're very different again.

And I would say that there's really no danger of Parkland City removing the role of WESROC. On the other, in actual fact, I think it might make WESROC even more important. And councils, when I go to WESROC meetings now— Councillors who come from other council areas are indicating they might be rather wary or afraid of the Parkland City model. They see it as, some of them see it as an amalgamation dressed up in another model.

I haven't said that. I'm just repeating what others have said. But I can understand that they're afraid that the Parkland City could possibly mean not the end of West Rock, but the end of some councils that get amalgamated into this much larger body. So to compare this with West Rock, I think is wrong. The two things are very different, and West Rock, I believe, has a very long future and works for us. I'm hoping that this Western Parkland City model will work because potentially it can bring more finance in at the local level. We've seen that with our revitalisation of these streets. That's money we wouldn't have had before. So I can see that there might be benefits for us, and I'm hanging in there and hoping that that is what the final model will be.

As far as representing and reporting back to council, I'm very happy to report back to council. I'm very happy to listen to council before I go, but generally so far the agendas have been more about setting up this structure rather than talking about certain issues to do with Western Sydney. And as those issues become more relevant to you as councillors, I'll be very happy to talk to you about it before I go and after I come back, and that's not a problem. But as I said before, I think we need as a council to build that in. So, I'm happy to support the recommendation as it stands. I do have some reservations, but those reservations have come from other councils rather than this one. If you look at it closely, some of the larger councils may have something to lose from being in the Parkland City, whereas some of the smaller councils like us, I think we only have something to gain.

So it's probably in our interest to hang in there and join it and get what we can out of it while we can. So I'm therefore supporting the recommendation. I imagine there are no further speakers. Is there any further speakers? Sort of ask a question

A question, yes Could we have your thoughts on why you feel that the mayors are not going to be, if you like, crucial to the implementation or the higher policy elements of this city's deal? You seem to be saying that because we aren't providing the bulk of the funds, that we're just going to have to march to somebody else's tune.

You may be putting words in my mouth, Councillor Ross, so you didn't quite say it like that. Sorry

Maybe you understood it like that. I would not say that sort of thing of you, sir.

Maybe you understood it that way, but that's not what I meant. I'm talking about the structure. The fact that you've got the Commonwealth Government and State Ministers at the table already means that a humble mayor can't just go in there and expect to dictate what the policy will be, and the mayoral forum works out policies. And passes those on to the next level. We don't actually, as mayors, have the final say. There are other structures in place. That's what I was saying. They will probably listen. If all the mayors say this is what should happen, then I expect it'll be listened to. I wasn't saying we won't get listened to. I was just talking about the structure. It has to go upstairs, that's all.

Does that answer your question? Not to your satisfaction. Any further speakers? This, Councillor Reynolds

Yes, question, Mr Mayor, comment you just made regarding the mayor's developing policy. Will policy matters be referred back to individual councils for discussion so the mayor can then take the council's position forward?

As I said, so far we haven't actually had any policy. All we've had is discussion about this structure. So I'm not sure what the process will be, but I can guarantee you, if policy is going to be discussed, I will bring it back and I will ask for your comments. If I know the policy discussion beforehand, I'll ask beforehand.

Thank you. No further speakers. I think this was moved by Councillor Rasmussen, is that right? Right of reply.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor, and I'll try and be fairly brief on this. Mr Mayor, this is the city deal I'm talking about, and therefore the governance structure, it's had a long incubation period, and I think we need to get on. And get past the incubation and actually deliver some sort of development action plans to actually get the benefits out of this structure, whatever that may be

That is the benefits. So far, we've seen some benefits, but I think people, ratepayers, expect that from now on, we will get out of the back office and we'll get on the front foot and we'll actually start to start digging stuff and getting on with getting things done as a result of what the benefits might be coming out of the city deal. And I happen to think it's quite a good deal. And I think it's a good deal because, or can be a good deal, let me say it that way,

Because the state government, and I think you made the point too, Mr Mayor, the state government and the federal government are supporting it. And in fact, they want it to work. That's my understanding of it. And if somebody wants something to work, they tend to be keen and have the motivation to actually make sure that resources, at least sufficient resources, are allocated to make it work. It would not be in the state or federal government's interest to starve it or to make it fail, as I see it. I could be wrong, but I just don't see how the framework set up so far and what I've read and heard, that they're not setting it up so they can kill it off in a short while. I just don't see it that way.

So that's the sort of major point, I think, and it can easily be. Correctly managed and properly organised , it can be a conduit for additional funding. And the sooner we get this governance structure in place and behind us, the sooner we can start lobbying for additional funding that we sorely need to make this Western Parkland City function the way we think it should be functioning. It's a long haul, I know, and lobbying is not easy, but we've got to start somewhere, and I think this is a good time to be starting that. And the other thing is, if you're concerned that we are not, we're going to be policy

Locked out, I think the answer is in the fact that, and I think the general manager raised it, is that if we don't like what's happening, we've got a three months' notice to quit. So if we don't like it, well, okay, that's it, we're out of here. And if we're going to get snowed or we're going to get bamboozled or bullied or the, what was it, 100 pound or 200 pound gorilla, elephant, whatever we want to use in the room that's going to nail us to the ground and do horrible things to us, well then we just leave the gorilla in the room and walk away. So I think there are some safeguards there, and I take the Mayor's point too that, yes , we do need to develop some underlying structures , you know, some granular stuff that ensures that we, as a council, have some input to what the Mayor will do and say, and what options he will put to this Mayoral Forum, so that we feel we have some input to it.

Now, the other thing I just want to mention just in passing, and that is I would like to see the Mayoral Forum, and they may have, I haven't seen it, but develop a spokesperson, or there will be, I don't know how it works, whether there is a rotational vote for who should be the spokesperson who runs these forums, or is it just a free-for-all? I don't know. And maybe there's some structure around that that needs to be articulated to the rest of us.

Before I put it to a vote, I forgot to ask Deputy Mayor, you've been mentioned here as an alternate. Are you happy with that on point four? Yes. No, someone asked you that. Yes. Okay. That was right of reply. If you are in favour of this motion, please stand. In

Favour of the motion, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Ross, Councillor Calvert. Abstains, Councillor Garrow. Declare it carried.

Item 217. Do we have anyone who'd like to move something? Councillor Conolly moving the, and Councillor Richards is seconding that. Councillor Conolly, you wish to discuss?

Yes? No? Does anyone wish to speak on it?

No? You want right of reply, Councillor Conolly? Oh, Councillor Wheeler wishes to speak, sorry.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. It appears that the notification process is a bit subjective, so that residents are notified if the application is considered to have an impact, or considered to have an additional changes are notified if they're considered to have an additional impact on the environment or the locality. I'm not sure what that really means, and I note that when you look at the table, at Table 7, which is the exhibition timeframes and the use of site signs , we're not putting up a lot of site signs for DAs either . And I would think that that would be the easiest way to notify the community, the easiest and the cheapest and the most straightforward way to notify the community that something was going on in a place where they live, work, walk, or by some other means frequent, that some change, some significant change is about to happen on that site.

And that includes things like, so we're not notifying for attached dwellings, dual occupancies. Two-storey dwelling houses, two-storey additions and alterations. We're only notifying for group— we're only putting up signs for boarding houses, group homes and hostels. I think this is a lost opportunity, and I would really like to see— I brought this up when this came to us previously— I would really like to see us putting, requiring the developer or the site owner to put a sign, one of those yellow signs that's commonly used in other council areas, to notify that something is happening in that place, particularly in a residential zone. So I can't support this in its current form because it doesn't give sufficient notification to the community, nor is the idea of considered to have an impact sufficiently objective to give me, and I suspect some members of the community, confidence that they will be given notification when they would hopefully get it.

I've been subjected to DAs that have had a substantial impact on the place that I live in, and because I don't live directly beside or behind, I've heard nothing of them. And yet those DAs, the building, just the building of that DA, can go on for six months or more and have a significant impact on people's lives. So don't think this is sufficient.

Mrs. Peren, do you wish to comment on it?

All of those comments are noted. At this point in time, those requirements are based on our development control plan, which we have in place, which we are going to be commencing a review of next calendar year. Based on the timing, we need to get this community participation plan up and done by December 2019, which did not allow us, and we weren't going to be completing the review of the DCP. So, to all intents and purposes, this is a preliminary community participation plan that is dealing with a time frame that was placed on us by the state government. My intention really was when we do the review of the DCP, we will have more time to consider. All of the issues around notification of development applications and how and when we can do it, being conscious that, yes, largely we will have to look at the applicants placing those signs on their building or, you know, dwelling or property because council staff will not be able to travel around the LGA to do that for them.

So there's a number of issues that council staff are aware of that we need to address, but we weren't going to be addressing it in the short time frame. We wanted to do it as part of the review of the DCP, at which point then we would amend the participation plan.

Councillor Wheeler, do you have a question?

No, I don't have any questions. I accept that we can't add it at this point because clearly it would then conflict with the DCP. I presume that's what the Director of Planning is saying. I'm wondering in that case if we can add a point three, that this document be reviewed when council rewrites its DCP. So I'd like to put up an amendment that an additional point three be added, that the community engagement framework and community participation plan be reviewed when the development control plan is rewritten to include the issue of signage on development. Councillor

Barina, is that possible?

That's

Possible, yes.

Thank you.

That's possible.

Do we have a seconder ?

I'm

Happy to include the motion. Councillor Conolly, sorry? We just included the motion. Okay. Councillor Conolly is going to include it in the original motion. We have point three on the books somewhere. It's coming. Any further speakers? Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Every time we return to this question of community participation, I come up against how hard it is, and I acknowledge the efforts of staff when they pull out all stops and exercise all of the traditional means of community engagement. And yet, we all know that the response that we get is disappointingly low for a variety of reasons. And I'm loath to criticise staff for the presentation of this framework and this plan for community engagement, but I too feel that it falls well short of where we need to be. And I know I've said in the past that I think we need to be more innovative in this space, and it needs to be more direct, and it needs to be more electronic. And I know that those points have been taken on board.

I do agree that in a changing landscape, it's important that this document be reviewed and further improved. So I'm pleased to hear that a review process is now built into the motion before us.

Further speakers?

Still waiting, still waiting for it to come up on the board before we move. Just to give me a participation

Plan on the engagement framework. Still being negotiated.

Councillor Wheeler, is that— To your satisfaction? Point three. Councillor Conolly, you're happy with that? Councillor Kotlash, you wish to speak? Can I

Just make the point that it will be the community. It won't be draft anymore, so point three won't be draft. Sorry to be finicky.

Draft from point three. Any further speakers? Councillor Ross.

Just a comment on three. Should we indicate that that will be in the year 2020?

Mrs Perin.

The review of the Development Control Plan and Local Environmental Plan will be completed in 2021, not 2020, as we're not an accelerated council like the growth councils are.

Okay. Any further questions or speakers? Councillor Conolly, right of reply. Not necessary. Okay, I'll put this motion moved by Councillor Conolly, seconded by Councillor Richards. If you're in favour, please stand.

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

Moved the recommendation. Seconded. Moved by Councillor Conolly, seconded by Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Conolly, you wish to speak? Does anyone wish to speak? Councillor Ross, is that you? Thank you.

I made a number of suggestions between the last meeting and this, some of which were adopted, some of which were not.

I find it rather disappointing that when we have a series of directorates under the general manager, that they become described as divisions, branches and all sorts of things other than directorates. I think that's

Unproductive

That doesn't help with the understanding of anything. I'm also very concerned that I requested greater information

In regard to matters such as legal expenses. Page 95 of the report is unchanged in terms of its content.

The council profit and loss statement indicates something in the order of 800-odd thousand spent on legal expenses, and yet we're telling the community about 200,000 or less. I don't think that's quite what was intended in the OLG's requisite. Situation.

And I'm also commenting

Upon matters which I didn't get time to allude to earlier, but we're now talking about child care centres. We've found a new one, number 10, Bligh Park, but I think that may already be covered by the community centre already there. And I'm rather surprised that all of these community

Centres and committees and so on aren't correctly identified as to whether they are incorporated or not incorporated, and in fact section 355 committees. And I think that would have been appropriate, and I think it'd be good in the long run if council knew what was what in that regard, because that does have some ongoing implications. On the whole, there have been some improvements. I think it is still somewhat open to further improvement, hopefully in the next year.

That's in regard to the annual report. Now, I gather we're also dealing with the financial accounts at this stage as well. Just the annual report, that's right .

Is that it, Councillor Ross? Thank you. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr May. Councillor Ross, your lights on. I also sent in a number of questions and possible amendments and so on for the annual report, quite a few, and some of them were included and amended. I just think if on page 32 it says what the annual report is, and it's one of the key points of accountability between the council and community, and I think being that, it should therefore be an accurate reflection of the state of things in the council. And I think it shouldn't contain inaccuracies, even if some of those are quite small and not necessarily, you know, things that—they're just about facts and things like that. And I think, I understand it's a big job to put it all together, but being an official record that people may look back on and see what was going on, I think it's really important that it does portray a really clear picture of what we have done and what we have managed to achieve.

I think in the section where we're looking at measures of what we have achieved in our community strategic plan and our delivery and operational plans, sometimes I don't think the measures really give a clear picture, and I hope in the future that we can have a more meaningful analysis, I guess, of the stage of what projects are at, because I think we probably have actually done a lot more than what this document would portray, and I think we might be selling ourselves a bit short in not really saying that we have done, you know, a lot of things, which we have done a lot of things, and I think that that should be put there more clearly. As well as that, and I'm saying this from the point of view, if I were a ratepayer—well, I am—but if I were a ratepayer just reading that, that didn't know what we were all about, and I think on page 35 I had Some issues with how we had grouped out these sort of things in committees.

I read it and I just thought it just really, to us it may make sense because we know what's going on. I think to a member of the public reading it, they wouldn't understand why something like a club grants local committee was in our assets section and things like that. I think that just things like that need some clarity around them so that people understand what information we're trying to give them. I'm just trying to work through the things that I just still wanted to draw attention to because I think they were quite important. Back in, and I think another thing is it's really important that we have our introductory information correct. I don't think we should have inaccuracies. And the Western Sydney University may have been a college of advanced education at Nepean, but at Hawkesbury it certainly never was.

It went from being an agricultural college to a university in 1989, not later. And I think that we should have proper information when it comes to that. They're just, I know that's a minor thing, but it would be better if we had those properly documented.

Sorry, I've got a dog-eared thing here and I'm not quite sure why I've dog-eared some of them.

I can't find that one. Hang on, I'll find one where I've written on it. With regard to the conferences. Well, first of all, just things like on page 77, there's a whole section that is repeated again on the next page. So just proofreading, I guess, just so it doesn't look like we've just replicated what we've said. It's the same on 78, the same section on 5.8.3 on both pages, and I think that that sort of thing should be avoided. With regard on page 90 to the conferences, and I do hope that we can rectify this in the future, I think that there should be more disclosure about the actual cost of conferences. And I do think Councillor Tree had a motion some time ago requesting a breakdown on conference costs and so on, and I think that's the sort of thing that the community really would like to see.

They want to know the attendance and the cost of councils, and the fact that Canberra rates an interstate ranking as if we've all flown there or something when, you know, it's a few hours down the road. I think that the ACT, sure, it's not even a state, but I think that that makes it look as if we've spent all this money going somewhere. So it would be really good in the future if we could see which conferences, like what the registration cost was, as opposed to the other costs and so on, just so that it doesn't look like we're spending a lot of money going off to things and, you know, and we could have a table ticking off when we've done a report at the end or whatever other requirements there are around it, because I don't think that really tells people what ratepayer money was spent on and what councillors may have in fact brought back from going to those conferences.

So I think in the future we could maybe work around somehow giving the community a better breakdown on exactly what we've been doing and what we do when we go away to a conference at their expense. So I hope that will be done in the future. Not quite 15 minutes. Yes. Then there were just some other smaller things. I won't raise them all here, but I think that it's just very important to just make those measures clearer. I think there was a thing about looking at the parking, and that's a big issue for people. They raise it with us about the parking in Windsor and Richmond. If we could sort of give them an update of what reviews we have done, whether it'll be in the town centre master plans to look at parking again.

I think just a little bit more to show how much we've done, and advocacy. So if, for example, in there it says we've advocated for the Kurrajong, Kurmond cycleway, we've advocated for things, I think we need to know, well, what response did we get? Did we make any headway with that advocacy, or are we just saying we advocated because we're not really giving a clear picture? Are we any closer to getting anything or not? And I know that makes more work, but I think on the issues that the community have told us they want us to pursue, I think that's a really important tool that we could use this annual report for their reference to be able to look at the annual report and see how we're travelling.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Rice. I think I misunderstood your question before. The financial statements are an attachment to this, and yes, you can talk about them now if that's what you wanted to do.

Do you wish to speak?

No, you don't. Okay.

Any further speakers? Councillor Reynolds. Yeah, thanks, Mr. Mayor. I'd just like to congratulate the staff on this document, and it's quite staggering to see what we've been able to achieve. I would just ask the question: how much do they think of this would have been achieved if we hadn't gone for the special rate variation? If I'm through, Mr. Mayor, I guess

Part of the issue is, yeah, the special rate variation,

A large percentage of that is allocated to capital works. So certainly the works within the program that relate to that clearly would not have been achieved. Many of the other things within the operational plan are the things that we do as a matter of routine and maintenance, and we talk about advocacy and all of those other things. It's very difficult to put a quantum on what would have been achieved, and not —

The special rate has a multiplier effect. So year one and year two and year three, it's growing all the time. So we know the roads that were completed, the resealing, those sorts of things, that the majority of the funds that are collected from the special rate variation go towards the road network. The vast majority, and as we build up over time, we will have a compounding effect. So the real benefits are going to come in the outlying years, and we can certainly provide some details for councillors on that. But there is a section in the annual report on page

16 and 17,

And that gives a reflection of the sorts of things that the special rate contributed towards. There are other funding sources as well, but that's just tried to give a bit of a snapshot there

Further speakers? No. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I had a discussion with Mrs Galia a couple of weeks ago when this report first came to Council, and asked whether it would be possible to present some of the information. So, for example, on the table on page 13 talks about the amount of money that we've spent on some of our assets. So, for example, $9.6 million on roads, $3.1 million on building works, and I asked whether it was possible to put that as a percentage of perhaps our total capital works budget or our total spending. One of my concerns with the document—this is the key document that Council sells its delivery to its ratepayers, and— These days, people are quite keen to compare the performance of their council with councils surrounding them.

And we know that we're often measured against councils with very different rate bases and very different capacities to put in these sort of improvements. I think, in order to make people aware that they're not necessarily comparing apples with apples, I think it would be worthwhile to start presenting some of these spends as a percentage of a total, whether that be total revenue or total capital works or something, to put them in context. Because these are big sums of money for a small council with a small rate base like Hawkesbury. They're a pittance for some of our neighbouring councils like Blacktown and Penrith and Hills. And I think it would be, we would do ourselves a favour by presenting this as part of an order of magnitude, because otherwise we look like we're underperforming, where in fact we are, we're working really hard to deliver these services.

Were you seeking an answer to that?

I have discussed it with Mrs Galea, who felt that it was quite possible, and she did give me some figures at the time. Unfortunately, she's not here this evening to give those figures again, and I don't have them to hand. But by all accounts, it appears to be possible. It doesn't need to be necessarily done this year, but I think it would be nice going forward.

It's certainly possible to do that.

Further speakers? If not, Councillor Conolly, do you want your right of reply? Not necessary. This is item 2.18, moved by Councillor Conolly, seconded by Councillor Rasmussen, and if you're in favour, please stand.

In favour of the motion, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Samprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Rasmussen, and Councillor Calvert. Against is Councillor Ross. Absent is Councillor Garrow. Declared carried.

Move now to item 2.19, the monthly investment report. Move that way, Mr Mayor. Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Councillor Conolly. Councillor Rasmussen, you wish to speak? Not necessary, Mr Mayor. Does anyone wish to speak? You want right of reply, Councillor Rasmussen? Not necessary, Mr Mayor, thanks.

I don't know, but we'll put the motion. If you're in favour of item 2.19, please stand. In favour are Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Ross, Councillor Calvert. Absent, Councillor Garrow and Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Declare it carried.

Item 220. Move recommendation. Councillor Conolly is moving that. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Zamprogno. Councillor Conolly, you wish to speak? No. Only to express how perplexed I would be that anybody would call this up unless they had a significant issue. But it's been reported, and I think we can move on and adopt it. Sorry, couldn't hear that. Okay. Any further speakers? Would you like right of reply, Councillor Conolly? Councillor Ross, you wish to speak?

Yes. I'm just wondering if this appointment

Constitutes a change in the

Staffing of the council, and is this tied up with a variation in the quarterly budget review statement?

Mr General Manager? So this position was created as a result of the livability project and restructure of the area that was undertaken by the director when we reviewed the work program coming forward. So this is a position that's in the structure. We've had questions in the past about this, and what we try and do is move roles around as positions become vacant, and this is a process that we've followed on this occasion. And this position is a key position in the rollout of the livability project. They've got day-to-day accountability for that particular matter. Any

Further speakers? Councillor Conolly, right of reply? Not necessary. If you're in favour of this item, please stand. In favour of the item: Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kottlash, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Ross, and Councillor Calvert. Absent: Councillor Garrow and Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Declare it carried.

Item 221 . Move the recommendation, Mr Mayor. Councillor Conolly, is it seconded? Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Conolly, you wish to mention, discuss? No. Any discussion? Councillor Wheeler.

Just very briefly, Mr Mayor, to comment on one of the items contained in the budget is the animal shelter works. I've had recent feedback from some volunteers to say that the money has been very well spent and that the capital works at the animal shelter are working well in the hot weather to keep the animals cooler and more comfortable, and also that the additional work done to the cat enclosures is also working really well.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Conolly, you want a right of reply? Not necessary. I'll put the motion, all those in favour of this item, item 222, please stand. In favour of the motion, Councillor Richards. 221, sorry. All those in favour of item 221: Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Southwell, Councillor Cotlas, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Calvert. Against: Councillor Ross. Absent: Councillor Garrow. Declare it carried.

Page 109, Hawkesbury Access and Inclusion Committee. Move that way. Councillor Rasmussen. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Conolly. Councillor Rasmussen, do you wish to speak on it? No thanks, Mr Mayor. Councillor Ross, do you wish to speak on it?

Yes, thanks. I come back to the point again, which was involved with the Audit Committee, that there have been no draft minutes released for this committee report, and until there are draft minutes issued in respect of every committee, there

Is a grave failure of process taking place, because often on these committees of council there is only one council representative there, and without there being draft minutes and those draft minutes being agreed to by the attending attendees of the committee and the chairperson,

Minutes come to the council of which only one person in the council is aware of the conduct of the meeting, and it could also be that that person may not be attending at the council meeting at which the minutes are tabled, and that is not a very satisfactory state of affairs. And I believe that. The process

Required by the Charter and the Audit Committee is a process that ought to be applied to all Council committee meetings, minutes, and I had understood that that was to be the case. And it appears to have very quickly been decided that that would not be the way to proceed, and I regret that matter . General Manager.

Mr Mayor, there was a conversation in relation to the Audit Committee, and it was agreed that the Audit Committee minutes would be referred to the Audit Committee members prior to those being presented to Council. There was no discussion that considered the extension of that process to all other committees. And if Council were of a mind to do that, there's no problem with doing it, but we would again need to amend our current systems and procedures. Historically, what Council used to do was just receive a report. Now the reports identify the issues where a policy or resourcing decision is required from Council, and we can further amend that process to refer minutes back to committee members, if that's the case, for review prior to them being presented to Council.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I wanted to comment on two issues. Firstly, the mosaic art installation outside the Deerubbin Centre, which I think is a lovely idea. The wall at the front of the library is notoriously bland and would be a great spot to have something, particularly something that attracts people to take photos or draws them in to that precinct. It's a very nice precinct to sit, have lunch, whatever, but that grey frontage at street level is really unattractive. It also has very poor signage, and people struggle to work out which bit of the Deerubbin Centre they're supposed to go in. The signage is designed for people who get out of their cars in the car park and walk around from that entry point.

It isn't targeted to the people who might come in from the street, and this is something that the Town Centres Committee is acutely aware of in terms of getting better linkages and continuity down the main street of Windsor. And something on the front of that building has been suggested as a way forward. I'm wondering if the Town Centres Working Group and its offshoot, the Murals Working Group, could become involved in this process. We've got quite a lot of learnings from working up the murals for Windsor Mall that would probably be useful so that the Access and Inclusion Committee didn't need to reinvent the wheel. Whatever goes in there does need to improve access to that building, as well as the aesthetic in terms of the signage problems.

I also wanted to ask if the Town Centres Committee could have a copy of the public toilet audit, because it's not all murals and fun things on the Town Centres Committee. Sometimes we need to talk about toilets as well. Toilets and parking are the key things that people complain to us about. So if we could have a squiz at the toilets, that would be lovely. Thank you.

I'm sure you can be accommodated.

Any other speakers on the matter? Councillor Rasmussen, you wish right of reply?

No thanks, Mr Mayor.

Not necessary. We're talking about item 224. If you're in favour, please stand. In favour of the item is Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Sam Prockno, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Rasmussen and Councillor Calvert. Against is Councillor Ross. Absent is Councillor Garo. I declare it carried.

Now we go to item 2.2. I was ahead of myself. Move the recommendations. Move Councillor Conolly. Do we have a seconder for that

Councillor Rasmussen, is it? Okay.

Councillor Conolly, you wish to speak. Only just a question, Mr Mayor. Is there any, I think I know the answer, but is there any mechanism for doing anything about vexatious complaints? Obviously things, we've had quite a number of complaints, quite a lot of money spent and no action taken on any of them. Is there any recourse for Council, or we just have to put up with it? General Manager. Mr Misso.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. At the point of a code of conduct complaint coming into Council, there is a possibility there for the General Manager to make a ruling that it is vexatious and not deal with it. That's the only point in time. So the other ones that have gone through that you're talking about, the five, they're actually code of conduct reviewers have assessed those code of conduct complaints and come back with that finding.

Okay. Further discussion?

Councillor Rasmussen. Just a question, Mr Mayor. Do we have any stats on how we compare to like councils around us, or are we worse or bad or are we good or

General Manager. These things fluctuate,

And there are, I would say we're middle of the road.

Thank

You. Councillor Ross. Thank you. I just noticed on— Page 72,

To the right of point G, lower on the page, there's a note

Colon, six complaints ongoing as at 31 August 2019. To what does that refer and what is all that about, please? Mr. Mifsud?

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. What that means is, as of the 31st of August, there's six complaints ongoing at that point.

Further questions? Councillor Sam Prodnow.

Yes. My question is related. I think it would be useful in an annual report of this kind to report about the timeliness of completion of code of conduct complaints and whether there are any metrics that we can see about how long it takes a code of conduct complaint to be resolved.

Mr. Mifsud, are you happy to answer that?

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. The report that's in front of you is a report that's required from the OLG that Council has to provide, so that's the details in there. So if we were to provide that, we would need to go back and look at those things and provide those. So certainly that information is available. We can say how long each complaint takes to deal with.

Can I just offer this as a comment rather than as an amendment to the recommendation, that that would be something I think councillors would find useful in future years. I'm not suggesting any retrospective recarriage of this issue, but in the future I think it would be useful to know that things are not only Completed, but in a timely fashion.

Thank you. Further speaker, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think what Councillor Ross may have been referring to was that it says there were seven complaints and five were looked at, and there was no action, and then it says six complaints are ongoing. So presumably they're from the year before, or they came in after the reporting of this, or there's a mathematical dilemma.

Mr Mifsud. Thanks, Mr Mayor. So what the information on page 72 is picking up is the information that's relevant for that yearly period. So when we look at point A, that means that there were seven complaints that were received during the year , and so on and so on. So sometimes you can have complaints that have carried over from the previous year, and they may have carried over and been resolved this year, and they find their way into the statistics. So trying to marry those statistics up won't work because you are actually carrying over ones from the previous year. Thank you.

No further discussion. Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. I take it from what has just been stated that if six are ongoing, it could relate to either the current year complaints or some prior period about which we're not informed of.

Mr Mifsud. I think, Mr Mayor, that is correct, yes.

Further discussion. Councillor Conolly, right of reply. Not necessary. I'll put the item, item 222. All those in favour, please stand. In favour of the item is Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Samprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Ross, Councillor Calvert. Absent is Councillor Garrow. Declare it carried. Item 224.

That ends the official part of the business paper.

Is there any other business? If not, I'll close the meeting at 9.25.