27 October 2020 - Ordinary

Tonight's ordinary meeting. I'd like to start by acknowledging the Dharug and Darkinjung people as traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury, and pay respect to all elders past, present and emerging, and hand over to the general manager.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Members of the public participating in tonight's meeting are advised that in accordance with the Code of Meeting Practice, the meetings of 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 the compiling of 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. Recordings are made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations, and the recordings are stored on Council's record management system.

For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the Council tonight, it is expected that you will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at the 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 the meeting has a mobile phone, that they either turn it off or turn it to silent. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, General Manager. Do we have any apologies? Not that I'm aware

Of

I've just heard that Councillor Tree is trying to get into the meeting at the moment. Has anybody heard from Councillor Calvert? No . And Councillor Rasmussen ? Someone moved to accept apologies for Councillor Calvert and Rasmussen.

Was intending to come.

Moved, Councillor Zamprogno.

Okay, and Councillor Calvert, I've just got a message, he's coming in as well.

Okay, good. All right . So we'll take those note those apologies. Any declarations of interest?

No.

First, we have one item with public speaker, which is item 214, and the speaker is Susan Templeman. Don't know if she's in the meeting .

Here we are. Yep.

Okay, over to you, Mrs. Templeman.

That was quick work. Hi, everybody.

Look, I suspect it's no surprise to anyone that I've requested to speak on the motion of youth mental health, because improving support for young people around their mental health has been at the absolute core of what's driven my reason to even be in Parliament. And it's no secret that my family's experience with the mental health of a child has been a really defining one. And so, I welcome any level of government showing an interest in youth mental health. Now, as they say in road safety, better to arrive late than not arrive at all. So, well done for putting this motion before the Council. People are naive, though, if they think that it's a recent crisis in mental health for young people in our community.

The 2019 assessment of needs showed that there were high rates of suicide ideation, behaviour, and self-harm amongst young people, particularly young women. Now, that probably isn't a surprise, because back in 2016, the needs assessment identified increasing rates of suicide amongst young people. So, from over the years, we've been seeing this gradual increase, and yet not much has changed in the services provided to young people. Bushfires, floods and COVIDs have heightened the need, and without a doubt, young people are facing really serious constraints on their lives that's having mental health impacts. But our issue is longer running than just this year. Headspace was created in 2005, and it was slowly rolled out.

So a decade ago, in 2010, I raised with the Labour mental health minister that there was a huge gap from Blacktown to Bathurst, and that resulted in the first Penrith Headspace being open on the 30th of June 2013. That was a significant win and should have been the start of more services coming to the Hawkesbury and to the Blue Mountains. You know, Headspace centres have always been designed to offer youth-friendly access to services for things like mental health, general health and sexual health advice, education and employment and vocational services, and also treatment for alcohol and other drugs. So they cover a wide range of things, and mental health isn't something you tackle in isolation.

You know, even though parents would absolutely wish that their teenage children, young teenage children in particular, weren't engaging in sex or struggling with their sexual identity or using drugs and alcohol, that's the reality of what Headspace deals with on a daily basis, and they do it without any form of judgement. So they are a really vital service. And when Labour was in government, we increased the number of Headspaces up to 90. Seven years later, we've only got an additional 20, and many of them, like Katoomba, are not full service; they're not funded to provide a full service. They're called satellites. So unfortunately for young people in the Hawkesbury, when the government changed in 2013, it actually led to years of funding stagnation and cuts to Headspace, with funding reduced from around 19 million a year to 8 million for 2017 and 5 million the following year.

Now these figures are just a matter of record, and they explain why Headspace hasn't come to the Hawkesbury sooner. So I've really welcomed the rediscovery of Headspace by the government. It is a very good service, and locally, the Wentworth Primary Health Network and the Parramatta Mission, who deliver the service, are just getting started to provide this no wrong door approach for young people. But they don't have the resources to expand Headspace to the Hawkesbury in the way the community deserves. There's been some bushfire funding, which is helping them do some outreach service. But everyone I speak to, mental health practitioners, school principals, young people, people with lived experience of mental illness and their families, all say we need a full-service Headspace in the Hawkesbury, designed to suit the unique needs of the Hawkesbury, and that's what I committed $2 million to do at the last election.

So I'd really encourage you to support the principles in this motion. You know, I've always believed council had a wider role than just roads, rates and rubbish, and, you know, I think your recognition of youth mental health as an issue and assisting in the advocacy of it could convince the Morrison government after seven years to provide some really long overdue services to the young people in our region. I'll leave it there, and I'm very happy if anyone has questions to provide those answers.

Thank you for that. Are there any questions, councillors? Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Mrs Templeman, and thank you for your advocacy on that. I'm just interested, you called it a satellite, I think you said satellite service, and with some outreach. The motion says Hawkesbury has an outreach service. I couldn't find it when I looked for it. Can you just explain, can you tell us the extent of what we currently have from Headspace in the Hawkesbury, if you know?

Yeah, look, I've spoken regularly with the Primary Health Network and Parramatta Mission about the headspace that they've put in Katoomba. Now, they were funded, a full headspace costs around about three million dollars over three years. They've been given, I think it's 1.5 million over four years, so it's a vastly reduced sum. So they can't provide everything. So it's called a satellite service because it has fewer services available. And then they'll no doubt try and link people into the Penrith service, which is the foundation service there. I have absolute confidence that in Katoomba, with a great collaboration between services, other local services, they're going to be able to meet the needs of young people.

But it would be much, much easier with a full service headspace. They have received some bushfire funding and, you know, we have pushed for additional mental health resources right across the country for COVID, but the bushfire funding came in before that. It's just providing a couple of people to work, but only till June 2021. So far, the latest advice I had received was that there were one and a half people working to outreach to the Hawkesbury. I don't know the details of their positions, but if you look at the advertisements that went out in July, it was for someone who's a youth access team senior clinician, Bushfire Relief. So someone with some social work or occupation therapy or maybe psychology experience is what they asked for.

Now, I'm yet to meet that person, but I look forward to it and find out from them what they're experiencing. It's always a shock for people how hard it is to reach out to the vast region that we have, to get up to St Albans and the McDonald Valley, to get up to Colo Heights. So I think there's going to be some extra challenges. We really need to work through and try and get additional resources for.

Thanks . Thank you for that. So really, it's only for bushfire. So people in Richmond and Windsor and things don't have an outreach. That's okay. Thank you.

And just the last question, if we can go quickly, Councillor Reynolds.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thanks, Mr Edmond. You mentioned that Headspace addresses mental health, education, employment, et cetera, but it doesn't cover everything.

I'm having trouble hearing you, Councillor Reynolds. Can you— Is

That better now?

That's a bit better. I feel like I have to lean close so I can hear better.

I'm leaning close too. Excuse my head. What gaps in the system doesn't Headspace cover? And are there any other organisations that take care of those gaps?

There are masses of gaps. There's what's called the missing middle, which are the people who are not critically ill and being admitted to hospital, although we also have a problem with that in the Hawkesbury because the people often get sent to Penrith Hospital for emergency services, and that is a real problem and something that you would hope the New South Wales government could tackle. But the missing middle is the people who— Headspace is for early intervention and for the fairly low-level mental ill health, but psychosis, bipolar, schizophrenia, eating disorders, these are all big gaps, and there is one service provided through Headspace, which is called the YES program, and that is— Helping to, we have that operating in the Hawkesbury, outreached from Penrith, and that's helping a few, a small number of people access services.

The other real gap, though, eating disorders is an example of a really serious gap. I get calls from families. It's not large volumes, but when you have a child with an eating disorder, you've got a really serious mental illness at work. And so there's nowhere for public assistance until you get to Westmead. There's a national shortage of places for eating disorders, so that's another really big gap. And then you go to the gaps. There may be an opportunity to provide some services online. There are fantastic organisations like ReachOut and SANE who are helping do that, and that involves people jumping online and going into moderated forums with a clinician or with peers who've experienced it.

So our area has masses of gaps, absolutely masses. The other really big gap is people coming out of hospital having attempted suicide and their families needing support to get through that. Now the gaps are known. The interagency for years we've been talking about the gaps. It's now just getting funding to fill those gaps. And the one that doesn't come under this motion, but I think you councillors ought to be aware of, is the men's mental health is really emerging as a big issue within this community. So I hope that gives you a sense of the scale of it. Headspace is a start, it's early intervention, but just about everywhere else along the line, we've got gaps that mean sometimes we're not able to provide help to young people that they need and their families.

Okay,

Thank you.

Thank you for that. Thank you, Mrs. Templeman. Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Before I begin, can I ask the staff to

Just scroll on the board Yeah, we just probably need a seconder as well before we go too far.

Oh, sorry. Thank you.

Councillor Zamprogno.

Sorry, you've got a change you've sent through? Yeah,

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I've sent through a bit of an amendment to the staff . It's helpful for them to pop that up on the screen before I begin, please.

Takes us a minute, so did you mind maybe just talking to it? Yeah

I'll continue. It's nothing too dramatic. Oh, sorry, right, Mr. Mayor? Yes. It's nothing too dramatic in the changes that I have made, but after discussion with some other people, the point about writing to the Nepean Blue Mountains PHN to establish the need probably isn't necessary because we are all well aware that there is that acute need here in the Hawkesbury. So I've put up an amendment today, which is more of a call to action and maybe get to the process of that sooner. Now, I'd like to thank the Federal Member for her positivity tonight in support of the motion and for her words, and also for discussing her circumstances and why she's such an advocate for youth mental health. I'm pleased that because of my motion tonight, you've addressed the 12 of us as councillors for the first time on this issue, and I think that it's a discussion that should have been a long time ago, but one that we're very willing to participate in with you.

It's very pleasing that you are in favour of a headspace in Hawkesbury, and how lucky for our community to have that level of bipartisan support. I guess the main difference here is not just fighting for something, but delivering on something. And the fact that we're talking about the headspace in Katoomba, be it the satellite services that it offers, the fact that it's there, which happened just a few weeks ago after only promising that as an election commitment in 2019, and it's already functioning. So the fact that the Morrison delivered on that so quickly and it's up and running now is a brilliant thing for the youth of the Blue Mountains in Katoomba and also across the mountains, and the fact that it does deliver a bit of those services.

But having one here in the Hawkesbury is completely necessary. And I was very fortunate this afternoon, I had a chat to Liz Ray, who is the CEO of Wentworth Healthcare, and she was discussing with me the fact that there is that need, and she's working on something to get those statistics together and demonstrate that need that we have. And you can see if you've read the business paper. There's notes by management here to say that those conversations are in fact happening, which is fantastic to see because it's through conversations and it's through pressure on all levels of government that we get to see these sorts of services delivered. I just want to pause here for a moment to make sure that all the councillors are across the amendments up on the board.

And point one certainly shows that it's been a very challenging time over the last year, but that demonstrated need for youth mental health services certainly extends further than it does for that past 12 months, and it has been challenging in a multitude of ways. So having something Here on the ground in the Hawkesbury LGA, where we all live and we all raise our families, is certainly going to be vital for that as well. Now, a question was raised during that moment just before with the speaker about gaps in services. So I thought it might just be a little, I mean, it's not off track, but just a moment to elaborate on the fact that last year during that federal election, there was a commitment of $200,000 to the Western Sydney Suicide Prevention Support Network.

And I've spoken to Peter Webb, we all know Peter dearly, who has been thrilled with that funding, and it has enabled him to be able to help the lives of so many people in that respect, not just towards prevention but towards family members who are suffering in those sorts of circumstances, as well as the additional $250,000 to the Blue Mountains Women's Health and Resource Centre for on-the-ground support work to women across Macquarie for that domestic violence sector. So there are a range of gaps being filled in those ways. But I guess the discussion here tonight is that niche discussion we're having on youth mental health. And as stated in the business paper here with some facts on headspace, the age group that headspace targets is between 12 to 25 years old.

And, you know, looking around here at a lot of the councillors, we have children, you know, in those age brackets, and we certainly need to make sure that in our elected roles and our representative capacities, that we are doing all we can, because we're living with those issues with our children every single day, and we need to do the best that we can for children across this LGA and across the state and federal boundaries to ensure that we are doing the very best that we can. For all of that. So what I'm calling on tonight is a conversation about positivity, a conversation where Hawkesbury City Council, as an entity, and the 12 of us as councillors, can show the community that we are dedicated to at least kick-starting the process, to making sure that we can do something, a demonstrated element to show the community we acknowledge that this is needed, and we want to do something to have something close by, not just in Katoomba or Penrith, but something here inside our boundaries to show that we understand that you are going through something and you do need that help.

So enough of the talking about it. That's been going on for too long. It's time to start doing something about it, and I call on my fellow councillors for their support tonight. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Councillor Richards. Any other discussion? Can't

See. Councillor Wheeler. Just a reminder, councillors, just use the raise your hand function in Zoom if you can.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I thank both Councillor Richards and Mrs Templeman for raising, or for the discussion that we've had around this issue. What we see, I think, is a long history of lack of servicing in the Hawkesbury around health, and in particular mental health. I think that there is merit in some of the stuff, and some of the information in this notice of motion, but I'm not sure that it... That it goes far enough to advancing where we need to be. I've sent some words through to the staff, so I'd like to move an amendment, Mr Mayor, which I believe the staff have hiding underneath this one because I saw a flash of it earlier.

Scroll down, please. Okay.

As soon as everyone's had a chance to read that, just let me know if there's a seconder.

The Deputy Mayor will second that. So go ahead, Councillor Wheeler, when you're ready.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. My intention here is, or the intention of the amendment is really to just point out in very flat terms the position that we currently find ourselves in, which is the additional pressures on the Hawkesbury community and young people, particularly in the Hawkesbury, and also our lack of adequate mental health services, again for the whole community but particularly young people. To note that the staff are currently consulting with the Blue Mountains Primary Health Network and state and federal agencies about the provision of youth mental health services, and to request that that information come to Council so that we can now work out how to best use that advocacy and facilitation to continue to work with the federal member.

And I'm happy here to add the state member to that clause as well if people require that, to find the best way forward. And this point four really is an acknowledgement that Council can't deliver on this. This requires, and as we've heard from the federal member, a large amount of federal government funding to do this properly, even to provide a satellite service is a significant amount of money. Council— Council needs to work out how we best facilitate this happening here. So I think headspace clearly is an excellent program. We are desperately in need of something here, but it has to dovetail into what we already have, and it has to fit in with the other services around the area as well, and also with what the federal government is willing to fund.

And we need to understand that wider picture, I think, before we ask explicitly for something and work out what Council's role is in that space. And so that's the intention of this amendment.

Councillor Wheeler, Deputy Mayor on the amendment.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I speak in support of the amendment. I think that this gives us a broader approach to look at this problem, which we all know is a problem. And of course, I would think all of us in the chamber are fully supportive of whatever mental health initiatives we can get in, particularly for our young people. But as it's been brought up, for all of the people who are requiring it, of course, we're faced with that issue, as with so many things, that we are isolated. We're relatively isolated from Katoomba and from Penrith unless you have your own vehicle. It's very difficult for people that want to access mental health facilities if they don't drive, because getting the train, as we know, to Penrith or Katoomba involves a trip to Blacktown first and going up that way.

And I think that's really unfortunate because I fear that sometimes people can't access the help that they need. So I'm really supportive of getting something in this area. And I think we need to look, as Councillor Wheeler has brought forward, we need to look at it overall. We need to look at all the various services at once so that we can try and complement each service so that we're covering everybody who may be requiring treatment and support. I think Headspace is a wonderful organisation. I remember when it opened in Penrith, my daughter was in Year 12 at Penrith High, and I know that there were many of her peers who were really pleased to see it there because it was very helpful for children with anxiety and so on who wanted to access that.

I think that the staff have already been onto it. I know that they are engaged in ongoing conversations to try and improve whatever facilities, not just for mental health, but for allied health and for general health that we can have in this area. So I think that that's a wonderful thing, and I think that it is good that it's been brought forward. It is a federal matter, essentially, because As Councillor Wheeler just said, we can't fund it. We don't have the capacity to deliver it, which is unfortunate because we all acknowledge what an immense need there is for it. Also, I am happy to add Robin Preston as well. I'm not sure how much the state government does in terms of it, but I'm sure they're responsible for some of the other services that may tie in with the overall delivery of mental health services for our young people and for all our people.

I'm pleased that somebody is doing some outreach work with young people in bushfire areas. But as Mrs Templeman said, that's an enormous amount to cover because I expect they're covering from Katoomba as well. So they'd be covering all the Upper Mountains, possibly down to the Lower Mountains, and then way out to St Albans and Colo Heights and Bilpin. So that's an enormous geographical area to have one or one and a half people trying to deal with. So I welcome any improvements in this area. I'd like us to look at this and get the information back from staff after they've had both their discussions about engaging with youth in particular to find out what exactly is needed and required, and with the other agencies.

So I think this is a good amendment. I also think the original motion was a good start, but I think this covers it better because it encapsulates the whole picture. Thank you

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

So we've had two speakers in favour of the amendment. Are there any speakers? Any councillors wishing to speak against the amendment? Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to suggest to the mover of the amendment and the seconder... That at point three, second line, the word about be deleted and in its place insert two words, to seek.

I would appreciate support in that regard. Would you mind repeating that

Councillor Ross? Sorry, I don't know.

Certainly. Point three of the amendment at line two, which reads, and federal government agencies about provision. I'm suggesting that the word about be removed and in its place two words be added, agencies to seek provision. In other words, shall we say an action statement rather than purely one of inquiry.

I think the action—I'll let Councillor Wheeler answer—but I think the action in that point is that Council is noting it. Council is resolving to note that. Councillor Wheeler. Look

I agree with your reading of that, Mr Mayor.

It's my understanding that this is what Council staff are currently doing. They're talking to federal agencies about the provision. They may also be seeking provision, but it's my understanding that they're discussing the provision of mental health, youth mental health services. If Councillor Ross is wanting more advocacy in this amendment , then point four would be the better place, I suspect, to add it. But the issue here is that I think we don't yet know exactly what we're asking for, hence point four.

Councillor Ross, did you wish to continue speaking?

Yes. I think the mover of the amendment, could I encourage that person

To add, and I believe Council is united in its understanding of the need. I would be very much happier that we ought to be directing to try and obtain some funding for something in this area. And I'm just hoping that possibly even an amendment to, or an additional point to indicate some stronger action intent, if you like, intent of action would be, I think, beneficial even at this stage.

Thanks, Councillor Ross. Councillor Reynolds.

Yes, thanks, Mr Mayor. I speak in favour of the amendment. Could I ask questions of staff before I speak, Mr Mayor? Yep. Okay. I suppose to the general manager, as I understand it, Council already works with a number of non-government organisations and community groups, such as Hawkesbury Youth Initiative and Platform Youth Services. Is that right?

Manager. Mr Mayor, I'm going to refer that to Ms Megan Ang.

Oh, thank you. Can everyone hear me okay? Yes. Yeah, great. Thanks, Councillor Reynolds. Yes, that's correct. Our youth participation officer actually convenes a collective of youth service providers. That's Hawkesbury Youth Interagency, which are predominantly youth workers from non-government organisations. Our youth participation officer also convenes a group called the Schools Partnership Group. Which is the bringing together of youth welfare officers from the Department of Education, vice principals, Department of Education staff, and youth staff from local NGOs. That does include, you're correct, Platform Youth Services amongst other youth service providers.

Okay. Thanks. Thanks, Ms. Ng. Mr. Mayor, I was wondering if I could ask Councillor Wheeler if she would mind adding to point three. It says, note that staff are consulting with Nepean Blue Mountains Primary Health Network, state and federal agencies. I was wondering if we could also insert there local NGOs and community mental health groups, some kind of umbrella, so that we also speak to those people who are actually on the ground, as well as the health network and the government agencies.

Yeah, I would make the same comment I made to Councillor Ross, that this point is actually noting what's already happened, but Councillor Wheeler.

I'm happy with that. This might be more easily fixed, I think, Mr. Mayor, if I make some changes to point three that says, note that staff, or take

Out notes, that staff continue to consult with blah blah, federal agencies, and the— How

Do you

Spell that? The blah blah, I'm sure you can make that up, and the things that Councillor Reynolds added. So local non-government, local NGOs, and other service providers about provision of youth mental health services in the LGA, and that might perhaps serve Councillor Ross's needs for this point as well. But I'm also happy to add a point five that states that Council gives in-principle support to seeking funding for youth mental health services in the Hawkesbury, if that... Firstly, if the seconder is happy with that, but also if that gets over that more active clause that Councillor Ross was seeking.

Would you mind if I butt in here too, Councillor Wheeler, and just ask? My understanding was that the provision of mental health services is primarily a state responsibility, so I think, as you indicated, maybe we should include the state member rather than just the federal member.

Yes, I'm happy to do that as well.

Okay. So, Deputy Mayor, I think it might take the staff a minute, but I think we got the gist of that, if you're happy.

Yes, I'm happy with that, and the inclusion of Ms Preston as well.

Yep. So we've had three speakers in favour of the amendment. Councillor Reynolds, do you want to continue speaking? Yes

Very quickly. Okay, sure. I wanted to point out the good work that community groups and local NGOs are doing, especially the Hawkesbury Youth Initiative and Platform Youth Services, and then under the greater umbrella of Mission Australia, every year they hold a survey, and it's conducted locally as well, and the results of the current survey will be due, as I understand it, next month, and that will give us—this is a survey of youth and the Hawkesbury youth and the issues that they face. Just out of interest, in 2019, I think the major issues, number one was stress, number two was school and study, which you could probably call stress as well, and number three was mental health. I think there was probably about 10 or 12 issues in total, and obviously the first two funnel straight into mental health.

I would like to thank Councillor Richards for bringing this notice of motion forward. I think it's something that we do need to address, and as Council, we, in our—

One of our objectives is to advocate to other levels of government, and that's what we are seeking to do here. Regarding the gaps that both Ms Templeton and Councillor Richards mentioned, the gaps aren't really to do with women's resources, although that is a very worthy cause and definitely needs funding. It's to do with the missing middle that Headspace doesn't address, as Ms Templeton called it, the missing middle, and that is young people with, you know, bipolar disorder, you know, schizophrenia, for example. They don't handle that, and that's something we really need to address. We see young people on the streets suffering, and quite often, you know, you get them into hospital. Councillor Garrow and I actually drove one woman to Katoomba in a psychotic state , and she would only go there, and then she was released the next day.

And it's a terribly underfunded aspect of our health and affects so many of us, and nobody who suffers will generally talk about it or admit that they are having problems, even though now there's lots of, you know, programs about, like, Are You Okay? And if people aren't okay, most of the people I know who aren't okay aren't going to say they aren't okay, you know, because they don't want to talk to anyone about it. So I think that by getting the staff to include the people who are on the ground, as well as the government agencies, we'll get a better picture of what's required, and then we can put our heads together, and then we can go to work on both levels of government, state and federal.

See if we can do some really positive things here because, you know, you've just got to walk down the street here and you see people suffering, and it's absolutely heartbreaking. So I think that this is a good thing, and I commend, again, Councillor Richards and Ms Templeton for their work in this matter. Thank you.

Thank you. So we've had three speakers for, one against, kind of, that change. Is there any other speakers against the motion? I'm against the amendment, Mr Mayor.

Sorry, I did mean against the amendment. Yeah, Councillor Zamprogno. Thank you. Look, I just wanted to point out that an opportunity here for bipartisanship seems to be being squandered, and I must, with all deference, suggest that the amendment is inferior to the original motion. The original motion has more, in Councillor Calvert's words, action words, and it seems to be fairly tightly focused where it needed to be, in the sense that we need to consult with the service providers to work out what the needs truly are, and then there's a political dimension and you target the specific ministers or tiers of government that are going to produce the funding to make this happen. The original motion had that form of wording and seemed to be fairly succinct and effective in that regard.

If Councillor Wheeler or other councillors felt that there were other bodies that ought to have been consulted, it would have been simply a matter of just asking the mover, Councillor Richards, if she'd incorporate an additional body into her last point in terms of how wide that net should be cast. In terms of the amendment, points 1, 2, 3 all merely reflect on things that have happened . Point 4 has a different list of people that ought to be targeted, and I'm not sure that they're entirely the right people, or it's not an exhaustive list. And point 5 is superfluous in the sense that if we're moving this in toto, obviously we're in support of funding youth mental health services in the Hawkesbury.

So I'm going to be voting against the amendment and for the original motion, and suggest that it would have been better if we just could have just added a dot point or added a name or an agency to the original motion. That would have probably been a better solution in this case. Thank you.

Councillor. If everyone, people, councillors who have spoken, can you take your hands down, please, if you're finished, just so I can see who's first in the line now. So, Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I've got some questions, if you're okay with that. My questions really relate to the fact that this issue, I'm pleased that it's come for our discussion, that it's been here before over perhaps even a number of years now. So the issue has been around for a while. Now, my questions relate to this : has there been any scoping of the gaps, and if there has been, what funding have been identified to be necessary to meet those gaps? My experience is that if we go forward asking for funds, we're better off with some sort of a, let's call it a business case. So has there been anything done so far, given its history and the number of bodies involved, agencies involved, done on the scoping of the requirement for funding and other services, so that we can go forward with a detailed or a substantive plan requesting funding?

And the last thing I just want to ask is, in the past, Mr Mayor, as you well know, we've not been keen to step into the state or federal sphere from the local level. I'm pleased we seem to be unanimous, well, at least partly unanimous. But so are we really heading into— A new frame here where we are happy to venture interstate and federal areas of responsibility. Thank you, Mr Mayor

I need to clarify both your questions before I pass them on to the staff, Councillor Rasmussen. The first question is the question that has Council done any analysis of the health needs in the Hawkesbury? Is that the question?

Not quite. I mean, it may be part of that, but working with the other agency that we know of, and I know we do, has we collectively, Council and other agency formulated some sort of a, I would like to call it a business plan or a framing for this particular service, because we know it's been a need for a long time with lots of gaps. That's what my question is, Mr Mayor.

Okay. General Manager. I'll refer that through to Ms Ng again, Mr Mayor. Great.

Thank you. I can advise that there hasn't been scoping with particular reference to meeting any benchmarks or demonstrated need or to enable preparation of a business case specifically for Headspace. What I can advise is that staff have been involved on a fairly long-term basis, on and off, with regards to the various agencies who've been commissioned to do that scoping on behalf of the federal government to determine the level of need. We have undertaken a range of consultations that include service mapping, some feedback from young people and services directly themselves with regards to gap. And then there is also data gathered predominantly through the Nepean Blue Mountains Primary Health Network that relate specifically to the mental health needs of people in the Hawkesbury.

So it's more been a... A collection , I suppose, of a number of data sources, and we have also had input into any consultations that have been facilitated regarding this in the local area, but no specific consultation. It's been led by council staff around preparation of a business case for Hawkesbury Head Space.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Could I follow up that with one more question, please? Sure. Thank you. Yeah, look, I'm just wondering if we could put a time frame on how long it might take us to gather the essential information to put a framework around or a business case forward. I think it would really enhance our case if we could do that.

So just to clarify that, so that we're speaking to the amendment. So which item in the amendment did you want to know if it's possible to put a time

Frame on? Mr. Mayor, the way I read them, they would probably refer to both, but in particular, I guess it's more focused on the motion. Thank you.

We might leave that and see if the motion is still a motion then we are discussing the amendment. You also had another question. I wasn't sure who that was to, your question regarding whether or not we're happy to get involved in federal and state government matters.

Mr. Mayor, it was a question to perhaps you or council, because it seems to me that if we're going to do this, and I'm happy to do that, Safe Houses is another one we should get into, but are we developing a policy here? And it would be great if we did.

Sure. So I think I'll sort of briefly answer that and say that as part of our community strategic plan, there is a section on advocacy and the things we can advocate for. You're quite right. I know myself personally, I've never been comfortable in going and advocating for a change of policy at a state or federal government level, or campaigning against specific legislation or a nationwide scheme, but I've certainly always myself, and I can only answer for myself, differentiated between Campaigns against, you know, for example, a government's response to a major problem facing the country versus advocating for local infrastructure. I think that's very much within our role, to advocate for local infrastructure. So that's why I'd be happy to support this sort of advocacy.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Councillor Wheeler, your hand's up. Did you want to speak again?

Just a change, just a modification to point five, Mr Mayor. So where it says give in-principle support to funding youth services, we can't fund youth mental health services. You know, we can advocate, and that's this amendment has been specifically written to allow us to do the things that we can do, which is to advocate and facilitate. But in-principle support to seeking funding for, so if we could have seeking before funding and for after funding in point five, please.

Sure. I'm glad you read that because I know you didn't say that, and that might have just slipped through. So thank you.

Councillor Kotlash.

Councillor Kotlash, your audio is very, very poor. Not sure if you're able to speak up a lot or move closer or change something.

I'm on my phone a new camera, so I'm not using my computer. So is that— hang on, I'll see if I can turn it up. Sorry.

Is that better? That's better. Yeah, yeah. Volume up. I don't know why it drops down

Look, I'm speaking against this amendment. I think, whilst I agree with all of the points in the amendment, I think it misses the point. And I'd like, actually, if the staff can get us back to the original motion , I'll just — because it's hard to keep everything that was in the original motion in your mind whilst we've only got the amendment on the screen. But my recollection of the original motion was that we were asking for some direct and immediate action on how Council can support and facilitate us getting headspace for youth now. I think that the amendment that Councillor Wheels put up is fine. I just don't think that's what we need to do now. We need to get some action happening for youth services now.

And as a Councillor, I'd like to know what Council can do in that space. I think we've got a bit lost in the amendment. But as I said, I agree with everything everybody said. We all know we have a huge mental health problem, and we all know about the gaps. And I'm sure all of us would do all, you know, all the advocacy we can to try and help and get services for people in Hawkesbury. But I just, I think we're missing the point of the original motion. Could I get that back on the screen, if possible? Could we scroll up, please?

Mr Mayor, is that possible?

It might be. Yep, here we go.

So the third point in the original is why I'm not supporting the amendment. Let's just go and see if we can get some funding and locations and try to make that happen. Let's just be specific, and we'll keep advocating for everything else everybody said, which I agree with. But I'm not supporting the amendment at this time. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor Kotlash. That was the final speaker on the amendment. So we'll move to put the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment—actually, just wait until the screen can be put back so I can see everyone at once. It makes it a bit easier to record the vote. Just give it a second, and then I'll put the amendment. Okay. Yeah.

All right. So all those in favour of the amendment, please raise your hand. In favour of the amendment, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds. Councillor Ross, Councillor Garrow. All those opposed to the amendment. Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zemprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree. So declare the amendment lost.

And any speakers on the motion?

If not, we'll go to right of reply, Councillor Richards

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I appreciate that.

Oh, sorry, Councillor Richards, I think I've ignored people. I'll just come back to you because you're going to have right of reply. Councillor Reynolds, you were trying to get my attention, I believe.

Sorry, Mr Mayor, I just noticed that Councillor Wheeler had her hand up, that's all.

Oh, okay. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Could we have the amendment back on the screen, please?

The motion. Sorry, the motion. The motion, sorry.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So I feel like I'm a bit over a barrel here because we added quite a lot of good stuff to that amendment, which has now been lost. And I'm not really sure how this builds on the discussion that we've just had and the information that went into that amendment. And this seems a little bit— Either petty or pedantic to have ended up back in this space.

We , it's—

None of us want to vote against getting a youth mental health service here That would be ludicrous . But we are committing Council to do things that it actually doesn't have, isn't capable of doing within its remit. So we can enter discussions with the Blue Mountains Primary Health Network about funding and options for a headspace. But we're already doing that. Our staff are already doing that. We've heard that that's where we are now. What we're doing by this motion is devolving that responsibility to staff, not asking for anything to come back to us, not asking how we can be more active going forward in this space, just saying to people, goodo, let's negotiate with this one group for one thing here .

And I think we've had a discussion that's lasted for nearly an hour about what we need to do in this space, and we seem to have come, in a great big circle, back to exactly the point where we started. And I think that's a shame. I think we've lost where we've ended up. And that's not good news for the people that we have been attempting to serve in this discussion and by this motion. And I think that's a very great shame.

Wheeler. Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. You'll recall that you deflected one of my questions to the motion, and I guess we're discussing the motion now. So what I would like to do is have that question— Directed at this particular motion.

Yeah, did you want to repeat the question, Councillor Rasmussen?

Oh, okay. My question is, look, if this, the motion as I see it is rather weak, and if we're going to go forward, it's weak and unsatisfactory, as far as I'm concerned, in this regard. But if we're going to go forward as a council and negotiate or try and find funding , and obviously that funding has to come from state and/or federal, my experience is that if you go forward with a solid , well-argued, scope , and I would say again, a business plan, go forward with something like that , your chances of success, and I sincerely hope we are successful for this particular issue , because it's, as we've heard, there's a dire need for it. But going forward with it half-cocked isn't going to do it.

So, Mr Mayor, my request is, could we not wait on this issue until we have all the participant agencies and NGOs and so on, work with council putting together and framing up a business case so that we can go forward, you know, with a very solid case to the funders and say, look, this is the need, this is how much we see is necessary in funding for the next five years. You know, can you please help? Along those lines, otherwise this is, yeah, like you've said and I've said many times, I wish and a prayer, and we just throw something at it because now is the time, for whatever reason, is the time to do it. I would rather see a more substantial case being built before we take this forward, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Rasmussen. I'm not sure if it was a question, but the question is, can we do it? Well, we had an amendment that was similar, not exactly the same as that, but quite similar, and it was lost. And the council voted that they prefer the original motion. So you could move another amendment, although it might come to the same conclusion given it was quite similar to what was already moved. Councillor, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I also, I do find it a bit disappointing, and I'm wondering, I'm just thinking that I'm not sure if Councillor Kotlash understands or not, but we've been calling for this for decades, and we're very unlikely to get something immediately. There's no chance we're going to just suddenly get a headspace if we ask for it. What we need to do is we need to have consulted with the people that need it, which are the youth and the people who we need to understand the need for it and to be able to present the need for it, which was why we were proposing to work with all the various service providers rather than just with the Primary Health Network, even though I know that they are very, you know, they are very up on it.

There are also a number of other groups who should be included in here, and I would ask Councillor Richards if she could include some of the other groups, because otherwise we're not going to get the full picture that we need to have to be able to actually get a good result. This is about getting a good result. It's not about whose motion it is or who should support who. It's about trying to get a comprehensive approach to be able to really advocate strongly. As we know, it doesn't matter who's been trying to get it, we haven't got it over all these decades. So we have a Liberal federal and state government now, and we don't have a headspace. We've had people ask for it for years and years, and we haven't got it.

So thinking that we're going to get an immediate solution is very, very unrealistic. It will probably be a federal government issue, I have no doubt of that, and I'm sure that both parties will bring it forward as an issue. But the main thing is that when that's happening on that level, what we need to be able to do is to have a really strong reasoning and a strong strong background of what the actual needs are, where the gaps are, and how we can progress it forward by presenting a really tangible case for the needs of it. And that's what I think is lacking in this motion. It does not encompass gathering that information to present comprehensively like that, which is really, really quite disappointing.

Thanks, Deputy Mayor. Just to clarify, Deputy Mayor, obviously the amendment was lost, and so the motion is what's before us. Were you speaking in favour or against the motion?

I was expressing my disappointment.

Okay. Yeah.

I mean, I will support it because obviously I support any initiative to get services for mental health. My wish was that it would be in a format that would actually be capable of delivering that, and I don't think this motion is.

Yeah. I just remind councillors, I understand this is an issue that people are passionate about and people just want to get a good outcome, but the code of meeting practice requires you to speak to either the amendment when you're dealing with the amendment and then the motion after that. It doesn't mean that you just get a second go at speaking to an amendment that's already been lost after it gets lost. That's not how it works. If there's no further speakers, we'll go right of reply, Councillor Richards. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

I would like to end this discussion because of how important and vital it is on a positive note, but I do want to just mention it's a little bit— I mean, other councillors talk about disappointing. It's disappointing that once the amendment was lost, the discussion and the debate did sour a little bit, and I made some points based on some things that were raised just then that I would just like to clarify. The Deputy Mayor says there's no chance we will suddenly get a headspace if we ask for it. Well, let's just ask for it. Let's just do it now. Like, let's put Council, Hawkesbury City Council's name on this motion and ask for it. So let's do that. The other thing a Deputy Mayor mentioned was that she wanted to see the motion just talk about establishing the need for it.

Now, if you look at the original motion, the business paper, that was a point in there. But with discussions, as I said, you know, I had today with Liz Ray from the PHN, everybody knows there is that need for it, and she's actually working on a document regarding that. So I might go back to her and ask if she's happy to make all of that available to us as councillors. And whether we have that in a briefing or whether I bring another motion forward with that information. Some other things raised that really don't go to the heart of the debate of prioritising youth mental health is that

The disamounting in the, well, that's democracy. And unfortunately, anyone who's a participant in a Hawkesbury City Council meeting would know that is actually an occurrence that happens quite often. And I think that we actually need to work to hone in our processes to get to the decision-making more often, rather than highlighting that when it may not go your way. This is not about getting a name on a motion. This is about a call to action. And I made that very, very clear in my introduction of this motion. And that's what's at the heart of this, getting that discussion happening with the PHN and saying, as councillors, this is what we're standing for. Now, I know that Councillor Rasmussen made some other remarks and so did Councillor Conolly about what our core functions are as a local council, and we've had that debate in this chamber over the last four years.

But the point of the matter is that we do bring up social issues. All of us have brought up social issues in this chamber. We don't fund it; obviously the other levels of government do, but we can certainly be advocates for it. And because we are members of our community, we certainly know people who would benefit from these kinds of things. I don't think calling the loss of an amendment petty and then going forward with the speech that came after that was actually a demonstration of pettiness. So I think that we can all put our big boots on tonight and actually get behind this issue and know that we, as a council, want to support getting something in the Hawkesbury LGA that supports youth mental health.

And I think that this is the direction that we need to take. Thank you, everybody.

Thanks, Councillor. I'll just wait for the motion to be taken off the screen before I put— yep, there we go. Put the motion now. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Connelly, Councillor Lance Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Ross, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Tree, Councillor Kotlash. Declare the motion carried.

Next item is the minutes from the last meeting. Can somebody move them to correct? Councillor Zamprogno, seconded Councillor Reynolds. All those in favour say aye.

Someone can say it so I can declare it carried. Thank you.

And the next item is item 205, the draft flood policy. Somebody wish to move something? Items on block.

I thought we normally do them when we get up to the first one of the items on block, but that's okay. Oh, sorry, I thought it listed it next. Sorry. You could be right. You've chaired more meetings than I have, Deputy Mayor. We'll put the items on block to avoid confusion. The items that are on block, moved Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Deputy Mayor. All those in favour? Aye.

Carried, and now I'll move to item 205, the draft flood policy. Move the recommendation.

Mr Mayor

All right, moved Councillor Zamprogno, seconded Councillor Rasmussen. Any speakers?

We're not using hands now.

We are, yes.

Sorry, I have

My hand up. Sorry about that.

Councillor Rasmussen, wish to speak to the motion.

No, I'm happy for the mover to go first, Mr Mayor. Oh, sorry

You're just—you're down there with your hand up now.

Yeah, but I was putting that up anyway. Look. Thank you. That was to declare my vote or my interest in seconding, yeah.

No worries. Does anybody wish to speak? As the mover, I was going to make a brief remark. Okay, just put your hand up next time to avoid the confusion. Sorry. On Zoom, yeah. All right. Councillor Zamprogno. Thank

You, Mr Mayor. And this is relatively straightforward in the sense that it relates to flood developer control plans, and that's a worthy thing. But along the way, it is worth remarking that, I mean, the preamble to this policy that we're endorsing tonight reiterates the fact that this council is supportive of the various aims of the Resilient Valley, Resilient Community study that was released in 2017, that laid out a variety of actions to make us more resilient in cases of flood. And one of those items, one could argue the key item, is capital works for flood mitigation. And the Flood Risk Advisory Committee of Council adopted as its terms of reference support— For those action items, which means that the Flood Risk Advisory Committee is, by its very formation, fundamentally in favour of a variety of actions that include raising Warragamba Dam as a part of the strategy for making us more resilient.

So I

Think— Mr Mayor. That's Reynolds. I'd just like to point out that the issue of the raising of Warragamba Dam actually doesn't relate to this flood policy because the raising of Warragamba Dam as a mitigation issue hasn't been determined because we're still waiting for the environmental impact statement. So, and Council has a resolution that we won't make a decision until—

I think we've gone off track there again, but I tend to agree with you. If we could stick, Councils, to the discussion of the matter at hand, which is whether or not we adopt the draft flood policy.

I'll take that instruction, Mr Mayor, but point out that the draft flood policy document that we're considering says in no fewer than three different places the strategies that are inherent in the flood risk management strategy. So I'm referring directly to items that are in the business paper. But that more or less concluded my remarks. I mean, it's good that we're dealing with flood controls and we're summarising information from a variety of other sources, but I wanted to point out along the way that this Council, and through the adoption of this policy, is still fundamentally in favour of capital works for flood mitigation, and it says so in the document that we're adopting tonight, and I think it's important to note that. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor

Zamprogno. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll speak on the flood policy and the controls that are included within, and I think I really welcome this policy being done. I also am really grateful to the people that made submissions because they really added some value in raising some points that led to some of the amendments. And I'm really happy that we finally have some flood controls. As people in the last council knew that when we adopted the floodplain risk management study, there was a section of that which wasn't adopted at the same time, which was the planning part of it, which would seem a little peculiar, which left us without the planning controls for that purpose. So it's really good. We know this is an interim document until we get our DCP chapter on flooding done.

So this is a really important document for the staff to have to refer to in terms of having the controls, and I think the flood policy is a good one. I understand that for some people, the use of the hazards is different in terms of the risks. There's different terminology and so on, and terminology around flooding is very problematic overall. People get a bit confused by it, but I think for the people that have to use this policy and who have to use the controls, they would understand it very well. And I think that particularly one of the submissions did raise some really good points, and I see that the staff have amended in certain places to encompass those issues that were brought forward.

It's very good to see that it's finally here, and it will be also the issues raised by the Floodplain Management Advisory Committee have been incorporated and taken on board. And I think they were also very useful in clarifying some of the points within the policy. In terms of moving forward, it's really good that we have been able to apply for and receive funding to complete the studies of the various other catchment areas such as McDonald Valley and Webbs Creek and so on. So that will give us a much more comprehensive flood picture overall to complement the work being done by Infrastructure New South Wales. In terms of what Councillor Zambrano did raise about the Resilient Valleys Strategy, I think if he reads that, he would see that those ideas are subject to the assessments being done.

The support for those is subject to the assessments being done because, of course, the strategy was done prior to the investigative work having been done around the dam, and we still await the EIS on the dam for people to see how that's been done. So thank you to the staff for the preparation of this. I think that in the coming months we have a lot of very high-intensity rainfall forecast, so we are very vulnerable to flooding coming into the summer. So I'm glad that speaking about flooding and looking at issues around flooding is something that's on the agenda because it's something that is crucial to how we plan for the future, and this is a really good start. So I hope everyone will support.

the floodplain.

Thanks, Deputy Mayor. I also just wanted to pick up on something you said there. I also intended to mention the work of the Floodplain Risk Management Advisory Committee on this document and just thank them for that publicly. I think this is a really good example of how our advisory committees should be working, giving us meaningful feedback on an active document that's actually going to make a difference. I think that's a really good use of their time and it helps us make better decisions. Councillor, so we've had two speakers in favour. I'll just check first, is anyone against? No. Everyone else is in favour. If you still wish to speak, we're all in favour. Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you for making that point about the Floodplain Management Advisory Committee. I was going to do something very similar. And the reason I wanted to do that is that, as we all know, the flooding in this valley is probably one of the most serious flooding events , or we are subject to the most serious flooding event of anywhere possibly in Australia. This issue of floodplain management planning is critical to this valley. Now, for several years and many years, as your dad would know, Mr Mayor, the advisory committee absolutely did everything they could to stall the planning process of planning for flooding and planning for controls and general floodplain management planning in this valley .

So the point I wanted to sort of draw to a point is that now the Floodplain Management Committee is getting on with the job. It is actually doing, as you said, the job that an advisory committee is designed and meant to do, supporting Council, coming up with the concepts, the ideas and the thinking and putting that to Council, and it’s being progressed. I am really pleased to know that after so many years I sat on that committee and we just wasted our time. We went nowhere because it was continually being opposed. Different story now, thank goodness, and I do want to commend the Floodplain Management Advisory Committee for the good work they’ve done and Council getting on with the job of looking after the Hawkesbury resident because we are extremely vulnerable, as we all know.

Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Wheeler, you also in favour?

Yes, thanks, Mr Mayor. So I just want to address a few points. Firstly, I think that Councillor Zamprogno has misrepresented the Floodplain Risk Management Committee’s views on the resilient valleys.

Councillor— I think I’ve got to be fair here. If I told Councillor Zamprogno he was out of order, we probably won’t let you discuss it either.

Well, Councillor Zamprogno has put comments on the public record, Mr Mayor, about a committee of Council that I sit on, and I think it’s reasonable that they be corrected on the public record as well. Okay

Can we please not spend very much time on it, please.

I will be swift. I will be swift.

This document refers to the Resilient Cities, Resilient Valleys as investigating. It doesn't say it supports; it notes that these things are being investigated. And I note in here that one of the things that it states is problematic with our flood risk is insufficient road capacity to safely evacuate the whole population, and that is something that the Resilient Cities, Resilient Valleys is also considering, adequate local roads for evacuation. And I think that's— and the reason that I'm, like the Upper House Inquiry and Council, the Floodplain Risk Management Committee is waiting for the EIS and further documents before it reaches a position. And I think that's really important for the community to understand, that there isn't a position on raising the Warragamba Dam either by this Council or by the Upper House Inquiry into the decision.

But what I want to emphasise here is the stuff around roads for evacuation, because I think what this flood policy does, which is new for Council, is really acknowledge that intersection between development, existing development, and potential future development, and the capacity for us to get residents out safely. And that is really— that's the big thing that we now have to grapple with. The fact that we are now beginning to acknowledge that we don't have sufficient services to allow— Various communities to shelter in place, and that we can't get people out quickly enough. We can't get people in and out on a dry Tuesday, let alone in the middle of a flood. And so many of the decisions, and the decisions that have been pushed by the Floodplain Management Committee around what should be doable or allowable in certain flood risk areas, are based on our capacity to get people out.

And we've seen that clearly from the state government as well, where they're saying you can't increase the density here, even though it might be below the one in 100, for example. There are flood issues with the evacuation routes. And this is new information, I think, for Council, and it's new information for the community, and we need to be really cognisant of that. And this policy is attempting to now bridge that space. It's also worth noting, I think, that this policy feeds in—it's going to feed in to the revised LEP and the DCP in terms of flooding controls. This isn't an end in itself, and I think that's important in light of some of the information that's come through in the submissions where they've been concerned about that.

Another concern in the submissions is, and the Deputy Mayor has raised this, around what language we use, that what we traditionally consider, whether we talk about one in 100 or whether we talk about a one percent or a 20 percent. I think what has been done here that's helpful is that it uses language that the community is still familiar with. It's great for us, I think, to adopt, you know, the broader nomenclature and go with Risk percentages. But at the end of the day, we have to have a policy that the community can relate to when we explain to them or when they look up information about what's possible, where they live or where they intend to live. And part of that is around that risk language that they're really used to, like one in a hundred.

You know, no one in Wilberforce talks about the one percent line, but they talk about the one in a hundred flood line. And we need to have, if we're going to use this policy, firstly to allow people to do certain things, and also to discuss with people what their risk is going to look like when they do, we need to use language that they're familiar with. So I'm comfortable with the language that remains in this, despite that submission that raised that that might be problematic. The other thing that was raised by the Floodplain Risk Management Committee was the use of the risk hazard information, and that's another part of the key messaging, I think, where we talk about hazards, and then we say to people, don't drive through floodwater, don't walk through floodwater.

And one of the things that the committee pulled us up on was that we're allowing people to do things in those areas that may require them walking or driving through floodwater, and that that is potentially problematic. And so the staff have worked back from that comment, and I think that's been really useful. Much of this policy will be about what we , the messaging that it conveys to people in the floodplain about what the risks that they face daily. And can I say, while we're sitting here, there's a lovely program on the ABC talking about flood risk and what to do if you get flooded. And perhaps we should all watch that on iView after this, because a flood is going to come, and it's going to come, you know, it's going to come probably when we're least prepared for it, unfortunately.

Thanks, Councillor Wheeler. Deputy Mayor, you've still got your hand up, but I note you've already spoken. Did you want to

Ask a question? Yes, I did have a question, if I may. Thank you, Mayor. It was just regarding in the flood controls regarding the 2.11, and I think it's 3.11, or it's in various things about the sheltering in place, which I think covers that really well. I'm just wondering how we convey that sort of requirement to existing places. This obviously is for someone who puts in a DA or who is rebuilding or, you know, doing something there. I'm just thinking, are we going to have some sort of a strategy to get this information out to people who are in the existing vulnerabilities like that? And I don't expect an answer now, but I would just ask, could we perhaps have that information given to us at the next floodplain risk management meeting would be really good to hear comprehensively how we're going to educate people about these changes in the policy— well, not changes, just in having a policy and specific things within the policy like that.

Thank you.

General Manager, are you happy to take that on notice and provide that information?

Yes, Mr Mayor, we'll arrange for that to happen.

Thank you. Okay. No further speakers. Right of reply, Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and I intend to be brief. Point one, the nine action items that are in the Resilient Valley, Resilient Community document are referenced in this policy as not merely being investigated but also as being progressed, and it uses that word. Point two, it says in the policy that we're adopting tonight that Hawkesbury City Council supports and encourages the need for regional flood mitigation measures. That includes raising Warragamba Dam wall.

Apart from that, I commend it to you.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thanks, Councillor Zamprogno. I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Ross, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Tree. Declare it carried.

Next item is item 206, draft works in kind policy. Councillor Rasmussen, moving that?

Move that way, Mr Mayor.

A seconder? Deputy Mayor seconded. Anybody wish to speak?

Councillor Rasmussen. Oh

Just briefly, Mr Mayor. I think it's time we got on with this job and finalised it and got it out there and got it working for us. And now is the time to be doing it, Mr Mayor. Thank you.

Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Firstly, questions, if I may. Through you, I'd like to enquire of the staff in relation to the business paper, page 48, in the element described as discussion. I note that officers have reviewed documents of a number of councils and, a grammatical mistake there, and noted the following common features. I'm interested in the one which details, outlines the application process. Could the appropriate member of staff direct me to which element of the policy is accommodated by that statement, please? Do

I refer that to the general manager? Mr Mayor, I refer that to Director City Planning. Oh

Thank you. Through you, Mr Mayor. So, in terms of the actual processes... Essentially, we have a policy that we put to Council for adoption, and it is usually supported by an internal procedural or schedule document that we use internally by staff. So it's a separate schedule, and the reason why it's kept as a separate schedule is because as we go through the implementation of implementing policies, we might find through the need for business improvement or from feedback that we might need to amend things, and we're able to do that in a more ready fashion, as opposed to if it's all encapsulated in the policy. Any time we wanted to make changes to that, we would have to come back to Council, place an exhibition, come back to Council, and keep going back and forth.

So we always separate. We have the policy, which is much more the overarching, this is our approach, and this is the policy of Council, and it's supported by a separate document, which is more procedural document.

Thank you. Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you to the officer for the response. Could I ask further in relation to the point which says clear process for acceptance of the offer, and then security provisions, and then insurance provisions. Do they also fall within the ambit of the response given by the officer in my first question, please? Refer

That to the General Manager. Refer that to the Director City Planning, Mr Mayor.

Yes, I suppose anything that would be considered part of the implementation of the policy comes under the umbrella of processes and procedures.

Thank you. Councillor Ross. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Could I— Then direct the particular officer to back to page 47 of the document, at the foot of that page , under the title of Draft Works in Kind Policy, in the last sentence there too.

However, it is intended that Council and all persons dealing with Council in relation to Works in Kind will follow this policy and procedure. Why is the word procedure included in this statement, please?

Director of City Planning.

So essentially, it's the way we, I suppose it's implying that we would work to the intent of the policy and the procedure, but it's not to say that within the policy it would include all the procedures. So if that's misleading you, that's not the intent.

Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I then direct the officer to page

49 of the document , in which the staff is supplying a response to people of Pitt Town at point D.

The estimated value of Works in Kind produced by a qualified and practising quality surveyor, civil engineer or surveyor with associate, et cetera, et cetera.

Does this, you in making that statement, refer at the— Bottom of page 48 to sections 4.2 and 4.3 of the draft policy. Could you please show me which statements in 4.2 or 4.3 support the following statements that are made in that regard, please?

Director City Planning.

I'm trying to clarify, what is the question you're asking? So we're saying that in our reply—

I think the question is, is the requirement for the estimate to be produced by the person with that qualification actually in the draft works in kind policy? Is that the question, Councillor Ross?

In essence, that is correct, sir. Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Okay,

Thank you.

Maybe not. I'll have to clarify that.

I'll come back to that, if that's okay, Councillor Ross.

Thank you. The officer's report suggests 4.2 and 4.3. Yes

Any further questions, Councillor Ross? We're going to come back to that one. No

I don't have any further questions.

Did you wish to speak to the matter?

I do. I would speak against the motion,

In that the works in kind policy is a public document. We're talking about public monies, and this is a public institution. And it is quite clear that the policy isn't a policy

That is complete. It is incomplete. There are statements made here which are apparently part of an unknown procedure,

Which presumably we are de facto being asked to support, even though we haven't seen it or know of it in such terms. I find this just not acceptable. A public document such as the Works in Kind policy should state all of the matters that are relevant to the carrying out of a Works in Kind agreement

And the stipulations and requirements of the Council to be fulfilled. Anyone reading this policy in the way of a developer or anybody, member of the community, will have no idea as to what the actual processes are that are being invoked. That also raises very severe questions about probity of the processes that will go on out of the public view.

I therefore am able to support this and suggest that other councillors should do the same and that it should be brought back to further consideration before adoption. Thank you.

Director City Planning, do you have an answer to that question?

Yes. So, the issue is we have a— The intent, largely for councils across the board, is you have a policy document that outlines the intent and objectives of the council. Then that is supported by a procedural document and, in some cases, an application form. So in relation to if somebody, a developer, were to approach council to say, We would like to enter into, you know, council considered works in kind agreement, there is a whole—there is a process and there is an application form that has more details around what we're requiring. And in this instance, it would refer to if you are going to give us a cost estimate, that we would have that supported by a quantity surveyor, so that, you know, it's—it's been, we can look at it and say, yes, it's been assessed independently of the developer who, you know, we have to be, I suppose, they've got their objective, they've got their subjective view of what the cost will be, but the independent surveyor, we can say, yep, okay, it's been assessed independently, off we go.

Now that is part of the more detailed application process. And as I said earlier in the evening, the whole—the ability for council to be able to adapt to processes, to changes that go on, is actually critical for staff to be able to do that. If everything is contained within a policy document, our ability to respond in a timely fashion when a developer is at your door saying, I would like to do something that might be set out slightly of your current process, we would not be able to consider that without coming back to council, revising that policy, placing on public exhibition, and then coming back to council again following the exhibition process. It is very bulky to do that and it's not a process that we use with our policies and procedures.

Thank you. If I could ask a follow-up question. I can completely understand that concept that, you know, we wouldn't want to have, for example, the application form being part of policy, and every time you find a typo in the form, you've got to come back and re-exhibit. However, something like the clause that Councillor Ross has picked up does , I would have thought, and I'm posing this as a question, I would have thought that the fact that we might want the estimated value of the works in kind produced by a qualified and practising quantity surveyor at a particular level of membership, I would have thought that would be contained in a policy or otherwise would be at the discretion of council staff at all times, and therefore potentially the community doesn't know on what basis we're assessing the value of works in kind.

So I guess my question is, is that the appropriate level of detail to not be the policy? And the second question would be, is there any urgency to adopt this? Is there any pressure this has to be done right now if we wanted to have another look at this and make a couple of small tweaks?

So the urgency is that we don't have a policy to guide us, and there are works and developers who wanted to engage with us, particularly around, as I can say, Vineyard is on our doorstep. So we'd like a policy to support our work in that respect. I think in terms of your first question, it would be easy to amend this policy. Council could resolve that we insert a clause that reflects the requirement of the quantity surveyor, and, you know, we would go away and amend the policy accordingly. I mean, we could amend the policy, you know, following this meeting if council resolves that way. I mean, ultimately, from an implementation point of view, we have been operating without any umbrella at all, and it has left us, you know, it's not a very secure position to be in when you're trying to negotiate with developers.

So from my point of view, the sooner we can adopt this policy, the better. I would prefer not to defer it. However, you know, if council would like us to defer it to amend that, to make that amendment, then so be it, or alternatively recommend that we insert it as part of this resolution, council.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So the Director of Planning's comments answer one of my questions. I have another. If

I'm assuming that the addition of that point around a fully costed by a quantity surveyor being added would not be sufficient to require further community consultation, that we could just insert that at this point.

Yes, that's how I would read it, yes.

So perhaps, Mr Mayor, if councillors feel strongly enough, then we could add that. But I do agree strongly with the Director of Planning that we are really at substantial risk by not having a policy in place. We have been kicking this can—Council has been kicking this can down the road for more than a decade. How much longer must the community... Survive on a wing and a prayer without a works in kind policy. It's not that difficult, surely. And look, frankly, councillors, this is the second time this has been before us. If people had such drastic problems with this policy, the time to raise them was not at eight o'clock this evening. The time you've had this in your possession for more than a week.

It's been to briefings. It's been back to council before. If people feel strongly enough about the quantity surveyor point, then let's add it to the existing recommendation. But let's not put this off any longer. It's just inconceivable that we are on the edge of the North West Growth Sector with Vineyard on our backs, we've seen the disaster that is Pitt Town in terms of works in kind. For those of you who don't understand the shambles that was the decision-making around Pitt Town, I urge you to go and have a look at the 2017-18 budget estimates, which just devolved into a farce when the discussions around contributions to Pitt Town and how that was fobbed off and how the community lost out, to see the urgency of this proposal—sorry, of this policy.

We need to stop prevaricating and we need to stop letting the perfect get in the way of the good in this instance and just move along.

Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Could I

Request that we add the qualification that we spoke about in terms of a quantity surveyor and doing that sort of detailed costing and analysis. Could I suggest we add that into the recommendation? I totally agree with Councillor Wheeler. I've seen this thing kicked around and kicked around by previous councils who just could not make a bloody decision if their lives depended on it. So if we could do that, that'd be great, Mr Mayor.

Did you move this motion, Councillor Rasmussen?

I did, Mr Mayor. That's why I'm suggesting it. Yeah.

And the seconder was Councillor then Progne. So just to clarify, your motion is now that we— just go back to the recommendation — we adopt the Working Kind policy as attached to this report, with the exception of an additional point in regards to the qualifications required for—

I might need some help with the wording actually, if staff can potentially— Yeah,

Maybe the director , City Planning could help.

I guess— while that's happening— sorry, were you finished, Councillor Rasmussen?

I'm sorry, yes I have. Sorry.

Sorry.

Look, I'm inclined to agree with Councillor Wheeler that it's better to have a policy than no policy in the meantime. But I do think this needs to be looked at. I'm happy with Councillor Rasmussen's change.

I would make the point that I can definitely see where Councillor Ross is coming from in that if we're giving answers to questions specifying, you know, that these things are requirements, and then we go and look at the policy and those things are in fact not requirements, that is problematic. And I think maybe that's an issue with the report more so than with the policy. You know, if the submission says this is a response to a submission to the policy exhibition, and our response is saying that, no, this is a requirement, when in fact this is not a requirement of the policy, and that's not good reporting. It's not being very transparent. So I think we do need to address that. But I also agree with Councillor Wheeler that we don't let the — The perfect end away at the good, and we can fix this afterwards.

So I'll be happy to support the motion suggested there by Councillor Rasmussen. Councillor Rasmussen, are you happy with that wording?

Yes, Mr Mayor. Perfect. Thank you, Director of City Planning, if that's who did it. Thank you.

Any further speakers?

Yes, I'm happy to. Thank you.

Any further speakers? No. I'll just

Speak,

Mr Mayor Sorry, Councillor Ross, you want to speak again?

I want to raise a procedural point. Okay. What is being said in the most recent minutes, as I understand it, is an amendment to the motion.

Now, it hasn't been put to us in that fashion.

Councillor Rasmussen moved the motion,

And then he sought an amendment, as I understand, sir.

No, an inclusion.

I think, yeah, I think Councillor Ross is technically correct, but it's not the convention of this council. Our convention has been that we've allowed the mover of a motion to add something to that motion. It would be odd for Councillor Rasmussen to move an amendment to Councillor Rasmussen's own motion. I think the outcome here, Councillors, is if you want to move something else, you can move an amendment. If you don't want to vote for it, you can not vote for it. It'll fail, and you can move something else at that point

Mr Mayor, I raise a procedural point here. Yes. By following the course which you've just suggested, that denies me the opportunity to speak against the amended motion.

Noted. I'll allow you to speak against this amended motion, Councillor Ross.

Thank you very much. Firstly, I would, if, with your forgiveness, sir, direct a further question to the staff in this regard, in regard to the policy. I believe the staff would, the director concerned would acknowledge that in the recent week,

That person circulated to fellow councillors, including myself, an audit report from the Auditor-General regarding local infrastructure contributions, LICS. Does the director agree with that statement? Director ,

Did I send an email about the recent findings? Yes.

The director agrees.

Would I be also correct in understanding that this policy document has not, in its formation, accessed that document and sought to include any findings of the Auditor-General and the Solicitor-General that backed that up in this particular policy document?

Director, see the pleading?

So, in terms of, I suppose, the timing of when those findings, that report came out and when this was drafted, I did look at those findings to see when it was on exhibition, to see if there was anything that needed to be considered or changed in the policy, and there wasn't anything that I thought yet had to be changed now. But yes, I did look at it while it was on exhibition because the timing was when we were drafting this report, those findings were not, drafting the policy in the first instance, those findings had not come out.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. I

Was seeking a yes or a no. I seem to find an equivocation. I'm seeking a direction through you, sir, for the officer to supply me a yes or a no.

Well, you don't get to ask an officer to give you a yes or a no, Councillor Ross. The answer was that the policy had already been developed, but that the Director had reviewed the findings of the audit to see if there's any consequences and doesn't believe there are. Is that correct, Director?

Okay. Well, I'll now speak against the amendment on the basis that the Auditor-General's report has not been accommodated, has not been accommodated in this policy . There are a number of prime areas, apart from the one which I raised earlier, is the whole question of probity and the accessibility of the full policy document for the public to view. And in addition to that, from my understanding of the Auditor-General's report is that the Auditor-General expects these documents and contribution plans to be available on the Council website for inspection and information of the general public. They are not closed documents at all. Now, this has not been at all encompassed within the report or mentioned in any part, and no doubt this is some of the concern that the people of Pitt Town have rightly written in about and expressed their concerns over what has been obviously a very trying 23-year period with a particular situation that they have had to encounter.

Now, I would put it to staff and my fellow councillors that this policy, if adopted, is going to just send your legal expense bill up into the range of the two million per annum mark because of its inadequacies. And in association with this, the inadequacies of the contributions plan. One is the right shoe, one is the left shoe, and you can't get very far with just walking on one shoe. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. Mr Mayor, I might just respond to that. Councillor Ross makes a very valid point that there must be transparency at all levels. And so this policy will go on Council's website, and it will be referenced in various documents and in conditions on planning and development approvals and things like that. And so the policy will be both apparent in the wider community and accessible to the wider community. And the policy also makes reference to associated policies, which is the voluntary planning agreement policy, so it will direct interested parties to that policy as well. And it also makes reference to the procedures, so that again it directs interested parties to the procedures, and the procedures will be available to anyone who's interested in looking at them.

The point that the director made is that the procedures will be more operational and will be able to be amended without having to go through the process of report to Council and exhibition and reports back to Council. It's just managing the operational and the policy dimensions, but there'll be absolute transparency on all fronts. So I just want to assure the councillors that we are aware of the requirements and we do want to make sure that all documents are— transparent and that the community is aware of them.

Thank you

General Manager.

Are there any further speakers? If not, right of reply, Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, I think it's been a useful discussion, and I thank Councillor Ross for the points that he's raised. But as was pointed out, maybe some of those points could have been raised prior to the meeting. And I think the General Manager has made it very clear that nothing that we as a councillor are trying to do here is to obfuscate, hide, not be transparent in the way that documents will be revealed to anybody who wishes to look at them, developers included, on our council's website. So that's the first point. The second point, Mr Mayor, is this: and over many years now,

I

Have been witness to the fact that motions have been put up, and councillors have either wanted to move an amendment, or those amendments, or the substance of some of those amendments, have been incorporated into the standing or the motion moved. That is not an unusual practice. I've seen that many times done in this place. And if that suddenly is not the way we should proceed, then every change we need to make to a motion that's before us needs to be done by way of an amendment. And we would be—I don't think that's the correct procedure. I could be corrected on that, but that certainly hasn't been the practice in the past. So what we did tonight is nothing particularly strange or unusual. It has happened many times.

Instead of having motions and we all work together to come up with a better motion. That has happened many times in my experience over the 23 years, and hopefully will continue on. So, Mr Mayor, this policy needs to get out and about. It needs to get out and about now. As I said before, this has been around for so long that it's not funny, and staff need to be able to talk to developers for our good, our Hawkesbury residents' good, in getting this city moving and happening and getting on with the job of developing this city. So, Mr Mayor, I commend this particular motion to councillors. Thank you. Thanks

Councillor Rasmussen. I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour of the motion are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Lines-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree. Against? Councillor Ross. Declare it carried.

It's 207 Local Heritage Assistance Program.

Councillor Rasmussen moving something?

I'm happy to move it. Yes, I am happy to move, Mr Mayor. Okay. Unless somebody else wants to, but I will. All right, let's

Move Councillor Rasmussen's recommendation. Anybody, Councillor Wheeler, were you indicating you wanted to second that? Yes, please, Mr Mayor. Okay, seconded, Councillor Wheeler. Discussion, Councillor Rasmussen?

Not at this stage. I've got a number of questions, but I'll leave the discussion to—I've heard a little bit more from other councillors. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Okay,

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just a bit by way of background, I suppose this is some really nice work from Council here where we allocated additional funds to this program. It's been a program that's built over the last four years, largely due to the hard work and the commitment of the staff involved. So when this Council took over, we struggled to get people to apply to these programs, which is surprising. I think given that Council was giving away money, you'd think that people would be lining up around the block, but for— Some reason, we had lots of trouble getting people to even come along to information nights about this program. That's changed now. I think, in part, people were concerned about council sticking its nose into their heritage buildings and making unreasonable requirements of what they did.

The staff have worked really, really hard with the assistance of Otto Sahami, Council's heritage advisor, to really reassure the owners of heritage buildings that council is here to provide a service rather than put up a list of impediments. And that has caused a big change, I think, in the way people view their heritage, but also view council's place in assisting them to maintain those heritage buildings. So we added an additional $10,000 to this pool of funding, and we had more applicants than we could fulfil, which is a lovely place for council to be. Not great for the applicants who missed out, but good for council. What we see now, I think, is this work providing a clear value add. You can see that more than just taking the $2,000 from council, say, and adding $2,000 of their own money or $2,000 worth of works in kind, you're seeing people add much more significant amounts of money or dollar value to these funds that are improving the Hawkesbury streetscapes, maintaining these unique buildings that cause people to come to the Hawkesbury, either as residents or as visitors.

And what we're seeing now is people no longer viewing their heritage buildings as an impediment, but rather something to be to be restored and be really proud of. So we've got these little pools, little pots of money that go a long way to restoring owners' confidence and to keep buildings standing. You know, some of these works are actually really boring. They don't look great. You won't even notice them from the street. They're the things that are difficult to get excited about. But they're very often those back-end things that no one sees that really make the difference between a building surviving and the family in it thriving in that space and as owners of that building, and the building just becoming such an encumbrance that the owners either move on or they seek to demolish.

And we've seen a number of properties demolished either through neglect or because people wanted to replace them with a modern building or through simply, you know, a bulldozer seemingly falling into them in the wee small hours, which unfortunately we've seen happen a couple of times in the last couple of years.

We've got this really unique streetscape and unique appeal in the LGA where you can see heritage from the Durran Durra and Darkinjung times all the way through to well-preserved colonial buildings, Victorian Federation and between-the-wars heritage. And then, you know, who knows? One day we might even find the council chambers subject to a heritage order. Let's hope we make a move before that. But we have this really vast range of heritage, and they deserve some love. And this is a tiny part of council providing that love. This is a program that is now so successful that other councils are coming to our heritage committee meetings and wanting to watch how this is done. And that's a great testament to the staff.

I particularly want to thank Mr Kearns and Mr Sahami and the staff who support them in these programs, Craig Johnson as well. This has been a lot of work, but it's been really, really valuable. It's been a turning point for this council. Sorry

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and I thank Councillor Wheeler for both the information she's given us on this item and also for her work with the Heritage Committee to bring it to this point. I actually had a procedural question, actually, regarding attendance in this meeting. I'm not sure if it means when people aren't present whether people are there or not. We have no way of seeing, but just before we only had five people on camera or six people on camera. Everyone else was either not there or they're just on audio. And I think I just want some clarification. I've read somewhere that if someone's not showing their face, they're considered not present. So I'm just wondering, I'm just drawing this to your attention so we can get some clarification on it, because this is a public meeting and I think we wouldn't be sitting in the council chamber and have six people out of the room.

That would leave us without a quorum. So I think that unless people have to go and do something, just going off camera and not being there is not a very good look for the council when we're in the public domain. So I think we need some clarification on how many people have to be visibly present or how many people can acknowledge they're present. I know sometimes people have an issue with their audio or their visual, but I just think this is a public meeting. Ordinarily we would be sitting in the chamber and we don't all get up and just go off for half an hour and then come back or whatever.

Okay, so I think the only procedural matter there is whether or not we have quorum. I believe we have a quorum right now. I can see Councillor Ross, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds. So we'll move on there. Any further speakers?

Councillor Wheeler, your hand's still up, but I imagine— yep. Any further speakers on this item?

No, we'll go right of reply. Councillor Rasmussen .

Not necessary, Mr Mayor. A lot of it was covered in the excellent contribution by the two councillors. Thank you very much.

All right, we'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garry, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Richards, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Tree. Declare it carried.

Next item is 208, the investment report. Moved, Councillor Rasmussen. Move the recommendation, I assume.

Yes, that's right,

Mr Mayor, thank you. Sorry, screen's frozen. Just, I couldn't find it. Yep. Seconded, Councillor Garrow. Councillor Rasmussen, do you wish to speak?

No, excellent result given the times, and I want to thank the staff for diligently working to create the room and the concepts for generating funds at best revenue as we can for Council and the ratepayers. Thank you to the staff. Thank you.

Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Firstly, I'd like to acknowledge—

I can't hear Councillor Ross

Councillor Ross, your audio and video actually appears

To have stopped. CCTV's frozen. Frozen in time.

Okay, we'll give it a moment and see if we can get that resolved. Were there any further speakers while we wait for that IT issue to be addressed?

No. Councillor Wheeler.

Just quickly, Mr Mayor, to fill the gap. I noticed in this report that the restricted funds are now appearing in a separate table by project, which is something that I'd asked for previously, so I just wanted to commend the staff and thank them for that. I think it makes it much more clear to the public how much money we're holding for specific purposes, and I think in light of recent events for some other councils, that is probably a very good idea, that level of transparency

Excuse me, Mr Mayor. Excellent use of the gap, Councillor. Councillor Ross, you cut out before, but we're willing to hear you now.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure at what point that occurred, that lost the transmission. Right at

The beginning. I don't think you'd said much yet, so if you just maybe

Start. Oh, I see. Okay. Look, I'm sorry to reiterate, and I apologise for that interference . I'd like to congratulate the staff on the presentation that they've now adopted for this investment report, particularly in regard to Table 7. I think that is very much more informative for both councillors and the public and is warmly welcomed on my part. I would suggest that maybe the staff might consider a revamp of the titling of that, rather than restriction of funds, to categorisation of reserves or something of that ilk, which may find

A greater understanding within the community. And lastly, I would like to pose a question of the officer responsible for the supply of this report. At the top of page 68,

There is the following comment: Overall for the first three months of 2021, there is a cash flow shortfall of 1.9 million compared to the year before. Could I inquire in that regard, please, from the relevant officer through you, sir, whether that is signified by an increase in the level of hardship being experienced within the community by our ratepayers, or do they attribute this to some other factors or factor? Please. Mr

Manager. Mr Mayor, will we refer that to the Chief Financial Officer?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. The main factor that we can attribute to it is the fact that the due date for the rates was delayed by a month. So normally the first instalment is due by the 31st of August, and this year it was delayed to the 30th of September. So what we've seen is the cash flow we'd normally get during August, we've received it a bit later. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you.

Mr Mayor, that doesn't quite answer the question which I posed. I understand this report is as at the 30th of September, in which case the answer supplied by the staff just recently there is understandable. However, it doesn't explain the 1.9 million shortfall that the officer reported in receipts. I was inquiring as to whether that was predominantly as a result of deferment of rates because of hardship or other extenuating circumstances, or some other material variation, please.

I think the answer, Councillor Rice, is that the deadline is ordinarily 31st August, and some people pay prior to the deadline and some people pay shortly after. So given that the deadline was at the last day of the quarter, people who pay shortly after the deadline, the cash flow from those receipts is not received until the next quarter. But I'll ask the Chief Financial Officer if that's the answer or if there's another answer.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. That's the case, exactly as you explained it. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you for the clarification, sir. I appreciate that.

Any further comments or questions from anybody? If not, we'll go right of reply, Councillor Rasmussen.

Not necessary, Mr Mayor. Thank you.

Okay, put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour of the motion is Councillor Conolly, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Richards, Councillor Ross, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert. Councillor against,

And we'll say Councillor Tree absent for the vote.

Next item is 209, installation of mosaic art. Moved Councillor Garrow, seconded Councillor Rasmussen. Well, assuming moving the recommendation, Councillor Garrow. And that's what you wanted to second, Councillor Rasmussen?

Yes, it is, Mr Mayor. Thank you.

Councillor Garrow, would you speak to it?

Just very quickly, it's pretty, pretty, pretty well explained here in this document. This has been a perfect example of local community members and different organisations all coming together to fill one of the gaps that we mentioned earlier on in Councillor Richards' notice of motion. I have participated on several occasions in the Be & Co meetings. It's absolutely phenomenal to see the work that they're doing down there. I'd recommend that every single one of you, if you have the opportunity, to get on board and pop in and visit what's happening. The Transition to Work group are also running Barista courses there and upskilling, I mean, I think over 50, it's noted in here, of our local youth participants in the Transition to Work program.

Yeah, I pretty much, not much more that I can say, but congratulations to both Michelles who work on this project, Michelle Hookham and Michelle Fitzgerald. It's a credit to them and it's a credit to the community they've got behind them.

Thank you. Councillor Rasmussen.

Yeah, just a question, Mr Mayor. Couldn't see it in the report, but I assume there will be some sort of recognition or authorship recognition of the design of these mosaics. I think they're brilliant, and I think it'd be nice if there was some sort of a plaque which recognised where the design and the crafting came from. Is that the case, Mr Mayor? Maybe it is.

I'll refer that to the General Manager.

Mr Mayor, I might refer that to Ms Megan Ang.

Yes, thank you. I can advise you that there is work being done with that. It's actually being considered with the other plaques that are currently in place that designate the Rex Stubbs Memorial Garden as well as the opening of the Dee Rubbin Centre. So yes, the artwork will be plucked, but it will be designed and incorporated with the existing plaques that are on the building already.

Thank you, but will the Be & Co and so on be recognised for their design and their work?

Manager, Community Services?

That is the intention,

Yes. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there any further speakers? If not, right of reply, Councillor Garrow.

Not necessary, thank you. Okay

Put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Richards, Councillor Ross, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert , Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Tree. Declare it carried.

Our next item is 211 , Hawkesbury Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee.

Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, but actually thinking, I'm not 100% confident on moving the motion as it stands. So I'm not sure if you maybe wanted to see if there was someone who did or didn't.

You wanted to move a different motion, or? Yeah

I'm concerned with point 2. Not only that point 2 doesn't actually give us a direction. It actually, the wording in point 2 of the recommendation just asks Council to consider, so it's not actually giving us an— Sorry,

Sorry, just to clarify, Councillor Richards, do you want to move just point 1 of the recommendation?

I'm happy to move point 1, thank you, Mr Mayor, yes.

Is there a seconder for that? Councillor Zamprogno. Okay, sorry, go ahead now, Councillor. Excellent

We now have a direction to move in. Thank you for assisting. Yeah, I'm happy to move point 1 and accept the minutes, but point 2, I have some big concerns with. As I said, the fact that it just says it's only asking Council to consider, so if we pass that point of the motion, we'd only be tied into an action of considering

Increasing the spend of the amenities there. Second part of my concerns is that, well , per se, we're looking to increase the spending of amenities when we already know that we are running a pretty tight ship in this Council. So there's no information in point 2 about where the increased funding is coming from. It doesn't say whether we're pulling it from another strand in the budget and how we may be replacing where that hole would come from. So it's lacking in quite a lot of information. So I'm happy to pass the minutes, but not pass— I'm just double checking though, Mr Mayor, if passing point 1 in the minutes, we're still in effect passing point 2 though, because it's part of the minutes.

Wait,

The

Resolution would be that Council receive and note the minutes, that's all. The point 2 would be required if we wanted to action something else.

Yeah, so I'm happy just to stick with what I've put forward there as passing point 1, accepting the minutes. I don't believe point 2 is necessary. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Yeah, I actually called this up myself, Councillor Richards, because I was concerned about the idea of an advisory committee just recommending to Council that we double the funding of a particular line in our long-term financial plan. I don't believe that that's the role of the advisory committee. An advisory committee should be providing us with information to help our decision making, but what we've got here is just a recommendation that we just double the funding for a particular line. Obviously we've gone through a process to determine our long-term financial plan. We've weighed different priorities already, and it's a whole lot of things Council are doing, this is one part of it. We've got an allocation based on how we weighed the priorities at that time.

I don't think, and I think there's lots of areas of Council that would like to have their funding doubled, and if we were just to accept a recommendation because the committee said, yeah, you should double the funding of this particular item, without designating where the offset comes from, I think if we start that as a precedent, well, why wouldn't every area of Council do that? And then, you know, my understanding is if we pass the recommendation of the staff, then it would go into that budget preparation process and we would have another look at it. But I think we would need some real reason to do that, not just because a committee, which is, you know, a really good committee and obviously has an advocacy role for this part of Council services, but Doesn't tell us what we shouldn't do in order to do this.

It doesn't make a great case as to why this particular sum of money is required, and I don't think it's the right process at all. So I'd be happier and more comfortable to support the motion if moved, Councillor Richards

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Question if I may. So it would appear that the intent of the committee, and obviously I wasn't there, so I'm inferring from what's said in the minutes, is for Council to upgrade its amenities, and given that this is the Access and Inclusion Committee, I assume that its priority on upgrading amenities is for accessible amenities. So they're asking that we basically hurry up our spending on

Those amenities.

They may have been a bit ham-fisted in asking us to double the requirement. I don't find that particularly problematic coming out of a committee. We have the final say. They're free to make whatever recommendations they see fit, I think, and we determine what we do with them in future budgets. The recommendation is that we consider that, not that we necessarily tie ourselves down to doing so. But I'm just wondering if we don't— if we just adopt point one and we drop point two, what mechanism do we have then for prioritising this up to some degree within our budget? Do we just all have to remember it and hope it comes up again, or do we lose this? What is, I think, a reasonable recommendation from a committee focused on disability access within the LGA? Yeah

I think the answer to your question is that if we were to pass, if we were to go ahead and resolve on the recommendation of staff, that it would be brought back up to us at the budget briefing, and staff would make comments on what else would have to fall out and how it might fit in. If we don't pass this, then nothing will happen and the long-term financial plan wouldn't change unless, as you said, somebody wanted to bring it up again later.

So in that case, can I move an amendment, please, Mr Mayor? Thank you, because I was going

To move

One

Too. Well, I might wait till we hear what the amendment is, Deputy Mayor.

So I'm just

Very confident in Councillor Wheeler, but we'll just hear it first.

Very confident in Councillor Wheeler. She may not be after she lets me finish. So I think we'll just perhaps pull this back a little bit, that Council consider increasing its current allocation in the 2021-22 operational plan to enable faster

Upgrades of amenities.

I think whatever you're in favour of, the Deputy Mayor is in favour of, but we'll just double-check.

Yes. No, I am indeed in favour of that. That's good. Thank you.

Are you confused, Councillor

Lyons-Buckett? No , I'm not confused, Councillor Rasmussen.

Oh , good.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen, I understand. It's in good fun, but this is a Zoom meeting. It's already a bit hard to keep order, so if we can just not speak out of order would be better.

Next speaker is, so I guess we'll move on to deal with the amendment now. So, Councillor Rasmussen, did you wish to speak to the amendment?

Yes, I would like to speak in favour of the amendment, Mr Mayor. Okay. Thank you. So, Mr Mayor, I guess my question firstly relates to whether there had been any consideration by the staff of the recommendation coming out of the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee of this particular part two of the recommendation. And I'd like to note, Mr Mayor, that in the recommendation they say Council consider. They're not saying we must. They're asking Council to consider. But have the staff had any consideration of this item? And if so, do they have any additional information for councillors to consider on this particular item ?

Councillor Rasmussen, I note there is an officer's comment in the report, but I'll refer to the

General Manager to advise us, is there anything further to the officer's comment? Mr Mayor, the staff are of the view that the best opportunity to consider this is during the development of the operational plan when we know our financial position in more detail for the coming financial year. And it's at that point we'd then be able to look at what options might be open to Council if they are interested in pursuing this. So we're really just flagging that that's the appropriate way to deal with this and suggesting that that would be a way of moving forward if Council were interested. But we haven't looked at the specifics. Of this at the moment, we're still dealing with the, you know, we're three months into the current year's budget, and that's really the focus of our attention just at the moment.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Councillor Ross. Oh, sorry, sorry. Actually, I think I might have skipped the Deputy Mayor. Did you wish to speak on the amendment?

Yes, please, I do, in support of the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, I hope it does stay included because this is the very thing we asked for. How Councillor Wheeler has changed the wording is good, but we must consider what these committees are bringing forward. Obviously, the committee asked for a doubling in their, in the minutes. The committee themselves have asked for a doubling of the amount put forward, and given the amount was 180, that 180,000 that had been spent, therefore they put 360,000 for that specific works. But I think that because this is for our budget of 2021-22, so this is the ideal time for us to be considering it, and perhaps we should, you know, we should have a format for how we're going to funnel these things into the budget considerations.

Maybe when this comes forward from a committee, it goes to a specific place or something like that, because I know we've had this come up before, and it's very important that we don't lose sight of what people feel is necessary. And I think the message in this is that obviously in this committee there's a feeling that we need to be diverting more resources to access and inclusion in this specific way, which is a good thing, and it's something we need to know from the people who know what is needed. So I fully support considering it. We can consider it at the time. We're not making a decision on any specific amount of funding now, and I think that it goes into the list of other things that we will also consider, and when the time comes to be on the budget, as we know, there's a process where councillors can go to the budget sessions and input.

I've done that many, many times, and you can have a look at all the various things that have been put forward. So I think that it's very good that this committee has identified what they must feel is a deficiency in funding. To be able to expedite the works to the appropriate level that they feel is necessary, and I think that we should definitely be able to be considering it. This is why we have committees to put forward recommendations. I do agree it shouldn't maybe specify a specific amount, but I think that definitely to take it forward to consider it in the budget for the 2021-22 year would be a good idea.

Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. As being one of the committee participants, the committee was informed by staff that there are some 30-odd public, around about 30 or 33 from memory, public conveniences which do not meet access requirements under current government legislation, and had been

Indicated to the committee by staff that the cost of an individual site was in the vicinity of 180,000 to bring to current legislated requirements. The suggestion for a doubling of the

Allocation out of the forthcoming operational plan was also, I think in this case, directed towards the Bilpin Reserve, which

Did strike the committee as being rather lacking in facilities , both from an immediate use point of view and also from the tourist element in that area, which is— Also draw an attention in later days from other colleagues here in relation to the numbers of folk visiting that area now that the weather has warmed and restrictions have somewhat eased. So I'm sure that is the general intent of what the committee was about, and I prefer to see the original recommendation supported, although if it can't be

Considered by the rest of my colleagues, I would have to support the amended recommendation. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor

Zamprogno

I just note that the amendment is on the screen. Just let me catch up with that. Look, my only objection, and the reason I was supporting Councillor Richards' form in moving point one, was I did feel that this was confusing or proscriptive. Maybe a lot of this confusion could be cleared up with a simple question to staff. Through you, Mr Mayor, I presume that this request is already known to Council staff and is already an input into the capital works budget for the coming year. Could I ask that question?

Yes. Mr Mayor, there are allocations in the long-term financial plan for this category of funding, and that's the answer I can give to that question at the moment, if that's sufficient .

Well, that's more or less the answer I expected. And if generally there are allocations for such things and the need is already recognised, then there was no need for point two in the original motion. I don't have any particular objection to point two, although I do observe that it merely restores what was in the business paper, and so long as the word consider is taken in its vernacular sense, and that merely means that it's an input into the budgetary process and it's given the appropriate context against other potential uses of that money, and that it falls into its proper place into a prioritised list of all of our potential capital works, that's what I'm seeking to do, and nothing prescriptive or out of sequence, which was what my concern was. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Calvert.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to concur with Councillor Ross on this matter. I would have been happy to support the original recommendation, but the motion by Councillor Richards left out point two, so I'll be supporting the amendment because point two, Mr Mayor, was brought up by the committee and by members of the committee when we looked at— How far we're falling behind the construction of facilities , access facilities. As Councillor Ross was saying, the $180,000 probably only allows you to upgrade one facility per year, and we have somewhere around about 30 that are needing upgrading right now. So if we continue on our current path, it's going to be 30.

I can't hear Councillor Cub.

Just determining if he's even in the meeting anymore.

Oh, that's a good point. He's gone.

He's vanished.

Internet gremlins are out tonight.

Okay. All right. Well, I guess, I mean, I think we'll just move on, and if he comes, if he's able to rejoin, he can continue speaking. So, Councillor Reynolds. Well

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. I speak in favour of the amendment. I couldn't really see a problem with the original recommendation, in that the recommendation just says, Council consider. I don't see how the word consider could be construed to mean resolve or adopt. Consider means consider. I also would like to point out that the committee received a report from the Building Services Manager with an audit of the public amenities, and they were asked to prioritise where the work, where the money should be spent, or where the work should be done. And I think that that is You know, it's the job of an advisory committee to council. I think the committee has done a good job. I think dropping point two, so that council cannot consider

Refurbishing or doing work or building new amenities in these places, would be a really bad move, especially when you consider that one of the places is Bonavista Park at Pitt Town, and the people of Pitt Town have been crying out for amenities there for a long, long time because it is part of the original development. So I cannot see any problem with the amendment, but I can't, again, like Councillor Calvert and Councillor Ross, I can't see any problem with the original recommendation because it just says merely consider. And thank you very much.

Thank you. Okay, so Councillor Wheeler, your hand's up. Obviously you've already spoken on the amendment

No, I haven't, Mr Mayor. I asked a question and then I moved an amendment, but you moved on before I was able to speak to the amendment.

Okay, sorry, Councillor Wheeler. Go ahead. I think everyone's expressed they're in favour though, so we probably don't need to spend too long on it.

Thanks. Well, I don't think that everyone necessarily has, and I'm a bit dismayed that I agree with Councillor Ross and Councillor Calvert, and I think I know what Councillor Calvert was about to say before the internet got to him, and that's if we allocate funds to fix one— amenity a year, and we've got 30 that are not up to scratch. Are we saying that we are comfortable with taking 30 years to catch up with this? That's extraordinary. For a council that supported mental health services for young people to then turn around and say, That's fine, we're not going to upgrade disability access as a priority, is, that's pretty out there, I think. I don't know how many of you have attempted to get someone who is wheelchair bound into a standard toilet, but I can assure you, having done it for my father for five months, it is incredibly difficult.

It is literally back-breaking work to not provide adequate facilities for people with a disability or with access and inclusion issues because of budgetary constraints that we haven't even considered at this point is, you're denying people the dignity and function around a really, really basic thing like using a public toilet. If you look at the things that are being requested in here, they're really basic things like ramps to access buildings. This is about providing facilities that the whole community can use, regardless of their ability to walk through the door or to deal with the obstacles that are put in their way. This is about function and dignity, and it should be a core piece of Council's responsibility.

We should be clamouring to do this, not umming and ahhing about whether we consider it. Consider it in a budget allocation.

180,000 per annum to give people basic dignity, that's a drop in the bucket. We need to do better.

Thanks, Councillor Wheeler. I'll just speak against the amendment briefly. And I just wanted to clarify a couple of things that were just said there. It's not correct at all, and I think we should put out there to the community that this has not been considered, that our budget's not been considered. We have a long-term financial plan. It has been very heavily considered. We went through a process of imposing a 31.3% rate rise on our community, and through that process identified a whole suite of what capital works we were going to do over the coming, first of all, the coming four or five years, and then also looking at a 10-year long-term financial plan. This has been very considered. It's very much planned for.

A lot goes into it. And I guess the point that I was making and that Councillor Richards made was that not that this is not a worthy thing to do. Of course, we'd like to do all 30 this year if we could. We've got to pick a number, and the long-term financial plan went through that process of picking a number. And just to say, let's just double it, I don't think is responsible. I don't think it's a good process. It seems like this is the way we're going to go. I think the obvious question, and the Deputy Mayor sort of alluded to it herself as well, is that there's got to be a process. And so the takeaway from this, I think, should be that, you know, Council's identified this one priority to consider.

If there are competing uses for those funds, all other committees, groups, and everyone else should come and move a motion or give advice to Council that their priority should be considered, and we can go through the process of rewriting the long-term financial plan when we do our budget. That's probably the takeaway I can see from this if we're going to go down this road. But from the speakers, it looks like that's what we're going to do. But I'll just wait for staff to move the amendment so I can put that

So put the amendment. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour of the amendment, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmusson, Councillor Ross, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Kotlash. Against ? Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree . Declare it carried. So that now becomes the motion. Right of reply, Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Pretty much don't need to spend more time on it other than to reiterate everything that you just said in your final remarks there as well. There's no need to use the emotive language in saying that voting against this means you're a bad person. The sensible thing to do as a councillor, basically, is to say that every aspect that we deal with as a council is important, and trying to prioritise something over something else is just not something that we can make an argument like this. So I'm basically , it does have to be a process, and I think it sets a precedent that where does it then stop? Because, I mean, I've come into this chamber multiple times as the councillor on the Sports Council, where they've basically been crying out for more money for better infrastructure , and it just doesn't get thrown into the web like this.

So that's why I just think that it's not the right process or the way to do things. Thank you.

Put the motion. All those in favour of the motion. In favour, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Rasmusson, Councillor Ross, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Kotlash. Councillor Garrow, are you present? You look a bit frozen. Okay. Against, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree. Councillor Garrow, I'm going to say, was absent for the vote. Councillor Garrow did contact me directly and say that she's having some significant internet issues, so I assume that she's just frozen.

Next item is 212, the Hawkesbury Tourism Advisory Committee minutes. Moved, Councillor Rasmussen, moving the recommendation, I assume. Is there a seconder for that? Seconded, Councillor Richards. Any discussion?

Mr Mayor , if I could just lead off here. As councillors will note that about, whatever it was, a bit later in the meeting , we ran out of a quorum, so we had to sort of terminate the official part of the meeting. But those of us who were there kept talking about all sorts of good things. But I want to note, Mr Mayor, that finally, finally, tourism in the Hawkesbury is back in the fold of Council's remit, and we are gathering our forces and we're getting on with developing a good strategic outlook for tourism, particularly at this time when tourism is certainly needed to boost our local economy as the COVID restrictions are slowly lifted and people are moving out and about within the region.

So Tourism Hawkesbury Council's committee is, after what, following two and a half years of being in limbo, not knowing what we're doing because of other committees riding around the place doing stuff that we didn't know about or wouldn't be allowed to know about. But anyway, it's finally there, so I'm pleased to see that we are off and running and hopefully tourism in the Hawkesbury will regain momentum and we'll get cracking on this very important part of our local economy for our jobs and our growth. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Rasmussen, put the motion. All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Ross, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Calvert. Does everyone declare it carried?

Item is 215, the Visitor Information Centre, Councillor Richards. Is there a seconder for that motion?

Anyone wish to second Notice of Motion? Yep, Councillor Tree. Okay, Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. This one doesn't need an exorbitant amount of time spent on it, but it certainly necessary as part of the process so we can deliver this sort of infrastructure, hopefully to the Hawkesbury and to a much needed area of our community that could benefit from this, especially given the increased amount of tourism that it has seen over the last few months. So essentially, I wanted to bring to the Council's attention, after the decision last time to support the concept, I think it was unanimously voted on by this Council, was to let the Council know that there is a new pool of funding. It's not open yet to make applications, but it will be soon, and that is the 200 million dollars as part of the Building Better Regions Fund that, as I said, will be open soon in part of round five, which is how these sort of funding streams work.

So just to make it a little bit clearer for everybody as to why this stream of funding would be a pretty good place to actually get money to build this centre from. Senator Marise Payne, who's our Liberal Senator for Western Sydney, has actually made these comments, and I will just read them briefly. She's already stated that round five of the Building Better Regions Fund could be used to realise the Bilpin Visitor Information Project, and in her exact words. Hawkesbury City Council recently passed a motion supporting the idea of a visitor information centre at Bilpin. Establishing a visitor information centre at the entrance of Bilpin would be a value add for the region and would help create a pipeline of world-class tourism experiences which strategically connect Hawkesbury to the Blue Mountains.

She also says later, I encourage relevant organisations, including Hawkesbury City Council, to consider making applications when round five opens. So in that respect, that basically shows you that this is the perfect pool of funds. It doesn't mean that we're guaranteed to get it, but it means that with Council having on the record books that they support this idea and this concept, and again, how that evolves is going to be a work in progress, but there is some funding available to try and make this happen. So I think that by writing to the minister responsible, which is the Honourable Michael McCormack, that we can put it on notice to him that this is the idea that we're going for, raise that awareness, and when we get that correspondence back, table it at a meeting.

Thank you. Sorry, Chair. Deputy Mayor? Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm just trying to find it on my paper here. Yeah, I really don't see the intent of the motion because of the previous motion we had, which was to actually have a councillor briefing session on this

And I've looked up the criteria for the previous round of that funding, and quite frankly, if it's the same, which one would presume, given it's the fifth round of funding in that scheme, it would not have—we would not be ready for it in terms of what the criteria requires. So the criteria requires that we have to have secured the location and have the authority of the landowner to proceed. I'm not sure who the landowner is, whether proposed if it's the RMS or the national parks or the council, but we would have to have that in place. We'd have to have a DA, a funding model. Intergovernmental negotiations would have had to take place between different levels of government, and — That we would have to have that all done, ready to go.

So I'm not really quite sure why we'd be jumping the gun and just writing to tell the Deputy Prime Minister that we had a concept. I would think that would be quite unusual. I think that we should proceed as was decided last time, which was to have a briefing about this matter so that we can talk about it. And of course, this would all be going ahead before there's been any consultation with the community and also before we have any idea of another criteria. Another aspect of the criteria was to have an understanding of whether we would have to submit any funds as part of it. We don't have any costings on any of this, and I just think that there's too much that we would have to do before we can proceed with it.

We don't have any of these details. We've got plans that are quite old that have been done that would have to be re-looked at. We have so much information around it that I think that we just really have to go with what we had decided, which was to go to the councillor briefing session. And on that note, I might ask if staff have any sort of a timeline on when that briefing may be going to be held. General Manager.

Mr Mayor, we're still trying to schedule all our briefings in at the moment. There's certainly been some work done, but we've also got a very congested schedule leading into Christmas, and we're trying to find some space for a whole range of things, and that's one of them. Thank you.

Thank you, thank you, and I think that that I can understand that, but I do think it's great that there's funding that's coming forward for these sorts of things. But I just think at this point we're not at a stage to commit by—well, it's not even being at a stage. I just don't know why we would write and just say we've got a concept if we don't have any of these other details, when we've already decided that we will discuss it and look at it at a briefing session. Surely the time to notify anybody else would be when we had some details ready to actually speak about. I think that would be better. Just speak

In favour of the motion briefly. I would just say that, as Councillor Richards indicated, we've had a cabinet minister come out publicly and say that they think that Hawkesbury City Council could be eligible for this and should look at applying for this particular project. There's a whole range of issues that the Deputy Mayor has raised, and they're all quite relevant, and they can all be looked at and worked through. I just hate to see politics get in the way of this. There's an opportunity here that looks like we're going to have some federal government support for. You know, we've been encouraged by a cabinet minister, like I said, to apply. I think the point of the motion is to get in and find out what we need to do to get there, to write to them and tell them right now it's not even—the application isn't even open yet—but tell them we want to apply, we want to be in this, put in our EOI as such, and so we can be part of the process.

I understand that there's a whole lot of political concerns and people have their different leanings, but I just hope that politics doesn't have

To ruin this for our residents because it could be a great outcome

Sorry, Deputy Mayor you might be speaking about

Another motion because that isn't what I read. It just— Sorry, Councillor —sorry, Deputy Mayor , that's completely out of order. You can't just start speaking. It point of misrepresentation. Well, you weren't named, Councillor Lance Buckett, so no one misrepresented you. Councillor Rasmussen. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Can I just reflect on the fact that these funds are called Building a Better Regions Fund, and as such... I'm just wondering whether we have the right process here, because as we saw in an earlier motion , we were a bit concerned that we didn't have the right process to deal with funding issues. And I'm wondering whether—this might be a question I should be putting to you , Mr Mayor—whether or not there are other projects that , given that this building Better Funds, Region Funds is a competitive process, whether there are other projects for consideration within the Hawkesbury which might be considered at the same time as this particular project.

This particular project has been around for almost as long as I've been on Council, and for various reasons it's fallen over, as we've said on numerous occasions. Now maybe this is the time for it to go ahead, but I'm just wondering whether we should not cast this in a broader frame, a more strategic view of it, would be to ask Council staff whether there are other

Projects which might be eligible within the Building Better Regions Fund that should be considered alongside this particular project and which would deliver a better, maybe better, faster outcome for the residents of the Hawkesbury. And maybe the process could be dealt with by the briefing that we have already voted on. I mean, I would be all in favour, and I've always been in favour of this particular project, but I'm just mindful of the fact that— Given everything that's happened to the Hawkesbury in the last year or two or three years, that maybe there are projects, bridges or whatever, which need to have a higher or better priority in this funding allocation.

Is that an amendment, Councillor Rasmussen?

No, it's not an amendment. It comes down to a question to staff, I suppose. So if I could distil it to that: are there any other projects that are either under consideration or which should be under consideration, in their view, which are in the wings so that they can be considered for submission under the Building Better Regions Fund as well?

General Manager? Mr Mayor, I'd answer that in two ways. One is until we see the specific details of the fund, it's difficult to answer that question. But the council staff have prepared a document of big ideas, and this was one of the projects in that document. So yes , there are potentially other projects, but this is certainly one that was put together by staff. And when we see the guidelines , we'll perhaps have a more informed position about whether there are other more appropriate projects . Councillor Rasmussen ? Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and I thank the General Manager for that response. So I guess I took from that that maybe we should have a sit together, a briefing together, and work through what those other projects are, and then prioritise them. And this one may well come up as the highest priority yet again, and that's the one we'll press on with in seeking funding through this process. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. So I've had two speakers for and two against.

Councillor Ross. Thank you, Mr Mayor. You appear to have some insight which your colleagues here don't have.

I'm concerned about this word regional. Does that mean that we're going to be committed to something, shall we say, we would describe as west of the river? Do you have any feeling or understanding of that

Sir, please? So to clarify, Councillor Ross, I was referring to the public comments made by the minister, not to anything other than that. I don't have any other knowledge that does not publicly available. I would think that if it's a built consent, it would be probably west of the river.

And there's a strong possibility there. I would think so, yeah.

Right, but it could also be equally—

My concern, frankly, is with the site as I understood was originally proposed, which I understood to be, from citizen Calvert, fellow councillor, on the last occasion it was discussed, to be on the same side of Bells Line of Road as the Kurrajong Heights Bowling Club and Community Centre. In that case, I couldn't support it because it just, to me, seems entirely to be on the incorrect side of the road. It needs to be on the, if you like, the southern side of the road. Alternatively, of course, you've got situations such as Wilberforce or others which may— Also for west of the river and could open up new vistas for tourism.

Thank you, Councillor Ross. So we've had three speakers against. Are there any more speakers in favour of the motion?

No

Councillor Reynolds.

Yes, thanks, Mr Mayor. To start off, could I ask staff a couple of questions? Sure. Okay. I guess to the General Manager, were the staff aware of this establishment of an additional $200 million as part of this Building Better Regions Fund?

General Manager. We're certainly aware of conversations and speculation about additional funding streams, and for tourism and related matters. We haven't seen the specifics of this particular funding round at this stage.

To clarify the answer, I think though it is worth pointing out it was a budget announcement. So, it has been publicly announced. Yeah.

Yeah, I was just asking if the staff had been made aware through the usual channels, not just through the budget announcement. Does the staff know the closing date at all?

I don't think it's been opened at this stage. I think we're still waiting for details, and then we'll probably know the closing date as well.

And last question, with this sort of fund and grant system and the applications, is it first in best dressed or is it usually taken on merit?

There's normally criteria that are applied, and it's the applications that meet the criteria. Okay,

Thank you. Just briefly, Mr Mayor, I did note your comments at the beginning that this wasn't to be made political.

And then you then told us how federal Liberal minister had contacted who I assume will be the Liberal candidate in the most marginal seat in the nation, suggested—

Sorry, just the press release. I'm quoting from the

Press release. Sorry, sorry. Councillor Reardon, Councillor Reardon, you're out of order. Councillor Reynolds is actually referring to comments I made, but also incorrect. I said that the cabinet minister made a public comment that Council should apply, not that she had contacted anybody in particular.

Okay, okay. I withdraw that then. But the cabinet minister made a public comment.

About the funding being available. And as I understand, Councillor Richards said in her introduction that the minister suggested that Wilpin Centre would be

A suitable proposition to be applied for.

Yes, that was part of the public comments made by the Cabinet Minister.

Right, yes. I just find this, and I may be wrong, and of course, if I am, then I'll take whatever comes, but I find this, the way this has been brought to us, rather than being brought to us by who I again assume will be the Liberal candidate in the most marginal seat in the nation, brought to us in her position as a councillor.

If anything is being made political, I don't see how what has happened here doesn't qualify. I mean, without wanting to make this any more political than it already is, knowing this is the most marginal seat in the nation, and that the Liberal councillor is more than likely going to be the candidate, this comes to us with the sleight aroma of bacon, I must say. Thank you.

Right. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm speaking against the motion. I think this is—

My main objection to this is that it's just really poor process. We need to have—we haven't even seen the funding application yet, and yet we're talking about contacting the relevant minister. It's dreadful process. I don't want to be part of a council that's seen to be lobbying ministers in that fashion. We need to work on these projects so that they're ready to go. And I will remind councillors that I put up a motion at the beginning of the COVID pandemic asking that we get a series of projects to the point where they're shovel ready, so that when funding becomes available, we're ready to jump. Now, this may well be one of those projects, but we're certainly not at the shovel ready stage.

I've been, while this discussion's been going on, I've been looking through the projects that have been funded previously with this fund. In some instances, they are decent sums of money; they're in the order of $400,000, for example. But many of them are around the $15,000, $20,000 mark. They're not going to buy us much. They're certainly not going to get us a Whiz-bang tourist information centre at Bilpin. It might pay for a few rounds for some community consultation. And some

Minor updating of what are now 20-year-old plans. But we're not ready to be asking for, we're not ready to be lobbying ministers for large sums of money at this point. The project isn't there yet. We need to have a broader discussion about what we want from this funding. We need to look at the funding, see what it actually demands from us, and see what projects we have that fit it, that best fit and meet the needs of our community, not just one particular thing, but the broader needs. We've just knocked back, or we've just said that we can't prioritise $180,000 for disabled toilets, and yet we're willing to rocket this project up the list and lobby a minister. We haven't consulted with the local community.

Have we asked the local community at Bilpin what they want? I know Bragg were asking people a couple of weeks ago how they felt about this. Have we received that information? Are we interested in receiving that information, or are we just going to make these decisions by ourselves? We need to weigh this project up against any other projects that maybe have merit under this funding and work out what's the best bang for our buck now for the community that we're elected to represent. We've seen the outcomes of poor process with grant funding, with the men's shed resiting to the Australiana Pioneer Village, where they had no DA, there was no consideration of flood levels on the site, they hadn't asked the property owner, council, whether they should move.

We had a funding application determined by public vote. I mean, that's... That's a great publicity stunt, you know, and I'm sure it gives everybody a warm and fuzzy feeling when they're involved in it. But it's not effective. It's not an effective way to allocate public funds, and it leaves people dismayed with the processes of government. And I think at the moment we're seeing an all-time low in the way people perceive their government. And a lot of that is about poor process. Let's not fall into that. No one's saying that this project isn't worthy. No one's saying that we shouldn't continue to receive a briefing and look at investigations of this. But I really think it would be remiss of us to decide that we're going to push this above all else.

And not only that, on the recommendations of one cabinet minister, we're going to go and lobby another one. That sits really ill with me.

Councillor Calvert.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Hopefully I won't drop out this time. I'm speaking in favour of the motion because this project is something I've been pushing for for quite a few years, as most of you will know. And when I was up at Bilpin during the fire season last year, it was— Brought up by many of the residents many times, they were quite disappointed when it didn't go through a number of years ago and the money was reallocated. And every one of them said they'd like to see that project resurrected. And we, in fact, voted to support the project back in July of this year. We said as a council, this is a project we want to support. Now, all that's happening here in this notice of motion is that we are suggesting that a letter be written to the Deputy Prime Minister.

This is not a funding application. It's not a part of a process. It's just a heads up to the Deputy Prime Minister saying, Look, you're looking for projects. Here's one that we've looked at that we support. And we know it's not shovel ready, but we want to keep it out there and make people aware that it's there. Now, if other projects need to be included, then please include them. But this one in particular is one that I think council has said many times that it does support and wants to continue to support. And because of that, I think it's part of our role to progress this as soon as we can and as quickly as we can. So I don't see what the big kerfuffle is here, because all we're doing is writing a letter.

We're not putting in a funding application. We're not putting any dollars anywhere. We're just writing a letter saying, Mr Deputy Prime Minister, this is something that we're looking at. Please consider it when you get around to it. And it's not tying us to anything. It's not doing anything untoward. It is not lobbying the Deputy Prime Minister in particular. It is just making him aware of this situation, which I think is something we are duty-bound to do because we have supported this project in our July meeting, and hopefully we all continue to support it. So I'm happy to support this notice of motion, and I'm really sad that Not all the councillors have embraced this because we have decided that this is something we support.

So hopefully you'll all get on board with this when it's put to a vote.

Thanks, Councillor Calvert. Deputy Mayor, you've got your hand up. Did you want a question or an amendment? I

Did have a question because it's a question about what's in the motion, and it goes to what you said, what Councillor Calvert just also said. I'm not reading that we're asking the Deputy Prime Minister to consider it, and you've both said that. Councillor Calvert said, Could he consider it when he gets around to it? I read that we're writing to bring his attention to it, to say that it's passed. That's one question. And the other question is how does — that's the first question — and maybe I've misread it. And the second question is how was Senator Payne advised of it? Did she read the council minutes? I'm just wondering how she was advised of it, if she made a public comment. Was she lobbied for it by somebody, or was she just made aware through keeping up on what's going on?

General Manager

I'm not aware of how Senator Payne became aware of the project . It's been referred to in council reports . It's certainly been the subject of discussion in council meetings, and it's also been the subject of meetings between the former Mayor and various residents. So there's a number of ways that— Senator Payne could have become aware of the proposal . In terms of what's being proposed in the resolution , it's about writing to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development with a copy to Senator Payne, bringing their attention to the revitalisation concept of the Bilpin Visitor Information Centre and emphasising that we've already passed a motion which has unanimously supported the concept. So that's what's being proposed in the resolution, as I understand it. Thank you, General Manager.

Any further questions? Right of reply, Councillor Richards.

Lost for words, but I'm sure I'll find some . Three points , three bits I take from this. It can be summed up in three words out of the whatever that was, is assumptions are clearly running rife, hypocrisy is everywhere, and the false hysteria. It's like we're talking about someone stealing your puppies, like it's something so sinister going on. I mean, it's writing to a minister and bringing a project to their attention. The fact that a councillor can sit in here—two things actually I want to bring up—and say, I feel uncomfortable lobbying ministers, can we get maybe a record of every motion that councillors voted on where they've actually asked to write to a minister? Because that would be quite interesting to bring to the public's attention.

And secondly, there's another councillor here treading a very, very, very grey line about what is appropriate and what is not appropriate to say in council meetings. I'm going to have to look at my notes because I absolutely scribbled a truckload of stuff down that I heard in that debate. Talking about possible upcoming pre-selections that aren't even going to happen for months

Councillor Richards, could I direct you to keep your right of reply to the motion at hand, and let's not— Some people want to go there, but you don't have to go there and it's not relevant. Good point.

Let's rise above. Let's be better people. I think that's the way to do this. I just want to make the point that

While there are certainly state and federal ministers that get things wrong, I think the last person I'd ever want to be, you know, questioning their credibility is Senator Marise Payne. She's had a career where she— Order for representation, Mr Mayor. I haven't mentioned anyone's name.

Sorry, sorry, hang on. Councillor Wheeler, did you have a point of order? Misrepresentation

Mr Mayor.

We're going to be following the code, and so I need you to tell me how you've been misrepresented, because I didn't hear anybody mention your name,

Councillor Wheeler.

Given that I was the only one who mentioned Councillor— sorry, Senator Payne in that context, I think it's pretty clear who Councillor Richards is directing her comments at. I think— can

I make the comment, Councillors, that if you can identify yourself from what's been said, you've probably not been misrepresented. We'll only take points of misrepresentation where someone said, Councillor Wheeler said this, then I'm happy to hear it. But if it's close enough to what you said that you know it's you, then I

Don't think you've been misrepresented, Councillor Richards. The question surrounding where the information came from, people are very open to have a look at the Senator's own website, where the media release is dated the 1st of October, where she has made her own comments in that regard, and secondly questioning how is the Senator knowledgeable about this project. Well, if we had the other shoe on and the Senator wasn't across her brief or aware what was going on in her area, you'd be whinging about that. So saying that someone's doing their job is quite frankly hysterical. So I will put forward my motion without further ado. I think some of the comments tonight in this debate have gone completely to the gutter, and that's an embarrassment that we've actually gone to that point. So therefore, I put forward my notice of motion. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Okay

We'll put the motion. All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. In favour of the motion are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Richards, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Tree.

Against? Councillor Wheeler , Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Ross. Did I miss anyone?

No.

Declare the motion carried.

That concludes the ordinary meeting. There's no confidential items. So thank you everyone for your attendance.