20 April 2021 - Ordinary

Good evening, everybody.

Somebody's not on mute. Councillor Richards.

Welcome everyone. I'd like to start by acknowledging the Darug and Darkinjung people as the traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury, and pay respect to all Elders past, present and emerging. I’ll turn over to the Acting General Manager for the procedural matters.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor.

Members attending the meeting 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 would also like to advise that in accordance with clause 5.18 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council 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 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 in Council’s records management system. For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the Council tonight, it is expected that you'll refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting. This request relates to both your address to Council and any answers given in response to questions from Councillors. Finally, it is also advised that if any person participating in the meeting has a mobile phone, they either turn it off or turn it to silent.

Thank you. So, any apologies? Acting General Manager, request from Councillor Rasmussen.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Councillors received a request from Councillor Paul Rasmussen for approval to attend ordinary and extraordinary Council meetings by audiovisual link from now until the 31st of July 2021 due to health reasons.

Move that Mr Mayor. Moved Deputy Mayor, seconded Councillor Garrow. All those in favour? Carried. Confirmation of minutes. So we've got two sets of minutes. So first, the minutes from the 25th of March.

Anybody want to move that they're correct? Moved Councillor Richards, seconded Councillor Zamprogno. All those in favour? Carried. Minutes from the 30th of March.

Moved Deputy Mayor, seconded Councillor Richards. All those in favour? Against? Declared carried. We then have items on block, being item 69.

Moved Deputy Mayor.

Yep.

Ah, sorry, you've got a declaration. Oh, I didn't ask for declarations of interest. Sorry, Councillor Kotlash.

Yes, for item number 69 , I have a pecuniary interest.

Yeah, so you can read it onto the tape now because we're at item 69. Sorry, my mistake.

Okay. The organisation I work for receives membership fees from Hawkesbury Council.

Okay, so that's a pecuniary interest, so you'll be leaving the room? Yep.

So moved Deputy Mayor, seconded, looking for a seconder, seconded Councillor Calvert. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Ross, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Rasmussen. Against? Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree. Councillor Kotlash absent for the vote. Declared carried.

I understand for item 70, the Deputy Mayor wanted to request a speaker. Is that correct?

Yes, please, Mr Mayor. Sorry, I just had been— sorry, very unfit, running up and down the hallway. I had been looking into the content of this, and I spoke to Erin Wilkins, and she would like to address the council before we debate this item, if that's okay by you. Yeah

So take that moved, Deputy Mayor, seconded Councillor Wheeler. All those in favour? Against? Declare it carried. Ms Wilkins, did you want to come and address us now? Yeah,

Just up to— yep.

Hi, thank you.

I had a very brief discussion with Councillor Calvert about— it was a passing conversation that we had, and I endorse the fact that, yeah, it's something to think about.

My only concern is,

Where did the motion come from? I'd like to know where . I know it's in a lot of the recommendations from the Royal Commission and things like that, but it's just a matter of understanding why council want to put it into motion and their true understanding of what cultural burning is.

I don't have any objections. It's something that I think many of you know that I do. But I just wanted to know the understanding of why now and what your understanding of what a cultural burn is. And that , sensitively, I'd like to add that if anything culturally, whether it be practice or not, is to be motioned in Council, that it is consulted prior to motion with the Aboriginal community, out of respect of cultural protocol, if that's okay.

Thank you.

Thank you for that. Sorry, yeah, thanks, Danielle. Okay. Councillor Garbett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm

Very happy to answer those questions.

During the bushfires of a year or so ago, many people spoke to me about cool burnings or cultural burnings, as I understand them, and said, Why aren't we doing this? Why isn't that a practice that happens here in the Hawkesbury? Now, the people who asked me were a range of people. Some were ordinary residents, and some of them were fairly high up in the RFS. They were pushing for this as well. And I said to them then, Look, I will try and bring this back to Council and see if we can facilitate a discussion on the matter. Of course, after the bushfires, there was a Royal Commission, and then there was a flood. Well, not in that order. There was a flood, and then there was COVID, which is still around.

So we never really had the chance to do this. And I thought— and Erin asked, Why now? Well, it's because I think this is probably the first opportunity we've had since then to actually do it. So, and what I want to put forward— Which also answers one of Erin's questions, is that I'm not holding myself up as an expert on this matter. I just promised the people that we would have this discussion, a public community discussion. And I know there are some people, and it was even mentioned in the Royal Commission, that some people don't believe that cultural burnings would make a big difference as far as hazard reduction goes, especially when a very large fire like the one we had 18 months ago comes through.

So there are different opinions on the matter. And what I'm trying to do is bring it out into the public, have a discussion, and definitely invite the Aboriginal people from this area and from all areas to come along. Definitely invite all the experts, definitely invite RFS, and have a whole community discussion. I'm not particularly pushing that cool burnings is the answer to everything, but I think we have a responsibility to discuss it. And I know basically handling fires is not necessarily a council matter, but I think handling community positions or community understanding is something that council looks at and does have responsibility for. And if worst comes to worst, we produce a report which we then have to send to the state government because it's out of our league, we can't act on it.

Well, that's fine as well, because at that stage we would have the community's statement of what they believe as far as cool burnings and what should happen, and we'd have all the input from all the different groups. And that would be there that we could then build on that at some stage. So look, and tonight wasn't meant to be a debate on the pros and cons of cool burnings, and I'm sure some people are wanting to do that, but that's not what tonight was meant to be. Tonight was meant to be: do we take this to the committee, and does the committee make it a public meeting or several meetings, and does the committee then write a report which comes back to council? At that stage, I believe we may have a bigger discussion on the pros and cons of cool burnings.

So right now, all I'm asking councillors to do is—

Excuse me, Mr Mayor, we don't have a motion on the table.

That's a reasonable point.

I'll second it

Seconded, Councillor Kotlash. Thank you.

What I forgot to say, and thanks for that break, is that with our new committee structure, it allows us now to have public meetings that will involve very large sections of the community and allows the committee to report back directly to council. And this is a good opportunity to use that new structure for this reason. And as I was saying, I wasn't expecting that tonight would be a discussion about the pros and cons of cool burnings. Tonight would be: do we send this to the committee and ask the committee to write a report? And that's all I'm asking here is, do we take that step? And I think whether you're for cool burnings or against it, I think you hopefully would be in favour of listening to what the community has to say on the matter. Thank you. Thank you. Further discussion? Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, and I am a supporter of cultural burning completely. I think it's a very vital part of Australian land management. The issue that came up for me was why we would be deciding on it without first consulting our local Aboriginal community as to whether we should move forward in this regard. And Erin, when I spoke to Erin, she wished to come and address us on that fact that for motions such as this, it would be respectful to go first to the local community to ask about that. And, of course, what the essence of cultural burning is, that it is led by the Indigenous people of the local area who understand how the practice would be carried out, who understand the land and who understand the significance of the flora and fauna and the way that the fire activity takes place.

On that level, I'm happy to support it, but I did have a number of questions around it, which, they may sound a little tedious, but I do want this to become a discussion we have. So I just wanted to clarify a number of things around what's contained in the motion so we have a better understanding of it. So if I could ask those questions, Mr Mayor, that would be greatly appreciated. And I'm not sure if the answers can't come now, I would request that we do get them at some point because they would be crucial to any further discussions on this point. So the first one is, within this motion, what land are we referring to? Is this burning on council land, burning on private land, or burning in national parks and, you know, any land?

So I don't know if anyone can answer that.

Yeah, I can answer that. So the motion before us is not to do any burning. If you read it, the motion is actually to ask the Environment Committee to investigate and research the possible introduction of a trial. So the committee would make recommendations back to Council about all the elements of that trial, including where that would be.

I'm just looking at it from a point of view of how many resources will be put towards this and how much it's to do with Council core business, if that's the case. The second question was about the extent of Council involvement in the decisions on how and where to carry out hazard reduction. I know that we give approvals, but I'm not sure how that happens. I'm just wondering if we could have an update on what level of input we have into the scheduling of hazard reduction.

So as the Mayor, I sit on the, and I might ask Jeff for the correct name of the committee. The Bushfire Management Committee. Yeah, it's actually much simpler than I thought. Bushfire Management Committee. And that committee, I believe, coordinates that for our local area. All requests come through that committee for the committee to decide. So Council's rep on that committee, but generally not generating the requests, obviously rather reviewing them

No, that's right. I understand that committee. My third question was around that committee, and I was wondering if they have a position on this, and is it something that we should in fact refer to them or ask them to give an input if we're going down that path? Because they have a combination of all the relevant agencies in one spot on a formalised committee that exists. So obviously it's something I would think they've discussed at some point, and I think that they're an existing body if we could engage with those. But all of this is, of course, subject to the initial discussions with the Indigenous people about the feasibility, I guess, of proceeding with this in the first place. But that's right.

While we're on the topic of hazard reduction, and this doesn't directly relate to the motion, but it was just something I came upon while I was looking into it. Is there any reason, and this might be an RFS question, but someone might know, is there any reason why there's no hazard reduction scheduled in the Hawkesbury currently? Because when I looked it up, there was hazard reduction in nearly every other local government area. Is it because we were so burnt out, we don't need to do any, or is there a reason for that?

Mr. Owen, did you want to give answer that? We'll take it on notice. Yep.

Take it on notice. Thank you. Sorry, I had one more. And the last question I had was regarding the sections in the Royal Commission, which are about Indigenous land management practices, which of course specify that Aboriginal people must lead and oversee these practices. And that was regard to the policy gaps in the state and federal policies around land management. So presumably, if we do some sort of report, we would have something to pass on. But I would promote and ask for advocacy on that behalf because we're really not going to be able to do anything on the local level from the sound of what you're saying about the who coordinates the approvals and so on. So those were my questions. And just to add, to speak on it while I'm still going, I think that Councillor Wheeler may have something else to say about this, but I do think that cultural burning is definitely something that should be supported and that we should move to have it introduced through whichever mechanism we can to complement other forms of land management because of the advantages around that sort of burning and of course the preservation of the canopy in that sort of burning and the better results for our flora and fauna.

So I hope something can be worked on along this line. I do have a little bit of an issue with it going just to the environment committee. I have some concerns around it, but I'll reserve those for now. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor

I want to thank Ms Watkins for coming and speaking to us as a member of the local Dharug community. I think it's important that when we look at, we have the problem in that we are 12 white people sitting around a table now looking at the discussion of, and hopefully the implementation of, an Indigenous practice. And it makes me uncomfortable that we are the ones in the position to make these decisions and recommendations. So I'm very grateful that someone from the Indigenous community has come and spoken to us about this. This is fundamentally First Nations knowledge, and the question for us, I think, needs to be how we can enter into a conversation with First Nations people about the implementation of this knowledge in our role as an advocate, a facilitator.

And as a partner, so that they lead the process and we act appropriately. There is lots of information, both scientific and cultural, that's already available. I've put some— I'm effectively, I'm very supportive of this motion, but I would like to see us proceed in a more culturally sensitive way. So I've sent some words through for a potential amendment that should be available. Now , it does basically everything that the current notice of motion does, except that it engages with the Dharug community early and then proceeds in a fairly open fashion for us to work through this issue and get to the point where we can have a policy that we can use as a council. It functions on a similar timeline as well.

I think it may be more culturally appropriate that we first initially speak to the Dharug community and get them involved from the very beginning, and then we have a more open briefing session with all councillors, rather than go through the committee process and then back to council with that additional layer of complication, so that we can then move forward together, I suppose. I don't know if any of you have read this beautiful book, Fire Country, about cultural burning in Australia by Victor Steffensen, who's a cultural burning practitioner. There's some— It's beautifully written in that very, in that storytelling style that I think is so well represented by Aboriginal storytellers in that slow progression to the main point, that spiralling in to the meat of the discussion.

But there are, he makes several points in here about the journey to the use of cultural burning, and I just want to read a few of them out to you to illustrate my point. One, so the first, one thing I'd love to see is for the government to effectively jump in the passenger seat and let us drive for a change. Being in the passenger seat means that they're still in the same car, so we won't leave them behind. But most of the time, we're not even in the car and they just drive off, leaving us in the dust. We watch the car zoom off down the road and then we see it pull over in the far distance, breaking down. We sit in the dust and we wait patiently for them to come back and pick us up. And I think we have to be really conscious that we don't do that.

The other bit, rural fire services spend

A lot of— Sorry, Councillor, was there a seconder for the amendment? Seconder, Deputy Mayor.

Rural fire services spend a lot of time putting out habitat logs and trees when they burn country with the wrong fuel loads and timing. If the right vegetation and timing is there, there'll be far less burning logs to put out afterwards. On the other hand, Indigenous burning application can be so delicate, light and fast that only the old grass burns. The black ash from the grass is so fine it breaks up into the soil and just blows away in the wind. The animals prefer that fire. They want a fire that brings food and doesn't destroy their homes, leaving the trees and many plants intact, creating shade and contributing to the flower and seed offerings for the season ahead. And then he goes on to talk about the way we think about fire in Australia, the fear that we have as a culture of fire, that we have had as Europeans of fire, and our notions of fire.

And he talks about cultural burning as a means of healing, not just of the land, but of our communities. And I think that could be a pivotal point for us as a community, having been so badly affected by those Black Saturday fires. I think this is a real opportunity for us to show both leadership and partnership with the local Indigenous community and embrace a new way of managing fire with all the agencies that are involved in the Hawkesbury. Thanks.

Further discussion?

Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I don't support the amendment. I support Councillor Calvert's original motion, and I'll try and explain why. Perhaps Councillor Calvert has muddied the waters a little by using the terms cultural burning and cool burning interchangeably . I don't think of this necessarily or exclusively as a cultural process. I think of it as a process for land management that ought to be driven by the available evidence, scholarly, cultural or otherwise. I don't think that any particular segment of the community has any special place to express any concern about how land management practices are conducted based on some cultural primacy. But we should really only be focused on what makes the bush safer , not only for the preservation of those ecologies, but of the humans who live near and in those ecologies.

Well , I know the conflict that land use practices cause. In 2006, there was a bushfire in Oakville. There had been a long-standing dispute between the National Parks and the local RFS about which land management practices and which burn and fuel load reduction practices should prevail. And when a bad fire came through, two people in Midson Road lost their homes. And I think that that debate about fuel load management was very germane to that loss of property. When we say that it's a land management practice.

That's all it is. It's driven by the scientific evidence . So I think that the way that the original motion was worded calls for us to call together all of the relevant expertise, whether it's RFS, National Parks, Local Land Services, DPIE, scholarly research. And yes, it is true that the Indigenous community have a long history of land management practices, and they are part of that process. But I do dispute any form of language that says that they have some cultural veto about what land management practices are decided upon. And in that vein , I support the original motion, but not this amendment.

Further discussion? Councillor Tree.

Thank you, Mr...

Sorry .

I know it's exciting that I'm talking, but I was just going to say that I think I'm going to have to support. I was supportive of Councillor Calvert's notice of motion, inasmuch as that it said that it was going to be in conjunction with consultation, and that it was not something that was going to be that, you know, had been hijacked by people in here. I would have got the impression that I think that perhaps conversations had have occurred earlier. I agree with what Councillor Wheeler has said in regards to the portions of the book that she read out in terms of Indigenous people being passengers in processes that inherently affect them and affect their cultural practices. I think for the last over 200 years, people like us have worked pretty effectively in trying to crush culture, and I think that we have opportunities now because we're supposed to be a little bit more enlightened to understand that we can be part of a reconciliation process whereby we actually empower people from the Indigenous communities to make decisions and to lead these processes, because if we don't, we're just telling them that we don't care.

And I just do not think that that is acceptable. I didn't really, I must admit, I didn't really think that what Councillor Calvert had had, but I do feel as though if it had caused upset to Indigenous members of our local community, then there's a problem with that and we probably need to work on that and adjust it in some way. So I don't know if Councillor Calvert would like to change some of the wording or to take on some of what Councillor Wheeler has said. That would be good. What was I going to say? Another point that Nathan said. Councillor, is that wrong?

Probably can't say it without being two cross. But anyway, I think that it's probably a really important step to get these communications and relationships, you know, right. So if Councillor Calvert could include that, that'd be really, really great.

Thanks, Councillor Tree. Can I suggest a way forward? Because I was going to speak against the amendment only on the basis of it excluding that committee process, because I don't think this is something that we're going to solve in one briefing to councillors. I think it does need that process of hearing from all the different groups and having it thought out and a report back. But I take note of point one of the amendment, and perhaps we could insert that ahead of the motion as a compromise. If that was going to be acceptable to people, I'd sort of— Would like to, Councillor Wheeler.

Can I just point out that point four includes developing the policy through either the Environment Committee or an expert working group, and I think we would be in a better position to determine how we take that forward after we've received the information from the experts in the field, rather than deciding that we know how to do it already.

Thank you. Yeah, well, I think that's actually— that that's the reason I wouldn't support it, is because this is assuming that we've got the answer before we started. So we decide that we're preparing a policy before we decide—before we've even engaged with the local Darug community, before we've had that briefing, we've already decided to prepare a policy, and I think that's the wrong way, that's the wrong approach. I think what the motion asks for is advice on whether it's appropriate and what it would look like and how council can be involved in it, which is why I was suggesting that compromise. However, I wouldn't like my indication from Councillor Calvert and others if that compromise was acceptable, because if not, then I'd be inclined to support the amendment. So

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm not in favour of the amendment because I don't think it adds anything. Perhaps I didn't spell out what I actually meant. I mean, in point 1A, I did say that we would have liaison with Aboriginal representative groups, and that's the first group that I mentioned. And I always meant for that to happen. And as Erin Wilkins said, I have already spoken to her and asked her whether this should proceed, what she thought. It was a very short conversation, but she seemed to welcome the idea that the process continue, that we have this public meeting, and that everyone comes along. And tells people, talks about the idea. I would never dream of leaving the Aboriginal people out of this process, and I'm a bit surprised and offended that people seem to think that I was going to do that because I was going to do just the opposite.

So if putting point one in makes that clearer, as Councillor Conolly has suggested, I'd be happy to include point one, make it 1A, and then have the other three points.

Thank you. I

Think we've got to

Deal with this amendment first, but I just wanted an indication of it. Yes

That's what I'd be happy to do. Thank you.

Further discussion on the amendment? Councillor Reynolds.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. It's a question. I'm just wondering why the proposal is to send it to the Environment Committee and not the Disaster Management Committee when it's actually about managing disasters. So we know the Disaster Management Committee is open to all councillors, and it would seem to me that that would be the proper place for this to go. That was all. I was just wondering why it's gone to the Environment Committee.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler.

Mr Mayor, I'm happy if point four, if the mention of policy in point four is the sticking point, then I'm happy for policy to turn into a discussion paper, if that's more appropriate. I just think we would probably be further along the process, but if that's required, then I think that's reasonable. The concern with the initial motion is even if you put point one at the top of it, the wording in— In 1A, still leaves Council as the controlling arm, not the Aboriginal community. And it still leaves them as passengers, and the intent is to bring them in as the driver alongside us in the front seat to labour the—

It's not a metaphor, it's a, I can't think of

The— Sorry, were you speaking again, Councillor Wheeler? I'm

Speaking against the motion.

I'm happy to—well, we're not dealing with that yet, but I would be happy if you made it, prepare a discussion paper on the use and implementation, and then deleted all formation of an expert working group. And so if the discussion paper being prepared by the Environment Committee, I feel like then we've arrived at a similar place.

My concern with that, Mr Mayor, is that I don't think that the Environment Committee has the expertise to prepare that discussion paper. Again, it's four white people who don't have any expertise in cultural burning writing about something that is not theirs. If you leave in—now, there's an or there, you can choose if we get to the end of it and decide that no one wants to play but the four members of the Environment Committee, then the Environment Committee can take it on. If we've got people who come through this process with us who want to take, who want to be involved in the preparation of it, then I think it's helpful that we have a get-out.

Thank you. Any further discussion on the amendment?

Councillor Reynolds? Can I just ask my question again and maybe get an answer as to why we're sending this to

The— Sorry, this is not a recommendation of staff or me. It's a notice of motion, so it's not a question I'm going to answer. It can be answered— So nobody can tell— Councillor Carver can answer the question if you wanted to, but I can't compel him to. Councillor Carver? Okay, that's fine. That's fine. Did you want to answer that question, Councillor Carver?

What I wanted, Mr Mayor, was to have an open public discussion where everyone could be invited, and that the Environment Committee enables that to happen. I saw it as a good vehicle for allowing public discussion. There was no conspiracy to choosing that committee. I could have chosen any committee, I suppose, but I chose that one because I thought it best reflects the issue.

Okay, we'll put the— oh, Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just want to say that it's a very difficult position, and I understand. I thank Erin for coming and speaking to us tonight. In regards to that, I value that Councillor Carver had spoken to Erin prior in all of this. If Councillor Carver was amenable to adding a couple of extra things, as the Mayor has said, then I think that that could be a strengthened motion to come forward from you, Councillor Carver, because I understand what's— Speaking on the current amendment now, yep. Speaking

On the current amendment.

It's important to be culturally sensitive, 100% it is, but I think the intent of this was to bring it through the committee process. And I just would like to point out to some other councillors in the room that complaining about not being on a committee that you had every opportunity to nominate for , or saying it needs to go to a committee that has all representatives of Council being the disaster committee—

Misrepresentation, Mr Mayor. There's no point of order.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor. And also the Environment Committee, whether you're— Point of

Order . I'm claiming misrepresentation. There is no point of order. I've dismissed your point of order.

It's a claim of misrepresentation.

That is a point of order under the code. It was applied, I believe it was applied differently in the past, but it's just a normal point of order. No ,

You

Don't have to be named to be misrepresented. You've asked for a point of order. I've declared there's no point of order. You can either turn your microphone off, you can move a motion of dissent if you want to challenge that, but I've said there's no point of order there. It's a pity that we're

All videoed now, otherwise I'd do something.

Is that a threat?

Okay,

All right.

Unbelievable. Just, yeah, proves everything. So the thing is that the Environment Committee is also open to everybody, so if other councillors wanted to participate, they're very welcome to come and participate in the process. I think that I won't be supporting this amendment because I am hopeful that what Councillor Calvert said, he will amend his original motion to include those elements that contain that cultural sensitivity. Thank you.

Okay. Questions, Councillor Deputy Mayor?

No, not questions. I'll speak in favour of the amendment.

Okay.

I had questions before. I'll support the amendment because I think that it takes the intent of the motion and puts it in a proper framework for how we would be covering all bases, such as the cultural sensitivity around it, and it also puts it in a more, in my opinion, in a more logical set of steps to get us to where we need to go. Because if it goes first to the Environment Committee to do this research, who is going to do it? Would we not be better to have a briefing of the councillors where we all get that knowledge, including the members of the Environment Committee, so that they can then Be more equipped to deal with it, and other councillors then, if it's in that committee, may wish to participate.

I just think it's adding an additional step to go there first and then maybe hold another meeting. Where it says, if required, to hold a further meeting, that's really what step four is when it would get to that point. Because let's not pretend that there's not going to be issues around this with various agencies and various people. It's not going to be straightforward, because we know the mere fact that it isn't in existence everywhere is because there's various politics around it and there's various issues with it and there's various gaps in policies that already exist. So I am supporting the amendment because I think that gives us more knowledge. It begins by speaking with our local Dharug community, consulting them as they should be consulted.

And unlike what Councillor Zambrano has said, it isn't simply land management. It's a cultural practice that is generously shared with us to help us manage the land. And I think we should respect that, and we should respect our community by consulting with them first and having them tell us the feasibility of us going down this path. Because if there aren't people locally who are wishing to do it, and Erin is, and I'm sure she will be, but we need to know what that community feels about it and how they think we should deal with it. And that's a matter of respect and something that this council has committed to delivering to our local Aboriginal people. So I shall support the amendment.

Thank you. We'll put the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment, please raise your hand. Favour are Councillor Ross , Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Rasmussen. Against? Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash. How are you voting, Councillor Tree? Against. How are you voting? For the amendment or against the amendment?

No, no, so for or against For or against the amendment?

Against.

Okay

So declare the amendment failed. Amendment lost.

Okay. So we return to the motion before us.

Councillor Calvert, did you want to make those changes or was someone moving a different amendment?

I'm happy to make the change, Mr Mayor. I think there was only one change, and that was to include point one from the amendment into the motion. That's the only one I think you mentioned.

Yep. So it's coming up, I think we'll bring it up on the screen now.

Okay, seconder, are you happy with that, Councillor Kotlash? Yes.

Any further discussion on the motion?

If not, we'll go to right of reply. Councillor Carver. Excuse me

Oh, sorry, Mr Mayor. Sorry. I'm speaking against the motion. I would like to see the words cultural burning deleted from the motion. And the basis of that is that august bodies such as the CSIRO, no less, have indicated that the practice amongst other practices and knowledge of our Indigenous community is, in fact, good science based on their

Long-practised activities. And we should, as

Newcomers to this situation, respect their science and place it ahead of our own perceptions. Thank you.

Any further discussion on the motion? Right of reply, Councillor— oh, sorry, Councillor. I can't see your light behind the computer. Yes

I'm just— is that now Councillor Calvert's one? Yes. All right. All right, thank you.

Right of reply, Councillor Calvert. Yes. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm surprised that some of the statements that were thrown around this room earlier, they imply that I somehow wanted to shut the Aboriginal people out of this process, which I never wanted to do. I— I then heard that I'd got the whole thing backwards and that we should go to the Dharug community first, and I always meant to do that. In fact, I did speak to one member of the local community just to get a feeling of what we should do. And all the things that came out here tonight, including what Councillor Ross was saying about cultural burnings, all that would happen at the committee meetings. That's where we would discuss these things, and if the community put forward a discussion which said that they shouldn't be called cultural burnings, and if that was the outcome of the findings, then okay.

What several councillors have tried to do is to have the discussion here tonight, which was never the aim. The aim is to move that we have a discussion, a community discussion. I think people tried to make it into something that it wasn't. It's a very simple notice of motion, and

The committee is several councillors, three or four, but the committee has the power to hear submissions from everybody, including all the other councillors. All the other councillors can go and make submissions, so it's open to all councillors and the whole community. What the committee does is facilitate this process and make it happen and listen to the experts. That's what a committee does. It listens to the experts, comes up with findings and gives those back to council. Council will then use that to generate its policy or its plans. I thought everyone would be on board with that process, and I was surprised when people weren't.

Of course, we'll go to the Aboriginal groups first, and they, I believe, will help us prepare a discussion paper. And I think some people have got the wrong idea about what a discussion paper is. In this context, a discussion paper is more or less an agenda for the committee to say these are the things that we need to consider, these are things we need to talk about, and probably on the end of it we'll have and other matters. The discussion paper is not meant to be a deep research paper that gives you the answers. The discussion paper is meant to be the agenda for when the community comes and all the experts come, they can follow that agenda and they give us the answers or they give us their opinions.

So some people have got the wrong idea about what that discussion paper's role is. It's really to facilitate discussion. It's not meant to be the answer to the questions. It was also mentioned that someone believed that putting this through a committee adds an extra layer. Now, if going to the community and having all the community being able to give input is an extra layer, then I wonder what our role is here. Surely that is our role, to talk to the community and hear what they have to say. And the new committee process allows us to do it and allows us to do it very well. I think there might have been a few people who wanted to take it away from the committee because they had feelings that the committee structure wasn't something they agreed with.

Now, I think that's unfortunate. Whether you agree with the committee structure or not, you must agree that using it to have the community, all the community give us input, I think is what it's there for, and that's how we should use it. So, Mr Mayor, I commend this motion to the council. I hope that all councillors can get behind it, and I hope that all councillors get involved in the process, even though it does go through a committee. I hope we're all there and we all get involved, and we come up with a report which comes back to council, which gives us a direction and gives us total input from the whole community. Thank you.

Thank you. So I put the motion. All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. In favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow . Against: Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Ross. Councillor Colash was in favour. Sorry, I didn't read that out. Declared it carried.

So the next item is notice of motion two.

Did you want to withdraw that now, or—

No.

No? Probably out of order in its current form. Is there something else you want to move?

I was, well, I don't think it's out of order. Why do you think it's out of order?

Because we've just put the plan on exhibition already .

So it can still be added. The plan can still be changed.

Well, we've already considered that item.

Well, I was expecting that it would be debated, the operational plan.

Yep, but it wasn't, and it's already been resolved.

Well, all right. Well, I've got another point to it. Okay. Okay, so I'll move the motion in the business plan, and I'll put a point two, which is that Council commit to allocating a minimum amount each year to the crisis management response reserve.

Did you want to change point one, Deputy Mayor, to say that we note that we've already included it or something, just so we're not resolving two different ways on the one night? That might be quite confusing

No, sorry, your microphone, Deputy Mayor.

The point of the discussion was to hear Councillor feedback on whether they thought that was an adequate enough amount, which I did raise in the briefing, but there was no additional input into that, but whether or not $100,000 was enough to be included. So I can either do a personal submission on that basis, or we can discuss it now as a Council.

Yeah, I don't think it's open to Council to resolve to do something else now that we've just put our plan on exhibition. We could definitely resolve something else when it comes back from exhibition, but I think if we were going to change it, we probably want to rescind our resolution to put it on. All

Right. Well, I'm happy to take out point one until the next round, and I'll just stick with point two.

Okay.

So did we get that down? Yeah.

Oh, sorry. Do you want me to read it again?

I think we've got it.

Good, so I can't remember.

So it's that Council commits to allocating a minimum amount each year to the Crisis Management Response Reserve.

Yes,

Thank you. So, seconder? Seconded, Councillor Wheeler.

Thank you. I'll just speak briefly then, seeing it's been changed, but I think it's important that we make that commitment to building a reserve to deal with crisis management, as we've seen the intense need for that over the past year or two. What I really wanted was information around what existing policies or plans we have which outline how staff are redeployed when we have a disaster. I'm just wondering if it can be taken on notice, or if we can be told what the system is for how that occurs. So by that I mean, when we need more people to move into a recovery phase and go out into our community after a disaster to be helping people, who decides how many people should do that? What plan is it that decides that?

And what is the mechanism for getting people who perhaps are working in some other area, you know, such as events which aren't working at the time, or what's the mechanism to get more support to the people who have to go out into the community after a disaster? Is there a plan or a policy that oversees that?

Acting General Manager.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. There is no actual written down procedure of how we would do that, but the practice is that when we are operating the outreach centres or the hubs, in consultation with Resilience New South Wales, we ascertain what sort of staff are required from a council point of view to man those areas, and then we seek relevant people within the organisation to man those particular outreach areas or hubs. And then as far as other duties that may be required around the response or the recovery to the disaster, then we seek expressions of interest, if you like, through the organisation of who might be able to attend those functions.

And so are those decisions that are being made by the crisis management team?

Partly they are, yes. They are discussed at the crisis management team and then carried out from there. Okay,

Thank you. I'm just wondering if in the future perhaps we will have something that's a more solid plan. I'm not doubting the decisions made, but more that for the public's benefit that they can see how their council's resources are being put into the community after these events, because it's very exhausting work for the people who get sent out there to do it, and I think the more support they have, the better. Because particularly when we have cumulative disasters going on one after the other, as we've had, it's incredibly exhausting, and I think that what the public want to see is that, you know, their ratepayer money going to the resources where they feel it's needed. With regard to the Crisis Management Response Reserve, I think this is an essential reserve that we build up and that we have, and I'll foreshadow perhaps investigating the specific amount being allocated to it when we have the next discussion on the operational plan.

But what I would ask in the interim, and it doesn't have to be now, but perhaps for that next meeting, is if we could have some idea of what exactly $100,000 in council money delivers, because, you know, is that, for example, what did we spend on skip bins ourselves, or what? Just to give us some idea of whether that's an adequate amount, because I don't, I can't translate that into thinking whether that was enough to give us a good response or not. And I think it's essential that we're equipped with a reserve that can enable us to let our community know that if something's needed, we have the capacity to deliver that for them. And that was very obvious in this latest disaster with delays in maybe state government response and things like— site that, and we were filling the gaps.

And I think it's essential that we have that. So this is a lesser discussion , I guess, than what I intended. But I would hope, nevertheless, that the council commits to allocating on an annual basis to that reserve fund from now on.

Thanks, Deputy. I'm happy to support that motion. I think that's quite a reasonable suggestion that we commit to the future to allocating an amount to that reserve. I think I would see it maybe slightly differently, that potentially we're not talking about responding every year with $100,000, but we're saying the annual cost of an event every so many years should mean that we should be recognising that it's going to be an ongoing cost to council. Certainly that the state government seems to pay a larger role than perhaps we have in the past, and that therefore that if we're going to have to fund that rather than have a big hole in the year that it happens, that we recognise that cost along the way. Councillor Kotlash . You've turned your microphone off, Councillor Kotlash. Sorry

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd just like staff to give some commentary around our contingency reserves, because I'm thinking that what's the difference between our crisis management response reserve and our other contingency reserves? I mean, it's just the— my understanding is that the contingency reserve is for things that we haven't foreshadowed, and I'm not sure I understand how we use our other reserves and how we will use this reserve and whether there is really any major difference. Just trying to get a bit of a handle on whether we just have one contingency reserve.

Refer that to Mr Scalia.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. The contingency reserve was originally set up to be able to address any deficits in quarterly reviews, and that's pretty much still the purpose, that even a quarterly review, the unfavourable adjustments were larger than the favourable adjustment, that we had something to fall back on. It's not specific, so there is nothing stopping Council, if we needed to, the quarterly review to fund certain flood expenditure that wasn't, that's not funded. There's nothing stopping Council from using that. The intent behind setting up the crisis management response was more to show that commitment that we are putting money aside, given the number of disasters that we've had in the last few months.

So in answer to the question, I suppose the crisis management response reserve is specifically for that reason and can only be used for that reason as per Council's resolution , whereas the contingency is open to any adjustments that may need to happen in quarterly review for anything, including if there was something major that we couldn't fund from the crisis one if it wasn't enough. Thank you,

Mr Mayor. So just a follow-up, if I may, Mr Mayor. So it's for natural disasters. Could the crisis management reserve be used for any other crises that aren't natural disasters? Yeah

I mean, at the moment it is just simply called the crisis management response. So crisis can occur in any form, so it could be natural disasters, it could be other things such as what we've had with COVID. So the intent is to keep it open to cover those things that are completely outside of our control that we need to react quickly to. Thanks, Mayor. Excellent, thank you

No further discussion. We’ll go right of reply. Beg your pardon? Oh, sorry, just yell out, Councillors, I can’t see. Thank you,

Mr Mayor. I’m indicating that I’ll vote against this on the basis that we do have a contingency reserve, and that this is absolutely superfluous.

It could be covered well and truly by the contingency reserve, and indeed, when we come to talking about the operational plan draft, I’ll be in part addressing this matter as well. This is just wasteful .

Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Ross. I might just briefly respond, if that’s okay. I mean, I think I understand where you’re coming from. I think the intention here is to recognise that this is going to be an ongoing expense, rather than so much as to put the money away. As much as anything, it’s to say that every year we need to be planning that if we’re not spending that money, it goes into that reserve because we are going to have disasters and we’re going to be responsible for covering costs. So I think that’s a sensible suggestion on that basis. Right of reply? No, not necessary. Okay, we’ll put the motion. All those in favour? Favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen.

Against? Councillor Ross. Declare it carried.

Next item is item 72, responses to questions taken on notice. Deputy Mayor.

Do we move that?

I don't think we

Need to move it. It's there for questions on questions. I have a question on question, and it won't be LATED, but my question is, is there a time frame for the briefing session on the cycleways?

Mrs. Gallea.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So we'll be looking at end of May, beginning of June, given the current workload of the people involved. Of course. Thank you. And the other point was to pass on the feedback that the Pitt Town Association is very happy with the plans for the Bonavista toilet block and looking forward to the work being done.

Thank you. Thanks. Councillor Wheeler.

Just further on the Bonavista toilet block, Mr Mayor, while we're on the subject of the toilets, do we have an expected start and end date for that project?

Through that to Mr Organ.

As we've got the response back from the progress association agreeing to the works commencing, we did indicate that we would do commence works in two stages. They would be the sewer connections, which should occur within the next week, and we would also concurrently put some notification to the adjoining community to let them know that the project is proceeding. We would then, as I said, there'd be works taking place within the week, and at this stage the completion would be around the start of June.

Thank you. Any further questions? Councillor Ross . Yes,

I'd like to raise that question 060 again in regard to the toilet block. First point is, in that regard, is, as I understand it, the Pitt Town Progress Association made an application for a grant. Is that an acceptable process when we're talking about—

I don't believe so, Councillor Ross. I've raised this today with Robin Preston again. I've raised it with her in the past, that I don't think it's good practice for the New South Wales Government to give grants to other groups for council assets on council land. I think it causes lots of problems and, whilst this is a good project and it's good that they've supported it, I completely agree. I don't think it's an acceptable practice.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll [unclear] your fourth right statement.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I appreciate your forthright statement. In this case, would I be correct in understanding that council is the Crown land manager of this site?

Mr Organ.

The site is owned by council as a lot in fee simple. It's public reserve.

So it's subject to the Local Government Act as a Crown reserve?

No, it's not a Crown reserve. It's council public reserve. Okay

Thank you. When will the internal DA be provided, please? Sorry?

There's no development application required. It's an exempt development under the Infrastructure SEPP.

Could you provide me the exact clause within that SEPP that would preclude a development application, please?

I don't have that one on notice, but happy to provide that to you.

I'd appreciate that. About to be really impressed. Thank you. Any further questions, Councillor Ross? Thank you, that's it. Okay. Any further questions on questions? If not, we'll declare the meeting closed. Thank you everyone at 7.36.