14 April 2021 - Disaster and Emergency

So welcome to the Disaster and Emergency Committee meeting today. I'd like to start by acknowledging the Darug and Dharawal people as the traditional custodians of the land and pay respect to all Elders past, present and emerging. I'll just run through some procedural matters first. So committee members and members of the public attending the meeting in council chambers or online are advised that in the event of an emergency, you'll be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit following the guidance of our warden. I'd also like to advise that in accordance with Clause 5.18 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council committees are recorded. In terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting.

The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting of council committee meetings. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary. If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations. The recordings are stored on Council's record management system. For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the committee, it is expected that you will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting.

This request relates both to your address to the meeting and any answers given in response to questions from the committee. As a courtesy to others, it's requested that mobile phones either be turned off or to silent. And do we have any apologies? We've got, I think, sorry, the general manager.

We have an apology from Councillor Peter Reynolds and potentially from Councillor Paul Rasmussen and from Councillor Tiffany Tree.

Councillor Garrow is stuck in traffic, but she should be here within about 10, 15 minutes.

Thank you. Someone move we accept those apologies. Moved, Councillor... seconded, Councillor Richards. All those in favour? Carried. Are there any declarations of interest on any matters?

Against? No. And then we'll move on to item two, the floodplain management matters. Just on this issue—sorry, on this matter here, I think some of these matters will be interesting for discussion, but it is worth noting at the outset that the recommendation is that most of these matters, even though they were being considered by the Floodplain Risk Management Advisory Committee previously, and that's why they've been referred here, the staff comment seems to be that most of these matters are not at a point when we can actually provide any advice to Council. We're waiting on other things for most of these matters. So I think that whilst we haven't got here the timeframes that Council's asked for, we're supposed to report back to Council, it might be worth noting that most of these matters we can't actually be in a position to provide advice, but we'll open that for discussion.

Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. The staff have some alternative motion to these five recommendations. If they could put those up on the screen and I'll wait to see if somebody wants to second it. I appreciate what you've just said, and I think that we just need to reframe some of these points. Having heard what you've said, we could probably take out points—

I'll second it, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. We could probably take out the last point and we just revisit that when we actually do get the.. . The environmental impact statement. And, yeah, I suppose the same is true for the point three, which is the closure of the bridges.

So I think that just, it could be reduced to just three, to three points. Well

I suppose one of the things that's clear that has come out of this last flood is that we really need to be mindful of the electricity infrastructure , particularly the west side of the river, as many people were impacted. And as Councillor Wheeler said, that was a miracle that that isolation didn't get worse. So I think that in point two, that council should advocate for that infrastructure, particularly electricity. So I think that's sort of just a given for that one. I think it's obvious to everybody that if we're going to replace the Richmond Bridge, we really need to put some thought into the access to that bridge and to increase its flood level. If that's at all possible, I think that that would be a really excellent outcome for our community, because that- I can't remember the actual river heights that it goes under, but it does go under quite regularly.

And sorry, I'm doing this out of order, but the third point is that I think we could form a working group to continue the floodplain grant projects, but I would prefer to have those discussions in this wider format . And if we get to particular issues that we might need further work on or we need, you know, to bring in extra people, I think that might be the idea about a working group. So I guess what I'm presenting is just a streamlining of those recommendations that are in the business paper. So I'm happy to put the other two points back in if people think that that's necessary , but I don't think it is at this stage. We can revisit those once we get the adequate information. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor Kolasha. I think I'll support the motion. I think that point one there is very important. We've got an opportunity now to make the most out of a very bad situation. And I think that the state government had indicated they were going to be announcing their preferred option for that bridge late last year, and it hasn't come yet, so it must be coming soon is the advice I keep getting. I think that it would be, I think we should be pointing out to the government that it might not be the best look for them to be unveiling a bridge option that would have just gone under in that flood event, and we push hard that it needs to be higher. It might not be. We can't have, geography doesn't allow us to have flood-free access across the river, obviously, without building something pretty crazy.

But it does, we do have the opportunity to have something built that would give us more time to get across and we'd be above water for longer. And I think that could be, this was, historically speaking, not a huge event. In an event when we did need to evacuate thousands of people, having another option to get people in and out for, you know, another, even if it was 12 hours, would make a huge difference. So I think now is our time to strike on this point. And I certainly, I've already started this advocacy, but I think it's important to note it as a committee and for council to note that that's our position. I've certainly already had those conversations, that this has to happen. We can't just go ahead and have a bridge at a similar height while we're doing this.

We have to get it right. In terms of the other points here, yep, I agree. You know, it was a scary thought that we could have an event at 15.6 metres and potentially at that point be losing power. If we'd lost power and/or road access, I don't have to say any more. It's horrible and, you know, very difficult to recover from. And again, time is right to strike on that and point out that to people what we just experienced and how bad it would have been, and they can't say they don't know about the risk now. It needs to be addressed. And yeah, I also agree with you on point three. I think that the whole council needs to be involved in those discussions around the grant-funded floodplain management projects.

I'm happy to support that. Councillor Carbett.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to comment on point two about electricity. I've lived over that side of the river since 1986, and in that time the floods we've had has knocked out electricity in some small pockets. I believe Wilberforce went out once, and part of North Richmond went out, but I cannot remember any case where all the whole area went out. And those pockets were, I think, the result of flooding of perhaps smaller storm damage to some of the infrastructure. Now , I do agree that we must secure electricity across the other side of the river, and it would be terrible if it ran out. I'm just pointing out that I don't think it's a problem that is as big as people are saying. It's a problem that may happen in certain parts, and we do need to fix that.

But I've heard over the last year or two a lot of people spending time saying, Oh, the electricity goes out every time there's a flood. Well, I don't think that's the case. I think we need to investigate that a bit further. I'm also keen to think about the people who live in the floodplain, and this isn't in this selection of items, but I think it should be that, and it came up in the previous item, that many people who live in the floodplain are unaware or were unaware of what happens when it floods, because the floods are often 20, 30 years apart. And I think it'd be part of this committee's role in future to provide information and education for people who live in the floodplain. Now, it may not mean that we go around painting signs on at certain heights and say, This is where 13 metres is, but maybe that isn't a bad idea, and the real estate agents may just have to get used to that.

But I think an education program of some sort needs to happen. I'm not saying what that is and what form it should take, but I would just like to put it that this committee in future could work on that over time, so when the next flood comes, the newcomers will be a bit more aware of what the situation is. So I might just leave that open. I don't know whether the mover wants to add that to her motion, or we can just leave it open for a future committee meeting.

Yeah, I think that's actually, I think that's a very good point. I think probably going to be in the report from item one, though, I would think, as a key learning from this event.

Can I just add to that? I'm happy with that, but my understanding is that Infrastructure New South Wales, who I think Stephen Yo is on our, is listening, they have an education program that they're working on. So maybe what we could do is we could have them as members of this committee, and we start to work in conjunction with them, because it's a huge issue, and it's something that I know they've been working on for at least the last five years when we were in the last committee. So I think we need to look at it in consultation. With that agency. Thank you.

Thank you. Do you want to comment, Alison?

Thank you. Yes, Infrastructure New South Wales have been doing some significant work around a couple of the issues that you've been talking about today, and I think we could certainly provide information for this committee about what's already happened. One of them is, and in fact I had a conversation with them only today, they were asking me whether they could continue with this work given the trauma in the community following the flooding. One of them is they want to do some— they're doing work around the warnings system. How should we change the way we do flood warnings? How well does the community understand the flood warnings now? And they already had a plan to do focus groups to see how well people understood the flood warnings.

So they were asking us for advice about could they proceed with that in the community. So there's certainly work we could brief you about around that. They've also been doing quite a bit of work around preparedness, and there had been ads on the radio and the television in the last couple of months. They've been jointly funded by Resilience New South Wales, SES and Infrastructure New South Wales. So we're working together as a part of that state government strategy around that. So I would, and I'm a part of it, not the only bit, but we certainly, I would encourage you to perhaps happily facilitate some kind of briefing about that work that's been going on. Build on that. The other thing I might add is I think you've just signed up as a Get Ready Council under the Resilience New South Wales Get Ready thing as well, which is a whole structured process around that community stuff.

So I think there's some really exciting opportunities for us to work together around some of this. Strike while the iron is wet.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Hang on, the resolution's gone. I would have been happy with some different amendments to that because I actually think of the three things in this, we actually have either resolutions or recommendations about all those three—well, not the third thing, the two first things. We've definitely got them around. We've definitely had recommendations come to Council and resolved regarding advocating around electricity in particular, and I do think that electricity is a really big issue because what has happened since they reduced the electricity line that came down from Lithgow that we used to have, it all comes via Vineyard, as far as I know, and we did have a briefing from Endeavour Energy about that.

I think that with the moves, and I think within our net zero emission strategy, the move towards community batteries will be very beneficial within that space. But I don't think it can be underestimated that we do lose electricity because it has happened before. I've lived here in a flood and not had any power in Kurrajong. I think that regarding the Richmond Bridge, I thought we had a resolution about a bypass and being as flood-free as possible, but I could be wrong on that. Maybe that wasn't passed, but we did have something come before Council. I'm just wondering if these can be checked if we've got existing resolutions, because I'm just concerned we've got resolutions going everywhere without looking at what we've had there before.

Just on that point, yeah, Debbie, I actually agree with you completely.

For

Some reason, the way the old committee system was working, the advice would be provided to Council, the resolution, Council would go and make a resolution, but then somehow the matter stayed in the committee to continue to be discussed, and that's where we've ended up here. So I think we need the committee to provide its final advice to Council on these issues, rather than it just stay as a constant item for just discussion even though we've already reached the outcome.

Well, I think when it's passed by Council, if it's recommended, yes, it is a resolution. However, I'm just not sure how. I'm just not, I can't understand from this recommendation what we would actually be doing, that's all. With regard to the third point. I think that everyone should be involved certainly around that, but I would prefer that we still have a proper working group done, because my concern is we will be acting without being compliant with the floodplain development manual. And it's really important that we do adhere to what they tell us to do, which is to have particular people on that committee. And I think that we should stick with a working group for that. I think that would be better than just having this committee do it, because if we don't have the expertise in there, you know, we're not going to know as 12 people.

We have to have members of the community, and we have to have the people from Infrastructure New South Wales and from the SES and the people who can give us the advice, because without them we're not going to know. And if they were part of a working group, then that can be working on what we need to be doing in this space, rather than us just dealing with it in a council committee. So I would support this if point 3 were to revert to what point 4 was in the previous recommendation. And regarding the dam wall, I think I agree that we should just look at it when it comes back to Council. But there was also a couple of outstanding resolutions, not from committees, from Council resolutions from notices of motion regarding asking about our involvement with the preparation of the EIS.

And I'm wondering if somebody could advise me whether we were contacted about being involved and what level of involvement we have had as a Council in the preparation of that EIS, in provision of information, etc.

I refer that to Mr. Kearns or Ms. Perrine .

Thank you, Mr Mayor. No, we haven't been invited to be involved in the development or commentary on the EIS.

Okay, which is quite extraordinary given we're a major stakeholder. Could we please, could that be followed up? Oh, well, I guess, well, who knows where the EIS is. It was due out some time ago, but I expect then that hopefully it will come with ample opportunity for us to then input into it when a draft EIS, I guess it will be delivered. Does anybody have any idea when that may be?

Yes, I think the latest is in the report says it'll be mid-2021. I also had a briefing recently from Infrastructure New South Wales on this matter once I started talking about it publicly, and they indicated that they'd provided a draft EIS to the government, who asked them to go back and do more work on the Aboriginal heritage, and that then they were doing a second round of that EIS and expected it to be exhibited about halfway through this year.

Thank you. All right. Okay, thank you.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm in the same position as the Deputy Mayor in that I can't support this unless there's either the inclusion of the existing point four in the recommendation, which I think can probably coexist to a degree with the current point three, or that point three is replaced with the point four from the recommendation in the business paper. Staff have flagged that we need further expertise. We as a council are very well intended here, but— After four and a half years on the Floodplain Risk Management Committee, this is feeling like a bad case of déjà vu. We have been over so many of these issues so many times and made recommendations to Council and to the State Government, and we are still in exactly the same position.

And now we have this really clear focus because we've had the disaster that we were getting ready for. And I think if you look at page 16 of the report, you can see clearly the benefits of bringing in a working group that has sufficient expertise to carry some of these things forward. It's not a reflection on the capacity of this Council. It's a reflection on the capacity of the people that we had involved in the Floodplain Risk Management Committee that had a depth of understanding and experience and, in many cases, a corporate knowledge and history of the floodplains that we, as a group of councillors, can't match. And the added value from that input, given freely, was really, really valuable.

I would urge councillors to consider bringing those people back on board with a working group. They are already skilled up. They are used to functioning within a committee capacity. They know where Council is on these because they've been involved in these discussions for four and a half years. They are, for example, familiar with the Resilient Valleys program. They are familiar with our discussions around infrastructure limitations on the floodplain. We don't need to do anything to get them up to speed. They are already there. So I would urge you to revert to the previous point four that recommends the formation of the working group. It doesn't preclude this committee continuing to provide advice for Council's grant-funded floodplain management projects.

That's our job as councillors. But there is an additional level of expertise that we would be remiss to ignore. So I would urge you to put that point four back in. If the mover of the motion isn't keen on that, then I will move an amendment that adds that point four. Further to that, further to the current motion, Richmond Bridge, the Community Advisory Group, which included two members from the Floodplain Risk Management Committee, recommended strenuously that increased flood proofing be included with that bridge. We were certainly cognisant that anything that would get passed a one in a hundred or even a one in fifty would require really significant increases to the embankments required to get roads up to height.

But we were told that the purpose of the project was never to provide a flood solution and that it would never go beyond a one in twenty solution. Now, if Council wants to advocate more strongly, I think that would be excellent. But we need to be— look, maybe having this flood will make Infrastructure New South Wales and Transport for New South Wales keener on a flood solution, but I'm not hopeful. They certainly were quite dismissive of the need for it previously. In part because of the massively increased cost that it would involve. I refute the idea that electricity is not problematic west of the river. We were incredibly lucky. The information that we have from Infrastructure New South Wales, and this has been discussed at length by the floodplain risk management committee, was that electricity provision west of the river, and in fact to the whole LGA, becomes incredibly problematic after the river height reaches 14.6 metres.

That was something that was—14 metres was floated with this flood. Above 14, 14.5 metres, you're looking at the failure of the substation that provides power to most of the LGA. That is a devastating impact and would have lasting devastating impacts on the LGA. We had some areas here that had no electricity for up to a week. So areas around Grono Point, for example, in Wilberforce, had their power turned off because it was running through floodwaters, and that's something we need to look at. We've got houses that probably could have had the power on had their wires come in a different direction. So neighbouring properties that were wired from the road above them stayed on. Properties that were wired from an area below the level of the road lost their power because their power went underwater.

That's something that perhaps we can look at changing and getting some grant funding in to change to keep those people connected. But provision of electricity is a real issue for us.

Sorry, Councillor, can I just clarify before me? I probably should have before. I just wanted to make sure, just to clarify, the amendment is point one and two per this, but the point three being the point four from the original recommendation? Yes, please. And Deputy Mayor, you're seconding that?

I'll second

That. Yeah

Okay, sorry. Carry on. Thanks.

And then I've got two additional points. One of the real issues that hasn't been flagged in this report, but that we do need to flag as a council, you mentioned, Mr Mayor, the idea of a 15.6 metre flood. And when we started talking about floods above the 15 metres, and when particularly there was some talk that parts of Marsden Park were likely to be evacuated, I have to say my blood ran cold. This is the stuff that we've been talking about in the floodplain risk management committee because of the impact that it has on our evacuation routes. We've talked a lot about the impact west of the river, but one of the things I think that we, that's easy to forget, is that the areas that we have that are most populated and most low-lying are in fact east of the river.

They're areas like South Windsor, Bligh Park and McGraths Hill and Pitt Town. And for those areas to be safe in a higher level flood around the 15, 15.6 metre mark, those people must be able to evacuate out of the Hawkesbury. We know from the Resilient Valleys study that evacuating people out in a timely fashion out of the LGA is going to be incredibly difficult. And one of those problems is that they can't get out through Marsden Park if the roads are clogged with people evacuating from Marsden Park. So when the news reported that there were evacuations proceeding from Marsden Park, I have to say I felt really sick because that's what's going to trap us and our residents in the LGA. If the floodwaters continue to rise, and we need to consider that very, very carefully as a council.

And it's those road upgrades, those evacuation route upgrades that we urgently need to advocate for. And I think that's probably covered by point, well, the new point three. But we may need to mention that specifically or address that as a council going forward, because this is the thing that will result in the loss of life. And then just the final point on the Warragamba Dam study, my understanding is that the EIS will come back in the middle of the year, and then the upper house inquiry into raising the dam wall will proceed very shortly after that. That's been paused, waiting for the EIS, and probably worth us looking towards the recommendations from that as well before we make further commentary.

Thanks.

Thank you. I just let everyone know too that I just had a message from Kevin Jones. He passed on his apologies. He actually got called out to an incident because they are short-staffed today, and he just had to go. So thanked him for coming while he was here. Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm not in support of item one, and the reason for that is that the Richmond Bridge duplication is a farcical if we're talking about improvement to a greater degree of flood immunity. You've got the current bridge. The geography on both sides of the river cannot provide that. If it was termed possibly a third crossing of the river, that may be supportable. However, everyone appears to have overlooked the so-called bridge , or the proposed bridge across the Grose River, ostensibly flowing out of the Redbank residential development, which has the potentiality, given changes, alterations to bridges on Springwood, existing bridges on Springwood Road, to potentially provide a one in one hundred free access to Springwood.

It would at least get vehicles out and people and goods out of the area to other parts of the state. So there are multiple questions there. Now, could I see the other amendments, please, or the other elements of the motion?

I think we're working on it at the moment, just putting the amendment up.

Could I just clarify something, Mr Mayor? Are we talking about, are we, are we talking about Councillor...? I

Wasn't going to have two separate debates, Councillor. I thought just everyone talk and then we'll just vote on both. Oh

Okay. Yeah. Sorry, I was a bit confused with what we were...

Sorry, in regard to the supply of power to the west of the river . Um. The previous committee spoke to Endeavour Energy. Now , my understanding of Endeavour Energy is that it is the retail provider of energy within the LGA. It doesn't own the grid. It doesn't operate the grid. In this regard, I think it would be very helpful if Mrs. Morgan from Resilience New South Wales would be able to follow this up on our behalf, because we appear to be operating under all sorts of misapprehensions and folklore in regard to the supply of electricity west of the river. The operator of the grid is Transgrid, as I understand it, another entity altogether. And I think it would be very helpful for this council and the committee to be able to be informed as to whether there is, if you like, a trunk line or a diversion of part of the flow from Mount Piper that actually is directed to Kurrajong, and possibly also the Redbank substation in North Richmond.

And that would take that element in part at least out of the area of folklore, and we can start dealing with possibly some fact. I just think the— Council committee was involved also on the third crossing of the Hawkesbury, and they, I think, made one particular recommendation, which I believe to be the only viable recommendation. The cost, as we've seen, allegedly, or funding allegedly being made available at the current time of 250 million won't get a bridge across the river, full stop. And to do it with any degree of flood immunity is going to cost something in the order of between 600 and 700 million, quite simple. Whether any government agents, or any of our two senior government areas have got that sort of funding available for a crossing of the river here, I sincerely doubt.

To be candid, thank you.

Councillor Ross, Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I was unhappy that what's before us omits any mention of raising Warragamba Dam, and then notice that even what was in the recommendation effectively says hurry up and wait. Even to the, even point one, which asks us to actively advocate for the Richmond Bridge duplication to have a certain height , doesn't really specify the form that that advocacy takes. So I then defaulted the position that the only reason we put something like that, or this, into a motion is because Council wants to be strident and to underline the importance, given recent events, to state that it's really important that other tiers of government get their act together. So on that basis, if we were going to include point one, which has this open-ended and vague call for us to advocate for the new bridge to be at a certain height, I think we could at least include a dot point.

The calls on other tiers of governments to get their act together about Warragamba Dam, the EIS is over a year late, the business case is over a year late. If you go to the website for the project, there has been no community update for over a year, and because we represent the community that's at greatest risk, I think we have a moral duty, even though there is a diversity of opinion within the chamber about whether we should or shouldn't do this, surely we can agree that there is now a sense of urgency about resolving this, and that if there's going to be a decision one way or the other, it should be brought to its conclusion.

Just on a procedural point, if you don't mind. Just want to just remind, I'm sure you're aware, but this is the committee rather than council. So the point of, I think point one, the idea there is that we've been asked by council to provide advice on the duplication of Richmond Bridge, and we're providing our advice and finalising that advice there. I think what Councillor Collett was indicating was we don't want to finalise our advice on Warragamba Dam; we should just go and advocate for the IAS. We'd actually want to see the IAS and provide some advice on what we think of the project. I've certainly, as you would know, been advocating for the state government to release the IAS.

I take that point, Mr Mayor, and my second point is, Councillor Lyons, Buckets and Councillor Wheeler's insistence that we resurrect what was point four in the recommendation in the business paper, in other words that we reform a kind of working group. I see as a kind of attempt to resurrect the floodplain committee by stealth, and the reason that I was prepared to support the package of committee reforms that was put to this chamber was because I felt that this issue was so important it should... become and remain the focus of the entire chamber, which then means that we've got to address, Councillor, the Deputy Mayor's contention that we are in breach of some condition of the floodplain manual or something, that we must convene a group with a particular composition, as that this group must include certain representatives from agencies or the community.

So, since this is a governance question, I'd like to ask through you, Mr Mayor, maybe Mr McElroy, whether we are in breach by dealing with floodplain matters through this committee and whether we ought to resurrect a working group with a different composition in order to meet that criteria?

Mr Kearns, maybe?

Sorry, thank you, Mr Mayor. So the Floodplain Development Manual is not a statutory document per se, but it is regarded as best practice in terms of dealing with floodplain management in New South Wales. So councils are considered to have acted in good faith if we follow the principles that are set out in that manual.

So if I could press you on that point, do you believe that we are adhering to the principles of that floodplain manual by continuing to deal with these matters through this committee and making them the business of the entire chamber?

Well, I guess a key aspect of the manual is to sort of highlight that it is important to get input as part of the development of any flood risk management studies and plans in terms of a number of either state agencies or the community in terms of preparing that. That particular plan.

Right, okay. That said then, I would be of the view that we are adhering to those conditions, and therefore I would oppose Councillor Wheeler's amendment.

Thank you, Councillor Richards. And could I ask councillors to take your hands down after you've spoken, please?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll keep mine brief. I will not be supporting the amendment on the floor. I will be supporting the original resolution that was put up tonight by Councillor Kotlash, which I had seconded. So I think that's fairly obvious. Just to make something quite clear, this is what the Mayor just said: it is a committee with a set purpose and a set constitution. This is not a meeting of council. These really important pieces of infrastructure really do need to come to the whole council for the proper debate, and of course the resolution on council's position on what we stand for on those pieces of infrastructure. I'm not going to comment greatly right now on the Richmond Bridge project.

I know there are people there waiting who are recording , monitoring, dissecting, and will recycle every word I say on that project. And I remind those people right now that I am simply a Hawkesbury councillor with my council hat on, advocating for my community, but believing fundamentally in that the Richmond Bridge, the third crossing, and also the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall. So I want to make it extremely— I will remind people that we are sitting in a committee where right now the motion that I'll be supporting tonight is advising council we must advocate for the best outcome for our community on those two pieces of infrastructure. We need that vital further information that we're waiting for on both of those pieces of infrastructure before we can go any further, and I think that referring it back to the council, or council then referring it back to this committee when that information is available is the right way to do it.

So tonight I won't be supporting the formation of the working group. I do believe in the words that Councillor Zamprogno said regarding the motivation behind that, and I believe that this committee has been put together for a specific purpose, and I think it's worked really well tonight. The way we have such an amazing amount of people in the room with such knowledge to actually come together and find a way forward for our community, I think the key learnings we've dealt with in point one tonight, or item one, have been really, really good, and I think that these key pieces of infrastructure that we will debate, I'm sure, ad nauseam in the council for a long time to come once we get those pieces of, those documentation, is something that we must take a position on as a council, and we must make sure we're doing the very best for our community.

But I think putting it back to the council in this instance, as per the original motion, is the right way to go. Thank you.

Thank you. There's a number of councillors now who want to speak again on the matter, which is fine. I just wanted to maybe take a moment to remind everyone that we've had our staff working ridiculous long hours for weeks now, and so if we just be really conscious of that and only say something you haven't already said, and if we can say it as succinctly as possible so we can get through the business. It's an important matter though, so everyone who wants to speak can speak as many times as you need to. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I just want to refute the idea that this is an attempt to resurrect the floodplain risk management committee by stealth. That is, frankly, a ridiculous and offensive thing to say. It's a real shame that people have sought to politicise this discussion. The addition of a working group that includes people with significant expertise developed over decades of working on this floodplain, with real lived experience of functioning within the floodplain during floods and during recovery, doesn't preclude items coming to this committee for discussion by all councillors. It's an add, not a subtract. I would urge you to rethink. This isn't about the resurrection of a previous committee.

This is not about any detraction from this current committee. It's about providing expertise for our staff and us to have a more fulsome and useful discussion about what we can do in this very important and, frankly, very dangerous space. If you could get off your high horse and your commitment to your committee structure and actually think for one moment about what is the best thing for the people who

Live in this area and rely on this expertise... Okay, well that's inappropriate, Councillor Wheeler. You're out of order, Councillor Wheeler. You need to not... How

Am I out of order,

Mr Mayor? The comments that people need to think for one minute about what's in the best interest of their community, that is out of order. We're not going to attack people's intentions and motives. We're going to talk about the discussion at hand.

Well, that's very interesting, Mr Mayor, because you allowed an attack on us.

Councillor Cutler.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Look, I'll be brief. The reason I don't particularly want a working group is that.. . No, I'll backtrack. I understand that we have many, many people in the community who have vast amounts of experience and vast amounts of knowledge that they can offer this committee. I think that all of the people that were on the previous committee are welcome to come and share all of their knowledge, and I agree that knowledge was very useful and very valuable. What I don't agree with is that we need to narrow that down and have a working group. Let's just open this up to everybody. Not everybody who has that sort of knowledge wants to necessarily be in a working group. They might just want to come in at a particular time and just talk to us about something that they know a lot about, it's very dear to their heart, and we get that much , much broader perspective.

I can't support the formation of a working group like there is some special or easily identifiable special thing that we need to talk about. We're all on a huge learning curve here, and I want this to be as open and as democratic and as broad as we can possibly make it. So I'll just end on that. Thanks.

Thank you. So I'll put the amendment. So all those in favour of the amendment— actually, just ask if that can be taken down from the screen, thank you. All those in favour of the amendment, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Lyons-Buckett, sorry, there's multiple screens, Councillor Wheeler. Against, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Zemprogno, Councillor Carver, Councillor Kotlash. Councillor Ross declared it lost. Councillor Tree is, I don't believe she's still online. Yeah. And so, put the motion, therefore. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour of the motion are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Zemprogno, Councillor Carver, Councillor Kotlash. Against, Councillor Ross, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler. Declare it carried. So that was the final.

So that was the final matter before the committee for this evening. Thank you, everybody, for your time. I know that, like I said, people have been working really long hours. We've had multiple meetings over the last few weeks, and we've got more in the coming days. I appreciate everyone coming and having that discussion and getting all those learnings out, and I hope that that report that comes back is meaningful. So thank you.