26 May 2020 - Ordinary

Council's ordinary meeting of Tuesday the 26th of May 2020. I wanted to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of this land and paying respect to Elders both past and present. I also wanted to acknowledge that today is Sorry Day, and that's a very significant day for the local Aboriginal population, and we hope everyone had a good ceremony today. I want to say firstly that we've been having some technical problems here. You may have managed to get on through YouTube and then disappeared again, so we've started a second time. Please be patient. Hopefully everyone's tuned in this time. I want to firstly hand over to the General Manager for some procedural matters.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Members of the public participating in this meeting are advised that in accordance with 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, any allegation, any 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 participating in this meeting has a mobile phone, that they either turn it off or turn it to silent. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Conroy. Are all councillors present, or do we have any apologies? We're all here. No apologies. Do we have any declarations of interest, please? Yes, Mr Mayor. Councillor Reynolds. Item 105, less than significant non-pecuniary. Thank you. Any other declarations of interest?

Not a declaration of interest, Mr Mayor, but just an observation that from my end the YouTube feed still appears to be down. I'm prepared to be corrected on that.

Okay, I'll pass that to Mr Conroy again, but I think maybe we'll just keep going and hope it's on delay, is what Rigo said to me a minute ago. I

Have received confirmation that it's live, maybe different link, Councillor Zamprogno.

We'll just plough ahead, I think. The minutes of the last meeting. Is there any discussion on the minutes of the last meeting?

No. Someone like to move the minutes? Moved by Councillor Garrow, seconded by Deputy Mayor. Is anyone planning to vote against accepting the minutes? If not, I'll declare it carried unanimously.

Tonight's meeting we have two items subject to public address, items 95 and 105. So we'll deal with those matters first, and once we've dealt with those, we'll go back to the list as in your business paper, starting with item 93. Our first item subject to public address is item 95, and I believe we have one guest speaker for that, and that is Sue Geimer. Fingers crossed, Sue is here somewhere.

Sue, are we there?

Mr Mayor.

Yes.

She has just sent me a text saying she can't access the link, so I think that seems to be happening to a lot of people.

She's just appeared on the screen in ghostly vision.

Well, if she's on, that's great.

Sue, you're on mute. Are you able to talk to us? What are we talking about now, Sue? Sue, you're still on mute. You have to remove the...

That's it. Yep. Okay. Go ahead, Sue.

Am I up now? Right now, yes. Right now. I missed the front part of the meeting, so I didn't know. The draft LSPS, I'm speaking against that document for a couple of reasons. One is, again, it's stating in there it's gone out for public submission. Yes, it did, but it didn't really. Because we were all fighting bushfires and no one got a chance to look at that document, and I tried to say it at the time, right through that period, and have it stalled or put on hold to give this community an opportunity to view such a really critical document, really. And I think it's unfair that they haven't been able to view this document. So that's one reason I'm sort of saying no to it. The other thing is the climate change stuff and all of that.

I'm a bit concerned with all of the land west of the river, especially in the Colo area, is all earmarked for conservation priority one. Now you want to push tourism, ecotourism and all of those things. The only economic driver in the Colo is ecotourism and those kind of more soft tourism stuff. What we're finding already under the sub policies that will come under this document is we're already dealing with those as they are, and they make the benchmark and the hoop very expensive and high for people to even get involved, that it really pushes a lot of people away from even being able to have a B&B or an eco-type tourism thing because of these conservation protection policies, and they changed us all to E4 zoning.

We need a DA to have a cow, for God's sake. We need a DA to put up a fence. There was a guy in Gosford removed a lantana under E4 mechanically on his boundary. He got a seven and a half thousand dollar fine. You know, this is how these kind of policies impact the landowner, and I'm concerned about those elements. I think if you're going to use the phrases... Climate change, let's define what that is. There should be a term of reference and a definition of what that is, because then, and it should be in the document so it can then be used as a reflection in other documents in the right context. The same with greenhouse gas. That needs to be defined in what context they're talking about, because photosynthesis, first science lesson, greenhouse gas is the rotting and decaying of fossil fuels on forest floors.

The more you build that up, the more greenhouse gas. Are we talking polluting greenhouse gas or are we talking greenhouse gas? I don't know, so it's confusing. There's no definition of term of reference, or to that term of reference. So I think those things, when it comes to even global warming, what is the term of reference? That's the term of reference, but what is the definition? I think they need to be outlined. I think also you're living in a, we've got the bushfire royal commission happening. That's going to affect everything to do with land and land management and even the community safety aspects in this document. I think before you can clearly define this document, well, you need to wait for those things to transpire and happen, both at state and federal level, and see what those outcomes are first in putting a document like this together.

I mean, this was originally created before the catastrophic fires, so it only stands to reason now it's a different ball game and we don't know the outcome of that until we get the results of these commissioners. And these, so there's that. And then this thing, emphasis on the aerotropolis connection with the Hawkesbury. I really think you're pushing the barrow and it's a pipe dream, because my work is connected with Defence, and I can tell you right now, all of the money is not going to Richmond. Okay, we've got Northrop Grumman, who's put 50 million dollars into the aerotropolis, and I'm privy to this because I'm part of the Catalyst West Forum, and I know what Dr Andy Marks is trying to push from a university perspective, technology and the education, science, STEM learnings over there, and that's very big in Defence.

But that's more what Northrop's investing in over there. What they do on Richmond base is relatively small. I mean, most of the money Defence with Defence industry partners is going into the aerospace centres at Williamtown, Amberley, Edinburgh, and I know these things because I don't just do the Welcome to Richmond publication for Defence here. I do Amberley. There's a new one being created now that I'm pulling together for 2021, and centenary events, and I put together Edinburgh when the Air Commander, Joe, was the Edinburgh SADFO. So I know what's going on with these bases, and I just sort of think from an aerotropolis, yeah, Defence we needed here, we need to draw on our strengths there, but linking it to this aerotropolis thing is, it's far-fetched and a pipe dream for Richmond.

I think the more push is being done here by Dr Andy Marks and the University of Western Sydney, but Richmond campus is more focused into agriculture and the forensic science and more your natural sciences, not so much in the area of aviation, aerospace and Defence. Can you see the clock in your screen? No. No. Well, you've actually run out of time. Oh, sorry. I apologise. That's okay. Would you be happy to answer some questions if there are any? Very happy. Does anyone have any questions?

Doesn't look like there are any questions. No. Councillor Richards, yes. Yes,

Thank you. My little hand was up. Thank you, Sue, for your opinion there. How do you see this document in terms of its purpose, which is to feed into changes to be made to our LEP? How do you think it might stack up with that purpose in mind?

It's a good question, because I'm really, really concerned about it. I see these documents, these regional documents, as a push by United Nations and the Agenda 2030, and bringing in that through the Sustainable Development aims that they've got there. I think the push here is to push people off the land and make it difficult for people to live out on the land. It's making policies now that to live out where I live on the land is jumping hoops from a bureaucratic policy compliance to this, that, everything, whether it be RFS, whether it be environment policies and all of this. And I raised it with you guys that it feels like you're trying to manage us rather than manage the public asset. You know, the public assets, the national parks, and you're trying to encompass us into the national parks.

You know, that's concerning to me. It's kind of like you were saying economic driver is tourism, let's say for Colo. That's the only economic driver, really. And you're making it impossible for people to go down that path, even to promote a big industry promoter for employment in this area and jobs and everything. You're going to what, set the policies and everything to make that an impossibility or a very expensive thing for people to do. Once you go down these paths, E4 and all of that, one of the commissioners that's sitting on the Royal Commission has stated in 2013 they want to see no one living on the land out in the outer areas, what they class as bushfire, high bushfire areas. They want the government to buy that back off people.

So what? I've got historical family land. My daughter can't inherit it, and you've devalued my retirement , really, in that with my property, because you've devalued it because only the government can buy it back. To what? Marry it back into national park that we've surely to God we've got enough of, 70% of the Hawkesbury. So why go after our land? You're out of time again, unless there's any last-minute questions. No. Thank you for your time, Sue. We'll take your opinions into account when we discuss the matter. So you can stay there and listen, I believe, but you won't be able to participate after this. So thank you. No, that's good. The only thing, this has worked really well. The only thing missing is the clock.

Yeah, well, we can all see it, but it's up in the top left-hand corner. Maybe your screen . No, my full screen. Okay. No clock. All right. So are you on gallery

Screen? You might have to go on gallery screen to see. Can you see everybody else or just yourself?

I wouldn't. No, I can only see Sarah, and host is just the council logo, and I can see Barry. I can see you now on my main screen. Whoever's talking comes onto my main screen, but you're not up in the top anywhere . But I mean, we, with my work, we usually use BlueJeans. I'm not familiar with Zoom, so I've had to download that and get as familiar as I could in a short space of time. Yeah, we're just learning as well . You're the first public speaker we've had, so you were a bit of a guinea pig, and now we know the clock is not always visible. We work on that so that future public But Emma may be correct in what she's saying there, because I did notice, but I didn't get a good chance to check it out, there is a settings thing where I can set my backdrop, and there are settings there.

So I didn't muck with them because I didn't understand them. All right, well, thanks once again, Sue. All right, thank you, Barry. Sue was the only speaker on this matter, so do we have anyone who'd like to move anything? Please put your blue hand up on that.

No blue hands as yet.

No one wants to move anything on this matter, item 95.

If not. Oh, there's a hand. Councillor Ross, you'd like to move something? Yes, just to get the ball rolling, if I may, everyone. Endorse , I suggest we endorse the Council staff's recommendation on this occasion. Thank you. Okay, do we have a seconder for that?

I'll second it.

Councillor Kotlash. Councillor Ross, you wish to talk on this matter?

Not especially. I believe that this is, in a sense, an interim document , and no doubt there will be feedback coming back from the powers that be. But I think that the points raised by the speaker from our community are of

Importance, and particularly in view of the LEP changes and so on that we've been talking about in other areas. And

I hope that staff may, on return of this document from upstairs, give some thought to the matters raised on this occasion, because they will also impact other areas of the LGA. Thank you. Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Rich, your hand is up.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just have some questions for the staff, please. I've made a whole bunch of notes throughout the business paper, so I'm just going to go through as I go along and ask them now. On page 42, we have a diagram. If everyone can see that, it sort of has the CSP sitting at the top and it trickles down from there. Now, on the previous page, it mentions the recreation and open space plan. Now that's been something on Council's agenda for a very long time. The fact that it mentions it here as something really important in terms of the housing strategy, the employment land study, the rural land study, and then this plan, but then it's not mentioned in that diagram. I was just wondering if the staff can tell me why it's not mentioned in that diagram, where it would fit in, and how long till we might be able to have that one. That's my first question.

Mr. Connelly. Mr. Mayor, the Recreation Open Space Plan is about to commence. The necessary early work is nearing completion. So the demographic study has been completed, so that gives us an indication of the population projections, the detailed population projections that we're going to have to plan for in terms of the longer-term planning of our recreation and open space. And we're also nearing the completion of our review of our biodiverse land, the biological significant land, which again will identify land that is not appropriate for active recreation that we own. And those two elements will feed into then the progression of the Recreation Open Space strategy. So the scope of works has been finalised, and we'll be engaging people to work with us on that in the near future. Councillor Richards

You had some more questions.

I do. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for that, General Manager. I just feel concerned that it's not part of this diagram in terms of its importance, and please correct me if I'm wrong. But where in this LSPS is there a focus on our sporting facilities and our sporting grounds and the land, the ovals, all those sorts of things that we have? It's not, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't find it in the LSPS. I was wondering if I could get some feedback on that.

Okay. So through Mr Mayor, in terms of the council report, that diagram on page 42 was to kind of show an indication of the layering of plans. It certainly does not include all of the plans that council has. However, if you look at the actual LSPS document on page 9, there is a more detailed plan that shows you the range of documents that show the relationship. Okay,

Thank you. But where in the LSPS does it go into detail like it does in other topics like tourism, et cetera, about our sporting facilities and about the future direction in terms of if there's any population growth, how we will deal with extra children and extra sports and more clubs and all that sort of thing?

So on page 48 of the document, it talks about sport and recreation. I suppose the other thing to note, though, being a high-level plan, we're not going to have as much detail in this level document as we would in the open space and recreation plan. So there'll be a relationship between the two, but the LSPS won't ever have the full level of detail that we'll have in the plans that will ultimately support it.

Okay, I just think that that—I had seen that paragraph, but now that you've directed me to that's the answer to my question, I find that that, as an LGA that has so many people, children and adults participating in sport and being on the sports council as well and knowing how passionate a lot of our ratepayers are about it, I think that we could have done a much better job there in talking about our sporting facilities and our sporting fields. In addition... To that, and just go back to my other questions. I know that we're on a state government timeline here, but I feel the fact that there's so many of these plans incomplete is a big problem. And to be frank, I've been told as a councillor that the recreation open spaces plan was going to be done for years now, years.

So the fact we've been sitting on an SRV with increased money in the bank, why has this not been a priority, especially knowing that we had these documents and this timeline set by the state government? Why have we not as a council got these feeding documents that feed the LSPS that then feeds into the LEP? Why have they not been done when, as I said, I've been told for years that they were going to be done?

Mr Conroy. So , Mr Mayor, the recreation open space strategy is something that we've started work on in the last two years. It's not something that was on any work program prior to that. And the first thing that we had to do was understand the value of our various land holdings, because some of it has a lot of vegetation on it, some of it doesn't, and we needed to understand that and also the linkages between that vegetation. The other thing I think it's important to note is that council's constantly trying to balance its resources and its activities. So the timeline for the local strategic planning statement was something that was set by the state government, and we've been working primarily in-house to produce this document.

So effectively , it's the work of staff in-house. We didn't get the benefit of large grants that other councils got, so we've had to do this in the most economical way that we could find. And so we have to satisfy the timeline set by the state government, and we have to work within our available resources, and that's what we've been doing. And now that we've got the demographic study, so we know our population projections, and now that we're finalising the details of our biodiversity, we can move on to working out the details of our recreation open space going forward.

Thank you. Sorry. Yeah, thank you. Can I please ask the cost of the demographic study?

Mr Conroy. I'll pass that to the Director of City Planning, Mr Mayor

Thank you, Mr Mayor. $31,000, $30,000.

Without any offence, although I'm sure someone will take offence to that, to me the demographic study, while it's nicely compiled, really is just, how is it any different from the census data that we already have, which we as a council have already put into the social atlas? Can you try and tell me where there are any different aspects, or have we used different data to what we actually have already produced in our social atlas?

Mr Conroy. I'll put you through the director, Mr Mayor.

So it's obviously using the same census information that is available across all of Australia. Ultimately, though, we had to look at some of the boundary changes, so it's giving us a different level of analysis of the census data relevant for our local government area. That's what it's given us. The ID profile is more generic. This one goes a bit more detail than that. Okay,

Thank you. And just another couple of things. On the climate change pages as well, and I'm not going to start a debate on the merits, lack or lack thereof of climate change, what I'm wanting to ask about it is the fact that, sorry, I'm just flicking to the page, there are a lot of grand and sweeping statements in this under that heading, very, very grand sweeping statements. And while there are councillors on here that will agree with them wholeheartedly, when we're talking about sort of scientific data like that, there's not— Anywhere that I can see in this LSPS that backs up where those grand sweeping statements have come from. So you haven't sourced where you've said this sort of stuff or got this sort of data. It's sort of written there as if it's hardcore fact. So I just wanted to know where you got the data from and if so, why is it not referenced in the LSPS?

Mr Conroy, through the Director, Mr Mayor.

In terms of compiling this document, it's a range of different sources, not just in terms of climate change, but we've looked at a range of different documents that we had at hand to pull this together. So if, yes, in terms of future iterations of this document, we can turn this more into referencing each of those points.

I just think in those sorts of issues, it's really important because you do have a difference of opinion on a range of different topics with your elected body, and I think that making those statements and then, you know, having all of our faces at the start of the document as if we are all endorsing every word written in this document is incorrect. And I will save any further questions for later, Mr Mayor. I'll leave it at that for now.

Thank you. Can I just make one final point? I understand the concerns of councillors. I suppose it needs to be also understood that this document, to some extent, was quite

Prescriptive in terms of what it needed to cover and what it needed to entail, and we're also guided by what was in the regional plan and district plan, which ultimately has led to the creation of these documents by all councils. So it's not— This is a requirement under legislation, so we have actually tried to meet those requirements as much as possible. But I absolutely take your points on board, and, you know, and we can see in future iterations of this how we can keep improving.

Sorry, just to finish that, thank you for that. Just to respond to that, my concern is, as a councillor, that there are elements of this that I don't agree with, and I've made that clear in previous times that we've discussed this as an item. Yet you've got, you know, my face and my endorsement there at the front of this document. So I don't know how we move forward past that. I know that we don't have to have that decision made tonight, but I would like to have that discussion with you because I am concerned that there are some things in this document that I wouldn't support. So, yeah , I don't know how we're going to have all 12 councillors on something that they don't support every element of, but I'm happy to have that chat with you outside of this meeting. Thank you.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor, you wanted to speak?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I take on board some of the comments that Ms Gaiman made with regard to terminology and things used within the document. I'm wondering if we could in fact include a glossary of some sort, not just for those specific terms, but for general public reading. There may be some other sort of concepts and terminology in there that is a little bit baffling for people to understand, as well as the use of acronyms and so on throughout. It could be a useful tool to have a simple glossary that could just say— Make things a little bit more explanatory. I also echo what the general manager said, in that we have not had any assistance from the government, unlike all the other councils except for us and Blue Mountains.

We've had no assistance to do the structural planning to feed into this document and to thus review our LEP within the time frame, which is most unfortunate because it has meant that we've had to use our money for consultants and for people to do that work. However, it's incredibly important that we have a strong set of planning documents because that is then what enables us to have a position and to prioritise where investment goes, to prioritise where our works are carried out, and so on. So we have to proceed with this, and I also have some concerns still with this document, but I'm having some peace of mind in that it is a fluid document, from what I understand, and will be reviewed periodically or will be reviewed when there's any changes.

And my hope would be that we can update it. I don't have an issue, obviously, I don't have an issue with the climate change things, and I think that we have to take many things on based on majority within a council because that's how we operate. So there were many things in the last council that I'm sure we had to have our inclusions upon that we may not have agreed with all of it, but that is actually the way that councils operate unless you specifically want to withdraw from it and make a statement that way. It's a reflection not just of our community strategic plan, but it's also a reflection of the state government plans that have been done. So in including things such as the aerotropolis and so on, we really don't have a choice.

That is what is in our Western District Plan. And that is, I know that the requirement is to reflect the Greater Sydney Commission work and what the state government has put into their three cities plans, and that's what we have to have in there as part of the guidance. I don't agree with all of those things, but I understand that that is what the state government has decided for our area, and thus we go with that in that planning context. So I think it's a combination of the various levels of government dictating what we have to include, and then us feeding in from our setting our direction through our community strategic plan and trying to feed that in so that we can come up with something to move forward into the future.

And because it will be reviewed, obviously it will be reviewed at various stages, I think that then we can change things in it. I don't agree with the population projections, for example. I think they're overestimated, and so, but if that's what people tell us, that's what people tell us. So we have to go with those sort of statements that are made and given to us from other bodies. I think there's been a few improvements. I know that the last time we discussed this, we were invited to make changes. I'm not sure how many councillors did do that. I know that I did that with some things. Some of those are reflected, some aren't, but I definitely think it's starting to look better, and I think it's probably something that will take quite a bit of work to get it to a document that we all actually can, you know, have as a really fundamental part of our planning process.

But having said that, it is only one part, and we do have other plans above and below it, and I think that really it is an overarching statement. And from my perspective, I think that the actual LEP and DCP will be the really fundamental documents that set things in stone, in certainty for people to understand what they can and can't do into the future. I see this more as something really just giving explanations and so on. I know it is a visionary type of statement, but I look forward to continuing to work on it and hopefully to perfect it over time to get it a little bit more into shape over time. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, a couple of questions first , and they relate to the — what do they relate to?

Caught me on the hop, but my first question, I guess, could be this. I think there would be a lot of benefit if we could explain more clearly how this statement is actually going to benefit the Hawkesbury community. In what way will this vision statement derive or give value to the Hawkesbury and its residents. Maybe people just see this as a bit of a planning document and something that has to be ticked off on. But I'm just wondering, and I guess my question is this: could we somehow or another make it a bit more clear and a bit more straightforward in how this vision statement directly benefits the Hawkesbury community? That's perhaps the first one. The second one, I'm not sure that— oh, that's a question, I suppose.

You seeking an answer

To that question? Look, I think it's both a rhetorical question, but I would like a question to it because I guess community out there will have issues with it, and Ms Geimer obviously has issues with it and maybe different aspects to it. But maybe it's not very clear enough, Mr Mayor, so if there is a simple answer, that would be good.

Mr Conroy.

Director City Planning, Mr Mayor.

Okay, so in response to that question, so in terms of the LSPS, there were four themes that were prescribed. Those being infrastructure, community, productivity and sustainability. So, and then the challenge was to take those broader, you know, state government themes and then apply them at a local level. So in response to that discussion, although, you know, the planning priorities are quite high level still, but if you look under, you know, any of the examples under infrastructure, ensure the infrastructure lies with current needs and future growth. That's a broad statement, but ultimately it tells the state government that we want to make sure that infrastructure is there to meet our needs.

And we know that it's a big issue for this local council area. Or in terms of community, that we need to provide a diversity of housing types to meet the needs of the changing demographic. So essentially we've tried to take those broader four themes and then apply them at a local level in terms of what's important for this local government area in the long run. It's, again, they are high level planning priorities, but then those planning priorities would then be supported by more detailed plans such as the housing strategy, also talks about housing diversity, which would then meet that planning priority.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, but could I just follow that up with another question, if you don't mind?

Yes

And that question relates to, will the statement be an opportunity for us to put forward perhaps for grants to fulfil that statement, that vision statement, so that Yeah, it will be an essential part of a business plan or a business proposal case for council to go forward to either federal or state government to say, look, this is the vision. This is what we'd like to achieve. Can you help us with achieving that? Would that be part of a business case that we could or would put forward?

Yes. Oh, sorry. Yes, essentially, in terms of, so this document does align as well with the community strategic plan, which is adopted by council. So the two documents are long-term vision documents for council. But ultimately, yes, the LSPS, being, you know, a strategic nature, is also meant to support us in terms of, you know, advocating for all business cases or, you know, whatever we need to be addressing as a council.

Yeah, okay. Thank you. Sorry, Mr Mayor, could I have another follow-up question? Sure, go ahead

Yes. Yeah,

Thank you very much. So, would it also provide us with some sort of a shield , I suppose I might call it, against development of a sort or a nature or a character that is not envisaged by the community, or one that we would not like to see, a direction we don't want to go in? Would it provide some sort of shield against that, or is it simply a document that sits on somebody's, I don't know,

Hard drive? Mrs Beren. So ideally, it's not a document that just sits and gathers dust. So it is, I suppose, a document that helps us... Demonstrate how we're meeting the, you know, the state government, the Western District Plan and the regional plan. And then by default, it will also then help us discuss the review of our LEP and DCP, as will all of the other land use planning documents that we're in the process of bringing to Council, and will be bringing to Council. And then all of that together will help shape the future and guide decision-making around housing and, by default, development across the local government area.

Okay.

Well, question, can I— I'd like to make some comments if that's okay, or do you want— Do you want

To do that now or later?

Okay, I might leave— No, we'll do it now, Mr Mayor. I want to pick up something, thank you, that Ms Guimer said about the Aerotropolis. It is, and I happen to be sitting on the airport forum of community members that are interested in what's going on out there, and I've been doing that now for a little while, as councillors will know. And one of the things you find out when you go to these are high-level briefings by the CEO and also the various planning staff at the Aerotropolis. And one of the things that I have learned about that is that they keep saying to me , because they keep asking questions about it, and it does relate to what Ms Guimer was saying earlier, and how is it going to affect or benefit the Hawkesbury, and they are not only saying that it's going to be of use as far as the RAF base is concerned, although RAF base is one element, one little bit of it, but the defence industry development could well be important to us out here.

They are seeing it, and I guess we should be seeing it as well. But also in terms of agriculture, there is a very large agricultural precinct out there that we could, and they keep reiterating that, that we could, as a local government area, feed into and work with and derive benefit from. Now, we have to work on it. It's not going to be given to us. We do have to, you know, get our thinking caps on and how we would do that. So I think there is benefit there. And I guess the final thing, Mr Mayor, I might say on this is that I think a vision statement of where the land use and what Hawkesbury wants to achieve over a longer term, 20-year period, I think is important. And I think this statement goes a fair way towards that.

We've had a couple of goes at it now. I still don't think there is sufficient emphasis on the river. If we don't get our running shoes on about the river and our thinking caps on, that river will end up a chain of ponds before we know it. I mean, it's pretty bad now, apart from, you know, the occasional big wet that we get or big rain event. But we are going to be under challenge to keep this river flowing. So if we don't make some emphasis about what the river will look like or what vision we've got for our part of the river anyway, I think we're going to get sidelined on it, and that would be a great sadness. It's a great recreational asset , it's a great ecological asset, and it's a wonderful contributor to farming and agriculture and many other things in the Hawkesbury.

So I would like to see a lot more emphasis on that side of it. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Your light is on.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I think Councillor Ross was ahead of me.

I think Councillor Ross's light was on because he moved this. No, I did have a question, if you don't mind, sir. Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to ignore you. I thought your light was left over from before. Please go ahead, Councillor Ross. With your agreement

I'd like to direct this towards the Director of Planning.

The demographic study, would you agree, Madam, indicated that there appear to be preferences in terms of new entrants into the LGA from both adjoining LGAs , and that there appears also to be a trend in the population movements, which you don't necessarily pick up in ABS statistics, of the population, shall we say, graying rather than becoming more youthful. And indeed, this may run counter to the points raised by a previous councillor who was concerned about sporting fields and such like. There are great conflicts still ahead of us that are going to no doubt cause you and I would imagine the state government some concern, if I could read that correctly. Your interpretation, please.

Yes, that's correct. We do have an ageing population, as indicated by the statistics, certainly compared to the other areas. And yes, in terms of the analysis of the development of the open space and recreation plan, it will be interesting to see what that recommends in terms of our future needs.

Thank you. Councillor Rossi finished the questions.

Just one further, if you may, sir. Yep. Would you further

Concur with the thought that high , shall we say, high volume or concentrated residential development, such as was foreshadowed or is foreshadowed by Telestino with multiple storey blocks and so on of apartments, may not indeed be willingly accepted by those folk who are looking to move into the area to increase our population? Mrs Perrin.

In terms of the, so when the housing study was being developed, the consultants did engage with local real estate agents and they, you know, obviously from their point of view, they were able to give some information around what the demand is. It's an interesting one. I think when we talk about increased density, there is a perception that that's really, you know, very high multi-storey units. We're not necessarily talking about that. We're talking about the provision of density where, you know, it's still one- and two-bedroom units, artfully done, you know, again that's based on planning controls that do cater for an ageing population, but also just, you know, I suppose families where the kids are moving out of the area and into other parts of Sydney.

So it's hard at the moment to know exactly what the demand will be because the market will, you know, show that. But ultimately it is clear that we do not have a diversity of housing that is catering for our current demographics, let alone the changing demographics.

Councillor Ross, you finished?

Just one further question . In the current term , shall we say, of this council and possibly the previous term, is there not a tendency for The bulk of development to revolve around, shall we say, primarily lifestyle choices of older folk, as opposed to agricultural or other more, if you like, close residential accommodation. Mrs Perrin.

Okay. It's hard for me to comment on the last, you know, two terms of council. I can only comment on what I've been seeing in terms of applications coming through the door. And yeah, largely they're, you know, single dwelling houses, additions to single dwelling houses. But that's also reflecting of our planning controls. So if our planning controls were to change in certain areas, it would be interesting to see if the market then followed. At this point in time, based on the targets where we're set to potentially meet those targets based on current, you know, subdivisions. But ultimately, you know, there's still an issue where, with an ageing population particularly, it's an empty nester syndrome, and we need to think about how we're going to be supporting that community as they grow older.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler, your turn.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just a question, if I may. Is there a mechanism where we can change the population projections or challenge them in any way?

Mrs Perrin.

Yes, I suppose there's always, you know, opportunities to say to the, you know, government, we do not think these targets are realistic, and so, you know, make those recommendations to the Department of Planning. It's an interesting— The other thing, though, in terms of COVID, it is having an impact on development across the board, not just in the Hawkesbury. So there might be a broader discussion that will have to occur with the department in terms of the projections that they impose across the board. But I'm not sure where that conversation is at the moment.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'll just ruminate on that for a while before I respond. Thanks.

Well, I have no other hands up at this stage. Anyone else wish to speak?

Well, those who are ruminating, are they ready to have another go?

And ruminate

No? Councillor Wheeler, do you wish to speak now or do you want to hang on?

Oh, look, may as well, Mr Mayor. That's an interesting response, I think, from the Director of Planning, and probably what I was hoping for, I suppose, because this is a really complex document. It's a new format for all councils to deal with. I don't think, I think you can see from the questions that we're all a bit unsure about where it fits and where it sits in relation to our other documents. I think I'm also interested to see where it's going to stand as a legal document. So we're used to now the CSP setting our strategic direction and the LEP and the DCP being documents that can be used in court proceedings. But I'm still at a loss as to where this fits into that big picture and what that means for council longer term.

And it means that I am approaching this with probably more trepidation than I otherwise might. And I guess that's just part of it being, in some part of that is it being a fairly new beast, I suppose. I want to acknowledge the really short time frame and the fact that we didn't have any additional resources. Other councils got two and a half million to prepare this suite of documents given to them by the state government. Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains got nothing. And so we've had to steal resources from elsewhere, and that has meant that a number of our requests, including the recreational lands requests and other requests that those of us who've put up resolutions for things from strategic planning have had to go on hold, and I think that's regrettable.

This document seems to appear more complex than I think it otherwise needs to be. Perhaps it's one of those Cicero, you know, if I had more time I would have written you a shorter letter, but had more time and more resources, and we might have prepared a simpler document. I want to thank Ms Garner for going through this and coming to speak to us about it because I think that level of engagement is something that we would like to see more of from our residents. This is a lengthy and complex document, and for someone to have gone through it in enough detail to then be willing to address us over a live forum, I think is really commendable.

I agree with some of her points on Badgerys Creek. I'm not overly optimistic about Badgerys Creek and the impacts on the Hawkesbury. I agree with Councillor Rasmussen regarding the river. It's not just a source of water and it's not just an enormous drain. It is the lifeblood of this community, and until we start to value it as that, we are selling ourselves and the environment and everything that relies on that river, including our agricultural industry, short. What I hope is that this document starts to allow us to do that really big picture planning that I called for before the council election, where instead of this ad hoc development that we have continued to do here for so long, we now look at a much broader development.

I don't agree with us just accepting 20,000 people coming in here in the next 20-odd years. We shouldn't be accepting that as a fait accompli. We simply don't have the capacity, and we should be pushing back. There's no evidence that our crippling lack of transport infrastructure is going to be fixed in the short or the medium term. So I think we should be—Blue Mountains has pushed back. I think we should push back, and we should push back quite hard. I find this concept of 30-minute city laughable for much of Western Sydney, and in fact what it does do is condemn much of Western Sydney to second-class jobs and a second-class future if we're meant to stay within our 30-minute radius. For many people, Ms Guymer included, 30 minutes gets you to the edge of the Hawkesbury, and that may suit many of us who would like to work exclusively here, but that shuts the gate on a lot of people.

This is supposed to be an aspirational document for our future, and instead it feels a bit fatalistic, like we're resigned to making the best out of a poor deal. And we have done that for the last 20 years, and I think we should stop. I want a document that we're inspired by. So I'm pleased to hear that this document can continue to evolve, but I think it needs to be far more ambitious for us and for our future if it's to really take its place in our suite of documents. I'm just going to very briefly speak about climate change. I agree with referencing that section. I want to note that climate change isn't a matter of opinion, though, and I'm not sure that if you put references on all of those statements, some people would necessarily believe them.

The demographic study, I think, is absolutely fascinating. Some of this stuff we knew, some of it we didn't, and I think particularly the low levels of educational attainment is something we urgently need to discuss with our federal and state counterparts to address why that has happened and how we rectify that going forward.

Thank you. Any further speakers?

No. Well, Councillor Ross, you have right of reply.

Can't hear you,

Councillor Ross. Thank you very much, Mayor. Thank you for all those who contributed, and also our community member who has obviously spurred some deeper thought amongst us. And I'm sure we all appreciate your contribution, as was noted by the previous colleague of mine. And I believe that this is a small step on what is going to be a rather longer and more complex and at times questioning document and set of documents, which will no doubt carry on through into the next term of Council, if not beyond that as well. So I would ask everyone to But concur with the recommendation of staff at this juncture, and let's see how things progress, and possibly we can make some further alterations after we see the matter returned from the government ranks. Thank you.

Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. I'll put the motion. If you're in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. In favour of the motion, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Ross, Councillor Kottlasch, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Reynolds , Councillor Rasmusson. Against? Councillor Richards, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree. I declare it carried, nine votes to three . Thank you very much.

Item 105, we have four guest speakers on this matter. First guest speaker is Mr Guy Boncato. Mr Boncato, are you still with us?

Mr Boncato,

You there? Can't hear you, you're still on mute. Okay. How's that ? Good. Before you start, can you see the clock on your screen?

No. Mr Mayor, I have a... Yes,

Declaration of interest.

Yes, a pecuniary, less than significant non-pecuniary in that the bridge being discussed is just down the road from me. Yep

Thanks. Thanks for

Reminding me. But you're staying in for this.

I don't know whether the staff can do anything to get that clock up on your screen, Mr Boncato, but you have five minutes. I don't know whether you've got a clock of your own there that you can..

Yeah, that would be the way, stopwatch or something.

No problems, I have a clock.

Okay, well whenever you're ready, please.

Okay. Okay, thank you, and thanks for the opportunity to contribute to the meeting tonight. I'm Guy Boncato. I'm a professional engineer , professional civil engineer, 44 years' experience in investigation, design and commissioning of water infrastructure. I'm an occasional lecturer at the University of New South Wales, and I've been very, very interested for the last three years in the Windsor Bridge issue. You know, particularly from an engineering perspective, but also from a historical and heritage perspective, even though that's not my expertise.

I've undertaken two investigations for DOTS, the Defenders of Thompson Square. The first one was in 2018, in April 2018, which was a general condition assessment of the bridge, the bridge structure, and observations in relation to its structural capacity. And in doing that, I liaised with two very senior colleagues of mine, Mr. Ray Wedgwood, who was a former Chief Engineer of the Main Roads Department, and also Mr. Michael Clark, who was a former Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department. I produced two reports, one in April 2018 , detailing the condition of the bridge, reviewing Mr. Wedgwood's analysis on the structural capacity of the bridge, observing the condition in relation to cracking and any deformation, because they indicate structural overload, if that is the case.

And also a subsequent assessment in March 2020, after the February 2020 flood, to assess whether there had been additional damage to the bridge or any damage at all. And the conclusion in both cases, particularly in the first case when I looked at the capacity of the bridge and any potential impact on the structure, was that the bridge had not been affected by load that it was carrying. And I want to emphasise that the load that the bridge has always carried, my understanding is that it has been unrestricted and is still unrestricted. It was restricted for a couple of weeks after the flood this year as a precaution. After inspections and assessment by the RMS, it was found that there was no need to maintain those restrictions and the load limit became unrestricted again.

Just for your information, I just want to describe the type of structure we're talking about. It was built originally in 1874. It's a very rigid structure, cast iron columns cast in Balmain, shipped to Windsor. The columns are about a metre diameter, inch thick. They were lowered into the river, and whilst the water was being kept pumping out of each column, a labourer was in there digging and undermining the column so that it sank. And that continued until the column sank to bedrock. And as I was thinking, they kept being topped up by extensions. So you can see there's a very significant effort at the time in the late 1860s, early 1870s, in constructing the bridge. From my perspective, from my senior colleague's perspective, that effort should be acknowledged and respected as part of Windsor's heritage.

And apart from the fact that this bridge represents the first time that, my understanding, that precast concrete deck was used. That was installed in about 1924. Before that, after the first stage, a second stage was constructed, which raised the deck about two and a half, three metres. At that time it was a timber deck.

So this bridge has major, from my perspective, engineering and heritage value.

So your time is up, Mr. Boncato. Did you— Yep. You happy if

People ask you questions? Yes. Yes, please.

Any questions, councillors?

Councillor Zane Progno.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, Mr. Boncato, for your presentation. I am genuinely interested in the history of the bridge, and as a person who's studied it more closely than I, could you clarify what proportion of the bridge is the— proportion of maximum heritage value, the 1874 portion. If the concrete deck was installed in the mid-1920s, do you believe that the concrete deck is itself heritage listable, or only the iron pylons that were constructed in 1874? I'd

Consider all of those elements as being integral. Very hard to separate, to say that the columns are more important or of more heritage value than the deck or the extension. The important thing about the extension and the deck, especially the deck, was that it was the first time, at least in New South Wales, that precast concrete had been used in that way, precast and raised to the top of the columns. And that's the first time that had ever been done. And it wasn't done after that, according to my senior colleague, for about 30 years when it became standard practice to do. So, to answer your question, I think the whole structure is significant from an engineering and a heritage perspective.

Councillor Rasmussen, you have a question? Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Bonkada, and thank you for taking the time to come and address on this, and your expertise is much appreciated. Now, it's really fascinating to hear that we have that level of depth of history. My question to you is about the prestressed concrete deck. Was it recognised at the time? To be a unique feature or a unique piece of engineering, to not only to cast the concrete that way, but also put it in place and integrate it into the bridge.

Yeah, look, I speculate on answering this question. I would say yes, because I've been informed by my senior colleague, Mr Michael Clarke, that that was not done for about 30 years after. It was done in Windsor in the 1920s, and probably again in the 50s, and since then it's become standard practice.

Okay. Follow-up, Mr Mayor, please. Yeah. Okay, quick. Yeah, thank you. Are there any other features of the bridge? So you've explained very carefully about the one-metre precast columns, and that's fascinating, and the way they were installed and the construction techniques, obviously really fascinating. Are there any other features apart from the deck and the columns that would warrant us taking a really, really special interest in it?

Yeah, I'll go back to the columns for a moment, if you don't mind. Sure. The columns aren't just the cast iron rings that are all bolted together. Internally, the columns are lined with tapered bricks, and the intention of doing that was to make the columns rigid, heavy and rigid, so that they wouldn't deflect, wouldn't be washed away, and would support the bridge better. I've seen the template for the bricks. At Thompson Square. And what it shows is that the internal lining of the columns is taper bricks to a certain diameter, and what was left internally was a hole big enough, or a cylinder big enough, for a man, a labourer, to stand in and lay those bricks. So when the bricks were fully placed, there was a hollow gap going all the way down to the bedrock. And ultimately, that hollow, that cylinder, was filled with concrete.

So a

Very rigid structure. And importantly also, the columns were bolted to the bedrock with special bolts called Lewis bolts, excuse me. And that was to secure, as a factor of safety, to secure the columns to the bedrock. Now my opinion is that that was unnecessary because the columns were so heavy and there's so much friction between the bedrock and the end of the column that the columns couldn't be washed away. But anyway, it really shows the significant structural capacity of the bridge.

Thank you, Mr. Boncaro. Thanks for those answers. Our time is up. We need to move to the next speaker now, Mr. Clive Lucas. Mr. Lucas.

Thank you for that, Mr. Boncaro.

Mr Lucas, are you there?

Mr Lucas? I'm here. We can't see you.

You can't see me? We

Can hear you, but can't see you.

Oh, I see. Well, I'm here. You don't need to see me, perhaps.

That's

Up to you. Is that all right, as long as you can hear me?

Yeah. Are you able to see the clock?

Well, I've got a clock in front of me. Okay

So five minutes, Mr Lucas. Thank you. Please go ahead.

I'm really following on, on Mr Boncardo. You know, this bridge is 150 years old. You probably know exactly how many floods

Have passed through it. It's a wonderful example of engineering, and you should really see it as one of the Hawkesbury's treasures. It's something to be proud to have. And it's withstood so many, so many challenges over the years to see it still there and still intact. I have a painting here in the house done in 1922 that shows it, and it is a very beautiful bridge if you go down the river and look back up at it. It's one of the treasures. Windsor is full of treasures, architectural treasures. This is an engineering treasure. It's just something that you , the people of the Hawkesbury, should be proud of. Indeed, the nation should be proud of. I've given my life to preservation, so... And I've done a lot of work for your council over the years.

There's nothing much more I can say, and I think Mr Boncardo's put the cherry on the cake by his description of how important it is from an engineering point of view, not just an historic point of view. So I don't need five minutes.

Okay. You happy to answer questions, Mr. Lucas? I am

Yes, I am.

Do we have any questions?

Looks like you're going to go away without any questions, Mr Lucas. Thanks for your time. Thanks. Thank you. Thanks very much for what you had to add. We have another speaker, Patricia Ann Swartz. Are you there, Ms Swartz?

Yes, thank you. Can hear you, can't see you. Okay. And continue if you like. Oh

Hello. There you go. Now we can see you. Good

Thank you. Well, good evening, Mr Mayor and councillors. My name is Patricia Swartz. I chair Defenders of Thompson Square Incorporated and will be speaking in favour of the motion put forward by Councillor Lyons-Buckett to delay the demolition of the old Windsor Bridge. I believe this infrastructure, if kept, will be an important asset for the future of Windsor. I will now go through the following PowerPoint demonstration, which shows why the old Windsor Bridge should be kept. Thank you.

Hawkesbury Historic Walkway, the old bridge. Our past is the road to a brighter future. I'll just ask you there, has that PowerPoint come up?

It has now, yes. Good,

Thank you.

Okay, now the next.

What is the Hawkesbury Historic Walkway? A tourist attraction and public ... The 1874 bridge connects the colonial town of Windsor with the Great River Walk on the foreshore of the majestic Hawkesbury River. Why? Tourist attraction in Windsor, enhanced green space and practical usability for locals and tourists, and a complement. To the option one, new bridge. A story like ours. Here's another story. Meadowbank Railway Bridge. The old Parramatta River railway bridge at Meadowbank was converted for pedestrian cycle use. This bridge was unused for 20 years before it reopened as a pedestrian walkway. It was awarded an Historic Engineering Marker in 2001. This is a stunning example of conservation creating opportunities for the community.

And another, the Andar River crossing. They wanted a safe and fume-free way to cross the Nepean and join the two sides of town. They spent 49 million on it. We already have a state heritage-listed, structurally sound bridge that links historic Windsor with the parklands and the Great River Walk. Let's use it. Why Windsor is the right spot. Water views, mountain views, expansive parklands, history and culture, cafes and restaurants, child play area on the Wilberforce bank, river rides on paddle boat and other water features, accommodation in town, expands on river walks, could provide traffic-free access to Macquarie Park, and an existing structure suitable for conversion. Further considerations: costs

Tourism income, markets, pop-up cafe cart, art exhibitions, historical character, safe crossing for children, promoting physical activity, view of the Hawkesbury River free of traffic noise, on the river picnic space, conserve Australian engineering history, increase opportunities for physical activity, and extra existing crossing available for use in emergencies. There's the annual health, the annual direct health care cost attributable to physical inactivity is around $377 million per year. We should be encouraging as much physical activity as we can in our shire. Cycling, jogging or walking outdoors. It's best to avoid doing this close to roads. This comes from the Healthy Lungs for Life organisation.

This highly sought opportunity for pedestrian river crossing may cost $49 million to build from scratch if we don't keep this one. Our vision: explore from the oldest town square in Australia across an 1874 state heritage-listed bridge to the beautiful open parklands, café and playground on the opposing bank, called arts and cultural events, weekend gelatos in the summer, coffee stands and markets in the scenic public space. Some might say we can't afford to keep the bridge. We can't afford not to. What are we asking for today? Our request today is very simple: put a hold on the demolition of the existing structure to fully explore our proposal of a Hawkesbury historic walkway and the vast opportunities it holds for Windsor.

Our past is the road to a brighter future.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms Swartz. Are you happy to answer any questions?

Yes, I am.

Does anyone have any questions?

No. Okay. Thanks for that presentation, Ms Swartz. Very professional. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Our final speaker is Mr Harry Terry. You there, Mr Terry? Can you hear me, Mr Mayor? I can hear you, but you look like a flower at the moment.

I'm sorry, I look like a— A flower. A flower, yes I do. I'm hiding behind an azalea.

Please, please proceed.

Good. I've got a message up here. The co-host has asked you to start your video. Okay. I thought I had started my video, but here's start video. I much prefer to stay behind the — I can't get rid of that little scene off the screen. Stay behind the azaleas, but nevertheless. I've already started my video. I'll just check there. It's got rid of it. And by the way, Mr Mayor, the time is in one of the squares, and I've been able to follow the time for every speaker so far. So it's in one of the rectangles.

Yes, you got the time, but no one else did. I

Must be special.

You are.

Yes. Now I'm actually speaking against the notice of motion. Although I am speaking as an individual, I have been part of a group, an organisation that has always fought for the most progressive solutions. The Windsor Bridge replacement project is just that, a replacement. It was well established by the government's chosen experts, the traffic issues faced every day by motorists crossing the Hawkesbury River at Windsor are caused by congested bridge street intersections that cannot be adequately upgraded. In fact, the RMS acknowledged any future traffic benefits will be reliant on upgrading the wider network. Like many other issues or towns, we have asked that our historic bridge be retained for pedestrians and cyclists, markets, festivals, picnics and the like, a bridge to prosperity, a bridge to reconnect the community, as demonstrated to you so very clearly tonight by Pat Schwartz.

But so far, our requests have been rejected. Thus, tonight I am presenting a different beneficial option for your attention. Now , we believe improvements to the traffic network can be achieved. We met with an expert in transport planning, an RMS accredited traffic engineer, to develop a plan to improve traffic flow by utilising a functioning public asset. The RMS claims 70% of the traffic utilising Windsor Bridge do not access Windsor. This means 30% does. If the traffic congestion at the bridge and George Street intersections lights were removed through providing a more efficient entrance to Windsor Township for local traffic, the traffic flow north and south across the bridge and on Bridge Street would flow significantly more efficiently and effectively.

How can this be achieved? If travelling from Wilberforce Road or Freeman's Reach Road, vehicles of, say, four tonnes or less could utilise the roundabout on north side of the river to head towards Macquarie Park, then turn left onto the historic Windsor Bridge. The bridge would be one-way only with traffic travelling south. At the T-intersection of the terrace, cars could turn left to the wharf, whilst the majority would turn right along the terrace. Those wishing to access the cafes in Thompson Square would do so via Baker Street, whilst the others would proceed as they normally would if they had accessed Windsor through the George Street intersection. This means those wishing to access Windsor could do so without the inconvenience of the traffic lights at George Street and a far more efficient and pleasant way of entering Windsor.

This would also mean less traffic at the George Street lights than significantly improving traffic flow north and south. This is an easy and cost-effective opportunity to increase the capacity of the network by reactivating the historic Windsor Bridge to provide local connectivity to the Windsor town centre for southbound vehicles. To utilise the historic bridge is a win for the government and a win for the community. The replacement Windsor Bridge is built, but it leaves in its wake a fractured community. Now is the time to heal and rebuild community trust. I have not gone into the finer details of this proposal, but rather given an overview. I recommend an alternative motion to the one in the business papers to be considered.

It is: Council urgently personally contact the Hawkesbury electorate office and follow up by letter with copies to Minister Constance and Stokes requesting a moratorium on the demolition of Windsor Bridge pending further consideration of this strategy. The appropriate Minister meet with relevant community representatives in order to properly ventilate the issues. All costs associated with both the retention and demolition options be sought from an independent expert and made publicly available. A copy of this motion should be on your tablets. There are now— there are two proposals of merit before you. I trust all councillors seriously consider both proposals, weighing up the benefits of both.

It is certainly not too late to come up with a decent solution. I've beaten the time limit by 14 seconds, Mayor.

You have. Very well done. You have introduced some questions if there are any. Yes , indeed. Are there any questions, people?

No, you must have been comprehensive, Mr. Terry. There's no question. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for your contribution. The matter is now open, and Deputy Mayor, I assume you wish to move this?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, I'll move the notice of motion, but I am considering Mr. Terry's suggestions as well. But I will move and possibly amend shortly. Second that, Mr. Mayor.

Seconded Councillor Rasmussen. Deputy Mayor, you wish to speak?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of Mr. Terry's motion, so I might ask if somebody who has a copy could perhaps read that out. I'll just do an introductory speech about the motion because it would cover any option that we would look at, and broadly speaking, the notice of motion didn't specify what use for the bridge, just that we continue with our ongoing discussions to look at keeping it. Thank you, firstly, to the knowledgeable speakers who've come tonight and offered their wisdom and their ideas. We know we have an infrastructure deficit in the Hawkesbury. Successive governments over the years have failed to deliver new or upgraded traffic solutions for us, and we're still waiting on those.

We now have a replacement bridge in Windsor. This does not deliver increased traffic capacity, nor was it designed to, but essentially it leaves us pretty much where we were before. Sadly, for years there was little or no maintenance carried out on that bridge, despite some people claiming it to be unsafe. It didn't have load limits, and it had no cautionary warnings about it being unsafe to travel over. Why would the state government not want to assist a community to keep a functioning piece of major infrastructure, which has both local historical significance and enormous potential to continue on as part of the network of river crossings of the Hawkesbury River? Mr Boncardo has outlined the significance from an engineering and heritage perspective and paints a picture of a solidly built structure.

It opens up multiple opportunities, as outlined by Pat Schwartz, and Mr Lucas named this bridge as an engineering treasure of which we should be proud. Then we also heard Mr Terry propose yet another idea to deal with local traffic. So before us, we have multiple opportunities of what could happen with this bridge, and at what an opportune time, just when we are in a challenging and highly unusual economic position, with the impacts of successive disasters changing the shape of our economic, social and environmental fabric. Governments are crying out for ways to generate jobs and stimulate local economies. Investing in a piece of infrastructure such as the old Windsor Bridge would deliver a major asset for this area and for the state.

Council can't afford to do the repairs if they are as exorbitant as claimed, and I've seen various reports on what it would actually cost. But investment from other levels of government would be a meaningful and enable a strong foundation of connectivity additional to a vehicular bridge for other activities. This is regularly done in other areas, and we saw a couple of examples in Ms Schwartz's PowerPoint, which showed us how other areas are utilising such things. It also has been practised, and is practice, of the RMS to pay for the refurbishment of these bridges and hand them over to the community. I don't know why the Hawkesbury is not open to this, but I expect someone is going to say it's because it creates a big risk in flood times.

We just saw a flood occur, and debris build up on the old bridge, and we see the new bridge is still there and okay. But as we know, floods are infrequent. In fact, so much so that the very small improvement in flood immunity attached to the new bridge is played down on that very basis. It rarely floods, and a few days of a closed bridge doesn't really matter. So is that a valid reason to knock down the bridge? Recently, during the consultation process for the proposed duplication of Richmond Bridge, I and others have asked the question, is it a risk to put another bridge alongside a little further downstream from the existing bridge? The answer from Transport for New South Wales has been no.

It is not an issue, and thus the proposal to do just that at North Richmond continues as an option. One, I would say, with a higher risk than Windsor, given the extreme velocities of floodwaters in that area and also the amount of debris we saw build

Up on the North Richmond Bridge in the last flood.

So what this motion calls for is a delay in demolition. There are indicators that the local member is engaged in discussions. Unfortunately, we haven't been privy to what those discussions are. We haven't been informed or briefed on this, and so we have a resolution before Council, and I believe we should be informed of this and have that information available to the public of what has been discussed, how the discussions have progressed, and I would like to add a point four to my resolution, which I won't do now because I'll wait for discussion on the option raised by Mr Terry, whether we want to be specific about something, but I would like us to continue, and I agree we should put a request a moratorium be put on the demolition of the bridge until we can adequately investigate these various opportunities that have been raised. Thank you.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Mr Terry sent it to us by email. Are you able to access your emails, Deputy Mayor?

I'm just going to look for it now, but I'll have to turn off to have a look because it's on my iPad.

Okay

Any further speakers?

No blue hand showing. Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you to the Deputy Mayor for moving this notice of motion and the contributions made this evening by our community folk , and particularly Mr Lucas, who no doubt is a very busy man and highly respected in heritage circles.

The response offered by Mr Terry certainly comes as a surprise, and I would feel that, in the email which I've received and am able to view,

Would possibly find support from the Deputy Mayor, and I would crave that option be explored by the Deputy Mayor. I certainly support the retention of the current bridge.

Those of you who have been on the council longer than I... We will remember that there was a project at one stage to consider the building of a bridge running from the terraces across the Macquarie Park for pedestrian purposes, possibly up near Holland's Paddock. This obviates the need for that.

It is there. It is an historic and architectural treasure of no mean order. Mr Boncato may not be aware, but this is possibly the second or third only of this type of construction employed across the world. It started after some U.S., or at least one U.S. bridge, but I believe may have been completed and operative before the U.S. bridge was actually concluded. So, in a number of ways, it is a unique piece of engineering in terms of the global view. And on that ground alone, its significance in the history of this nation is indisputable.

It was with great regret that

The awarding of an Australian Government

Historic significance was not afforded it, which seemed to be a rather poor response from the minister at the time and might well be viewed. By people such as myself as being one of a political nature rather than of a fact-based decision. This is a quite unique structure. It's shown its serviceability even today. I'm sure it could probably withstand another 50 years of use without any great detriment , even without any great expense spent on its overhaul. However, with the new bridge there, the suggestion of Mr Terry certainly finds appeal to myself. I believe there it is possible that both the use of the existing structure as a single lane entry from the north to the south to the township and the commercial centre must have interest

And, I would suggest, possibly support from the commercial sector of Windsor to help

Overcome the deficit of the tendency , I would suspect, with the full implementation of the new WBRP to not permit the entry to the township from the current Bridge Street. That, of course, is detrimental to the, what one might call the food— And entertainment element of Windsor, which is incorporated within Thompson Square itself. I support the offerings and speeches of our community and request the Deputy Mayor to consider an appropriate amendment, please. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, I think we've heard from the community, at least tonight , how important and how historic and how, of importance engineering-wise this bridge is. I mean, many would probably say, and I would be one of them, that this is an engineering masterpiece. Now, why we would— why we would— oh, sorry, let me say also that Mr Terry's unique proposal, I think, warrants a lot of consideration. I think there is good merit in that suggestion, Primeafacy, and I think we should pursue it to the best of our abilities. But Mr Mayor, if we have in the Hawkesbury, and we do, or in the nation, an engineering masterpiece of this calibre , I think we should do everything in our powers to retain it.

There is absolutely no evidence that this bridge is going to do anything to the new bridge. No evidence at all. And for us to simply, well, some of us, not even contemplate that this bridge should be retained and enhanced and turned into a tourism attraction, which it would be, to enhance the township of Windsor when we all know, and we're all, most of us anyway, are clamouring for tourism to get cracking not only in the Hawkesbury, but in the state and around the nation. I mean, this is a tourism magnet that we should be absolutely embracing with everything we've got to retain it. And if we can't see that, I think we need to take, put some tourism glasses on and some tourism thinking on and actually stop being a little bit ideological about this and say this is of great benefit to us, future generations, and tourism would greatly benefit if we kept this bridge intact and we enhanced it and we integrated it the way that it obviously can be done.

Now, I'm old enough and I've been around for long enough on council , 23-odd years, to know that once upon a time, not that long ago, maybe 12 years ago now, and I keep saying this, there was a Windsor master plan,

And it had a

New

Bridge exactly the place where the new bridge is now, but it also had a great use. For the current bridge. And it did see the enhancement on a tourism level, and a pedestrian level, and an access level for both sides of the mighty Hawkesbury. And it seems to me that that vision should not be just forgotten or dropped or chucked out overboard. I think we need to, we really do need to figure out how we break through this concrete mindset that this bridge has to be demolished. And I ask everybody to put their thinking caps on and figure out how we collectively can encourage and, yeah , implore the state government to not demolish it. I think we will not be looked, we'll be on the wrong side of history, as they say, if we do not do everything in our powers to make sure this bridge remains intact and is enhanced, not only for us, the town, the community, but future generations.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm just working on a minor amendment to the notice of motion in the business paper. Am I able to put that forward now?

An alteration to your— An

Alteration to the original motion. It's not hugely changed. It's just changed a little. Yes. I'll put that forward. I did send through, Mr Terry, to Tracy. I don't know if Tracy's there. I'm not sure who would have received that email. Anyway, I'll just word it out. So, in point one of the notice of motion, after make immediate representation, include insert in person. To the New South Wales Premier and Ministers Constance and Stokes, seeking a moratorium

On the demolition of the Windsor Bridge, and leave the rest of that sentence. Point two to remain the same

And

Point three to remain the same. And point four is the final point from Mr Terry's notice of motion. Now I'm not sure if that did go through to anyone, so I'll just read out the point, which would be the new point four. All costs associated with both the retention and demolition options be sought from an independent expert and made publicly available. I think that pretty much then encapsulates both the notices of motion into one, and I think that would be a wonderful way to deliver a scope for us to have the ongoing conversations. Mr Mayor, who can confirm if that was captured?

Mr Conroy.

Mr Mayor, I'm imagining it's going to come up on the screen.

In the meantime, Councillor Rasmussen, are you happy to second it

Mr Mayor, yes I am. Thank you.

Thank you . Do you imagine it's coming up on the screen, or it is coming up on the screen, one of the two.

Would anyone else like to speak in the meantime while we wait for it?

Councillor Ross, your hand is up. Are you— is that from before?

I'd like to ask a question of the Deputy Mayor through you, sir, if that's possible. Yes. Thank you. Deputy Mayor, I appreciate the point that you've suggested as point four.

I'm concerned that in terms of the representations made by Pat Schwartz, that we ought also to be seeking that the RMS conduct any remediation

And provide maintenance for the asset for a term of 25 years, as is normally the RMS policy with an historic retention . Would you comment, please, Deputy Mayor?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I understand your sentiment, Councillor Ross, and I understand that that is ultimately what sort of an outcome we would want. However, at this stage, I think that because we are saying we're having ongoing discussions on the matter as arising from our resolution previously, which I think included things along that line, I think rather than getting into specifics, this seeks to move us forward to try and get a moratorium on the demolition so that we can investigate all those options. So I would prefer at this time to just work towards getting some sort of an agreement and then actually looking at what that would include. I do understand that that's something that people are seeking, but I think we've got to take one step at a time, and I think that this would be opening us up to some ongoing dialogue, et cetera.

Thank you. So I think that's a no, Councillor Ross. Deputy Mayor, as it appears on the screen, is that the way it should be?

Yes, thank you, Mr Mayor.

Okay, so it's moved by Councillor Lyons-Buckett and seconded by Councillor Rasmussen. I cannot see the blue hands at the moment, so is there another person wishing to speak? Now I can, but still no blue hands. No one else wishing to speak on this matter?

No. No

Further speakers?

Mr Mayor, can you hear me?

Is that Mr Boncato?

Yes. Look, is it?

You got to speak before as a member of the public, but actually you don't get to speak again during the debate. It's only listen at this stage, unfortunately.

Mr Mayor, I'd make a couple of remarks.

Councillor Sam Proctor. Now

Look, everybody knows that I'm torn about this, but, you know, because Mr Terry has proposed something that he insists is novel, then I'll address it on that basis, because I think we've been over this territory a hundred thousand times. I'm not sure that the residents of the terrace would thank him for proposing to send 30% of the traffic that's coming over the bridge from Wilberforce along their narrow street. And because of the structure of the mall, if they're not intending to be at the— At the very end of Windsor near Baker Street, then that means that they're going all the way down the terrace along a road that other constituents have suggested to me is already too narrow and represents a hazard, and then turning at some subsequent street such as New Street.

I can't regard that as a viable option. I also have to point out, for the thousandth time, that this is not our decision to make, and that every conceivable representation has already been made fruitlessly , and that I have more trust in the RMS than others might, which is to say that if there are traffic constraints on the new bridge and any suggestion that it is unable to meet current and future needs , they would have looked at this option to augment rather than to replace. And I trust that they came to the conclusion based on sound evidence that that was unviable. So with very great regret, and with much sympathy to those people who have valiantly fought for the retention of the bridge, I fear that it's too late and that the decision has been made.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I want to acknowledge the contribution of Mr Boncato and Mr Lucas to this debate. It's one of the great advantages we now have of being able to bring people who wouldn't normally come all the way out to Windsor on a damp Tuesday night, that they can address us in this manner, and I think it has certainly enriched the debate, and I thank them. We've also seen a first for a council meeting in that a member of the public has been able to give a PowerPoint presentation to a council meeting, and I think that is also a really nice addition and something that I hope we can continue doing, whether we're back in the chamber or not. It might need an additional screen. And I think, Mr. Terry, also for his novel idea.

I want to also acknowledge the work of Jack Mundy in this space. Jack died earlier this month and has left a very great hole for those of us who knew and respected and worked with him. He was a staunch defender of heritage, workers' rights, the environment, and an advocate for Thompson Square. And many of you will remember him coming out and speaking in his late 80s to the community about the need to preserve this place. When we hear Mr. Boncardo speak about the great feat of engineering that is Windsor Bridge, I think Jack's interest becomes clear. This is quite an exceptional intersection between heritage engineering and architecture and the extraordinary work of the men, and they were in those days all men or young boys as well, in building this extraordinary structure that provided this community-enhancing

Link between both sides of the Hawkesbury River. And it really can't be underestimated. The thought of the fact that a man was down in the bottom of those columns laying those bricks, it reminds me of that Facebook meme that's often out on May Day, where they're shoveling all the coal miners into a lift to send them down the pit. The thought that you would send a worker down into such an extraordinary environment these days beggars belief. But that is what it took to build this bridge that the state government now seeks to so carelessly disregard. We , I think we need to put this notice of motion into a broader context. We're currently in the middle of a once-in-a-generation town centre master planning process.

The participants involved have all noted the need for greater connectivity to the river, particularly with Macquarie Park and the potential for river activation that that brings. And I think Ms Swartz's presentation shows just how valuable the bridge could be in that context. I also want to go back to some of the comments that were made in the Upper House inquiry, which clearly dispute Councillor Zampron's assertion that this has been done to death and that we have an answer to this. In fact, recommendation six of the Upper House inquiry states clearly that the New South Wales government should retain the existing Windsor Bridge for pedestrian, cycling and light vehicle use. The Upper House inquiry shows that they did not consider the retention of this bridge; that they purposely pushed for option one, which involved, from the very beginning, the demolition of the existing Windsor Bridge, and that they then pushed forward with the dropping of the— with pushing forward the state significant infrastructure tag so that they could act without consideration of the heritage listing.

So the idea that the state government looked at this and looked at this bridge in the context of whether it was worthy of being kept is actually wrong. What we're seeing now, and I want to quote the words of Dr Marine Faruqi, now Senator Dr Marine Faruqi, herself a civil engineer, where she referred to the overwhelming dissatisfaction with the consultation process, and that is now evident in the horror at the loss of the trees today in Thompson Square and the fact that the bridge will be demolished. Many members of the community don't understand the level of destruction that is about to be affected onto Windsor. They can't believe that the state government is removing a perfectly good piece of infrastructure.

The ones who do think it's a good idea have fallen for the lies that there is something wrong with this bridge, a theory which has been comprehensively debunked. Robert Brown of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party. It behoves the New South Wales Government to ensure that as much of the natural and built and cultural heritage of the Windsor Bridge site is preserved and communicated in a permanent fashion. None of those things are happening with this plan. And that's why I think the Deputy Mayor's notice of motion tries to hang on desperately to this very important piece of infrastructure that Clive Lucas has stated this evening should be one of the Hawkesbury's treasures, that not only should the Hawkesbury be proud of it, but the nation should be proud of it.

We must make every attempt to hang on to it.

Thank you. Councillor Reynolds.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I wasn't going to speak, but I'd just like to point out that in, I think it was 2010 , then RTA had GHD , or the consultancy company GHD, do a report on the historic bridge, its condition and methods of retention, and the conclusion of that was that it could be retained, but that Hawkesbury City Council would not take ownership of the bridge, and therefore it needed to be demolished. That was the reason. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further speakers?

Councillor Garrow.

Yes, I'd just like to, unlike Councillor Zamprogno, I do not have faith in the RMS at all. They have admitted that they've done zero traffic modelling beyond Macquarie Street, let alone the entirety of the town centre. In fact, the parliamentary inquiry also did not have faith in the RMS either. We’re calling for better tourism. We’re calling for better town centres, and yet here we have councillors and community members that are voting against this. I will not. I will be supporting this notice of motion.

Thank you. Any further speakers?

I might just ask— I was going to ask the general manager a question, but he’s disappeared.

General manager.

He might be trying to restore Councillor Rasmussen, who’s— No, no, no. Oh, he’s back, he’s back. I’m back.

I’m back. General manager, are you online? In the report it mentions that you recently sent a letter to the member for Hawkesbury. Did you want to explain what that letter said, if any chance? No

Caught you. No, the— Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Oh, right. So my mouse has disappeared off the screen and I can’t get it back. So we’ve— Welcome to IT.

Put a mousetrap out.

So the mayor and myself have met with the local member on four separate occasions and raised this matter on those four occasions and provided copies of reports, and then as recently as April raised it again and followed up with another letter outlining all of those previous interactions and the, again, confirming the— The details previously provided in those reports from Peter Stewart and others. Okay, thank you. Councillor Garrow, your light is on. Is that from before? That's from before, is it? No further speakers. Deputy Mayor, you wished to have right of reply. Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you for everyone's contributions on the debate. I think it was interesting to have something thrown in at the last minute, which put another—not a spanner in the works—but another opportunity before us that we can definitely and hopefully pursue. I think I'll just reiterate that I don't believe in these times we should ever be getting rid of a functional piece of infrastructure. We have all the reports that say that the bridge is not unsafe, and I think that regardless of what it may end up being used for, we definitely have to explore, and we have to explore with great vigour. We can't just write some letters. We have to really, really engage with the people who make these decisions, and we have to go in and we have to plead our case so that we can possibly retain this, what Mr Boncardo told us was an engineering and a heritage of great heritage significance and great engineering heritage significance.

So thank you to Councillor Wheeler for bringing out those quotes from the Upper House inquiry. Of course, that was what was said in the Upper House inquiry, and the recommendation to retain this bridge, I believe we should go with that, and we'll at least give it our best shot, Councillor Zamprogno, even if you think it's too late. I don't think it's ever too late, and I think that while we're living in these very, very different times, very challenging times, with governments calling out for opportunities in communities to generate jobs, to boost local economies, what else could you ask for? This has been delivered to those governments on a plate. They can put their money here and build a great asset within our community for our people and for the state.

And I really hope people support this so that we can move forward and give it our best effort. In the future. Thank you.

Thank you. That was right reply. So I'll put the motion now. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Ross, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen. Those against? Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards , Councillor Tree, Councillor Zamprogno . Declare it carried, eight votes to four.

I'll talk to the general manager about forming a delegation, and we'll invite councillors to be part of that delegation, any or all who'd like to come. And we'll see, as the notice of motion says, we'll see if we can do that very quickly. Thank you for that. We move to item 93, Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to move an amendment, but then allow debate on the amendment, because I do have a few things I'd like to clarify. But I'd like to move an amendment to defer this matter until the general manager provides all councillors with all of the requested info, just so the public are aware. There's been a little toing and froing back and forth with emails for further information. So I'd like to hold over and defer this item, voting on this item, until we actually have all of that information to hand. So you're moving to defer. Councillor Conolly, are you seconding that? Yes, I second the motion to defer. Okay, so the motion is that we defer. Councillor Richards , do you wish to speak to that?

Yeah, thank you. I've got some questions first, and I'm just going to go quite methodically through the report to get these questions out there, and I'm hoping that if the answers can't be provided tonight, that they will formulate part of that additional information that we're requesting in deferring this item over into another council meeting. Okay, so going through the report in the business paper, I'll try and do this in order that the report appears in so that anyone keeping up with the item can see where we're at. So you regarding questions— Point of order, Mr Mayor. Can I just get this through first, are you regarding this, Councillor Richards, as a series of questions? I have a series of questions for the General Manager.

Series of questions, okay. Deputy Mayor?

Sorry, Mr Mayor. I thought Councillor Richards said she was going methodically through the report, so I thought she was debating the report. I thought we were voting on defer. We were speaking on whether to defer or not.

I think Councillor Richards just answered that. She's going to go through a series of questions which I suppose will support her argument that we should defer. Councillor Richards? And as I said, these further questions will probably formulate part of the additional responses from the council staff in terms of what we're also waiting on. Excuse

Me, Mr Mayor, should the item be seconded before we can move in that question?

It has been, Councillor Ross. Of course it should, Councillor Ross. It was seconded by Councillor Conolly.

Councillor Richards, please. Okay , thank you. So my first question is on the contingency reserve. On the top of page 15 , it quotes that the contingency reserve be established with any available surplus being transferred to this reserve fund, any unforeseen budget adjustments or emergency expenditure. Now, what I've known from tradition is this contingency reserve was established to help out if there were any budget deficits. Now, funnily enough, on page 77 of this same business paper, which I'm just flicking to— It actually has a heading called contingency reserve. So what I want to put to the general manager is a question here. That definition of a contingency reserve says that council established it for the purpose of building up funding that could be accessed should a budget deficit arise.

Now , the reason I'm stating here which is the correct definition is because I want to put to the general manager that over the page, where there is an in and out table of the contingency reserve, there appear to be positions of employment, so full-time, whether full-time or whatever they are, staff, there have been positions of employment funded from this contingency reserve. So what I want to ask the general manager is, A, why have positions been funded from this when the reserve was set up to counteract a proposed deficit? And secondly, go to the question of transparency, that if we're funding positions of staff through a contingency reserve where in the past that has come to council in budget papers, why have we in this term not been informed of this?

Mr Conroy. Thank you, Mr Mayor. So the contingency reserve was set up in 2006, as was pointed out, and over time it's been custom and practice to do various things, such as to adjust reserve balances at the end of the financial year when there are surpluses in place. Between 2006 and today, council has also adopted a whole series of policies and procedures, such as the Fit for the Future and the SRV. And over time, council staff have put forward in budget proposals that some of those initiatives would be funded out of this reserve on the proviso that they're paid back over time. And that's been the current position, that council has adopted a Fit for the Future program. In that Fit for the Future program, there were a number of service reviews that had to be funded, and staff have funded it out of the contingency reserve to achieve council's objective on the undertaking that that money will be paid back.

And I think next year's draft budget has a payback provision in it.

When was this, or where was this communicated to us as councillors that this was happening?

So that's communicated to councillors through the budget development process. So we have a series of meetings where we develop the budget. We talk about various programs and activities. We talk about the funds that are being allocated, and we put forward the final budget for council to adopt.

But it's not actually written there that we're funding—I understand what you're saying. You're saying that you have the intention to pay that money back, but we're not being told that these positions are being funded from contingency when the contingency was set up to help with projected deficits.

That's correct. The only distinction or point I'd make there is that council staff, in preparing the budget, have to find funding solutions, and they explore a whole range of solutions in terms of reserves, creating additional income streams, and things like that. This is one of those funding solutions.

All right. I'll leave that one alone, but I would like to put on notice that if you could please let us know where during this term of council, especially in those in and out lines that feature on page 16 from the contingencies reserve for those different positions, and they're all funded there to the tune of around $ 100,000 to $160,000 each, where that was communicated to us. So if I can just leave that with you on notice as part of our further information. Can I also ask, please, the full-time equivalent positions, does that all include vacancies and temporary filled positions? Point of order,

Mr Mayor. Yes

Councillor Wheeler.

I'm a bit confused as to how this relates to deferral. We seem to be interrogating the document, which I don't think we can do unless we are actually intending to receive and note it. I think if Councillor Richards has further questions, she needs to state those questions clearly as a reason for deferral and list the additional questions that she wants answered and move on. If we're going to work our way through this document, then we, I think she can ask additional questions and receive the document. I don't think this speaks to the deferral.

Councillor Richards, can you relate your questions to deferral, please? I'll keep— well, if I'm putting it on deferral, the whole point for deferring is because there are outstanding questions that need answering. So I'm putting them on the public record so that the members or the ratepayers of our area know what those questions are and why I seek to defer, because I don't believe that this report clarifies it clearly enough. I understand that. May I continue? Please continue, yes . Thank you, Mr Mayor. So back to the question I just raised, are these positions also including not just vacancies but also temporary filled positions?

Mr Mayor, they include all permanent positions, whether they're vacant or filled . But what they don't include is when we put a temporary staff member on to backfill while someone's on long service leave or while there's a vacancy and it's a critical position that we need to keep funding. So those temporary appointments, the transition is from, you know, one full-time employee to another. That's just born as part of the process, but they don't figure in our — Full-time staff allocation, they’re just a process that happens to backfill while we’re replacing a position. But the full-time equivalent are the full-time staff positions, vacant or not, in the organisation. Okay,

Thank you. Can you please—my next question is how, in the 2014-2015 financial year, on the business paper there says there was 301 FTEs. That went up to 309 by the 18-19 financial year, which was an increase of eight positions over those four to five years. But then in one year alone, from 18-19 to 19-20, it jumped 11 positions. Can you please let us know why there were 11 positions in one year when there were only eight position increase in those other years, and if that relates to the SRB?

Mr Mayor,

Point of order, please. Point of order, Councillor Ross.

This goes to the point raised by Councillor Wheeler. This is interrogation of the document. It’s got nothing to do with deferment. I respectfully suggest that that’s inappropriate, sir. Wow, from Councillor Ross.

Mr Mayor, I’m happy to— Councillor Richards, it’s been directed at me, not at you. Councillor Ross, the Councillor Richards is trying to demonstrate the deficiencies in the document, the items that are missing, which would require us to defer, and I’ve been through that twice already, and I don’t accept your point of order. Councillor Richards, questions please . Thank you. I’ve already stated these are why I find issues with this report, and if the General Manager doesn’t want to answer them now, which I’m happy if he does want to, I’m happy for them to go on the record to be answered with further information that is to be presented to us. Further point of order, Mr Mayor. Further point of order, Councillor Ross, yes.

The point of order is that— With due respect, the councillor who just spoke is speaking to the document. It's not an assertion that the factual material is in error. It's speaking to the apparent variance between one date and another date or whatever. In other words, it's debating the, if you like, the issue and not the content of the report per se. I respectfully disagree with your initial ruling.

Thank you, but I stick to my initial ruling, Councillor Ross. So,

Mr Mayor, if I'll just go to that particular question. Attachment 10, pages 2 to 6, have a year-by-year breakdown of staff changes year on year. And if we go to page 6, you'll see that for the year 19-20, there was an increase of 10.85 FTE overall in that year. Three of those positions were for parks positions to carry out maintenance in parks; they are funded through the special rate variation. A further position is a project manager position, again in parks, to carry out works and project works, again funded through the SRV. There's a manager city design and economic development that was created to facilitate the work in relation to the Liveability Program. We'd previously tried to fill an architect role; we'd been unsuccessful.

The Liveability Program came along through the city deal, and we employed a manager city design and economic development to take that project forward. There was an environmental strategy person engaged in that year as well. There were also two additional people engaged in governance and risk. That was to deal with state government legislative changes that are coming up, placing greater emphasis on systems, and also to place a greater scrutiny on our insurance and risk mitigation measures. There was also a business improvement position funded for HR because we've got a lot of issues in terms of performance management and training across the organisation, and that was that position. And there's a position in property which is all about trying to leverage off our property portfolio and generate additional income.

So they're the additional positions for that year.

Councilor Richards, do you have any questions, any more questions demonstrating the need for deferral, please? Yes, I do. I would be very brief then in the rest of them and try and rattle through them. And as I said, I don't need an answer now. I'm happy for them to come later. I'd like to have the increase in those positions, those 11 in one financial year. I'd like to have some sort of an outline as to why we've had an increase in staff positions at the same time we've also had a fundamental increase in external consultants, jumping from the $76,000 and $800,000 to almost $1.2 million in 2018. So I'd like that contrasted. We are looking further into the hefty rise in legal fees . Point of order, Mr Mayor.

Point of order.

Yes.

Well, it's a point of order, Councillor Richards. The point is that our code of meeting practice dictates that questions be put in writing and be submitted. Now, if Councillor Richards' motion does not include a list of the questions, her motion to defer, then we shouldn't be engaging in this process. Had she put up a motion to defer to obtain a list of questions, she is simply just debating and having a go now. When we respond, are we going to be able to debate what's been put forward? What are the rules here? Because I feel we're not sticking to the rules.

Thank you for that. I don't— I haven't heard any debate coming from Councillor Richards. All I've heard is a series of questions, questions demonstrating the need for this to be deferred because of weaknesses in the document. That's what I'm hearing.

But they're not part of the motion. The motion should say, to be deferred to answer the following questions.

There is a point of order, please, Mr Mayor. Councillor Connelly, yes. I'd just like to point out that this same point of order has been ruled on four times, and Councillors should be held in disorder if they continue to raise the same point of order over and over again.

I'd like to be inclusive, Councillor Connelly, and give everyone their right to move points of order, but as you say, after hearing it four times, I think it might be time we move on. Councillor Richards is now— Excuse me, Mayor. I have another point of order. Oh, this is unbelievable. Another point of order, yes. Councillor Ross, yes, point of order.

You might ask the other councillor if she'd withhold her tongue, please. No. Now, point of order

Please

The point of order is that the general manager was— On the last occasion, answering specific questions about the content of the document. And as the Deputy Mayor has just pointed out, this is just totally erroneous and out of kilter with what is being proposed by the mover of a deferment. If we're deferring, we're deferring the lot of it. She can send an email through or send a pigeon, do whatever she—

Can Councillor Ross take his own advice for the last three to four years? It's directed at me, not at you. Oh, well, my comment's valid. Councillor, your point of order is no different to the previous one that you moved and I rejected that then, and I'm rejecting it again. Councillor Richards is now going to go through a series of questions which indicate or demonstrate the weakness of this document, therefore that's why it should be deferred. Councillor Richards, could you stick to those kind of questions, please?

I'll stick

To those questions.

Point of order. Come on

No

Point of order. The code of meeting practice specifically says that councillors are not to make derogatory comments to other councillors. Councillor Richards has just done exactly that to Councillor Ross. Councillor Ross has said a

Precedent where he carries on with the same behaviour, I'll ask him to also send an email. Councillor Garrow's point of order is directed at me, not at you. Councillor Richards, I didn't hear the derogatory statement. If you made a derogatory statement, can you withdraw it, please? Withdrawn, Mr Mayor, if there was one that people felt was derogatory. Anyway, let's proceed, what are we—

Mr Mayor, I would request an unqualified withdrawal.

Councillor Ross, I don't recall what was said. Do you recall what was said? Because I didn't hear it.

Councillor Richards, you've already withdrawn it, and I accept your withdrawal. Can you now give the questions, please?

That goes to the heart of my deferment request is that—

You're on mute, sorry, Councillor Richards. Thank you. Someone must have muted me. I said the next series of questions that go to the heart of my request for deferral, if I may proceed without interjection. On page 24, where they're under the biodiversity offsets, the document or the report here lists six properties that will be able to have an estimated value of biodiversity credits to the tune of $2.5 million. Can we please have listed what those six properties are, and how the estimation of $2.5 million was arrived at? My next question is from page 25, where under the property related activities, it lists 11 properties that could become surplus to need and be candidates for disposal, therefore adding money to Council's bank account.

Can we please have a list of what those 11 properties are? Are they in fact pocket parks or are they other properties? Just basically give us the list of what they are, please.

That's that one. Let me just have a look.

I've already got in here the recreation open space, that's been addressed earlier.

Okay, just double checking any more questions. Sounds like you haven't got any. No , I'd actually, the last one is on the attachment to this item. All of the consultants' names have been removed. Can we please have the consultants' names added to that table and clarify what the matters are for? Because in some circumstances, just say for example in the 19/20 year, there's various matters raised by a councillor, $5,000. So that doesn't actually say, or give me any explanation as to what that is. So I'm happy to send the general manager through a highlighted list of matters from the external consultants that I'd like some clarification on. But I think if we could please get the names of those consultants, because a lot of those descriptions just don't actually let us know what they're in relation to.

They're my questions, and they're the reason I'd seek to defer it, in addition to the fact we're still waiting for some answers to outstanding legal matters. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Great, thank you.

It's been moved that it be deferred and it's been seconded. And as many councillors have just pointed out to me, that is the motion, that it be deferred. And Councillor Richards has just explained all the reasons why she thinks it should be deferred, and it's now open to discussion on whether this is deferred or not. And the next councillor who's got their hand up is Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. See, I don't know what was going on there, but anyway, that's been all our time and effort doing this. That's okay, they've got nothing else to do, but that's all right.

As the person, along with Councillor Greg Stubbs, who set the contingency

Resolution in place, I can assure you that the idea of it was to put up a funding or a source of funding which would enable budget adjustments, budget adjusting. Now that come in all shapes and sizes and forms, and sometimes you have to fund something you have to do now out of that contingency fund, and that may be employing staff. But, Mr Mayor, having said that, what I would like to do is foreshadow a motion that we go with the recommendation in the business paper.

So you're moving a foreshadowed motion?

I am, Mr Mayor.

Anyone else wish to speak? I've got Deputy Mayor, you've got your hand up.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yes, I'll speak against the motion. I think that many of the questions just were answered. I think that unless those things were specified in the original motion to have it at that particular level of detail, I don't think that we should defer. I think we should go through this now, and then those further questions can either come back as a report, those specific things, because generally I think most of the items that were in the original motion have been answered in here, and there's ten or eleven attachments or something. There's a lot of information, plus information that Councillor Richards had already asked. I think that we should proceed with it tonight. It's a lot of staff time.

A lot of this information has been available to us at briefings. We have had the opportunity to sit in on the budget preparation process, so councillors could ask questions then. We have various documents that have come forward to us that have been supported, and now we're having some sort of what would appear on the surface a witch hunt of some sort going on, and I don't think we should defer it when it's being done. I think we should proceed with debate and any outstanding questions, apart from the ones that the General Manager has answered tonight, I think that we should deal with them after that, because otherwise it's just prolonging something for the indulgence. Without— once this has been presented to the public, we could have a list of those questions, and then we could have it come back.

But I think we should deal with it now and have this section of the report noted.

Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm speaking in support of the motion to defer consideration of this matter until all information has been provided. I don't necessarily agree with the Deputy Mayor that all the information specified in the original motion has been provided, nor with the fact that we couldn't disagree on that some information provided meets what we were asking for. A couple of examples. In the business paper it says, whilst the case-by-case commentary regarding variances from the original budget cannot be provided. No explanation, no reason given as to why that couldn't be provided, and certainly it's completely possible to provide that while still respecting the confidential nature of those by withholding certain details, or at least that could be provided to councillors by memo, which we got some of that information early this, I think yesterday, maybe it was today, so more of it today anyway, but still not all of it, still not everything that was requested by Council .

And I agree with Councillor Richards' point regarding the consultants. There's a very long list there of consultants, but a lot of the matters, from the description given, you couldn't work out what we spent the money on. So whilst I've got a number of concerns that come up from the report, I'll take note of the Mayor's direction that this is a motion to defer, so I'll leave those for debate if the foreshadowed motion is moved. But I would just say, just a final comment, that there really is no harm in deferring this . For the Deputy Mayor to say it's a witch hunt I think is a bit offensive. It's councillors wanting to be sure of what's being reported to them is accurate and correct, and that they've got all the information they need to have .

You know , unless there's an intention not to provide further information, then it really doesn't make a difference whether we accept this report or not tonight. I think the point of deferring it is just to make sure that it's reported back to Council for accountability and transparency.

Thank you, Councillor Sam Prodon.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Look, especially in light of a foreshadowed motion or amendment that we just received this report as is, I feel compelled to speak. This report speaks strongly about whether we can have complete confidence in the overall administration of council. It's really important, and congratulate Councillor Richards in setting the ball rolling on this. And as in the normal course of things, the business paper comes out on a Thursday, and there are some matters where I really feel like you need more than those four or five days to kind of digest that information. I have a number of questions. I've had longstanding concerns about the amount of external consultants that we use, the delays that ensue with certain processes, but I've got to give myself time to process that and to have private communications with relevant council staff and the general manager to make sure that I'm not simply proceeding to conclusions based on my own ignorance.

I don't see any harm in deferring this and having those additional questions answered more comprehensively. Certainly, multiple councillors have come back and said, Well, what about this? or What about that? So I'm in favour of the motion to defer.

Thank you, Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to support the deferment for the following reasons. Firstly, in regard to legal expenses at page 23 of the report which we're looking at, there seem to be variations in what one would describe as legal costs, legal expenses or legal matters. Totally unsatisfactory. Now, the only satisfactory response to my way of thinking, and I would hope that the mover for deferral will consider this as an additional point of

Information being added or provided, is that the note 4C in the notes accompanying the audited financial accounts of this Council record legal expenses in financial 16 as 507,000 versus 366 shown here, financial 17 504,000 as opposed to 386.6, financial 18 449. As opposed to 302.7, and we're close at Council at June 2019, 761 to 794. The appropriate number for which information should be provided is the number appearing in the audited financial accounts of this Council. There is no other situation which should prevail in that regard. And further, in regard to consultancy, it would be very helpful if the responsible accounting officers could advise as to why, in the financial accounts of Council, consultants are not reported as a separate line item, but are buried in with materials and contracts.

It's the only place with sufficient dollars there to hide it, and I say that advisedly. And consultants appear not to have been fully disclosed either, based upon some of the information coming through on councillor briefings. So I would ask for that to be given further consideration and deliberation should this deferment be processed. Thank you. So

Councillor Ross, can I clarify what it is you'd like Councillor Richards to add to her motion? You're on mute.

Can't hear you.

Thank you, Mayor. Yes, I was deferring to your wise words. I would request that the definition of legal matters be expanded, if you wish, to legal expenses as per the audited accounts of this Council over those periods.

Councillor Richards, are you happy to entertain that? Yes , I'm not sure of the exact wording he wants, but if that's understandable, he wants an expansion on the legal matters that we have asked for.

He wants to change it. Would you take a suggestion?

Yes Go ahead, Pat.

Point 2 be added to the motion that an explanation be reported to Council regarding any variance between the report tendered to tonight's meeting and the audited financial statements in regards to legal expenses.

Councillor Ross, is that what you were intending to say?

Yes. I think it would be helpful if the variance is elaborated upon, though, at the same point, so that we know exactly what the beast is that we're talking about as a variance, please.

I think Councillor Conolly said that. Oh , well. Councillor Conolly, can you explain it again, please?

Sorry, Councillor Ross is right. I added it at the end because I realised I hadn't actually said it till I got there. But an explanation be reported to Council regarding any variance in legal expenses between the report tendered to the meeting and the audited financial statements.

An explanation.

Yeah.

Councillor Ross, are you happy with that? I'd be very much obliged, thank you. Councillor Richards, are you interested in adding that as a point? That's fine by me, Mr Mayor. And Councillor Conolly, a seconder, you're happy to add that? Okay. Further speakers on the matter, Councillor Ross?

I haven't quite finished. Keep going. There's a section at the rear dealing with projects. Now , there are—there's some narration there. But it's a very wafty type document, and what was intended at the time this came through on March 10 was that the projects which were elaborated by the officers of Council to the community as being contingent upon them agreeing to the SRV at stage three should be reported against as being the criteria by which the achievements of Council could be measured. Now, this is clearly not the case in the report here tendered, and in fact there are disagreements between the report here tendered and the quarterly budget review statement, if one looks very carefully at things.

And therefore you're arguing that this be deferred?

I am . I do indeed argue for deferment and request that an additional point, if with the accordance of the mover of the motion and the seconder, may expand the reference to projects so that we have a clear and definite understanding of what was offered to the community and told to the community and what this Council has actually, or is intending to actually achieve by June 30, please. Councillor Richards, are you happy to entertain that?

Sorry, I'm just confused. I thought Councillor Ross called a point of order because I asked for a deferral and was asking questions. Now he's supporting a deferral and asking questions? I'm a little lost with the whole process of that, Mr Mayor. Precedent . He's come into line with you, Councillor Richards. Oh well, I'm happy to set the trend, that's fine . He wants to know whether you're going to add that point or not. I need to know exactly what the point is in a succinct form.

Councillor Ross. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Councillor. When we went out to community consultations, and I know you took part in those, there was a schedule of projects which were offered to the community as being part and parcel of the approval of the SRV at level three, level one, level two, level three. Yes. Now it's at level three, which IPART have concurred to allow Council to collect the rates. Now I'm saying that the projects enumerated by the staff at level three are those which require reporting against. In other words, have they been done or have they not been done by the 30th of June 2020?

Thank you. So you would like a point which asks for whether we've reported against projects in level three. Is that, Mr Mayor, is that not what is reported on page 28 under 3.10, where it's talking about the works program and it lists the percentage of

Completed and not expected to be completed? Is that the same thing that Councillor Ross is asking for?

Councillor Ross, is that the same thing? No, I'm sorry, Councillor, that is not correct. The situation is that there are a number of items there. For instance, the rifle range gross pollutant trap has been on the go since 2018, and where are all the road sealing projects like Packer Road, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera? No mention, but not done.

What are you seeking then, Councillor Ross? Like a compare and contrast as to what was said would be done and what has been done and what's been dropped off the list? Yes,

Thank you very much. Yes, exactly. I mean, this is the point that surely we're trying to understand as councillors as to what we've done for the community as opposed to what was being offered and proposed.

I'm happy to add that as a point three. I think that information is quite available, but if the staff are happy to compile that into... I'm happy to add it as a point three. Perhaps Councillor Conolly will come to our rescue again. He's got away with words. Yeah. So you're happy to, in general, to add that point? A compare and contrast as to what was said would be done at the start of the financial year to what has been completed and what has not been completed. Right.

Councillor Ross? Correction, not at the start of the financial year, as part of the SRV.

As part of the SRV.

Yes, please, in toto. Understood. Thank you very much.

Now there's a thing on the screen from the minute secretary showing where the motion is up to, but when that is on the screen, I can't see the blue hands anymore.

Oh, there you go. Councillor Wheeler, I think you're next.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I was hoping that Councillor Richards might be amenable to adding a couple more points that I've just sent through to the minute secretary , and now have to— sorry, I'm doing that on my phone because I'm viewing that on my iPad, and so now I can't see what I've sent to the minute secretary. But the first point is incomplete, so I need to firstly ask the general manager a question. When is this matter likely to come back to Council if it's deferred successfully now?

General Manager

Mr Mayor, there were more questions asked than are in the current resolution. The current resolution has just picked up the legal matters, but there were questions about consultants and other matters. So I really would appreciate a list of all the questions so that we can make sure that everything is answered in the way that it's required. That's to do tonight. So I know there's some questions about consultants. Now I also want to flag there are some privacy issues here with information that we publish. I think some of this information is going to be published under a memo so that we can be more open about personal details of certain circumstances. But other than the consultants, I need to know if there's anything else from tonight that needs to be included in this resolution.

Just wondering whether we can put a generic point in which says that, and further matters that will be forwarded to the General Manager over the next few days.

So that's what I've attempted to do, Mr Mayor. I should have sent you the additional points as well, but I'm not sure that you can read them while you're juggling the meeting at the same time, so I didn't bother. Basically, there's a point, I think we're up to, I'm not sure whether we're up to point four or point five, I think Councillor Ross added point three. That's right. So point four to read: questions within the confines of the Council resolution of the 10th of March 2020 be provided to the General Manager by, and then the General Manager perhaps to nominate the date. And then question five: the report be provided to Council two weeks prior to the Council meeting. So the point of question four, I think, goes to the General Manager's request that we get the questions to him early .

And the second point relates to Councillor Zampranjo's comment that there is a lot of information in this report and some additional time to digest it would be helpful. So through you, Mr Mayor, I'm hoping that Councillor Richards is amenable to adding those points to her motion.

Councillor Richards, are you amenable to that? I'm happy to add those points to the motion because it goes to the heart of why I wanted this deferred in the first place, because there are still so many questions to be raised from this report.

And

Again, I'm just flabbergasted by the points of order to stop that process, and then people are joining in with the motion. So the question is, are you happy to include that point ? If you want one answer, it's yes. Thank you. Councillor Lyons-Buckett, you've got your hand up.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I was going to move an amendment or foreshadow an amendment, but I'm happy maybe Councillor Richards would take this on board. I'm not opposed to deferring it as such in principle, but the way it's being done is what I object to. But what I would like to have included is that I think this shows some very big gaps in our understanding of what our role in gathering information and involvement in how much information we have and our access to that information and how it should be presented. So I would actually like to have some form of gathering, at least of the councillors. It doesn't have to necessarily involve staff, so that we come up with the parameters of what we're expecting, because it seems to me that all these things are coming forward and, you know, they're coming in a piecemeal way.

We should have some really rigid structure of what we're told, how we're told it, and when we are told it. So I would really like to go down that path because I think all of this, it's just not really getting us anywhere, and we might come back and someone will have more questions. Could we, as a group of councillors, come up with an actual strategy or a list of what we expect and how we are going to get that information and what level of involvement we have in the budget process? And would Councillor Richards consider adding some form of councillor workshop to decide upon those actual parameters? Because we all want the information, we know that, we all want transparency and we all want to have it.

But I don't think that this is the right way to be going back and forward until we've got some strict guidelines on how that should actually look.

So can I clarify, you would like a workshop before the answers are provided?

Well, they could be being done, but I think that we need to go further with this if we're going to keep building on it. We can't do this every time someone has a question. We need to have something in place that is delivering us the information that we all feel we need, and we need to know as a group of 12 what that extends to, and then we need to know any legislative parameters that are around that, and then we can work forward from then, because I think that's the format we need to go into.

What I'm asking, Deputy Mayor, is you said we need to have something in place. I'm trying to ascertain what that something is . May I suggest something, Mr Mayor?

Yes. I'm thinking a way to reconstruct the motion, because what has happened is essentially this motion went up in its original format, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure it got a 12-nil resolution to support the questions that were asked in the original motion. Now, we've come to the chamber with the report that's come from that, and there are still more questions. It's not like we've gone searching for a way to make this confusing. It's a motion went up, this is the outcome of that motion, but there are still gaps in that motion. So what I'm happy to put forward then is for consideration of this matter to be deferred, which is point one, for all councillors to submit to the general manager by the end of the week any questions via email and copy all councillors in that they have with the report in its current form, that the general manager will then bring that back to a workshop before it then comes again to a council meeting.

That, to me, is an easy and streamlined process. Yep. Councillor Conolly, you're the seconder. You happy with that change? Yes , Mr Mayor, that's fine. Councillor Ross, I have that incorporated what you had in motion.

Yes . Mr Mayor, I'm rather more inclined towards the Deputy Mayor's viewpoint. The Deputy Mayor

Has just said she's okay with that change. That just encompasses her viewpoint. So I'm just, out of politeness, I'm double checking with you, Councillor Ross.

I do appreciate that, sir. Thank you very much. I do have an interest in these matters, as you're well aware. Yep. If the Deputy Mayor is content, I will stand by that contentment. I do have some reservations.

Thank you, and I believe the Deputy Mayor is content. That's the word was used. Yes. So, are we all clear on what the motion now says? Does anyone needs it read again? What's on the screen is not the current motion, but I think I was clear in what it was. Yep. So it's been moved and seconded. Are there any further speakers?

No. Do we need it read out again, or are we happy to go ahead? No one needs it read out again? Happy to go ahead. So I'll move, I'll put the motion.

We don't have the last amendment.

I know, I just asked that. I said, are you happy to go ahead even though it's not on the screen, or you want to wait for it? I'd rather wait for it, please. Rather wait for it. We'll ask the secretary to put up the... Do you want me to say it again? Yeah, that'd be nice. Point one is to defer this matter. Point two is to allow all councillors to submit to the general manager by the end of this week any questions they have in relation to the current report. Point three would be then to bring it back, once those questions have been answered, bring all of that back to a workshop with all of the councillors before it then goes up to another council meeting. And hopefully in that regard the workshop is able to answer all the questions that councillors may have. So can I ask councillors once again, are you happy to move now or you still want to see it on the screen?

I'm happy to move it forward at this point. Anyone else? Okay, so we'll put the motion. Do I write a reply? That's a good point. Right of reply. Thank you. Thank you. I'll be very quick. I asked for this report in the first instance because I had questions, and it's very clear from the result that we've got that there are still more questions. Now, we're not all accountants. We're not all financial wizards, and I think that in our elected positions, we owe it to ratepayers to ask those questions. They are paying their rates because they want to make sure they're being spent properly. They are electing us because they want to make sure that we're going to be raising those questions. So it goes to nothing more than the heart of transparency.

Transparency is what this is all about. And I take great offence to the Deputy Mayor saying that this is likened to a witch hunt. But fortunately for her in this instance, I don't value her opinion in that respect, so it's not something that I'm going to hang my hat on. So it's been an enlightening process throughout this whole item here tonight to see those that wanted to stop transparency and then, funnily enough, those that went along in the meantime and actually went with the process because it was no more than just asking questions. So I hope that the public got to see tonight who wanted to stop transparency and who actually wanted this council to show their accountability to the public and to our ratepayers.

Thank you.

Point of misrepresentation, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Wheeler, you was saying something?

Point of misrepresentation, Mr Mayor. Well

That was right of reply, so you can wait till we vote and then you can give it to us then, okay?

My screen has disappeared again. Oh, here it is. So it's being put to a vote. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Ross. Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmusson, Councillor Richards, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Sam Prodnow, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree. Anybody against? Councillor Reynolds, I can't see you. You still there, Councillor Reynolds? Councillor Reynolds is absent. Declare it carried. Councillor Wheeler, you're right of misrepresent. ..

Wheeler, your right of misrepresentation.

Councillor Richards has accused those of us who moved a point of order of being against transparency. She can't infer why we have put up a point of order. I personally put up a point of order because I felt that her actions didn't fit with the code of meeting practice. I've got absolutely no problems with transparency. Clearly, I have no problems with asking for this information. I added to her motion. She has clearly misrepresented those of us who were simply asking that she adhere to the code of meeting practice.

Thank you for that. Before we move on, there are several items that need to be addressed en bloc. They are items 99 , 100, 101 and 110.

Move that.

Seconded. Seconded, Councillor Rasmussen. Does anyone wish to vote against that? If no one's voting against it, I declare it carried unanimously and Councillor Reynolds is still absent.

Mr Mayor, I think item 110 is confidential.

So it is. Well, we'll do it in confidential then, sorry. Move those other items that I mentioned.

Could you just repeat those, please?

99, 100 and 101. Thank you very much. Right. Now we move now to item 90.

Item 94, draft Hawkesbury Local Housing Strategy. Deputy Mayor, is your light on from before, or is it on for this one? Can't hear you, sorry.

Sorry, no, it was on from before, sorry.

Move the recommendation.

Thank you.

Councillor Kotlash got her light on. Move. Councillor Kotlash has her light on, sorry.

I'd like to move the resolution. I've sent it to the staff. I shall read it out. I hope they're getting that together.

Okay.

The resolution is that Council: 1. Receive and note the draft Hawkesbury Local Housing Report — note, I've called it a report, not a strategy — and the contribution it makes to addressing Steps 1 and 2 of the State Government's guidelines. 2 . Council staff arrange a workshop with councillors to develop the next steps, in particular to: A. confirm Council's vision; B. confirm Council's housing objectives; C. consider and confirm Council's preferred options and other implementation mechanisms for increasing the range and supply of housing in the Hawkesbury.

We have a seconder for that?

No seconders?

Yeah,

I'm

Happy to second that.

I'll second that. Councillor Richards. Councillor Richards has seconded. Councillor Kotlash, you wish to speak?

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

When I was considering this item, it struck me that— Our consultant's report, which is, I must say, a very good report, I thought it really didn't, it didn't really

Contain all of the elements that the state government had given us to what would constitute our local housing strategy. So I went through it and it really, to my mind, just really addresses steps one and two. And if you look on page 34 of the business papers, you'll be able to see that the steps one and two are really about characterising our housing at the moment. It draws on a lot of demography, and it would be useful if this report that the consultants have given us would actually, it would take the demographic report that we were talking about before into consideration as well and strengthen this report .

I don't think that it should go on exhibition as our strategy, because clearly it doesn't. It's not, it's what the consultants have given us, and I think it's a fabulous start. It's not our vision, it's the consultants' vision of what they've seen and how they've taken in all that information. So, and also in that diagram of how our housing strategy will be developed, we're at that cusp where we bring the community in and stakeholders in to get their feedback and start to engage with them about their ideas. So . So I think that the report's terrific. It just isn't the entire strategy. So I'd like to see those next steps developed with the council so that we could prepare our implementation and delivery plan, look at the approval of authority to review the plan, planning, monitoring and the review, and all of those steps that you can see that's in that diagram.

So that's it. I really think that we need to do some more work on this. It's a really important strategy, and we've been talking about it for a long time. And I think we need to put our stamp on it and to consult and get it right. That's it. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Corless. Councillor Wheeler.

Just a couple of questions, if I may, Mr Mayor.

Yep.

Firstly, I'm wondering what the timeline is on this document, whether this needs to be done before we can progress with the LEP, and therefore whether there's time pressure on this document.

Mr Conroy. Through the Director City Planning, Mr Mayor.

Yes, ideally this document would help inform the review of the LEP and DCP as well. It's not a statutory document, though.

But the timeline?

And the timeline, essentially, we are looking at already reviewing the LEP and DCP internally with staff, based on feedback that we've received over the years on the LEP particularly. But ultimately this document, as well as the employment lands and rural lands strategy, will help inform the review of the LEP.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So it sounds like we need to get on to this quite quickly, and it needs to go out on exhibition as well. Is there a risk that if we hold off, if we hold off

On this, on getting it out to public exhibition, that we leave this information, that we make it difficult to incorporate this information into the LEP in a timely fashion? This is Corinne. Yes ,

So essentially we have to have the review of the LEP completed by June 2021. So that in itself, as well as the DCP, the review of those documents will involve quite a bit of engagement with stakeholders before, and so we're not anticipating that being a normal engagement process of, you know, us doing the work and then sticking it out on exhibition. So ultimately the intent was to get these Nangies planning documents done because then they would all inform the engagement with stakeholders as we review the LEP and DCP. So does it impact the timeframe? It just makes it more challenging, yes it does.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So I'm wondering if Councillor Kotlash is willing to put a timeline, and I guess then we would need some feedback from the staff about how feasible that is to put a timeline around her request that we workshop this, because then that will require redrafting of the document. It still needs to go on public exhibition. I'm conscious that we're putting a lot of pressure on the strategic planning staff with these requests.

Mr Conway.

I'll hand that to the director, Mr Mayor. Okay.

Yes, well, essentially running a workshop with the councillors is a reasonable request. I'm not saying it's not. However , I think, you know, what's running through my mind is we actually then would need to do a process in relation to the rural land strategy and the employment land strategy, because all three documents will inform our LEP process. The issue really is a juggling act. It just means that potentially other work that we have scheduled to bring online when this kind of move to the next stage might be impacted in terms of being able to progress that. So, but that's the case with, you know, any kind of decision or, you know, things that come at us, whether it's from state government or from council.

Councillor Wheeler.

You're on mute, Councillor Wheeler.

Sorry , Mr Mayor. I guess my question through you to Councillor Kotlash still stands, is would she be able to put some sort of timeline perhaps on this so that we can progress this and still get those other documents done and inform the LEP?

Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. I really can't answer that because I guess I don't, well,

I don't really care when it

Occurs, just as long as it occurs. So I might offer a solution possibly that instead of holding a workshop, if staff can get a draft, a true, truly draft strategy together, which draws on this consultant report and also... It gives some indication of an attempt at drawing what they know about what we've discussed and what we want to see happen. Then we can, as councillors, we can look at that document and then put that onto public exhibition, and in that time we get to digest that and we get to put our input in. That's another option of how we might do this if we have such time constraints that we can't have a workshop first.

So you're saying the workshop could be a virtual workshop, is that what I'm hearing?

Yeah, well, we could have a document, and we could have somebody put together a document that is a true strategy, that's our strategy, that's not just a consultant's report. I don't think it's appropriate to put a consultant's report out for public consultation. To me, that isn't the right way to do it. My understanding of a consultant's report is that it underpins, it gives us information, gives us a perspective from some independent people, from experts. It gives us all of that fabulous information. I have no problem with the report. It's just that we have to turn it into our own strategy that starts to then be what our vision is and what our objectives are. I don't think that's a huge task. Hopefully it's not. I would have preferred that it be workshopped, but I'm happy if that can't happen and we do it.

Sorry,

I've just seen some clapping from an unexpected party. So, Councillor

Wheeler, you got any more questions?

No, not at this stage, Mr Mayor

If I may make a suggestion as that might help. If it's possible that we start the, I suppose, the exhibition process, which would allow us to get information from, you know, the community, which again is quite important with these kinds of documents.

If we then, we could extend, instead of doing a normal 28 days, you know, exhibition process, we could extend that slightly. And then what we might do then is hold a workshop with the councillors within that exhibition period so that if we've got any information from the community, we can convey that to you. But then we can actually then be revamping a document based on your input and then bring it back to Council, you know, when it's ready at that point. So to some extent then we don't necessarily lose time in terms of the exhibition phase. My concern is if we do that workshop, if we defer the exhibition, we're losing quite a bit of time that would, as I said, it pushes everything back. And the deadline for the review of the LEP is, it's not a negotiable deadline.

So if I'm understanding you, you would like us to exhibit the consultant's report, and Councillor Kotlash is saying that that's what she doesn't want to do.

Yes, I understand that, but I suppose in terms of getting, I'm suggesting we get some information from the community and then we run a workshop. The report then can be changed quite dramatically if, you know, if it is. And if it is, then obviously we'd have a further consultation process. But if it isn't, then we haven't lost any time

Can it be exhibited not as a strategy but as a report?

It can be exhibited as documentation seeking community input.

Yes. Councillor Kotlash, would that go some way towards your problem?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I guess it does. I'm still not happy about us presenting the consultants' report. But

It is being exhibited as a report, I believe

That's right. It's not— I guess that was my, yeah, that was my — I just didn't like the idea that we're calling that report the strategy, because it clearly wasn't. I don't like

That idea either, but Ms Perrin is putting up an option, isn't

She? Yeah.

Don't call it a strategy. We call it a report and exhibit the report. So, are you— would you consider changing your motion to read that way, or do you want to continue with what you've got?

No, I really want to continue with what I've got. Okay. It can be accommodated. I do want to continue with that

Okay . Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I speak in support of Councillor Kotlash's motion. I actually am glad you didn't just change it . While I don't think there's anything dramatically wrong with the report as it's currently written, and that's why originally I might have been prepared just to go ahead and put it on exhibition , the fact that this is going to go on and inform the LEP is probably a reason— To not put it on exhibition rather than a reason to put it on exhibition, there's no point moving ahead with a policy and putting a strategy, sorry, that we're using to inform another big adoption, and if we never really got asked what our vision for that strategy was and whether it is actually Council's idea of what's the future. So it would actually make sense to delay it slightly, workshop that out, and then exhibit what is Council's true

Position rather than exhibiting a strategy that we're all probably broadly okay with, but maybe doesn't represent exactly what we want.

Councillor Wheeler, you're light on again.

Yes, thanks, Mr Mayor. I appreciate Ms Perrin trying to give us an option to get this over the line, and I was wondering whether putting it on exhibition would be a possibility in its current state, but I do have to agree with Councillor Kotlash that currently it isn't a strategy; it's a consultant's report. And I think all of us would like to have some input into, I mean, there are large parts of this report that I disagree with, particularly around Hobartville and North Richmond and their ability to take 1,300 and 730 additional dwellings respectively, given the lack of transport links and infrastructure. I think those of us who know this place best need to have some input into this strategy beyond just having stuff presented to us from consultants in briefings and reading a report and deciding to put it on public exhibition.

And while I am really, I'm struggling with this because I'm very concerned about the Director of Planning's concerns about having the time to then feed this in to the LEP so that that information is accepted in an informed fashion, and I think that behoves us to get a wriggle on with this. I think if we put it on exhibition now, it's just going to generate so much noise from the public who don't like what they're about to see that much of the useful content will be lost in that noise, and we risk people switching off from their engagement in this process because it doesn't resonate with what they want for their LGA. And so I think we're going to have to move quickly on this so that we can give our strategic planning staff sufficient time and information to work with this.

And I realise that in this case, we've had to use a consultant because we haven't had sufficient staff to do this for us. And so building the council consultation in now is going to be problematic, and it's going to take more resources out of strategic planning. But I don't think this is ready to go out to the public. And I still have the same old concern with us accepting from the state government that we will suck up all these additional people, that there's much in this report that is really interesting and really notable. But there's bits missing, I think. There's not enough consideration of accessibility. There's very little mention of social housing, the council's potential role in the provision of social housing.

There are many mentions about changing the housing mix, but there's really no recognition that many people don't want to live in multi-unit dwellings, that people move out here because that's not what they want, that older people don't necessarily want to downsize, that some of those strategies really aren't viable for us going forward. And we need to have a robust discussion about what this LGA is going to look like in the next... 10 to 20 years. That's our job, and increasingly that's our job when our role, as defined by the state government, is not to make individual planning decisions, but to set up our strategic planning documents so that an external body can make those decisions on our behalf.

And so I think this has to be a really robust document. This is probably— I know we've got the Rural Land Strategy and the Industrial Land Strategy, but this is the link. This is how people live in our LGA, and we who know it best need to have a greater input.

Thank you, Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm happy to support the amendment there by Councillor Kotlash. I think it is smart, and I'm glad to see that there is a consensus on this. We have asked as councillors throughout this process to be allowed to be— well, I think we have an expectation to be hands-on in the very unique opportunity in front of us to amend our LEP, not only to amend it with a future direction of our LGA, but to amend the mistakes that have been made in the past. And there's no doubt that a lot of us as councillors have had residents come up to us very concerned about their zoning and the limitations put on that. The fact that this housekeeping LEP, which has been going on for years in this council.

So to have an opportunity next year to submit a new LEP and fix up our problems and set a future direction for this LGA is an amazing thing for us as councillors. And the fact that these documents feed into that LEP process. I don't think that we as councillors should just sit here and accept these consultants' reports without having our own hands-on experiences in being able to shape that future direction. I mean, the fact that there are three development opportunities listed on page 37, and that one of them is the Wilberforce urban expansion option. Like, seriously, what even is that? I know that there's, as councillors, it's not something we've even spent a considerable amount of time talking about.

So when we're the elected representatives, are we going to be going out there and telling the ratepayers of the Hawkesbury this is an opportunity for them, when in fact many of us probably don't even want that to be something that is going to be a development possibility in the future. So to throw something like that in the mix as only one of three opportunities presented by this consultant I actually think is quite alarming. So I'm very happy with the amendment put up by Councillor Kotlash, which is why I have seconded it. But I think that as councillors, we all need to be a little more stronger in demanding that we have a greater say in the process from this point onwards towards what we actually shape our LEP to be.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Rose-McCallum. Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, I speak in support of the motion as well. I think important points have been made about our input to the strategy rather than the consultant's report. But I just would like to ask a question. Given the timeframes, and given all the other balls that the strategic planning team have got in the air, is there a need for some consultancy input to help this process along faster, or would that not help?

Mrs. Perrin

I appreciate your thinking, Councillor. I think, though, it would be better if council staff facilitated that process. You know, if we, well , I suppose in terms of running that workshop, if we need some technical information in terms of what the Hill PDA have pulled together, maybe, you know, we'd have them attending there so they can answer any specific questions we can't answer. But maybe I think it's better if council staff run that workshop for you. Thank you,

Mr. Mayor. Could I follow up with a bit more? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, look, the workshop, as always, I think benefits— well, can benefit—some, although some workshops in the past haven't, because it's basically divided the council more than it was. So I'm concerned that a workshop of this nature, given that there are clearly divergent views as to what should or shouldn't be developed and how it should be developed, and whether we have this or that story or not story or whatever, and whether we have dual occupancy and all those issues will no doubt come washing out again. So I'm just mindful of the fact that any workshop that we frame up, I think needs to be very, very constrained and the objectives very clearly defined so that we don't just end up, you know, dividing ourselves into three or two or whatever groups, and it will not gain us any—go anywhere.

All we've done is waste our time. So I just flag that concern that we do that, and I hope that we can achieve a workshop that is beneficial to the Hawkesbury, not just to our own little, yeah, little baliwicks or preferences or whatever.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I also support this motion, and I look forward to probably some more discussion, particularly because I've had some representation from various people within the public, and I think they might sort of want to get some input in via their representatives before the document goes on public exhibition, particularly around the anomalies surrounding rural properties and E4 zoning and various things like that. But I do agree with Councillor Rasmusson that it needs to be a tightly framed, productive discussion so that we can arrive at something that really does cover, you know, the local issues surrounding housing, so that we can get that out as soon as possible out to the public for their further comment.

Thank you. I've got no further speakers listed on the screen, so Councillor Kotlash, right of

Reply. No, sorry, Mr Mayor, I apologise. I'm coming in from a different device. I was going to make a remark. Well

I go by the little blue hands on the screen.

Sorry, I've been forced onto a different device because of technical difficulties. Okay. Councillor Sam Prokuda. Now look, I just wanted to mention that I've been greatly vexed by this whole process because at the beginning of this council term, we all sat down to formulate our community strategic plan, and we were asked what our big picture vision for the Hawkesbury was, including for housing. And variously, we were promised that we could articulate those desires through Residential land strategy or a housing strategy, or through the renovation of our LEP, and then the LSPS intervene to kind of tip that apple cart over. And now we're confronted with a report that makes some very good points, but still feels like it's been given to us rather than formulated by us.

I think this council is obligated to make some fairly clear statements about where we do and do not want housing in the next five, 10, 15, or 20 years. And in the absence of that, the kind of report that we're proposing to put onto exhibition tonight simply hints that there are going to be various areas that could be the subject of further investigation, north of Vineyard Stage 1 and Stage 2, which is to say the remainder of Oakville, Vineyard and Moralia, areas in Wilberforce, areas in Glossodia. And what happens, what we have seen happen, is speculation on the part of real estate agents who are currently advertising properties in the suburb that I live in, headlined with billboards outside the fence saying, Get in before the development catches up.

That inflates land values, it raises rates, and it creates an enormous amount of heartache and uncertainty. So, I was hopeful that this document or another document would allow us to make some clear statements that we've workshopped and agreed to, and this is and is. So, I'm happy to have this put onto exhibition, but I think the process is not complete and that we have a lot of input yet to give to formulate the position to give the community certainty. That's it.

Thank you. Councillor Ross, your hand up.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, fellow councillors. I broadly support the

Motion by Councillor Kotlash, and I also have sympathy with Councillor Rasmussen's thought, not so much about a consultant, but possibly a facilitator at the workshop, so that, in other words, our strategic planning and planning staff are there to answer, if you like, the technicalities, but we have somebody there who can bang heads together in that fashion. Just a thought.

Okay. Thanks for your thought. There are no further speakers on the list, so Councillor Kotlash, right of reply.

Thank you, Mr Mayor . On that note, I think let's do this. We have a big responsibility to get this right, and if it means banging heads, so be it. Let's hope it doesn't. But yeah, I think please support this variation on the way we do this. We can have a big input into it, and we need to get it right. So that's it. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. It's Councillor Kotlash. I will put the motion now. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Ross, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Wheeler. Absent are Councillor Richards and Councillor Tree. Did I miss anyone, did I?

Councillor Reynolds. Not Councillor Richards.

That's right. Councillor Richards is here. Absent is Councillor Reynolds and Councillor Tree. Did I get it right this time? In that case, I'll declare it carried.

Item number 96. Anyone wish to move anything on that?

Yeah, move that one.

Councillor Rasmussen is moving it. Is anyone seconding it? Councillor Wheeler seconding it. Councillor Rasmussen, you wish to speak?

Not really, Mr Mayor. I think the report outlines clearly what's before us and what we need to do, and I think, yeah, we just need to understand it and work our plans in accordance with when it finally gets settled out. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further speakers?

Councillor Ross.

Thank you. I broadly support this matter , and I see here that the

Response—this is a draft response, I take it, is it? Question?

I'll ask the general manager.

Mr Mayor, we'll refer to the Director City Planning.

This is our proposed submission to the paper that's been issued.

Thank you. Thank you. Look, I hate to harp on this, but I see this as a matter of policy, and I would have thought that this would have been an ideal matter to come to a workshop before this was drafted. It may have been only a short workshop because I do believe that the general line taken by the staff is appropriate, but it might have also left us better informed had we had a workshop. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I don't think this needed to come to Council. We've done these issues to death. We know that there's clear evidence in the shortfall of developer contributions across the LGA and that ratepayers have to pick up the tab, and that's been happening here for decades. It beggars belief that some of these contributions have been capped and remain capped as they are, and have been capped for more than a decade. Much of the existing legislation appears to advantage developers. There's also clear implications, I think, in this document for our strategic plans in terms of how we determine infrastructure spends and how we then demand that they're resourced. So I want to commend the work of the staff in putting this document together, particularly in outlining the problems and the limitations of the current system and the limitations they impose on Council residents and ratepayers.

I think we're clear that this has been an ongoing issue for Council for a long time.

Thank you. There are no further speakers listed. Councillor Rasmussen, you want right of reply?

Yeah, just quickly, Mr Mayor. I certainly agree with Councillor Wheeler's position on this. I've seen this whole contributions for infrastructure issue bounce around all over the place. It's never ever been in the favour of the local community. And I think the staff, and I should have said that, I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor, at the beginning, I should have said that the staff have put a huge effort into this, and I do appreciate the detail to which they've gone to and the careful, compelling explanations that they've put forward in this submission. And, you know, if we can correct even a fraction of what is happening now or not happening now, that would be great, and a big, big important outcome for the Hawkesbury and how we develop our infrastructure in the future.

Thank you. That was right of reply, so I'll now put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Ross, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Sam Provender, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Wheeler. Abstainer, Councillor Reynolds and Councillor Tree. Declare it carried.

97.

Anyone wish to move anything? Quarterly review, I think it is.

Yeah, Mr Mayor, I'll move that. Moved by Councillor.

Seconded by Councillor Conolly. Councillor Rasmussen, you wish to speak on it?

Just briefly, I think the quarterly review again demonstrates the fact that council staff work really hard on making sure that the balance happens and we are informed as to how expenditure happens, where it happens, how far it goes and what they don't spend money on. I really do want to commend the staff on putting forward time and time and time again very, very good, in my view, and I've seen lots of them across lots of organisations, and you can always pick holes, that's for sure, but I just want to commend them on the work that they do to

Quarterly produce these

Reports. Not easy to do, lots of effort, lots of detail to put together, and I just want to commend them on that, and I recommend the quarterly report to councillors.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler, your light's on. Did you wish to speak?

No, sorry, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

The discussion we had earlier in regard to questions somewhat flows across into this area

In a rather big way, and it's a shame that council... who had the opportunity to vote on a previous occasion in regard to implementation of the quarterly budget review statement reporting framework guidelines didn't do so because the variances which would have been produced by adoption of that full report would overcome the difficulties which were earlier expressed in part, and they also overcome the difficulties in the current reporting regime, which is less than satisfactory. For instance, I turned to page 72. We talk about estimated costs, projected reduced income, etc. Then we go look at the detailed narration , and the numbers that are attributed to an item differ between the two pages in the one report.

Very confusing, and they are just strange , very strange. Again, who knows what the final outcome of this financial year is going to be? I certainly don't. But it's apparent from the earlier information that the Council is losing between nine and ten million dollars a year in straight-out loss of efficiency in terms of what was proposed under the FFTF, and the ratepayers will see that their projects are not being completed as had been guaranteed that they would. And that there will no doubt be rabbits pulled out of the hat. We're still talking about an operating performance that is not up to speed, and that is the only thing that really counts in this game, as far as the IPART would be concerned.

And we're sitting here with $58 million in reserves, of which about, what is it, $30, $17 million is totally within council's remit to go out and do the work. Why we can't get it done, God only knows. But this is not a good look. I understand the difficulties of the time and natural events, and it is very difficult for us because there haven't been projections made in regard to the disaster recovery recoupment, or lack of recoupment as well. So we're somewhat in the lap of the gods. I would hope that we can get down to actually complying with the

Requirements of OLG and the documents that really are legislation. It should have been introduced on the 1st of July 2012 by this council after years of pre-warning , about three or four years of pre-warning of it coming, and we're still not doing it.

This is the causation of quite a lot of the discontent amongst my fellow councillors at the moment, and I would urgently request that something be done about that. Now it was at the— As it happened at the briefing session, where a report by fund was supplied . But on this occasion, of course, it's disappeared. Goodness gracious. That's not a very sensible approach on this thing. We're going to have a huge outlay of capital expenditure and project tied up in complying with 2024 changes in EPA requirements in terms of phosphate and other discharges from our sewage works, which is going to require a huge amount of funding to cover, as well as run the plants as they are. And we've also got problems with South Creek from the floodplain report, which is putting that plant in danger of being overrun by development up in Schofields.

I think that subdivision by fund is absolutely a vital element. It was also somewhat tied up in the FFTF as well. And on those grounds, I would request that Council continue to report on that basis, as well as give us whatever information they have in regard to the recoupment of costs via the disaster recoupment process that is underway. I'm also , as the last point, very concerned at the roads to recovery roundabouts, which are absolutely ridiculous and a total waste of money in the areas in which— The money is to be expended. There are better things. Even my honourable colleague, Councillor Zamprogno, would very much like to see Brennan's Dam Road. I would certainly say the money spent on Brennan's Dam Road, taken from these roundabouts, would be fully justified and of greater community value.

Thank you, Councillor. You're out of time. Thank you.

Thank you kindly

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll just be brief on this. I do, I hear what Councillor Ross is saying, and part—this happens all the time around our financial things, and this was why I wanted to proceed earlier with the item, because I actually had some amendments around the reporting and the need, as we now will be doing in a workshop, the need to sort out how we get this information, how we are involved in the processes, how we actually are delivered this information, what we need to know and what we want to know, and how that happens. Because every time we have a financial item, we have the same thing with many more questions. So we need to establish how it's going to be reported to us, and I think we'd all agree that we want it in a reasonably comprehensive and easy-to-follow format so that we can just look at it and see what's going on each time that we look.

And I'm hoping, really hopeful now, because everyone seems to be thinking like that, that when we workshop and look at the other issue, that that will incorporate how we are given quarterly updates and how we get to see these variances being presented to us and so on. Having said that, I think there are some good things that have happened, which have been good. We can see, you know, a few favourable things, and I also understand that we do have these additional external factors that are going to impact on us through loss of revenue and also through, you know, having had the disasters that we've had. Obviously we've got to factor all of that in. But I'm very hopeful that we don't have to continue having every single financial...

Thing come down to a whole lot of questions. I want that we all can have the information delivered to us as we expect and as we want to receive it, in a form that we can all comprehend and understand, and that we don't have to keep repeating this sort of thing. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Conolly.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to sort of just touch on that point very briefly. I think it would be a good process to go through and have this workshop and see if there's any reporting requirements we can change, but I'd also caution against the thinking that that is a solution to asking questions on the public record, that we won't have to do that anymore. State and federal parliaments have very comprehensive reporting standards set in legislation, and yet they still have days of hearings where representatives of the community, the members of parliament, ask lots and lots and lots of questions to make sure that they can be satisfied with the information that's been reported, because that's the job of community representatives. We're here to make sure that—

I wasn't suggesting that.

Councillor Conolly has the floor.

Thank you. Yeah, that's fine. It's not an attack on anybody, Deputy Mayor. It was just a point to be made that I don't want— I'd hate to think that anyone was expecting that a different set of reporting would stop these items being discussed in detail and lots of questions being raised.

Thank you. I've got no further hands up on the screen. So, Councillor Rasmussen, would you like to write a reply?

Yeah, I would, thanks, Mr Mayor. Just to cover the point about our operating performance that was raised earlier, I think it's well explained in the report, and again, it falls foul of this grant— standard that we all get tracked up on, or some of us get tracked on, and therefore can't quite get the idea that there are some differences, but they will be self-correcting, and that's where that operating performance is at in terms of the FST. It's not a structural failure in the system. It's simply a, as we have said, I don't know how many times now, it's an accounting issue, and it will be self-correcting, as we know. And Mr. Mayor, I think there's a bit of a difference between council and state government.

In the main—well, I think hopefully we all know the difference—in the main, councillors can raise questions in a number of forums, and one of them is briefings when they come to council, and we can always request a particular briefing be added to the briefing agenda . That's never been denied from any other staff or the general manager. So, you know, if you have something you want to be briefed on, put it on the briefing, and then please come to the briefing and listen to what's being said. That's the first thing. Secondly, we're always able to write and email questions to any of the directors about any of the financial statements— quarterly, yearly, half-yearly, five-yearly, ten-yearly. Those emails can flow and generally, my experience that I ask, are answered.

And if you, you know, if you want to have more information, then turn up to the internal audit committee, as John and I do. Turn up there, spend a bit of time, and get the answers. It's not that hard. And, you know, yeah, we can all, you know, I'd ask more questions than you, and I will continue to ask more questions than you. And, you know, that's all good. Nothing wrong with questions. I love questions. But, you know, there comes a point at which we have got to take a little bit of difference. And, you know, state government and the people in state parliament can't just write to the Treasurer and say, I want answers to all these questions, and I'll keep, oh, when you reply, I want more questions for those replies.

I don't know whether the Treasurer's got time to do that. But anyway, all I make the point here is that I think we need to collectively understand that there are so many council staff, there is so much expertise, they have got a huge, huge job in front of us. I mean, the form of the financial difficulty that we're heading into is just astronomical. Just listen to the national debate. It's not only huge for council, it's huge for the nation. I mean, 130— no, actually it's more than that. We are now up to over $ 600 billion of debt, of debt. I mean, that's going to take 25 generations to pay back.

Point of order, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Conolly? Yes.

I believe the motion is whether or not we accept the quarterly budget review. We're now talking about the federal budget. I just wonder if we could bring it back to something relevant.

Councillor Rasmussen, can you confine to the motion, please? Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll bring it back to something a bit more perhaps understandable. But I would like to see that Council concentrate on getting the information that they want in briefing and other forms, and then when we actually come to Council meetings, we actually debate the report that's in front of us . And that makes it very efficient. Thank you.

Time's up. Thank you. That was right of reply. If you're in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. Favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Rasmussen, and Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Kotlash, and Councillor Richards. Against the motion, Councillor Ross. Absent is Councillor Reynolds and Councillor Tree. Declare it carried.

To item 98. Move that, Wayne. Councillor Rasmusson, do we have a seconder? Councillor Kotlash. Councillor Rasmusson, you wish to speak?

No, Mr Mayor, other than to say it now follows the new investment strategy. I like what we're seeing here. It's a good job in a very difficult environment.

Thank you. Any further speakers?

If not, Councillor Rasmusson, I don't suppose you need right of reply, do you?

No, I don't, thank you.

In that case, we'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Rasmusson, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Richards, Councillor Samprogno. Against? Councillor Ross. Absent is Councillor Reynolds and Councillor Tree. Declare it carried.

Mary Fama

Yes.

Councillor Reynolds sends his apologies. They're currently filling the large silki oak outside his house, and it's now too noisy for him to continue in the council meeting.

Thank you.

The next item is item 102 . Hello, Mr Mayor . Councillor Rasmusson. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Conolly. Councillor Rasmusson, you wish to speak? No,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you.

Do we have any speakers? This is the floodplain risk management.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett

Yes, Mr Mayor, just very briefly. Just , I did have some notes written. Can't see them. Just to say that some of us attended the online floodplain risk management conference just last week, and we will be bringing— there were some really, really interesting presentations on there, and we will be reporting back to the floodplain committee and thus coming to council, and still waiting on the flood liable land policy to be worked on again before it comes back. That was just an update on that. It's all written there anyway. You can see it.

Thank you,

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just a couple of quick points speaking in support of the motion. There appears to be a typo in the minutes on page 106 under General Business item C, update on flood grants. Paragraph 2, it states committee members also discussed the filtration build-up in the Hawkesbury River. I think that should read the siltation of the Hawkesbury River or the silt build-up in the Hawkesbury River. There's certainly been no filtration going on, but there is plenty of silt washed into the river and causing some concern. It's also worth noting, I think, for councillors, the concerns raised by the committee regarding the use of hazard vulnerability category H1, which we discussed in terms of our planning documents and what we would allow in that category.

And members of the committee felt that the messaging was quite confusing, where we've stated that we would allow building, for example, in that category, and yet it clearly states that people shouldn't drive through floodwater, that they should keep vehicles out of floodwater. So I think that hopefully will feed back to the strategic planning staff, and that matter be further considered. There's also some interesting comments in there about cut and fill on floodplains and how there's push to limit cut and fill on individual development. It's interesting that that doesn't seem to extend to broad-scale cut and fill in the South Creek floodplain and the impact of that on the Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain, and that remains a question that we continue to ask the state government via the Floodplain Risk Management Committee.

Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor Ross.

Can't hear you, Councillor Ross . Thank you, Mayor, and the previous speaker. Look, I wanted to take up that point raised by Councillor Wheeler just then. On page 107, officers' comment in regard to the development taking place down in Marsden Park Scowfields area, obviously, which is causing runoff into South Creek, this could have a deleterious effect on our Mcgraths Hill sewage plant. We had, in the last inundation in February, an EPA closure of the plant for justifiable reasons. But if this is going to become a more regular feature of that particular location as a result of siltation building up in South Creek, this puts Council at a sovereign risk of a very substantial investment put into jeopardy.

Now , I hope that maybe you, Mayor, or Councillor Wheeler can clarify the statement made there. Is either the staff member of our staff or one of the delegates from State Government Instrumentality going to actually press ahead with some form of at least reporting to Infrastructure New South Wales, or the Department of Planning, or both, or the EPA, in regard to this siltation difficulty, this apparently being experienced, please?

Mr Conroy, do you have an answer to that? I think I'll refer that to the Manager Strategic Planning, Mr Mayor. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So, yes, we have a number of state government agency representatives on the Floodplain Committee, and they're taking this matter forward and they're bringing matters back to the next committee meeting for discussion with the committee.

Councillor Ross. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Officer. Mr Mayor, I would ask through you that the council staff keep abreast of this from the point of view of the risk profile that could endanger our operations. Thank you.

Thank you. There are no further speakers with their hands up. So, Councillor Rasmussen, you went right of reply. Mayor,

Just briefly. The Deputy Mayor mentioned that some of us have been to the conference on floodplain management. One of the particular items there, Mr Mayor, and it's a product that's been developed, well, yeah, very recently by BOM, the Bureau of Meteorology, and it's actually used the February 2020 floods in the Hawkesbury as a benchmark. So they're putting together big data AI and a whole lot of information about epitomes and so on of the rainfall patterns, and that is really going to change the lead times, the evacuation times, and notifications and so on. So that's coming up, and I'll probably write a report on that along with Councillor, Deputy Mayor, as a result of going to that conference. So that was very, very useful, directly of influence and directly useful to the Hawkesbury and

Its community. Thank you. Thank you. That was right of reply. So if you favour this motion , please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Ross, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards. Absent is Councillor Reynolds and Councillor Tree, declare it carried.

Number 103.

Anybody wishing to move anything

Happy to move that, Mr Mayor.

The Deputy Mayor had a hand up first, I think

Yeah, that's fine.

Moved by— Seconded. Seconded, Councillor Rasmussen. Deputy Mayor, you wish to speak to this?

Just very briefly, and just regarding, there's some very interesting things obviously have been on the agenda. So firstly, I was just wondering if it's possible for individual councillors who aren't on a committee to actually put their name down to have the business paper sent to them before the committee, because otherwise we don't get to see the information that's going to the committee. And so I'm assuming that would be okay, but other councillors who aren't on committees might want to do it for something as well, because often we have quite comprehensive reports going into the committees, and I realised when I went to look something up that they're not actually available to all of us. So I'm not sure if I—

Mr

General Manager? Could be.

Mr Mayor, I'm sure we can make those available on the hub and distribute them in hard copy if that's needed.

That would be very good, because I know that some of these things are probably of interest to most of us. The other question I had was just regarding the survey and for the net zero emissions and water efficient strategy. Will that be coming to council before the survey goes publicly?

Mr Conroy? I'll refer that to the Director City Planning, Mr Mayor.

I'm going to refer that to the Manager Strategic Planning.

Yes, yes, it will. Yeah.

Thank you, thank you. That was the only questions I had. Thank you.

No further speakers. Councillor Wheeler, you've got your light on.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just very quickly, I missed this meeting because I was at the bushfire inquiry. It's the first one I've missed, and I am always sorry to because there's always lots of information that comes out in these meetings. It's a varied and interesting group who are very free with the information that they have, many of whom work in a professional capacity in this space. But one of the very exciting things in this meeting is that Council has now appointed a sustainability officer, and I think that that will come as a great addition to Council working in this space and further extend the capacity of strategic planning around this, where we've been cobbling together around this job for a while.

Thank you. No further speakers. Deputy Mayor, did you want right of reply?

Sorry, I didn't hear you. Not

Necessary.

Not necessary. Then in that case, I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Ross, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Sam Brogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Wheeler. Absent is Councillor Tree and Councillor Reynolds. Declare it carried.

Next item is item number 104, notice of motion 1, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. It's a shame that I have to move this motion. I attempted to get this information through councillors' question on notice process, and unfortunately all the questions weren't adequately answered and debate was stifled. And I think had we been able to discuss this matter at the last council meeting, this wouldn't have been necessary.

I'd like to second that motion.

Good on you, Councillor Rasmussen, seconding it.

I don't want to go through the questions because I think they're quite self-evident. This council term has been noted for our combined efforts to maintain open debate for both councillors and the community, in part in response to our dismay at previous council's actions. To the contrary, that councillors on both sides of the chamber objected at the last meeting shows how seriously we all take this. Further, this council has made a conscious decision to always divide up school attendance equally and to put interaction with school students above politics. And I am flabbergasted that it wasn't done in this case. It's not reasonable that 10 councillors were not informed of this event, which gathered information, generated publicity and took up staff time and resources.

No one objects to the mayor interacting with school students, but don't shut us out of this process and then don't treat us like mugs when it comes to questions on this. If we're going to interact, we all supported this program. We were all happy to see this carried out and to have some involvement. To have it occur behind closed doors and us to find out that it had been on by social media posts, and because a couple of us came in to attend a committee meeting that afternoon and found the detritus of the event spread about the council chambers and the tea room, really... is not the sort of, is not the transparent process I think that the rest of us expect. So this notice of motion is an attempt to get full answers to the questions that I asked in questions on notice at the last council meeting.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. I might respond to your notice of motion.

Firstly, I'm a bit surprised at the quality of the writing of the notice of motion. It has a point one and then it doesn't have a point two. It just lists one and A to H. Secondly, those questions that are listed there, most all of those were answered at the last meeting or in the business paper this time. So I don't know why you're pursuing to have the questions answered again through a report, which is what in your motion. All I can see the only action there is to prepare a report. So you're asking to prepare a report to get the answers to the questions which you've already got answers to, which seems a bit strange to me. And secondly, you're talking about this program. I assume you're talking about the Local Government Leadership and Awareness Program, which is how you've headed your notice of motion.

That program has not taken place. It has not been enacted. There has been no Local Government Leadership and Awareness Program. What you experienced when you came into council that day was the Mayoral Morning Tea, which I ran in 2019 and I ran it again in 2020. I think there's a bit of confusion there about what the program is that was being run. It's the Mayoral Morning Tea and That Mayoral Morning Tea has proven to be very popular with schools. I had many schools ring me early this year to say, Are you going to run it again in 2020? And it turned out to be even more students came along this time to have morning tea with the mayor and discuss how the council works. And some of the staff here this year also came last year, and they said they're very pleased with the way that that program works, and that they were looking forward to bringing their students so they could go back and discuss the different levels of government and how local government fits into all three levels of government.

So it had quite a good feedback from the schools and the parents . A few parents turned up as well, and all I got from them was very positive feedback. And I'm surprised that you would now turn around and criticize such a very worthwhile and well-attended and well-supported program. I see it as a positive event, and I'm surprised at your negative response.

These things have been discussed informally in many cases. I know that in many instances we discuss these things at the dinner that we have before council meetings or at the informal get-togethers that we have after council meetings. And I've noticed for the last 18 months or so, Councillor Wheeler, you haven't turned up to any of those informal meetings, or not many of them. And maybe that's why you weren't aware of what was going on, because it was never a formal process. It's a Mayoral Morning Tea, and I can, as in my role as mayor, I can invite who I want and when I want to a Mayoral Morning Tea. It's not a whole of council. Program . The local government leadership and awareness program may end up being a whole of council program, and I'm sure councillors will all be invited at that stage.

So, and I'm also surprised that if you had these questions, you didn't just come and contact me, because I could have answered all your questions very quickly. But you didn't bother to come and talk to me about it. You instead put questions up through the business paper, and now you've put a notice of motion up, which I can only assume you put up to try and embarrass me in some way, and I find that rather unsettling and disappointing because I think my door is always open. Councillors can come in and talk to me at any time, and I think you should have come and spoken to me about this, and maybe I could have explained to you how this all worked. But you didn't bother to do that, and now I think you've put forward what I would see as a very misguided notice of motion that is headed Local Government Leadership and Awareness Program, yet asks questions about the Mayoral Morning Tea.

And I think you've confused two things and put them together, and I'm quite disappointed that you've managed to do that. Further speakers. Councillor Ross, you've got your light on.

Thank you, Mayor. I am not as impressed by the response offered because, as I believe my fellow councillor pointed out,

There was no invitation for other councillors to attend this . It's a case of, I believe, shooting the messenger when in case— May I suggest, with due respect, sir, that it would require a degree of introspection. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and apologise for my appearance . I'm on a different device again. This is now the third device. I concede every point that you make. As Mayor, I believe you are entitled to hold meetings , morning teas or otherwise, and invite whomsoever you please. As a teacher by vocation, and as a person who's been involved in youth leadership programs for many years, including a camp that I ran through the office of the former federal member, I'd have loved to have participated in any civic education event. And without diminishing the validity of your comments, I'd just like to say, on my own behalf, and perhaps on behalf of other councillors who feel aggrieved, it would be courteous to receive an invitation to such things. I'm simply telegraphing my desire to participate in such things when they're held.

Thank you, and I'll take that on board. Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, I'm disappointed in your reply and your statements to Councillor Wheeler on this motion. It's never a good idea to berate and belittle councillors on a public forum. Normally, what you normally do, Mr Mayor, is you— Talk to the councillor offline. In my experience as a very senior officer and senior leader in the community for many years, that's what I would do. So, Mr Mayor, clearly you have, and should have, and do have the responsibility to put forward the council as a good corporate citizen in our area. And one way to do that is to have a morning tea. I have no, no, absolutely no argument with that. The more the better. The more we can invite the community into the chambers, into the council's workings, how we do things, why we do them, and where we spend our money, the better.

The more the better. I have always been very, very supportive of local democracy. Local democracy is a world-changing idea. Trust me, it works, and we should all support it. So , Mr Mayor, I also would have liked to have had an invite, but that's fine. That's your prerogative to invite whoever you want to. But please do not, I ask you, Mr Mayor, in a public forum, do not berate and belittle councillors for putting up a motion, a notice of motion. You may not like the way it was written. Okay, well there's a way to deal with that, and it's not on a public forum.

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I don't for a minute think that Councillor Wheeler's questions were questioning your right to have a morning tea. I think that we all acknowledge that that's something that's quite within the realms of what a mayor would do. And I think also that given the motion earlier in 2017 to establish something where the schools would come into the chamber was unanimously supported. And from what I recall, everybody was very keen to be involved in that sort of a strategy. So I don't think the problem here is about whether you can have that. I think it's more about the content of that meeting and the method in which it was done, given that the public statement made about it on social media as such was that you and Councillor Richards co-hosted an event, and it was given in that regard with a subsequent answer to a question saying that that was because she had moved a motion, that Councillor Richards had moved a motion.

Now, it's not to attack on those grounds. It's more that we want to establish that there aren't any special rules for people who move a motion. If you move a motion doesn't mean you get to do it. Simply moving a motion and getting support for it gives us a resolution that council implements. I think that it's just to establish that that is what our process is. And I think that there may have been some ambiguity around either the answers given or the public displays on the school websites or on various Facebook pages that led people to question what this was all about. I think that's what it is. I don't have any issue with children learning about local government. Councillor Payne and I in the last council went into the schools and spoke about local government to quite a few people .

And that was fine. And I think we're all into having children learn as much as they can, and hopefully some of them will go into local government. But I think the issue is around double standards to preach inclusion and then to exclude a number of councillors on that basis is when we all want a share in what the schools, you know, involvement in schools. I think that's what the issue is. I also do think there was an issue, and this was raised with me by a teacher and some parents of the content of what the debate was about being about what you would do with a hundred acres at Glossodia, which was quite a peculiar topic to give to young children, and something else about a Westfield shopping centre or something.

And I think that Councillor Wheeler was asking who came up with those questions, like, because did the staff, you know, are they gathering information about that from younger people, or why were those the sort of focuses? And I think it was just simply to get some answers regarding that. So I think that around that, and as Councillor Wheeler said, she wanted to raise those questions and was unable to seek a debate around that last meeting. So I think that to have a report, I don't know if all the questions are answered. I haven't cross-checked them there, but I think that it's just something that gives us more information around perhaps better ways to do things and better ways to include all the councillors in the opportunities that are given in the council.

Thank you, Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I was going to say a few other things, but I think before I do, I'll start with the fact that to raise concerns about the content that children are hearing or listening to in quite random debates about things that councils actually participate in every single day in decisions that we make, when you've got other councillors, as we well know, doing things with images of children that I don't find are acceptable, and if they're prepared to put that on Facebook, then I'm prepared to say it in a council meeting. So let's just start being very frank about not making accusations about things to do with children, because quite frankly, the children that participated in those morning teas, from all accounts, had a brilliant time.

Now, I fully support the mayor on this one and all of the sentiments that he made in his speech. The answers to the questions that are in the notice of motion appear to be not only in the previous business paper, and if they weren't answered to a satisfactory level there, they are answered in this business paper, which is a few pages after this notice of motion. Those answers are there. Now , to me, the biggest problem in all of this is the fact that we don't have the report that is supposed to have resulted from my original motion, which was the motion that was entitled Local Government Leadership and Awareness Program. The fact that we all voted on that program, I don't know if it was two or three years ago, whatever it may be, and we still don't have that report and we still don't have a program is basically , to me, the biggest concern, because there are quite a few outstanding notices of motion, and I do know there's another one I have regarding the RSL eligibility criteria.

For memorials in this area that still haven't also been progressed, and I think that that as a council is a problem that we need to address. I think raising questions about the content of debates that children participated in when the questions were as random as plucking anything out of the air is ridiculous. And the fact that the children absolutely loved their topics, one of the other ones was whether we should have a wet and wild. Just random topics picked that children learn how to debate, how to move an amendment, and how to come up to a consensus. And I think that was a wonderful introduction for them into local government. Now, the mayor has made a point that as the mayor, he can host these sorts of things and do as he pleases.

And he made a point as well about exclusion. Now, let's be very frank that there is a division in this council. There isn't a cooperation. And quite frankly, for the first two years of this council under a previous mayor, I also felt that I was not to be included in a number of things. And if you want to defend that and say that that's not the case, that was certainly my subjective feeling, that I was not allowed to participate or welcome to participate in quite a number of things. So if you want to call the pot, you know, kettle black, that is what it is. So I won't be supporting this notice of motion. The answers are in the business paper, this exact business paper, and as the mayor rightly said, rather than going for a notice of motion to, quite frankly, politically grandstand, why don't you just walk into the mayor's office and ask him yourself?

Thank you.

Councillor...

Thanks. I probably have something very similar to Councillor Richards to say, so I won't say too much. At the last meeting, I actually supported Councillor Wheeler's questions because the business paper did not answer the questions that were put on notice, and I find that really frustrating, that if questions are put on notice and staff choose not to answer them, that defeats the whole purpose and shouldn't be allowed. So, but they have all been answered. Unlike the deputy mayor, I did read the full business paper, and they have all been answered in the question section. There's nothing outstanding, so I don't understand what this motion would — I don't understand if this motion is passed, what's going to happen if we're just going to reprint this in a slightly different format.

I mean, I think overall, this is why so many people in our community think we're a joke and we're dysfunctional . Because we've currently got a motion. We're going to spend all this time talking about why Councillor Wheeler wasn't invited to a morning tea the mayor held. Councillor Wheeler never thought to ask the mayor why she wasn't invited. Instead, we've got questions on notice twice and a notice of motion to discuss it. And until Councillor Richards brought up, nobody put the more important question is, where is the report that we asked for in 2017 so we can actually progress the program? Instead, we're going to spend all our time talking about what morning teas the mayor's having and whether we're all invited.

This is why people don't take us seriously.

Thank you, Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I wasn't going to even be bothered talking to this notice of motion because I think it is a total waste of our time. And I'm really, I'm really disgusted that we've come to this pettiness. And that's all I'm going to say. We have better things to do. We have a huge job and we should get on with it. This sort of just dreadful pettiness just makes me embarrassed.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen, and your light is on. Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just noticed that there are some eight questions in the notice of motion. Are we not wanting to answer our councillors' eight questions?

You've already spoken on this matter, Councillor Rasmussen.

It was a question to me.

A question to who? To you. To me. The questions have already been answered, Councillor Rasmussen. I'm not trying to avoid the questions at all.

Any further speakers?

No. Councillor Wheeler, right of reply.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, it's interesting to see how people have taken this notice of motion, which really began as a simple request for information. And I'm sorry that people are so defensive and that we have instantly split into a political divide. I thank Councillor Zamprino for being one of the few people on his side of the chamber who was able to address this simply as a matter of courtesy, which really is what this is about. This is about courtesy and transparency. No one disputes your ability to hold as many morning teas as you like. No one is disagreeing with this program. We all supported the idea of this program. You will note that the first question that I asked in the questions and in this report, in this notice of motion, is when will we be provided with this report? Now, it appears that that will be some time before September.

There are a great many accusations that have been thrown at me during this process, and some really random stuff about images of children. This is not intended to be a vexatious notice of motion. This began as a request for information, which wasn't answered. I will remind Councillors that think that this is some sort of vexatious witch hunt or attempt to embarrass the Mayor that notices of motion have to be put in prior to the business paper. All the questions are not answered by the information in the response to the questions. I'm sorry that my writing skills do not meet the Mayor's high standards. I've been a bit busy caring for my sick mother, and I wasn't really up to wordsmithing prior to getting this in at 5 p.m.

last Tuesday. I'm sorry that I have misunderstood the local leadership awareness program as different to the council morning, to the mayor's morning teas. But what we see here is a lack of understanding of councillors of this process. And I shouldn't have to hang around in your office drinking ratepayer-funded alcohol or go to dinner eating ratepayer-funded food in order to understand what is going on in this council, or to gain an invitation to a program that exposes councillors to school kids and allows them to discuss matters or gain information or simply have a chat. This is about transparency. We've just been lectured at the beginning of this meeting about transparency, and frankly I find it quite dismaying to be lectured on transparency and then castigated later for asking for transparency of process.

That's really unreasonable. My intention here isn't to embarrass you. My intention here is to gain some information and perhaps remind you that when you run a really nice program like this, all of us may want to be involved. Not all of us at once, because that would be completely overwhelming. No one is suggesting that all 12 of us descend and outnumber a group of school kids, but perhaps we could take turns. Maybe that would be nice. Maybe you could do us the courtesy of involving us in this program, which we all clearly felt quite passionate about before. These are good outcomes for our council. They are good outcomes for our community. This isn't about sides. This is about procedural fairness and transparency, and that is the entire intention.

There's no need for anybody to be disgusted. There's no need for anybody to be embarrassed. There's no need for anybody to be dismayed. This is purely an attempt for information, for transparency of process, and for courtesy to the other 10 councillors who make up this body.

Thank you. That was right of reply. If you're in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. In favour of the motion, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Wheeler. Did I miss anyone? Those against, please raise your hand. Councillor Calvert, Councillor Cotlass, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards. Absent is Councillor Tree and Councillor Reynolds. Declare the notice of motion carried. Move on now to item number 100.

Number 106. Sorry, before I do that, we need to extend our time. We've reached 11 o'clock. Would someone like to move an extension perhaps the Mayor and Councillor Rasmussen. Are you going to nominate a specific time, Deputy Mayor?

Do you feel that's necessary, Mr Mayor? I would think we're nearly towards the end of the business paper. Half an hour, an hour?

How about we try half an hour and see how we go. Okay

We still haven't done the confidential yet.

That's right. That's correct. It's been moved that we extend by half an hour. Councillor Rasmussen, are you seconding that?

Yes, I am, Mr Mayor, thank you.

Anyone wish to speak against that? Or vote against that? If not, I'll declare it carried. Councillor Ross wants to vote against it. Everyone else is voting in favour of it. Declare it carried. Half an hour extension. Item number 106, Councillor Kotlash, thanks.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Do we have a seconder for that? Councillor Lyons-Buckett, thank you.

Thank you. The reason I put this notice of motion up for your consideration was that for a long time we've been talking about what to do about domestic solid collection costs. And it occurred to me that we didn't have one report that characterised the situation, described how Council deals with the situation, investigated alternatives that are cost-effective and environmentally sound, or how we might view the collection of sullage... as an environmental service, the cost of which might be shared with the wider community. And by the wider community, I actually mean the state government.

So, I guess there's always trade-offs in making decisions about how to protect the environment. And it seems to me, and this is just my initial thinking without the essential information that I've just asked for, is that it's probably always better to treat waste at source. We have just been through a horrendous drought, but we have a system where we collect domestic waste, which is mostly water, in huge trucks that constantly run up and down our LGA, emitting air pollution to deposit the waste in our sewage treatment plants, where it's treated to whatever degree of treatment, and then we put it into our rivers and it goes to our estuaries and beaches. I mean, it seems to me that, you know, I really think we can do better than this.

You know, we've seen situations where domestic waste can be treated in really small areas, and there's lots of instances of that , and treated without any detriment to the environment. So, I think it's time we had a go at this. And once we have this information, I'm sure we can make some sort of really sound decisions about how to better support our community. And not only to the people that have pump-outs. If we can get our heads around alternative technologies that support better waste treatment on site, that will have a much broader benefit to the people that we have. But as a start, I think if we can help the people that rely on pump-out, I think that would be a really good way forward.

So, I commend this notice of motion to you.