29 June 2021 - Ordinary

Welcome everybody to tonight's ordinary meeting. I'd like to start by acknowledging the Dharug and Darkinjung people as the traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury, and pay respect to our Elders past, present and emerging, and acknowledge all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First People of the country, and hand over to the General Manager.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. 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 the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting of Council meetings. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary. If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations.

The recordings are stored in Council's record management system. For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the Council tonight, it is expected that you will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting. This request relates to both your address to Council and any answers given in response to questions from Councillors. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Do we have any apologies? Is Councillor Ross now in the meeting or not?

If not, does somebody want to move we accept—

Yeah

Move that way . Moved Councillor Rasmussen.

Seconded Councillor Zamprogno. All those in favour? Against ? Carried.

Carried Are there any declarations of interest, any matters tonight?

Councillor— I have

One. Sorry, Councillor Rasmussen.

Councillor Richards, you can go first if you like.

Mate, just before we go ahead there, Councillor Richards, I might just remind everyone, we might go back to that system of raising the blue hand, as I can see the councillor lines bucket has done, just— Okay, I'll do that too. Oh yes, online.

Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll have a significant non-pecuniary interest in item 124, and I'll be leaving the room.

Thank you. Councillor Rasmussen.

Yes, Mr Mayor, I've got a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item number 124. Okay

And Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

I have two, Mr Mayor. I have item 117, a significant non-pecuniary interest, and item 124, a less than significant non-pecuniary interest. Okay,

Thank you. I'll get you all to read those onto the tape when we get to those items. First, somebody wish to move the confirmation of the minutes, previous meeting? Moved, Councillor Zamprogno. Looking for a seconder. Seconded, Councillor Rasmussen. All those in favour? Aye . Against? Declare it carried.

So our first item subject to public address is the second Mayoral Minute, item 117. So, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, if you want to read through the tape.

Thank you. I have a significant non-pecuniary interest in this item. I am the subject of the Mayoral Minute, and I wish to have it noted that I consider this a denial of natural justice. Thank you.

Thank you. So you'll be leaving the meeting. So we'll just wait for Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

I don't know how I do that and how

I'd be noted. You just wait and you'll be brought back in when the matter is concluded.

So we'll just wait for that to occur.

Okay. So there are six speakers in relation to this item. Our first speaker is Matthew Bennett.

Matthew, you've got five minutes. You're on mute at the moment.

There you go. Is that better? Yep. Thank you, Mr Mayor and Councillors. I'm speaking for this motion. My name is Matthew Bennett. Transparency is an important part of local government, and equally important is confidence that local representatives are diligent in their activities and are answerable to the voting public. I can't see any way that this Council or the public could have confidence in Councillor Lyons-Buckett continuing in her role as Deputy Mayor. If Councillor Lyons-Buckett should not have been present in the room on the 30th of June 2020 when the Kurmond-Kurrajong structure plan was discussed, nor should she have voted on it, as she personally owns property in the area. It is not difficult for any intelligent person to see that this was a significant issue.

If we accept that Councillor Lyons Buckett did not deliberately fail to manage the conflict of interest appropriately, and the Office of Local Government has accepted such, then the misconduct Councillor Lyons Buckett engaged in must at the very least raise significant questions of competence. I find competent who has served as a councillor for eight years but can't see what is plain to everybody else. That is the question at the heart of this motion. Are you all satisfied that Councillor Lyons Buckett is competent enough to continue her role as Deputy Mayor? I'm certainly not, and I'd be surprised if I was in the minority. Further to this, perhaps Councillor Lyons Buckett might explain to the voting public why she believed we didn't deserve to know the contents of the Statement of Reasons given by the Office of Local Government.

We can all agree that transparency is extremely important in local government. I can't understand why Councillor Lyons Buckett's submissions to the Office of Local Government appear to have included arguments as to why the Statement of Reasons should not have been published. If this is so, does she genuinely believe that we, the public, don't deserve to know? Having never met the councillor and solely based on social media activities, I always had the impression the councillor was big on transparency. Apparently not. Councillors, be honest with yourselves. If you think Councillor Lyons Buckett should have known and managed this clear conflict of interest appropriately, your only option is to vote in favour of this motion of no confidence in her continuing to hold the title as Deputy Mayor.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mr. Bennett. Did you want to take any questions? No,

Thank you.

Okay. Next speaker, first speaker against is Christine Payne.

Christine with us?

Up over here it is.

Christine, can you hear us? I'm recalling you now if you're ready.

If not, we'll move on to Rhonda Hawkins, and someone to have a go at getting in touch with Christine, if anyone's able to, and we'll see if we can get her to speak as the next speaker against. So, Rhonda, thank you, Ms Hawkins.

Thank you, Mayor. I'm a resident of the Hawkesbury and have lived at Oakville for over 39 years. I'm not sure if I qualify yet as a local, but I am married to somebody whose family occupies some of the front rows in St Matthew's Church at Windsor. I believe the Hawkesbury is a rare community built on the values of support and care for others and a sense that we are there for each other. More than this, the sense of community is what has sustained many of us in times of great adversity, including in recent times the bushfires and floods, and now the pandemic. But I'm also someone who knows about community service. Among other governance commitments, I chair the Salvation Army Board for Greater Western Sydney.

I chair Fitzgerald Aged Care Board. I'm deputy chair of a board of a community housing provider, and I chair the board of Riverside Theatres, a part of Parramatta City Council. My professional career has given me a significant understanding and experience in good governance. I was elected member of the New South Wales Council of the Australian Institute of Company Directors for six years, and a member of the committee for Sydney representing Greater Western Sydney and universities. I understand the legal and ethical issues which should apply to governance and which build trust. It is in this context that I speak against the motion of no confidence in the Deputy Mayor. At the outset, I would like to make it clear that I do not have a personal relationship with Councillor Lyons-Buckett, and she did not ask me to speak tonight.

Of course, as a member of the Hawkesbury community, I've come across the Deputy Mayor in multiple settings, as she is a regular and committed contributor to so many community events. I've come to know her reasonably well in that context. I've also observed her consistent, informative and very helpful advice to our community on social media. In my view, she exemplifies all that is good in terms of caring about community, of contribution and service to community, and of being courageous in standing up for our community when it matters. While we may not always agree with someone's views or decisions about our community or may not like what is being proposed, councillors are elected by us to serve us.

There is no doubt that Councillor Lyons-Buckett is genuinely committed to the Hawkesbury and has given so much of her time to work in the community. She is a true community leader and a servant of our community. My reason for speaking against the motion is that it is disproportionate in terms of the determination of the departmental chief executive officer of local government and inconsistent with the suggested remedies provided in that determination. It is harsh and unnecessary. The motion gives only one reason for the assertion of no confidence, and that is the finding of the independent arbiter from the Office of Local Government. In context, the Deputy Mayor complied fully with the review.

She admitted she made an error and that she contravened Section 440F of the Local Government Act. She was fully cooperative and she offered to undertake training to ensure this does not happen again, which she has done. The finding from the departmental chief executive officer expressly notes her long period of community service, her previous good conduct, and importantly, that there was no evidence of dishonesty and/or no motivation for personal gain. Put simply, it was a mistake, which has already paid a significant price. I don't believe there are many of us among this grouping that would not have made a genuine error at some time. What is even more important is that the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, departmental Chief Executive Officer, said clearly that the matter warranted counselling and publication of the findings, and that the penalties of reprimand and suspension from office are not warranted.

These findings show that the question about the Deputy Mayor's conduct has been asked and answered. The independent reviewer determined that apart from counselling, no further action was required. This then raises the question: why would there now be a vote of no confidence about the matter? The motion seems to be seriously disproportionate to the matter and the finding of the independent review. Further, there is no record of any such other instances that which could justify the motion. It is not appropriate when it is one error and not a pattern of behaviour. We are heading towards a local government election that seems to me the best test of confidence in Councilor Lyons-Buckett is whether or not the community decide to re-elect her.

She should be judged, as should all councillors, on her record by the electorate. This motion is unnecessary at this time. In summary, the Deputy Mayor has been and continues to be an excellent community leader. She is respected and admired by many people in the community. She cares about our community. The independent adjudicator of this matter recommended no more than counselling and publishing of the finding and explicitly stated that no other punitive action was warranted. There is no other record of other similar instances about the Deputy Mayor. This renders the motion inappropriate and its impact disproportionate to the matter under review. It should not be passed. The upcoming election is the most appropriate mechanism to test the confidence of the community in the Deputy Mayor.

Thank you. Did you—were you willing to take questions from councillors if there's any?

Absolutely .

Are there any questions for councillors? No, thank you. Thanks, Ms. Hawkins. Our next speaker in favour is Jason Pilgrim.

Good evening all. Can you hear me?

Yes .

Yes, wonderful. Thank you for the opportunity to be able to speak tonight. I'm going to get straight into it. I'm coming to you all this evening as a ratepayer of the area, someone who's—I think I do have a Hawkesbury passport, being born and bred in the area for a whisker under 40 years. I think I just qualify to talk to Rhonda's point before. Look, I have multiple businesses in the area. I also run national and also global companies. Myself, with my own background in small and medium businesses, I employ several hundred people inside and outside of our great country. I've also been on many state and national boards. I've also been on non-for-profit boards, and I also run boards out of Singapore and also the UK.

So my comments tonight come from a place of significant knowledge and understanding of corporate governance, of non-for-profits, of national and international companies. And I've also spent nearly 10 years in the Chamber of Commerce. I spent five years as the Hawkesbury Chamber of Commerce, and my commitment to charities and the health and medical industry, in particular in the Hawkesbury, has been quite significant and vast for many years now.

There's probably several things that I'd like to— I think that everyone needs to keep in tune here. I don't really find that a report that might turn around and say no further action can be taken because someone might be honest and have good integrity and things like that. Well, what about the fact that you can have someone in our community that might decide that their tree is dead? They cut down a tree on their property and they haven't followed due process with the council. What happens in that situation if they're a 50-year-old person that's been a perfect citizen, moral, upstanding and significant amount of integrity? They still get a fine from council. I could talk to you about how a very good friend of mine and colleague, an Institute medical officer of this great land, only four weeks ago was pulled over in the Sutherland Shire for a car registration that was due several days earlier.

He physically was able to show the police officer that it was on his diary to visit the RMS the next morning at 10 a.m. in the morning, but the officer simply turned around and said, Ignorance is no excuse for the law, and regardless of a perfect driving record and no criminal record or anything at all and a moral upstanding citizen, he still faces the fine. The fact of the matter is, is that regardless of whether we see something as harsh a penalty or not, in this situation there must be a penalty applied. The fact is, was misconduct completed? Yes, it was. No one can argue with that, whether the person is inexperienced or experienced. And let's be honest, Councillor Lyons-Buckett is a very experienced councillor with at least eight years behind her.

I know Mary quite well as a person and I believe that we have a mutual respect personally and professionally. I'm also apolitical in this situation, as opposed to the slanderous and misaligned comments and harassment I've had on social media because I spoke out about this last week. I don't think it's fair that anyone should be harassed over such a decision, but I think it's very, very simple that elected representatives in our area, or at a state level or a national level, are always held in higher regard. than anyone else. If you get pulled over with a perfect driving record and you're five kilometres over the speed limit, prepare to be issued a fine. Ignorance is no excuse for the law. We are all very aware of that, and we know that that is the consequence.

I really don't think that asking someone to step down from a position of leadership is that big a deal anyway. If we are going to look at what people in the public feel about Councillor Lyons-Buckett in regards to council elections coming up, fantastic. Let the people decide if they want to have her re-elected if she chooses to do so. But at this point in time, I'm very clear, as are so many people in this area, that something must be done, and the councillors need to eventually draw a line in the sand on some area along the way, because there are too many times where it looks like people get away with things, and there is a general misconception all the time that, you know, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

In this situation, people and taxpayers know that an elected representative has been seen to have committed what is not proper conduct, and as a result, if some type of reprimand is not put into place, then what does that show to the people that the councillors are elected to represent? What it does show is that favours get done and that people aren't held in those elected positions to a higher regard as they should be. And in this situation, I don't think that we have any other choice, but we have an opportunity now to draw a line in the sand. We have a new general manager. We should have a council that councillors that want to move ahead and do the right thing for someone that has made a mistake.

As an elected representative, ignorance is no excuse for the law.

Thank you. Are you happy to take questions, Mr Zinni?

I don't think I need to at this point in time. I think it's very clear with where I stand.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Christine Payne.

Are you with us now, Christine?

You're on mute, I think, but otherwise you're good.

Yep, still on mute. Can the host unmute Christine , or she has to do it herself.

You have to do it yourself.

Bottom left-hand corner, Christine.

Is someone able to give Christine a call and see if we can help her, even if we just wait 30 seconds.

Can you hear me now?

Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Can I thank Charles for his help. And also, you can obviously tell that my computer skills have not improved with my five years of absence of council. Thank you for your tolerance and waiting for me. And Mr Mayor and councillors, I thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I'd also like to welcome our new GM. I've yet to meet her. To say that I'm disappointed to see a notice of motion like this before our council would be an understatement. Could it be described as bullying? I think so.

As there is nowhere this can go. Nothing can be done. You can't sack Councillor Lyon Bucket.

Is there another agenda here? I think so. I'm sad that this is a mayoral notice of motion, as I have a great deal of respect for you, Mr Mayor, and after you were elected to the role of mayor a couple of years ago, I spoke glowingly of you in the community, and I even suggested to some people that I hope you one day become our state member of parliament because I enjoyed working with you. You show a lot of integrity and a lot of common sense. I'm beginning to question the last one. Our council should be working together for our community, not spending its time and energy trying to pull each other down. The local government department said in its report, There is no need for an order that Councillor Mary Lyons-Bucket undertake training, given she has done that on her own volition.

It also says that this matter should not be referred back to council. That's right. This matter should not be referred back to council or to the NCAT. What's it doing in council?

Councillor Lyons-Bucket has been an outstanding councillor for the people of the Hawkesbury. Her intelligence, compassion, energy, honesty and plain common sense has made her perhaps one of the best councillors this area has ever had. Why this notice of motion tonight? Are you trying to discredit her before the upcoming September elections? There has to be a reason why this is coming tonight. I really can't imagine Councillor Calvert or Councillor Zabrognu supporting this notice of motion, following the reports from the LGA, which said, Do not refer this. It's not to be referred back to Council. Where is it? Back in Council. Councillors, I've been here. I've experienced what Councillor Lyons-Buckett is going through.

When it was my turn to be going through this witch hunt, the ratepayers of the Hawkesbury had to pay over $100,000 for the process. The outcome for me was it made me more determined to stay put and work for the community. It also increased my popularity at the upcoming polls, and that's what's going to happen here. Mary will poll brilliantly in September. People don't like bullies. We, the community, elected you to make good, smart, fair and intelligent decisions for us. Supporting this notice of motion is not a good, it's not a smart, certainly not an intelligent decision. Put this to bed and vote no.

Thank you. Happy to take any questions if there are any.

Sorry?

Happy to take questions if Councillors have questions.

Yeah, I'll take a question.

Sure. Anybody got a question for—

Depends if I like the councillor.

Oh, there's nobody then. All right. Any questions? No, no questions. Nobody. Thank you. Our next speaker is Paul Veigel.

Thank you, Mayor Connelly and councillors, for allowing me to speak on supporting this motion of no confidence in council . Sorry

We've just lost your audio, Mr Veigel. Let me just have a— That's better. Maybe if you just move away from the computer a bit.

Is that better? Yep Yeah. All right, we'll just start this again. Thanks, Mayor Connelly and councillors for allowing me to speak on supporting this motion of no confidence in councillor. I've lived through the ins and outs for the past 25 years with my family. I have no pleasure in having to state my view in supporting the no-confidence motion in the council , as Deputy Mayor tonight, yet here I am. The finding of misconduct determined by the Department Chief Executive Officer of Local Government is reason enough to honourably stand aside from the important position of Deputy Mayor. To my mind, this is not a smear campaign, as some people will report against the councillor. It was determined by an independent, non-political office.

It's about what's doing right and to do the right thing. Now I'm well aware that anyone can unintentionally make mistakes, a rookie error one might say. But this is not a rookie mistake. Councillor Lyons-Buckett has served in this chamber for many years, as we know, and has held the most honoured position as Mayor of Great City for two years, as well as Deputy Mayor for about three years. She is well learned, has a BA in science degree, a law degree, and no doubt trained in what's required of the public official regarding council's code of conduct. The clear and pecuniary and non-pecuniary and the closing possible conflict of interest. The council voted for a potential resigning, the result in a potential subdivision of her home property.

She was reported that had said in the Gazette she obtained a valuation of the said potential subdivision would not increase the value of her home. While I would argue that new subdivisions does increase the value of property, I'm not sure how the council's land would be excluded from the simple economic premise that there wouldn't be any capital gain. It simply doesn't pass the pub test.

Whether it increases the value of property or not, the point is the councillor should have removed herself from the vote on the potential subdivision of her own property. It was wrong for her to vote on it. Councillor Lyons-Buckett has made a mistake, but doesn't excuse it nor does it justify it. The councillor should have owned it, protected the integrity of the position of Deputy Mayor of Hawkesbury City Council by agreeing to stand aside honourably and not sully her position and still remain in the chamber as a councillor. The point here is the community must have confidence in our democratically elected officers to remove themselves from voting on matters which are perceived of or possibly favouring personal business interests and financial gain.

By standing ground and not moving aside, sullys the integrity and confidence of those elected to the chamber in Hawkesbury City Council. Why not move aside? Is it because councillor doesn't get this about protecting the integrity of the honour of the position of Deputy Mayor? Having any person being a Deputy Mayor with a finding misconduct and not standing aside doesn't get it and unfortunately is arrogant. As finally, just let me ask you, those who are voting on this motion tonight this one question. It says a hypothetical reverse role. If Councillor Lyons-Buckett were mayor and Councillor Coleman was a deputy mayor and had a finding of misconduct against him, the same misconduct finding, and was not stepping aside, how would you cast your vote for or against the motion?

My bet is you wouldn't be here voting on the motion, no confidence, because of the integrity of you and the mayor himself, and respect the position and the citizens of Hawkesbury. I respectfully ask you to support the favourable motion, no confidence.

Thanks, Mr Bagel. Happy to take questions if there are any.

No, thanks, Mr Mayor.

Okay. And our final speaker is Mr Peter Ryan. Yes.

You there, Mr Ryan?

Yep.

Sorry, you're just on mute.

Might get Christine before Peter. I

Think I'm ready to go now. Okay, thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Pitt Town Progress Association. I only received the authority today, this afternoon, as it was put to all our members, and I got a considerable response in relation to speaking against this motion. This matter has been dealt with adequately by the acting Deputy Secretary of the Local Government Planning and Policy. They are the umpires. Councillor, the true test that must be applied to this matter is: is this in the best interest of the people of the Hawkesbury? The people of the Hawkesbury and Council have enough disruption with the fires, the new general manager being appointed, and COVID.

It wasn't all that long ago that the residents stood shoulder to shoulder with Council as a team and defended our Council against amalgamation, and we were successful.

Our Council is set up in a circle where everyone has given the opportunity to speak freely . It's not like Federal Government or State Government where we have parties. That is not the way Council is set up. To be honest, when I enter the Council, I can see it is split down the middle, and that is not good enough. That is not good Council. Our Council is here to work towards delivering what is the best interest of the people of the Hawkesbury, and nothing else.

If these roles were reversed and it was another councillor, I would be still here saying the same thing because I feel this is inappropriate to be going ahead. So I request that when you are making your decision on this matter, you take into consideration that it has been dealt with adequately by the acting Deputy Secretary of the local government and planning policy, and would not be in the best interest of the people of the Hawkesbury to pursue this matter any further. I thank you for listening to my submission.

Thanks, Mr Ryan. Happy to take questions, Mr Ryan? If there

Are any, I'll take questions.

Any questions for Mr Ryan? No, thank you. Okay, Mr Ryan was our final speaker, Councillors, so I'll put forward the mayoral minute. I want to say at the start of this that We need to all be very careful in what we say. This is obviously likely to be an emotive discussion, based on some of the conversations I've had. So I just want a general reminder that everyone be careful that we're going to restrict our addresses to the subject of the debate. Nobody's got the protection of council if they're not acting in good faith, and we really need to be careful not to say anything defamatory in any of our discussions. So first of all, I wanted to put out there on the record, this is a notice of motion to test whether the council has confidence in Councillor Lyons-Buckett to continue in the role of deputy mayor.

But the way I see it, this is not about Councillor Lyons-Buckett. This is not about saying that she's a bad deputy mayor or that she's of generally poor character or anything else. This is about the standard of behaviour that we as a chamber want to set for those in leadership positions. And as such, I would request that we restrict our comments to that matter and not to the character of Councillor Lyons-Buckett or any other councillor. We're not going to be slandering anybody. This is about the behaviour, misconduct, and whether or not this chamber wants to support that finding to go ahead with no penalty and go unnoticed, or we want to bring it to public attention and make sure that it's treated appropriately.

So I thought I'd start with a quick summary of events that have led to this. So a matter came before the council with a recommendation that properties in Kirmond and Kurrajong be rezoned, including a property owned by Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Councillor Lyons-Buckett did declare an interest, but then applied an exemption that allowed her to remain in the room. And the exemption said you can vote on a planning matter if the whole LGA or most of the LGA is affected by the proposed change. Now, as we all know, councillors, there's about 22,000 properties in the LGA. In its entirety, the planning matter affected 450 of them. Of those, a far fewer number of those would actually have the ability in the proposal to be rezoned for one acre.

Lots . So again, it's not up to me to comment on whether or not somebody should have known. The OLG has found that there's no evidence of dishonesty and no evidence of motivation for personal gain. However, I think we've got to deal with the facts before us. So the Councillor Lyons-Buckett decided to stay in that vote. A motion was put forward not to proceed with the rezoning, to kill that proposal, not go ahead. That motion was defeated by one vote, with Councillor Lyons-Buckett voting against it. Councillor Lyons-Buckett then moved her own motion to have the rezoning considered once other documents were complete. Again, that went to a vote and it passed by one vote, with Councillor Lyons-Buckett voting for it.

A complaint was then made, or complaints potentially, we don't know. The OLG spent 12 months investigating and culminated in finding of misconduct. I also want to address the events that have taken place since that finding was published. So, Councillors, after I became aware of the finding, I was written to by the OLG. I took some time to think about the implications for Councillor's reputation. I then contacted Councillor Lyons-Buckett and the General Manager privately to let the Councillor know I didn't think the position was tenable, and I think that she should consider resigning from her leadership post as a show of good faith to the community. I did not get a response to that directly.

The first response I got from Councillor Lyons-Buckett was a message on her Facebook page. She went and publicised my request , and that post was very quickly followed by posts from Councillors aligned to her, some attacking me, all before I'd heard from Councillor Lyons-Buckett at all. Most significantly in the response to these matters, there's been no apology in any of the posts from Councillor Lyons-Buckett, no attempt to actually take responsibility for the behaviour as the community, and I think this is the reason my motion, I think this chamber would expect. Instead, we got misleading statements that suggested the finding was about filling out the wrong form. Councillors, as we all know, this has got nothing to do with the form.

Yes, the wrong form was filled out, but the key matter is the Councillor stayed in the chamber and voted on a matter she should not have been voting on, and as I've just demonstrated, materially affected the outcome up to the point of that meeting that meant that rezoning proposal continued.

Then we followed up by posts, you know, about, followed up by posts from Councillor Lyons-Buckett about being bullied out of the mayoral position, attacking me for raising the matter publicly, despite the fact that the LGA said it needed to be released publicly. And the only time I would just, you know, I knew, Councillors, when I raised this, that I would likely be attacked from the usual sources, called a bully and, you know, I'd be harassed online and everything that comes with raising these matters by the supporters of Councillor Lyons-Buckett. And I thought long and hard before doing it because it's not a pleasant experience. But it is what I think people would expect from me in my position, is that I wouldn't be scared out of raising important matters just because I know what the political reaction is going to be.

But I would make the point that, you know, I've been called a bully, both by Councillor Garrow and now by former Councillor Payne. I didn't say anything publicly. You know, the first thing I did was send a private email, a very polite email, but considered, so it was in writing, saying, you know, I don't think this is tenable and I think you should consider the position. And just that private correspondence, without making a single public statement, was enough for Councillor Garrow to label me a bully and many deputy mayor supporters to come out and attack me online.

So I think, you know, when it comes to who's being a bully, I think we need to look at what actually happened and look at the chain of events and make those decisions ourselves rather than just listen to the loudest voices. But the question for this chamber now, and the reason I put this before us, is are we willing to accept that a councillor we have elected to represent us, and we the council have elected, we elect the mayor and we elect the deputy mayor, and they represent the council. We've elected a councillor to a leadership position. Can they partake in this sort of behaviour, and I'm talking about both the misconduct and then the refusal to accept responsibility for the misconduct. Are we happy in these circumstances for them to remain in the leadership position?

It is appropriate, I believe, for us to test whether the Deputy Mayor continues to have the confidence of the Chamber, given what's happened. I think, as Council, we should hold our leaders to a higher standard. I don't think the behaviour is okay, and I don't think it's tenable for us to simply ignore the findings and move on, as has been suggested by some of the supporters of Councillor Lyons-Buckett. A lot has been made of the fact that the OLG report did not recommend that Councillor Lyons-Buckett step down as Deputy Mayor, and that we should not even be considering the matter. This is certainly the view of most of Councillor Lyons-Buckett's supporters on social media and a number of Labor politicians from outside the area that have taken to comment.

I would point out here, this is not a random idea of mine. There are many, many examples of leaders that have understood their position was untenable after a regulator made a finding against them, even when that finding did not specifically recommend that they step down from their leadership position. Premiers, ministers, MPs on both sides of politics have stood down following investigations by ICAC, even though very few have actually had a finding that required them to. In the previous term of Council, Councillor Lyons-Buckett and former Councillor Payne both supported a motion that the then Mayor should resign following a speeding offence. Let's draw the parallel. There was an investigation by the appropriate regulator, being the police.

They made a finding and they issued a penalty, which was the suspension of licence. They did not recommend that Council consider the matter. They did not recommend any further penalties, yet some wanted to test whether the Mayor had the support of the Chamber and whether his position was tenable given the conduct in the community. And some of those people are now here saying we shouldn't even be considering this because it wasn't specifically recommended. I'll point out that that's not the standard. It is not up to—the Office of Local Government does make an independent finding about the conduct. The remedies available to them do not include making a recommendation that someone should step down from a leadership position, or indeed just removing them from a leadership position.

They could suspend a Councillor, which nobody is suggesting that that's required. What we're suggesting is that the Councillor should not continue to represent us. in a leadership position. And I take, you know, I take the— I knew this would, like I said, I knew this would be coming. This is all political stunt, and I'm a bully, and it's a witch hunt, and everything else that comes with it. But this is required. This is our job. People in the community do not expect us to sweep this under the carpet and move on as if nothing happened. The OLG made a finding that it was required, despite the fact that it appeared there was some argument. It was required that this be released publicly to make a point that this behaviour cannot go unnoticed.

This behaviour cannot just be swept under the rug. So, councillors, with a reminder again of what I mentioned at the start of this address, that we do need to be very mindful of what we're saying and that we need to be making sure we're acting in good faith, I'll open the matter up for debate.

Councillors then.

Thank you. I'll just unmute myself. Look, I'm very sad that this has come to council, and I want to recognise that there is a strain of politics that can become very personal and very nasty and very partisan, and that the proximity of an election does bring out the worst in some people. And I, at the outset of my remarks, really want to specifically distance myself from that style of politics. I think the community become disgusted when we behave like that. My rejection of that style of vendetta-driven politics may yet rule me out of an ongoing role as a party political representative, and we'll have to see. But, and I also want to say that I like our deputy mayor, and I agree with the proposition put by many people in correspondence to me that she is generally a woman who has worked very hard for the community and usually acts with integrity.

I am a trained ethics teacher, and I really do feel the need to be balanced in my assessment of this issue. But it's also true that I have to square my assessment of the Deputy Mayor's character with the fact that the objective umpire, the Office of Local Government, not Council and not a political body, have declared her to have committed two acts of misconduct. And they've said two things. In point 15 of the reasons given, they say that the imposition of a penalty and the publication of the reasons are important to deter Council officials from engaging in that kind of conduct. These two facts don't need to be in contradiction, that the Deputy Mayor has made a mistake. I choose to take from her public output through the social media that she seems to accept that, although she's made no statement to the Chamber.

And I note that the OLG statement of reasons also makes it clear that she's made a concerted bid to ensure that this finding was not the subject of a public disclosure. I agree with the OLG that there is a significant public interest in the Chamber acknowledging the findings. And I'm also confident that if the shoe was on the other foot, and if a Liberal councillor had made a similar lapse, those who have rushed to defend the Deputy Mayor would instead be baying for blood. Anyone who denies that is being dishonest, either to themselves or to others. I feel that the Mayor is entirely appropriate in point one of his Mayoral Minute in bringing this to the attention of the Chamber. I think the public interest generally prevails here, and that was upheld by the OLG.

The second point does not, as some correspondents have claimed, seek to kick the Deputy Mayor off the Council. It invites her to consider her position as Deputy Mayor, given the finding, and I believe that it's appropriate for the Deputy Mayor to consider her position, even while we acknowledge that the motion has no binding power to either make her quit or even to resign as Deputy Mayor. As the Mayor pointed out, many people of personal integrity in public roles make mistakes and understand instinctively that the perception of trust and integrity that the public holds for high officers becomes paramount, and they have to consider their position. So, with regret, I will be supporting the Mayoral Minute.

Thanks, Councillor. Any further discussion?

If not, we'll put it to a vote.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thank you. I'm speaking against the motion. This is, frankly, an ineffectual political stunt. You have placed yourself in the position of judge and jury while ignoring the principles of natural justice, and you are wasting the ratepayer-funded resources of this Council to bring in bringing this motion. The Deputy Mayor has been denied the right to make a public statement in her own defence, as I'm sure you well know. You are retrying this matter in Council in violation of the findings of the Office of Local Government, which recommended that it not be brought to Council. The Deputy Mayor has admitted that she made a mistake. She assumed that she had a pecuniary interest and cited a clause under the code that allowed her to remain in the Chamber.

The Office of Local Government found that there was no financial aspect to the interest, that it was therefore not pecuniary, and the clause could not be applied. The Deputy Mayor did not obtain valuations, as incorrectly stated by one of the speakers. The Office of Local Government did. The Deputy Mayor filled in the wrong form, a form provided to her pre-filled by council staff, and made the declaration in good faith.

Just at that point there, Councillor Wheeler, I just want to be really careful we're not slandering anybody. So you're fully aware and you have evidence that that document was pre-filled by a member of staff, or do you want to just say allegedly or something like that? I'm happy for that to be an allegation, if you would prefer that. I think we just got to, especially with staff, we don't want to slander anyone.

The Deputy Mayor made the declaration in good faith. The Office of Local Government found no dishonesty and no motivation for personal gain. And I'll say that again: the Office of Local Government found no dishonesty and no motivation for personal gain. The finding of misconduct was mandatory. The Office of Local Government had no other choice than to find that, regardless of intent. The punishment provides the best guide to severity. Counseling, and even that was not found necessary, as the Deputy Mayor had already voluntarily undertaken the same. Nothing more. Not even a recommendation that the matter be brought to council. And yet here we are, wasting time on a political witch hunt. Your case against the Deputy Mayor is based on incorrect information and error.

You have incorrectly represented the Kurrajong-Kurmond Structure Plan as pro-development. It is not. It contains more constraints than opportunities and is consistent with the Metropolitan Rural Lands Plan, which limits development. To represent it as pro-development is simply wrong, or in my opinion, indicates that several of you don't understand what you've been voting on. It's our responsibility as councillors to correctly inform the community of the difference between a strategic land use planning document and a proposal for subdivision. Surely after two terms on council, you understand the difference. How is it that a member of the public, a member of the Liberal Party, believes that the matter involved a subdivision?

Everyone in this chamber and in the community should be clear on this point. The basis of the Office of Local Government's findings is that the Deputy Mayor was neither dishonest nor motivated by personal gain. The Office of Local Government is the authority in this case. They found no further action was required. The Deputy Mayor is motivated by service to this community. Due process has been followed. The Office of Local Government evaluated the complaint and made its finding. A lot has been said about the community's expectation of this council. They're sick of the fighting, political division and bullying they witness. The Deputy Mayor began this term of council as a collaborative leader.

Informal meetings with the full council, all councillors encouraged to participate in all events and committees, shared community engagements, a spirit of inclusion and hope permeated this chamber and the community. It's my opinion that the ambition of some councillors has been given greater priority than the wellbeing of this community. We have residents who have been disaster affected for more than 18 months. We have flood survivors living in caravans, volunteers with PTSD, food services still providing food hampers, people with compulsory land acquisitions hanging over their heads, and this is what you want to spend the last two months of our term on. I have full confidence in the Deputy Mayor.

She's decent, hardworking and honest. She puts the community first. By putting forward this mayoral minute, you have not put the community first. You have not shown leadership, and you have lost my confidence.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler.

Councillor Rasmussen. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

And what I want to do is start off with —

Questions, if I may, of you. If you're happy to take some questions, Mr Mayor, on the subject.

Sure.

Thank you. Okay. Now, do you accept that Councillor Lyons-Buckett made an honest mistake in this case?

That is what the Office of Local Government has found, yes. That she's — the Office of Local Government did not find it was an honest mistake. The Office of Local Government found that she's engaged in misconduct, but did not find evidence of dishonesty. Yeah.

So you accept that there was an honest mistake made here?

I'm just — I'm not going to restate it for you. I accept there's misconduct on the part of the Deputy Mayor, and I accept the OLG's finding that they did not find sufficient evidence of dishonesty. Okay.

You also accepted the Acting Deputy Sec did not say, or did not find, a lack of confidence in Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

So confidence is a term that relates to the body that elects you, not to the Office of Local Government. It's widely accepted in all Western democracies that you need to have the confidence of the body that elects you. But did the

Acting Deputy Secretary make any comments about a lack of confidence, or councillors should have a lack of confidence in Councillor Lyons-Buckett? Was there any hint of that in the report? I'm

Not sure if you're grasping the concept of confidence. So confidence comes from the body that elects you to a position. So the Office of Local Government can't know whether she has the confidence of this chamber. That's the purpose of the motion. Yeah

I think I — anyway, so you're not going to go down that path. I can see that you've got a path worked out, and that's — you're entitled to that. Do you understand the concept of double jeopardy?

Sorry?

Do you understand the concept of double jeopardy?

Sure.

Would you like to explain it to the rest of us? Look

When I said you had questions, when you asked questions, said you had questions, Councillor Rasmussen, I thought you had questions. If you want to have a debate— No, no, I'm

Asking questions. That was

A question. Councillor Rasmussen, I'm speaking. The format for debate is set out in the code of meeting practice, so you've got five minutes of debate. You're not going to get around that by asking lots of leading questions. So you've got five minutes

I'm not trying to lead you. I'm simply asking. You wanted to stick to the facts, and I'm simply asking you to stick to the facts. So what I'm asking you is to bring out the basis of this, that's all. Nothing more, nothing less. You also— okay, let me go another way. Do you accept that the acting deputy secretary also said in his report, or in his reasons, that this matter should not be brought back to council?

Just before I answer that, I'll just ask that the timer be started, because it's not fair for other councillors that Councillor Rasmussen should be trying to extract more time in debate. So once that timer's started, I will

Well, you're misconstruing— Well, you're not asking

So the code of meeting practice allows you to ask questions primarily of staff to get information about a matter. If what you're trying to do is engage me in a debate, which is fine, I'm happy to, but we're not going to have the whole thing derailed by that. So if you want to repeat that question, I'll answer it for you.

I will repeat the question. Do you accept that the acting deputy secretary, it's found in his report and his reasons for stating his findings was that this matter not be brought back to council?

So the report said that there was no requirement for it to be brought back to council. That's correct. Not that it should, but that it did not require to be.

And normally, and I'm asking you, normally do we accept the findings and the directions— of a person in that sort of position in office of local government? Do we normally accept their statement?

Yes, and I don't see this motion as any contradiction to that. I'm not bringing them back to be reported to council. I'm seeking to test whether or not the Deputy Mayor has the confidence of this chamber in light of their independent finding.

Mr Mayor, can I ask you this question? You've obviously made up your mind by the sound of it that Councillor Lyons-Buckett needs to go, all right? So why don't you just come out and be honest and say that?

Now,

I know that some councillors tried to do that last time . Councillor Lyons-Buckett was elected Deputy Mayor. It was six-all, and we know how that went. So maybe this is the second attempt to have another crack at this hard-working , honest, straightforward, really well-liked, and maybe that's the problem, Mr Mayor, really, really well-liked and supported in the community. But look, I get that you're right.

I get that you're right, Mr Mayor. Did you want me to answer the question? You did pose a question, so I'll answer it. The question, why didn't I just come out and say it? As I said at the beginning, Councillor Rasmussen, I did, and not publicly. I said to Councillor Lyons-Buckett privately, as I thought was the correct convention, look, I'm the Mayor, you're the Deputy Mayor. I'm asking you that I think you should consider your position. Now, I'm not making any comment on anybody's integrity, but for most people serving as a deputy to somebody, if that person told you that you'd lost their confidence and perhaps you should consider your position, a lot of people with integrity might.

Okay, one final question, Mr Mayor. Do you accept that by doing what you've done, you've actually divided the community out there at a time when we all should be working together? There's a lot to do out there, and for the last six months.. . Since we got rid of the general manager, virtually nothing. Everything stood still. In fact, the clock's gone backwards. But do you accept that you've divided the community out there now? Are you proud of that?

No, not at all. I don't accept that. And I really would reject that premise that was raised by a previous speaker that if there's things going on in the community, that it's absolutely fine. Everyone's got a free-for-all and you sweep any misconduct under the rug because you've got other things to talk about. I think that's a purely ridiculous notion, that people can do whatever they want as long as there's a natural disaster on. The community would expect that we can do more than one thing at once. This motion's going to take us an hour or two of this meeting, and then we'll move on. But the idea that you can't discuss anything, any serious matters relating to misconduct of councillors because there's been a natural disaster, I don't think that passes the pub test at all, Councillor Rasmussen.

Okay, I hear what you say, but don't you think that we should be spending most of our time, or if not all of our time, making sure our community has roads, has bridges, is able to go about their day-to-day business? Isn't that what we get paid for? Isn't that the remit of council, to make sure that the Hawkesbury is a better place to live and work and play in? That's the whole thing. That's the reason I joined. I didn't join for a political reason, as you might have, and clearly you did.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm finished with my questions. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor Rasmussen. I'll take that last one as rhetorical since she kept talking. Was there any further speakers before we put the motion? Councillor Kotlash. Oh, sorry, you do have your hand up there. I didn't see that.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Can you hear me properly?

Yes.

This is one of those situations that I wish I could avoid, but unfortunately I can't, as it's my duty as an elected member of this council to consider any matter before it. The Deputy Mayor, Mary Lyons-Buckett, has been found guilty of misconduct. While the disciplinary action brought against Councillor Lyons-Buckett by the Office of Local Government was the most lenient available, it still remains a very serious charge. Just to get a bit of perspective, of the approximately 1,300 councillors in New South Wales, only a few of that are found guilty of this type of misconduct each year. The fact that the Office of Local Government wanted this charge to be made publicly available also emphasises the seriousness of this misconduct.

When I first read the Statement of Reasons for taking disciplinary action issued about these charges, I was prepared to let it stand at that. I was satisfied, and I am still satisfied, that the proper process had run its course and that Councillor Lyons-Buckett had been found guilty of misconduct and that the Office of Local Government had decided on the appropriate disciplinary action. However, since this unfortunate situation came to light, I have been appalled by the seemingly uncontrite attitude of the Deputy Mayor. Instead of posting a short dignified message on her Deputy Mayor's Facebook page about what had occurred, with a full disclosure of the statement, the Deputy Mayor saw fit to selectively quote portions of the judgment, seemingly deliberately downplaying her misconduct as nothing more than filling out the wrong form.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett also saw fit to escalate the situation by publicly sharing the content of a private email. From the mayor and lashing out at fellow councillors. Then in a move that can only serve to divide the community and this chamber, the Deputy Mayor publicly went into full attack victim mode. On her official council Facebook page, the Deputy Mayor made the outrageous claim that she was, and I quote, bullied out of the mayoral position, end of quote. Let's be clear: she was not bullied out of the mayoral position. She simply failed to get enough votes for a second term. This happened twice, the same democratic process that saw her become mayor in 2016. Does it really have to be explained that not liking the outcome of a by-election does not make the election illegitimate or undemocratic?

Nevertheless. But what has disturbed me the most is that the Deputy Mayor felt it appropriate to capitalise on the actual bullying of a mayor in another council area that had very serious consequences. She explains how his fellow councillors were incapable of engaging in mature debate and hounded him.

She went on to say things like, It's shameful behaviour, unfit for anybody in public office, and those who engage in it should be ashamed. The shame, I think, in this case, is in belittling someone else's misfortune by falsely implying a parallel to her situation, in an apparent attempt to gain sympathy and stir up anger in the community. This less than honest paralleling of two completely different set of circumstances is clearly unworthy. is a clearly unworthy attempt to accuse fellow councillors by implication, while avoiding making any direct accusations . If the Deputy Mayor sincerely thinks she is being bullied, I invite her to use the appropriate channels to make a complaint and address the situation, as was done to address what is now officially her misconduct.

In fact, I am more than willing to help her with the paperwork. To use someone else's misfortune in such a politically shameless way is unconscionable. I strongly believe that

Part of the role of our community leaders is to unite us and to reassure us, to instil confidence in the process of government by example, if nothing else.

The online behaviour that we have witnessed in the last few days is exactly the opposite of that. It is because of Councillor Lyons-Buckett's conduct following the judgement by the Office of Local Government that I now say that, in all honesty

I have no longer any confidence in the Deputy Mayor.

Thank you. Councillor Kotlash. Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. This mayoral minute is vitally important, but let's be clear. This mayoral minute is not about Councillor Lyons-Buckett's role as a councillor. The matter at the heart of this mayoral minute is whether Councillor Lyons-Buckett has the confidence of this council to continue in the prestigious and privileged role of Deputy Mayor, an honourable title bestowed upon so very few in our community, because our community expects only those with the highest of standards to hold it. The facts in this case are clear. Councillor Lyons-Buckett now has a finding of misconduct next to her name. So the question therefore becomes, does someone with a finding of misconduct, after a 12-month investigation by the Office of Local Government, deserve that additional title of Deputy Mayor?

To me, the answer is no. This finding of misconduct under section 440F1B of the Local Government Act appears to be one of only 18 orders published on the website of the OLG in the last decade. This means that out of all of the thousands of individuals who have been a councillor in all of the councils in all of New South Wales, there have only been 18 councillors who have made this exclusive club. That is extraordinary. In this case, the OLG not only found misconduct, but it determined that the misconduct required publishing on its website in perpetuity for the express reasons of, and I quote, that the matter is sufficiently serious as to warrant counselling and the publication of a statement of reasons.

The imposition of a penalty and publication of the reasons for this is important to deter council officials from engaging in the conduct detailed in the departmental report. This means that the OLG found the matter serious enough to use it as an example to other councillors of what not to do. Further, in point 13, it makes it clear that Councillor Lyons-Buckett submitted documentation dated the 27th of April 2021, which appears to have sought to keep the findings from the public. The OLG stated, and again I quote, they hold the view that the public interest in publication outweighs the private interest of the councillor in not having the matter made public. So for those defending this matter, is this the appropriate time to use your hashtag transparency social media tag?

Where would the hashtag transparency have been in keeping this finding from the public? It's a very good question, isn't it? Further, point 14 then states that I am satisfied that Councillor Lyons-Buckett engaged in misconduct, and point 20 states that this has the potential to undermine community confidence in the probity of council decision-making. All of these remarks are of the utmost importance. In fact, it is in this very chamber that for years, various people have read out findings from other independent bodies. Relating to other councillors, as if it is some sort of victory. The hypocrisy displayed in regards to those same people wanting to turn a blind eye to this circumstance is outrageous.

And speaking of hypocrisy, the amount of it that I have seen online in relation to this issue is breathtaking. The Deputy Mayor calls the request from the Mayor to her to resign as a bullying and harassment campaign. Yet on her own page and on others about this very issue, the Deputy Mayor herself openly likes, actually physically likes, comments on her page such as, Me thinks the Libs are the same wherever they practice their policies, just slandering bullies out about money in corrupt places. Liked. Another , I love your work, Mary. Yes, lock the homophobes. Goodness me. Another, Don't let the incompetent little bastards get you down. Gosh. And as I said, these are all liked personally by her or by the page, Deputy Mayor of Hawkesbury City.

What kind of behaviour is that? Seriously . And while we are talking about the Deputy Mayor of Hawkesbury City page, I would just like to ask the General Manager a question, if that is okay please. Do any council staff members have admin rights to the Deputy Mayor of Hawkesbury Facebook page?

Further to Manager of Public Communications.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. No, they do not . Thank you very much for putting that on the public record. And I believe that this should be rectified immediately. The title of Deputy Mayor represents council as an entity, as an organisation. It speaks for it. I know that for a fact there is one on mine. There is one on the Mayor's, and there is an admin on other councillor pages. So why not the Deputy Mayor's page? Because, you know, hashtag transparency and all. This must be fixed as a matter of importance. A Deputy Mayor with a finding of misconduct should not— Be operating a page on behalf of our organisation autonomously, especially taking into account its recent published posts and degrading comments that I have mentioned above.

Lastly, I believe it is vital to point out that this Mayoral Minute tonight is not political. Although it has been noted who the individuals are who have defended this conduct and who would probably have had the reverse reaction had the exact finding been made about a Liberal, let's just be frank, this Mayoral Minute is in fact about the integrity of the office of Deputy Mayor, no matter who is in the position. And I almost guarantee you, rather than enter the political debate, probably 98% of Hawkesbury residents only want to see their councillors work to fix the pothole in their street, lower their rates and pick up their garbage, unconsciously trusting that those in community leadership positions are there for the right reasons and do the right thing.

As a matter of course, they expect that as a basic quality. Therefore, if the Deputy Mayor has been found to have engaged in misconduct, they would absolutely expect the Mayor to do something about it. They would also expect her to step down. They do not care about the personalities; they care about the position. In conclusion, I commend the Mayor for taking a stand on this matter and presenting the Mayoral Minute to this chamber tonight, to test whether Councillor Lyons-Buckett has the confidence of her fellow councillors to stay in the Deputy Mayor position. I also commend the Mayor on his professionalism, decorum and attitude in dealing with this matter. Should the Mayoral Minute pass tonight, then the Mayor has the answer that he needs moving forward, and so does the community, the ratepayers of the Hawkesbury.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thanks, Councillor Richards. Councillor Reynolds.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. It was a bit of a long walk down a cold, windy beach to a cafe that wasn't open.

I'm speaking against the Mayoral Minute.

I mean, this is obviously political. You guys did not want Mary to become Deputy Mayor at the election held in September. You didn't want her to become Mayor in 2016, and so this is just another extension of that. But getting back to the speakers, some of the things said by the speakers I found really interesting.

Mr Pilgrim said, and he pointed out quite rightly, for example, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Now, in this case, I think it's worth pointing out that the

Decision whether to declare a pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest is not objective, it's subjective.

It's left up to the councillor to decide. Now, the Deputy Mayor decided to declare a pecuniary interest, which is, what would you say, much heavier than a non-pecuniary interest, but use a clause in the code that allows you to stay in with a pecuniary interest where the item being discussed... covers a large part of the LGA. And in the deputy mayor's opinion at that time, she believed that was the case with this study area, because a study area like this and the amount of work that went into it has never been done before. So this was new ground.

Council Reynolds, just so we're not putting incorrect information to May the Waters further, that the exemption applies where the planning matter refers to the whole LGA or almost the whole LGA, not a large planning area.

Well, I was, as the one that says major part. Okay. Now, in her mind , in her mind, she was doing the right thing. Now , the investigator , I'll call him the judge because his proper title is just too big, found that that was not the case, that the deputy mayor should have declared a non-pecuniary interest and left the meeting. That is the crux of the matter. It's this decision , this

Difference of opinion, this

Tiny little difference of opinion

Is why you want her to step down.

That's it. It's a subjective opinion. Now , the judge himself

Said there was no evidence of dishonesty, none.

There was no motivation for personal gain, none.

He stated there'll be no reprimand. There'll be no suspension. And there won't be removal of any fee. And because the Deputy Mayor had already done the counselling course of her own volition, in relation to an issue involving another councillor, she wanted to know what the course was about, even that isn't required. The only finding the judge could make was one of misconduct. He couldn't find anything else for simply making a subjective decision on whether or not it was a pecuniary interest and could be dealt with under the clause, or whether it was a non-pecuniary interest. And then, in the end, it turned out it was a non-pecuniary interest, which means that she stood not to gain anything financially.

So, you know, as far as not accepting, you know, the findings, she admitted she was wrong all over social media. I don't know where you people are looking, because it's there. She says, I admit I was wrong. And here you are saying she has not accepted the decision. She has accepted the decision. And the decision was no further action to be taken. The judge said this should not come before council, not like the Mayor said a little while ago where he said it should not be brought to council. He said it should not come before council. So what we are doing here is in contravention of the finding of the judge.

You need to think about that, because that's actually bringing council into disrepute.

Thank you. I'll just clarify for anybody listening that no judge ever said that. I think that's quite misleading.

Well, you should actually, Mr Mayor, you should read that because it's in his thing. He says this matter should not come

Before Council. So there was a statement from the acting Deputy Secretary of Local Government Planning Policy. Read it out.

We're not going to tell the community that a judge made that statement because that is misleading, Councillor Reynolds.

As I said before, okay, you can say the acting deputy secretary

That's all I was, Councillor Reynolds, that's all I was clarifying, was that it was not a judge, it was the acting Deputy Secretary.

If you were listening to me earlier on, I said I'm going to use the word judge instead of acting Deputy Secretary. And I referenced that when I said

It. Yeah, I referenced that when I said it. I just wanted to make very clear for anybody listening that no judge ever said that because your final statement was the judge said this . The

Acting —

So your time has expired. Did you want to ask a question or was there

Something else? Very convenient, isn't it? Well anyway, I, you know, you don't like the judge's decision. It isn't what you wanted. Okay, well, you're going to have yourself lynching. You don't have a lynching

Please, and if you can stop talking please because no judge made a decision. That's quite clear, and that is misleading. You just want a lynching. That's what you want. It's disgrace. Thank you, Councillor Reynolds.

Councillor Calvert.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

And I wanted to start by saying that over the last few days, I've received a number of emails about this matter, and many of the emails expressed outrage at this mayoral minute. But none of those emails actually asked me any questions. None of them asked me to explain what was going on, or for me to give my opinion on what was going on. All that was happening in those emails was an attempt to bully me out of supporting the mayoral minute. Now those who have paid attention to history would know that many have tried to bully me in the past, and all that happens is that I just dig my heels in even deeper. And I think that's what's happening here today. So all the emails I received were part of an orchestrated effort to put pressure on me to vote in support of the Deputy Mayor.

So the mayoral minute was being interpreted by these people as a popularity test for the Deputy Mayor. But I should also point out that every one of the emails that I received has misunderstood what's actually going on here tonight. This makes me think that not only was it orchestrated to send me the emails, but the contents of the emails were also done to some kind of prescription as well. All the emails I received requested that Council should not dismiss the Deputy Mayor or remove her from office. The mayoral minute does not mention dismissing the Deputy Mayor. The mayoral minute talks about having no confidence in the Deputy Mayor, which is a very different thing. But it seems that most of the emails are ignoring that fact.

Perhaps they're basing their opinion on information that has been given to them, information that is obviously incorrect. Perhaps this has even been done deliberately. Now most of the emails also insist that Council uphold the findings of the Office of Local Government on this matter. The mayoral minute does not mention the Office of Local Government either. And you would think that if someone was going to orchestrate an email campaign, that they would at least get their facts right. One might come to the conclusion that the campaign deliberately distorted the facts so that people could be outraged more easily. The mayoral minute is not about the findings of the Office of Local Government. These findings are not disputed.

The Office of Local Government has declared that the Deputy Mayor is guilty of misconduct and that the penalty should be that she is counsel on the matter and that the findings be made public on the OLG website as a deterrent to other councillors who may be considering breaching these rules

Most of the emails wrongly stated that the Office of Local Government decided that no action should be taken. This is simply not true. So the mayoral minute is not about dismissing the Deputy Mayor, and it's not about ignoring the Office of Local Government findings. Then what is it about? In my opinion, it's about the Deputy Mayor's response to the findings of the Office of Local Government and her deliberate attempt to distort the facts and whip up public outrage on this matter. It is about the Deputy Mayor claiming that she was bullied out of the mayor's job in 2018 and that this is just the continuation of that bullying. I have not witnessed any bullying against the Deputy Mayor. Quite the contrary, actually.

The mayoral election was fair, open and transparent. It's also about the Deputy Mayor claiming to be a victim in this matter. The Office of Local Government did not find that she was a victim. It found that she was guilty of misconduct. It's about the Deputy Mayor claiming that the mayor and councillor were trying to dismiss her. When that was never on the table, she put it there. The deputy mayor went on to Facebook to claim that she'd been unfairly treated and that she was being pressured to resign. Nobody else went public about this matter, and if she had just accepted the OLG findings and kept quiet about it, it would probably all just go away. It's about the Deputy Mayor starting a campaign for her own political self-promotion and using the Office of Local Government matter as a tool to whip up public outrage.

The Office of Local Government should be treated with respect, and its findings are beyond reproach. But by embarking on this political campaign, the Deputy Mayor is putting into question the integrity of the Office of Local Government. I believe that the Office of Local Government may not be pleased that it is being used in this way and that its integrity is being questioned. The Deputy Mayor has said the Office of Local Government accepted her explanation and that no further action is required, when actually the Office of Local Government received her explanation and still found her guilty and imposed a penalty upon her, and that no further penalties were required. So the question being discussed here tonight is not what happened before or during— Mr Mayor

Does the timer only work for the speakers who are speaking for the motion?

Was the timer on start? Yes, it was. Time has expired.

Only

Had one sentence to go Finish your sentence.

So the question being discussed here tonight is not what happened before or during the Office of Local Government findings, but what happened afterwards and whether the Deputy Mayor has used this whole situation to raise her own political profile and to convert the issue into a popularity contest about her. And that is why I have no confidence in the Deputy Mayor. Thank you.

Any further speakers? I think almost everyone's spoken.

If not, I'll go to right of reply. Look, there's a lot that could be said, but I think I wanted to just pick up two points that have been made that I think need to be corrected. First, there was a claim that the Deputy Mayor had been denied the right to make a statement. And as I stated at the beginning of this, the Deputy Mayor started this with a public statement. I went privately to the Deputy Mayor and suggested privately that she should consider her position. Didn't hear back from her until somebody alerted me to the fact that she'd made a public statement about my private correspondence without even responding to me at that stage. And by the time I'd seen that post, there was other posts from other councillors calling me a bully and attacking me for private correspondence to the Deputy Mayor.

I then had, a couple of days later, I issued a statement to clarify my position, given the online outrage that had been whipped up. And at that point, I had an email from the Deputy Mayor saying to me that I'd started a trial by social media, despite the fact that she had posted, she posted I think in total four posts and many, you know, over 50 comments on social media about this herself. And I'd made one public statement to clarify my position following the attacks from her and her supporters. So I think the idea that she's been denied the right to make a statement is a bit ridiculous. She's clearly had quite a few statements and has every chance to make a public statement. In relation to this being inappropriate and that there was a statement both that the OLG is the authority and that it's inappropriate for us to sit in judgment.

The OLG is the authority on whether or not the councillor should receive a formal reprimand, a formal suspension or disqualification. I don't believe, I actually firmly believe in a democracy, it's up to the community, first and foremost, to decide the standard it wants its elected officials, and that might not be the same across New South Wales anyway. But it's certainly for somebody in a leadership position. It's absolutely up to the body that elects that leadership position to make sure that they have the confidence of that person, of that body. It is actually, the whole thing strikes me as a bit odd. I mean, I can't imagine myself ever being in a position where the person I was the deputy to said that I think that I should consider my position, and then the council that elected me says I should consider my position, and I'm actively fighting against it.

I mean, I just think, doesn't a person just realise if you don't have the confidence, you just don't have the confidence, and that's the body you're representing, and whether you like it or not, whether you agree or not, it's not really the point. It's just about having integrity and realising that you can only serve in any political power and democracy only comes from having the confidence of the people who elect you. That's where political power comes from. It's not self-appointed. It's not about how great of a person you are or how self-righteous or how much you think of yourself. It's about the fact that you're elected by a body, and you need to have always maintain the confidence of that body.

And so this, I did not invent the concept of a motion of no confidence. It's commonly used in every Western democracy around the world at every level, because it's the right of any chamber, of any body that elects leaders to test whether those leaders still have their confidence at any time they choose. And it's certainly, I certainly don't think it's inappropriate, and it's inappropriate for us to test that or it's inappropriate for us to go back to democracy. I don't think that's inappropriate at all. I also don't think that anyone pointed out it was inappropriate when Councillor Lyons-Buckett and former Councillor Payne and Councillor Rasmussen at times supported those motions against Liberal mayors.

Successive Liberal mayors have had motions of no confidence or motions to resign, and no point did anyone say, Oh, that's inappropriate. The OLG didn't say they should resign. I don't remember you saying that, Councillor Rasmussen, for example. So what is concerning me, and I think it was Councillor Rasmussen that pointed it out, I have to agree with him, this tribalism. This division that exists in our political discourse in our community is worrying. This report reads, and it demonstrates conduct that I don't think passes a pub test. I don't think anybody in our community would think that that's fine, swept under the rug. And yet, because there is this tribalism and this requirement for everyone to stay unified to their team, we've actually got people sitting here defending it and saying that it's inappropriate for us to even talk about it.

And I think that is a real issue going forward for both sides of politics. I'm certainly not suggesting that one side is worse than the other. There's just this real tribalism. And I think going forward, what democracy needs is people to read and form their own view. And it shouldn't all be about personality. It should be about substance, and it should be about if this conduct has happened, is that conduct okay? And we should be forming a view, and that's why I put this motion, because I've formed the view that it's not okay.

I could go on, but I probably shouldn't, so I'll leave it there, and we'll put the motion.

All those in favour—oh , can we get that taken down just for a moment, because I actually can't see the faces when that's up. So all those in favour of the Mayoral Minute, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Tree, Councillor Zamprogno. Against :

Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ross, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen. We declare it carried , six votes.

Councillor, actually, we might, councillors, given the fact that that motion of no confidence has just passed the chamber, we might actually have an adjournment for 10 minutes so that that message can be conveyed to the Deputy Mayor and she can make a decision about what she wants to do. So we'll adjourn for 10 minutes and reconvene at 10 past 8.

You're on. We'll resume the meeting. The next item subject to public address is item 122, the town public domain works. We have one speaker, Mr. Peter Ryan.

Good evening. Just one small item, if I could. It's a clarification in relation to an item I spoke on on the 30th of March 2021. I've sought further clarification on this, where the sum of $36 million is what is required in today's dollars for the state government to deliver the works that were required under the 2008 planning agreement. Thank you. Thank you. I would like to speak in favour of this item, and also I'd like to thank the council staff for their assistance on this matter. This will deliver more than just infrastructure, small infrastructure for our town, because our residents have had a real voice in what is required. They're only small items, but it's giving our town pride in what is delivered, and we are building a stronger town, and thank you to you people for assisting us with this.

One item that I have really a keen on is a walkway between the end of Johnson Street to Boodles Lane. We call it Tea Tree Lane. That was its name in the earlier days . That end of Pitt Town doesn't have a lot of footpaths. This will give people an opportunity to walk through this area, but also we're intending to start a bush care program there, which will help to regenerate that area. But in doing that, that will set us in good stead when areas like the riparian zone along the river, which will travel for a number of kilometre, maybe more , to be able to have community involvement to care for that area. So I genuinely like to thank Council, I thank the staff, and would you please support this as it is a great way of Council engaging with the people to deliver them what they want for their town.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr Ryan. Are you happy to take questions, Mr Barone? Not a problem. Are there any questions for Mr Ryan? No

Thank you. Thank you. Somebody want to move something here? These recommendations, Councillors Zamprogno, seconded Councillor Richards

I thought we were doing blue hands, Mr Mayor.

Oh, sorry. Yeah, that's a good point . Councillor Wheeler for discussion then

Sorry, I had my hand up to move the motion, actually, Mr Mayor. Would that’s fine, you pick your friends, that’s okay. Point

Of order, Mr Mayor. So who’s been accepted as the mover? I called out moved, Councillors Zamprogno. If you both want to move the same thing and it’s not about you personally, both Councillors, it probably shouldn’t matter. But does anyone wish to discuss the matter

I’m not precious about it, and I’ll yield to Councillor Wheeler for remarks first.

Okay. Councillor Wheeler. So I want to thank Mr Ryan in particular and the Pitt Town Progress Association for their continued and polite and very, very well-engaged advocacy for Pitt Town. This is a community that has had its hopes quashed a number of times, and I think we see that again with the state budget, which has— None of the promised Pitt Town projects written in it. I hope that that funding is lost somewhere in the detail of that document, but the things that have been promised around the infrastructure for Pitt Town aren't in the document that I can find, and I think that's a real shame. The bushcare project, I think, is an excellent idea. I met with the Pitt Town Progress Association to look at that riparian zone that runs along the edge of the river.

It's currently full of, largely full of weeds, but does present a really nice opportunity to engage with the community to turn what is currently a disused weedy strip into something that is really picturesque and provides lots of lovely green space for, and perhaps walking areas for, the community, but also gets rid of quite a fantastic array of problem weeds, including balloon vine and castor oil plant and all the usual suspects right on the edge of the Hawkesbury River. And if they can get started in a bushcare group on a smaller, more confined area in Bootles Lane and then move towards that much larger space, that would be a really good outcome for that strip that does look like it will provide some really useful space down the track.

One of the things that I think is interesting in this program of works that's listed, and something that Council needs to take into consideration going forward, is the inclusion of As, I guess, as afterthoughts to a degree of shading of public places. So there are two items in here that call for shade covers over Bonnevista Park, and—sorry, there's three. There's over seats in Bonnevista Park, there's a shade sail in the park, and then there's another shade sail over public equipment in Wellesley Street Park. We are one of the hottest LGAs in metropolitan Sydney. All of our parks should have shade sails over them, and these shouldn't be afterthoughts that we try and cobble together leftover money to deliver.

When we design our parks, we have to be designing shade, and we really need to start targeting a program of retrofitting shade sails onto all of our parks as well. We owe it to our kids to make sure that their play spaces are firstly usable, but secondly safe, and they are not safe if they're too hot or they're too sunny for kids to play in during the times when kids are out playing, which is usually when the sun is shining. So I think there's a lesson in here that what the community wants is shade sails and shading over their parks. And it's also really nice to see in an area where it's predominantly mums and dads and kids, and people who are wanting to engage, older people who've moved to Pitt Town wanting to engage in active transport, that we're actually putting some footpaths in.

This is a relatively flat area. It's very good for walking, but people don't want to walk on the road, and that's a lesson for us as well in a council that has neglected footpaths over the years. So I really want to thank Pitt Town for being engaged in this process. I hope that this outcome is satisfactory and that it does at least Allow the residents of Pitt Town to feel that engagement with Council is both useful, but also gets them useful outcomes down the track. And I hope that the rest of the LGA can adopt the Pitt Town model of positive engagement, positive and organised community engagement with Council in order to further the needs of their individual communities. In this instance, I think it is working well.

Thank you. Any further speakers on the motion?

No. All right. I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Ross, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Tree, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards , Councillor Wheeler . Councillor Gary, are you in favour? Frozen.

Councillor Ross in favour, and Councillor Gary absent for the vote. Declare it carried.

Yep.

Director of Support Services can jump in if I miss anyone's name, yeah. Thank you. Next item

Apologies, sorry, Mr Mayor, I just got thrown off the internet. Okay,

Thank you. Next item subject to public address is item 124. We have five speakers. First speaker on the matter is Rob—

Sorry, I need to declare. Ah,

Thank you. There's a few. Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll be declaring a significant non-pecuniary interest. I'll be leaving the room, and that is based on the fact that I was present at the announcement of the extra funding.

Thank you. Councillor Isbucket.

I have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest. I was a member of the community stakeholder reference group. The reason for no further action is that there were no decision makers or involvement in anything except for the initial meetings, consultation sessions with Transport for New South Wales.

Thank you. And Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mine is similar to that. I was a member of the— I was council member on the

Working party. So just state the type of interest, if it's non-pecuniary. Oh, I'm

Sorry. Okay. It's less than significant non-pecuniary interest. Yeah And that arises because I was a member of the working workshop that was conducted into looking at the various options that might be desirable by the community. And I don't think— certainly no decisions made, no pecuniary interest or otherwise, and therefore it's, in my view, it's less than significant non-pecuniary interest.

Thank you. Right, so our first speaker is Rob Buchanan.

Sorry, Mr Mayor, I also need to make a declaration. I forgot at the beginning of the meeting, my apologies. I too have a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 124 . I was also a member of the community stakeholder reference group as a representative, as the chairman of Council's Heritage Advisory Committee. The reason for no further action is that the group didn't have any decision-making capacity

Any further declarations? No. So in that case, the first speaker is Mr Rob Buchanan. Mr Buchanan, when you're ready.

Just on mute at the moment.

Yep. Is that better? That's it. Super. Is there anyone left apart from you and I? I'm Rob Buchanan. I am a Richmond Lowlands resident , and for the purposes of this meeting, I am for the motion. However, my argument is against the green route. This is a story about community interest versus private developer interest. Green, the preference of the developers; purple, the preference of

The community.

This is a story of community interest in the Hawkesbury being subverted yet again to the benefit of developers and developer profits. On any measure, the process we've seen so far is fundamentally flawed. You will have heard, or will hear tonight. Details of the glaring failure of the benefit-to-cost analysis of the proposed route for this project. You will also hear of the failure to equitably measure the routes against each other. You will hear of the irreversible damage this flawed process and project will have on thousands of people in this community, on our local economy, and on our town's future. Let's be very clear here. The preferred option does not meet the stated objectives of this project.

It is not a traffic solution. It is not a flood solution. To make it simple, we're here tonight to discuss the motion that Council supports the Purple Route, a bypass that goes past the new Redbank development. With his petition, Mr Claxton has turned this into a competition between the Green and Purple routes, when in truth the decision should be made in the best interest of the community, having been through legislated due process to get there.

We'll hear from Michael Morris, who will talk about the flawed benefit-to-cost analysis and other interference in the route selection. One fundamental aspect which bears further scrutiny is the project budget . The budget was $250 million. It is now $500 million. What this means is that the assessment was done on an entirely different project. The one we're now looking at is twice as expensive. Yet no one has bothered to reconsider the analysis in light of the additional flexibility that brings with it. In addition, Transport's original preferred option was the yellow route, widening the existing road corridor through North Richmond. Why the yellow route, Transport's first option, was rejected is a question we should all be asking.

My third point here tonight is that neither the social or commercial costs to the community has been taken into account in selection of the green route. I'm particularly worried that while heritage, flora and fauna concerns were cited as reasons for various other routes being rejected, the cultural and economic significance of the lowlands and its iconic polo fields was not. As you all know, the Hawkesbury and Richmond is known as the heart of the equestrian sport in Australia. It accommodates racing, polo, eventing, show jumping, dressage, pony club and a host of other equestrian activities. Just four years ago, we hosted the Polo World Cup a few hundred metres from the proposed bridge. Richmond and the surrounding areas and their association with horses is known around the world.

The lowlands has played host to thousands of horse events over the years, all of which are open to the broader community. Route green will destroy that. The proposed route cuts through the heart of this community, which chooses to base itself here as a safe and healthy environment to breed, train and compete horses in racing, polo and show jumping. Traffic , large infrastructure, noise and pollution are not conducive to any of these activities. The Equine Industry in the Hawkesbury and the Lowlands alone employs thousands of people and makes a significant contribution to the local Richmond and New South Wales economy. The proposed route, should it proceed, will destroy this and affect the whole service community in Richmond, including our cafes, our pubs, our hotels, the shops, and the whole high street.

We , and you as councillors, representatives of this community, have a serious obligation to ensure the interests of the community are protected and upheld. This process must be fair, it must be transparent,

And it must be unquestionable. So your time has expired, so if you want to wrap up with the final comment or two. Sorry,

I thought I had 30 seconds to go. What we have today fails on every count.

Sorry, I thought I've still got 25 seconds to go, but over to you, Mayor.

Thank you. Happy to take questions if councillors have questions. No. No, okay. Our next speaker then is Marcus Claxton.

Good evening, Mayor and councillors. Thanks for the opportunity. My name is Marcus Claxton. I've been a resident of the Hawkesbury for the past 27 years, having lived in Oakville, Richmond, Wilberforce and currently Pitt Town. We also own a block of land in Redbank and construction of our new home is well underway. I'm speaking to you to request that Council vote against this motion tonight. As long-time residents, my wife and I are very familiar with the traffic congestion issues that have been around the Hawkesbury for almost as long as we can remember. During our 20 years in Wilberforce, we often encountered delays, especially around peak times, just getting across Windsor Bridge. We have also been impacted by the delays in and around Richmond and North Richmond, well before the new developments there were approved or any construction in the Redbank area had been started.

While living in Wilberforce, we first heard of the Windsor Bridge replacement project, we were thrilled that finally we may get a solution to the traffic problems in that area. Unfortunately, the project took years longer than it should have, and time and again, we were informed that the vast majority of people in the community didn't want the proposed solution. Much of the delays were caused by this misinformation. The problem that I had with that was that the majority of people I personally spoke with were in favour of the proposed solution, and really just wanted everybody to get on with it. Despite all of this delay, we finally ended up with a solution that has indeed significantly improved traffic flow in the area, a solution that has been called a dud by our federal member, Susan Templeman, in Parliament only recently.

She obviously hasn't spoken recently to too many residents from Wilberforce, Freeman's Reach and Glossodia, as she would find that a great many of them hold the opposite view. Many Hawkesbury residents do not want to see another major infrastructure project being delayed unnecessarily in a similar fashion to the Windsor Bridge replacement and the Grose River Bridge. The fear is that council support of the Southern or Purple Route will only serve to cause delay in delivery of the final solution. Since the announcement by the state and federal governments of the Richmond Bridge duplication project, there has been a concerted effort by some to put forward the view that the majority of the Hawkesbury community support the Purple Option.

This even extends to the Hawkesbury Gazette, who referred in an article last week to the resident-supported Purple Route. This claim, however, is unsubstantiated, and in fact contradicted by the extensive responses to a petition that I have created. Late last week, I shared this petition for Hawkesbury residents to sign to demonstrate categorically that the consensus of support in the community is not behind the Purple Route. In fact, there is considerable strong opposition to the Purple Route from a large portion of Hawkesbury residents. The opposition is for many reasons, including that the Purple option is by far the most expensive option and does not fit within the existing budget for the project.

It has the greatest impact on existing residential properties. It has significant issues around noise pollution and safety. It has the greatest impact on biodiversity. It has the greatest potential impact on land that has indigenous significance, and it does not cater for the future needs beyond 2046. Transport for NSW even said this just yesterday. Both the Purple and Green Route options will have impact on people's property. In sharing this petition, I have attempted to advocate for the families like my own who are affected by the proposed Purple Route, to give them a voice, to put to rest the notion that the Purple option is the resident preferred option. This does not diminish the impact on people affected by the other proposed routes.

It's not an us versus them comparison. I have empathy for all people affected by these proposals. I am appealing to Council this evening to vote against this motion, given the significant opposition to the Purple or Southern Route amongst the Hawkesbury communities, and on the grounds that I have listed already. Above all, it is far too early for Council to support one option over another, given the obvious lack of consensus. It would be irresponsible for Council to pass this motion, and it would say to many of the residents of the Hawkesbury that Council is not interested in their opinion at all. There are currently 643 signatures on my petition, with the overwhelming majority from Hawkesbury residents from North Richmond, Richmond, Windsor, Kurrajong, East Kurrajong and Grose Vale.

If 150 people shouting for Purple outside a community consultation meeting equates to resident supported, then 643 on a petition is an absolute landslide to say resident opposed. My petition will stay open so that we can continue to demonstrate with hard data that to say the purple option is the one that the residents support is simply not correct. Finally, I thank you for your time, and I'm sure this will be a decision that will be watched by many people when they are voting in the upcoming council elections. Thank you.

Thanks, Mr. Clarkson. Are you happy to take questions from councillors? No thanks. No. Okay.

We've got more speakers, councillors. I can see some councillors have their hands up, but we do have more speakers, so we'll do those first, if that's okay, unless there's anything procedural. So next speaker is Michael Morris.

Thank you, Mayor. My name is Michael Morris, and I want to thank Council for the opportunity of speaking to this motion, which I am speaking for. I'm seeking a solution to the Richmond Bridge problem that is right for all of the community, and I'm not interested in pitting one part of the community against another. My concerns about this project are about process, evidence, and the best strategic outcome that improves overall community resilience for such a large investment of public money. There is a significant lack of evidence to inform an accurate choice or recommendation in favour of the preferred route in Transport for New South Wales' options report, based solely on a benefit-cost ratio.

There is no transparency on what qualitative values have been included in the benefit-cost ratio, or how Transport for New South Wales have calculated or accounted for the impacts, such as visual amenity, etc. And there are also concerns about the timing and assumptions of the traffic modelling, which Transport for New South Wales has acknowledged are not accurate. There has been no socio-economic modelling included in the analysis to support the selection of the preferred route. Transport for New South Wales has indicated that they only plan to do a study for what they have identified as the preferred route, despite clearly stating that they are in the process of public consultation and the preferred route is not yet finalised or locked in.

Such an action is a justification of an incomplete decision and effectively tells the community that there is no point or legitimacy to the current community consultation. I note that the Transport for New South Wales options report is completely silent on the impacts of whole sections of the preferred route compared to the impact details provided on the other routes in the report. It fails to acknowledge many impacts, such as on Western Sydney University research on climate change and bushfires and the impacts on the community or environment west of the river. The benefit-cost ratio comparisons therefore cannot be accurate if not all impacts have been assessed and taken into consideration prior to selection of a preferred route.

I further note that every option provided by Transport for New South Wales had significant benefit-cost ratio outcomes, and they are claiming a superior benefit-cost ratio for the preferred route. However, the inclusion of socio-economic modelling could have a significant impact on the overall benefit-cost ratio analysis, and it is a requirement of Transport for New South Wales policy that a benefit-cost ratio is a living document that should be updated throughout the project. This cannot be achieved with only selectively studying one route, and when the preferred route has not been finalised according to Transport for New South Wales' own statements in public consultation. I've been informed that community consultation group were advised that all of the options, with the exception of the purple route, could possibly be achieved within the original $250 million funding, and that the purple option was 15% more expensive.

This means that a southern bypass could potentially be delivered for under $300 million, and I note that the allocated budget is now $500 million. The doubling of the project budget should allow for detailed analysis, further exploration of the many community and industry impact factors, and a full revision of the benefit-cost ratio analysis, taking into account this information to fully achieve the stated project outcomes. Analysis should not be limited to investigations done on a single route without full information. The Transport for New South Wales preferred option fails to produce significant improvements in access west of the river during floods. It does not make sense to invest $500 million of public money and not make significant increases in community resilience through sustained access.

I wish to make it clear that I am not advocating specifically for the purple route. However, I am supporting the motion to properly investigate a southern bypass option, which, within the new budget, could also address the concerns associated with the purple route. If I can provide a couple of reasons why. The preferred option identified needs to import thousands of tonnes of fill, which will significantly change terrain profiles across the floodplain that must significantly change direction of the flood and flow waters. The preferred option requires a bridge across the river and also across two floodable valleys west of Terrace Road to get to the Bells Line of Road, or again requires massive infill.

A southern bypass potentially allows for one major bridge, with the opportunity to provide significantly increased flood resilience above and beyond the preferred route. The preferred option also fails to make use of existing road corridors and meet the goals of the government's future transport 2056 route. Sorry, I'll just skip ahead here. I respectfully submit that Council should be supporting investigation and development of a route that addresses immediate traffic problems, significantly improves community resilience through improved and sustained flood access, and creates future access to the strategic road network. I further submit that Council has an obligation to seek to gain the maximum benefit for the investment of $500 million of public money and responsibility for maximising community resilience, and so I respectfully urge Councillors to support this motion.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mr Morris. Happy to take questions from Councillors ? Yes, I am. Yeah . My question would be, I notice that the motion here before us is that we should, it doesn't quite say adopt the Purple route as our preferred option, but it gives us a fairly specific corridor where we think this road should be going and take your position. And you're here to speak in favour of that motion, but yet from what you said, it sounds like we've had some discussion about whether we should be looking at the other line, which is a totally different route, and also some discussion about the fact that we shouldn't focus on one route. So I guess my question is, do you think this is the motion we should adopt tonight, or would you prefer Council to have more of a role in reviewing the data and taking an advocacy role for the community

So my understanding is the motion calls on Council to properly investigate a southern bypass route, and it should have detailed analysis to review all of the cost-benefit ratio analysis and all of the community factors. And that's why the support for investigating a southern bypass has my support.

Thank you . Any other questions, councillors? No. Thanks, Mr Morris . Next speaker is Matthew Bennett.

Thanks for having me back, Mr Mayor and councillors. I'm speaking against this motion. My name remains Matthew Bennett, and I live in Freemans Reach with my wife and three children. My family play with Glossodia Football Club and Glossodia Netball Club. We play tennis and basketball in Richmond and Windsor respectively. We are also squinters. Every morning my family and I head off in the traffic heading east into the morning sun. Every afternoon my family and I come home in the traffic heading west into the setting sun. The daily stop-start, stop-start, squinting into the sun. School, work, sport, non-stop back and forth. I hate that drive between Richmond and North Richmond. Tonight I'm here to talk about the proposed third crossing route option because I feel those of us in Freemans Reach, Glossodia, Tennyson and East Kurrajong are always forgotten.

This traffic is not something new. The community have needed a traffic solution for more than a decade, but it always seems that Kurrajong or Richmond or Windsor are mentioned in these discussions about infrastructure. We don't seem to count out here. We have poor roads, poor sporting grounds, poor services all around. That is just accepted because we aren't as important as those who make decisions. There are a lot of us in the middle class here in forgotten middle ground of Hawkesbury. We may not be noisy, we may not shout abuse at information sessions or get aggressive on Facebook at those who have different views, but there are thousands of us in these rural townships who fight traffic crossing Richmond Bridge every day, who want something to happen.

Families, tradies, all of us working hard to get by week to week, thousands of us who just want infrastructure built. The proposed green route, albeit not perfect, would be a godsend to those of us here in the middle who squint in the traffic every day. It actually takes into account those of us north of Bells Line of Road and south of the putty. It is infrastructure which we would use and we would benefit from. Tim Webster from Transport New South Wales was very clear in his Facebook Q and A that the purple route does not solve the traffic issues. He's the expert and I believe he's right. There is absolutely no reason for anyone north of Bells Line of Road to use the Purple Route. We will all still come through Richmond.

We will all merge at Inalls Lane and at the lights at North Richmond. We will all still be sitting in gridlock, $ 500 million, and it doesn't do anything at all for the middle. Why would we go from Richmond or the M7 to Glossodia or Freeman's Reach via Grose Vale? It doesn't make any sense. But if you lived in Grose Vale in your big house on 10 acres, with the Purple Route you would now get a choice of six lanes over three bridges: the existing bridge, the new Grose River Bridge, and now yet another bridge in between. The millionaires in Kurrajong and Grose Vale can choose a different bridge to travel on every day, and lucky them. I am also greatly concerned this proposed support of the Purple Route tonight is not actually about what is best for the region.

The Windsor protest experience was bad for everyone involved. Thankfully, in my experience, the new Windsor Bridge has had a fantastic effect on that morning gridlock coming across the turf farms. Transport New South Wales kept referring to their modelling and experience, and they have been proven correct in my view. Windsor Bridge works. They are the experts. You are not. Let them do their job during this current process. I was hopeful when this $500 million announcement was made that we would have learnt from the Windsor experience and we would have gotten on with fixing this issue. I sincerely hoped this would be a civil process of community involvement managed by Transport New South Wales with their expert facts and supported by local politicians without the usual taint.

I'm experienced enough to know that no matter what option Transport New South Wales preferred, it would be seen as wrong by the nonsense groups and used for their own political purposes. But I really hope that the nonsense groups wouldn't hijack it for political gains, that our local politicians would ignore them, and this new bridge wouldn't take years to get built. Otherwise, the Hawkesbury's middle will lose out again. But watching the online venom that has followed this announcement scares me. The nonsense groups have already turned up and are trying to run the narrative. Why does a new bridge announcement have to bring out such personal attacks? Why does the loudest and most aggressive shouter represent the majority?

Why does community consultation mean you are the devil if you don't agree? I can only assume the noise of these nonsense groups is why this motion is even proposed tonight. This is so early in the process and the community are still being informed by Transport New South Wales and are still making comments. Public exhibition doesn't even finish for another month, but you are already picking a winner tonight . If you haven't seen what the whole community have said as a result of these information sessions, why are the council picking an alternative option so early? Is this just a political move prior to the September elections? I hope not. This is a huge infrastructure opportunity for those of us in the middle.

Delaying another bridge for years and years for political purposes simply cannot happen. You may think that opposing the green route, no matter what, is a vote winner come September, but only listening to the shouting of a handful of locals and the nonsense groups this early in the process is naive. Listen to the experts before you make a decision tonight. Look at the numbers before you make a decision tonight. Look where the population actually is. The screamers online and at the forums do not represent us all. The handful that are loud and aggressive are not the majority. The real Hawkesbury benefit from the green route, not the purple route. The real Hawkesbury benefit from its councillors listening to all of them and respecting all of their views.

Thank you. Are

You happy to take questions

From councillors? No.

No? Okay. And our final speaker is Hannah Stack.

Mr Mayor, before that speaker takes the floor, can I raise a point of order? Okay. Should you have established that the notice of motion was capable of achieving a seconder before calling for public speakers?

I don't think so. We always have public speakers before the motions. Okay. Anna. Good

Evening, Mr Mayor and councillors. My name is Hannah Stack and I am a resident of North Richmond, and I am against the motion for the southern purple route that council supports. I think it's too premature for council to take a preferred option. And resolve a position without hearing further community feedback and the response from experts, as well as Transport New South Wales full recommendations and final conclusion. This is a long-awaited bridge and will affect many lives, families, jobs, businesses. As a resident of the North Richmond community, I want to see our community grow and develop jobs, increase of jobs, further more families into the local area. This bridge will allow us to do this.

Councillor Ross's motion to support the purple route lacks detail and further information as to his reasoning for supporting this route. As per Transport New South Wales preferred option report, the purple route has a number of significant flaws and disadvantages that will greatly impact the community and local businesses . Of these disadvantages, one would be the cost. This is the most expensive route compared to the other routes, as per Transport New South Wales. The purple route also has the highest impact on biodiversity and the EEC. It also has a significant impact on the local heritage that is true to our history and one of the significant reasons of the North Richmond community. The purple route also cuts through the Redbank Estate, which I understand will have a significant impact to the many new families moving into the estate with new homes, as well as the requirement for noise treatment.

This is not something they signed up for when they moved to the beautiful side of the North Richmond and started their families. It also will have a significant impact on houses and properties. Lastly, the purple route would benefit those coming from the Penrith, Londonderry direction, not those coming from the northwest city area. This is if you've been stuck in traffic on a Friday afternoon, majority of traffic is coming from the northwest. Finally, the time. We need this bridge now. Our council needs to support the growing community. Choosing the purple option will not only mean a huge wait time for the bridge, but will also have a significant impact, as identified in the report. Councillor Ross, I feel needs further information and reasoning behind why he supports this issue.

The purple option, rather than the other more preferable routes, which has less impact on the community, families, properties and businesses. As a council and political agendas aside, we need to understand the further consult of the community support and make the best decision for the community, not for personal gain . I would like to understand how the purple route can even be considered, given all the significant disadvantages and the impact this is going to have. Let the community do their thing. We still have one month of community consultation. Once we've had that consultation, then council can make a decision as to which route they prefer.

Thank you. Stark, are you happy to take questions from councillors? No. No. Okay . All right, that was our final speaker. So, Councillor Ross, do you have a seconder for— is there a seconder for Councillor Ross's motion?

No seconder? It's seconded by Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

I'll second it so that we can have the conversations,

Mr Mayor. Okay. A discussion, Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and visitors .

The advocates for the green route are unfortunately

Lacking in time and consideration of this matter, which has been well known to local folk since at least 2018.

There has also been a complete change in the narratives for this project since early 2019. Point one: In 2019, Traffic for New South Wales said North Richmond shops had to be serviced by this new crossing because of the failures that might occur in the business sector. However, in 2021, we now are talking about a faux bypass. Also, in 2019, the project failed to, or sought not to, consider the so-called Grose River Bridge over the Grose River. However , in 2021, the options report before you now, if you care to look. Says the Grose River Bridge is going to be functional.

There is a very dramatic change in the dialogue from RMS, Traffic for New South Wales. I would further point out that in the March 2021 flood, which we've just experienced, the Grose River Bridge would have afforded no better protection or resilience, shall we say, to exiting the area or entering the area at all. The road was crossed, was flooded at three particular smaller creeks, and I've had this confirmed locally within the area today.

The next point in regard to the Grose River Bridge is that Transport for New South Wales is not the

Deciding authority on its

Commencement or conduct. It will be other areas of government. There is no guarantee whatsoever that that project will go ahead. In my understanding of matters, because it is classified as a wild river, and we are talking hence about some eight to possibly 12 years, that there will be very unlikely any activity that will result in the construction of that bridge. Point one. By including the bridge in its current documentation, it has defrayed some... 11 to 15 percent, I would put it to you, of transport movement that would be attracted to a southern route away from the southern route. So we are not talking about an option in the green that really canvasses a situation where the Gross River Bridge is excluded, as it is not there today, and is purely supposition.

Now, I go to the matter of the local community. By what right do the green supporters suggest that the displacement of at least three or four families immediately behind the North Richmond residential area, or right in the line of the new path of the bridge, and those in North Close and those in Southy Road, should not be considered? And where are they going to go? Is it just simply a matter of a stroke of a pen and we go and destroy not only the lives of the people in North Richmond, but also the amenity of those people in Southy Road? I find that quite extraordinary. Then we get to the traffic. Well, we get across the river, and what happens at the intersection of Carrington Road, Old Carrington Road and Yarramundi Lane?

Every element in the current plan puts both lots of traffic, the alleged bypass and the current route. Together at one intersection. Now, how that is efficient, even though Transport for New South Wales folks say, Oh, we'll sort that out with four-lane intersections with traffic lights, is simply not tenable. If the people who spoke about Windsor Bridge, they will remember that in the early stages of that, there was a set of traffic lights proposed at the corner of Freeman's Reach Road and the exit to the bridge to go to Freeman's Reach.

It was pointed out to them. It's just, Councillor, just letting you, time has expired, so if you wrap up shortly, please.

It was pointed out that the traffic lights were untenable in a floodplain. We have a floodplain at the intersection that I've just mentioned. How do we put the traffic lights there? The current proposal by accepting the Grose River Bridge also has an inferred route of Grose River Road to the Grose River Bridge. That, in this plan, required the purple route to go through a tunnel to get to the new bridge. If the proposal was that there was no Grose River Bridge, there would be no tunnel. Therefore, there would be a considerable cost saving just in that. And I find that the current proposal also does not support Council's position that has existed for numerous years and with community support. Councillor Rossi, time is well and truly expired Thank you.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you. I'm supporting this motion being brought forward because I do believe it's very important that we have this conversation. I'm wondering if an amendment will perhaps arise, and I may support that, but I think that Councillor Ross has taken the step that we need to have this conversation and we must work towards a solution. We, like the community, were blindsided. Council had no information about this. It just simply came out of the blue. As part of having been on the community reference group, we were working to a scheduled timeline on consultation, having the options come back, and at the last meeting that we attended, which had been—it had been cancelled—and then in the interim there was a political announcement by a councillor and then, unusual given that council didn't know anything about it, but there was a political announcement, and then we had the subsequent meeting, and at that meeting the representative from Transport for New South Wales said to us that he had —he apologised profusely that the schedule had been broken, that he said it had to be timed to a political announcement, and I think that that is where things have gone terribly wrong.

So we're back to where we're— we're back sort of to a square one. We've got the extra money, we've got the route that wasn't the other route that was preferred, and we've got major divisions developing within our community. So we really have to work to try and get a solution to this. We all know that there's an issue with traffic and that we've been working towards solutions, and we were on a path for doing that, but it has been somewhat derailed. I think it's a shame the speakers did not take questions. I had some questions for them which I think— I think would have been to their benefit to be able to answer to councillors just exactly what we may have wanted to ask them, to better understand their position on this.

I don't understand how Mr Claxton knows it's going right past his back fence, because any of the maps I've seen are not that specific. They're just a purpley line. So maybe there's other maps that Council hasn't been privy to. I'm not sure about that. I think that I would have liked to ask them if they actually consider that a petition is a good democratic tool, because in the past in this chamber, petitions have been well frowned upon and ignored. And in fact, people who have signed them have been condemned by some people, likewise for the labelling of people as nonsense groups. When we get to these types of situations, there's a lot of emotions because as much as anyone who knows that there is a road proposed to go through their house.

Has to understand that if they're pushing for another route, there's other people that also feel like that. So what we have to do in the absence of the government having looked forward and put aside any proper corridors is that we have to look at how we can do this and have the proper engagement around it and come up with the best solutions that have the least impacts. That involves respect within the community and speaking to people properly to get to the bottom of it, not to have it overly politicised as it is being at the moment. I don't agree with Mr Bennett when he says that there's still a month to go and that's plenty of time to make changes. We were well on a schedule with a consultation time frame, and that has changed.

So I think that I'm looking for whatever solutions may come up around this and happy to work with people to go down this path. But I do thank Councillor Ross for bringing it forward because, as we know, council has various resolutions related to it. We have to work within that framework, and our role is to be an advocate within the community for helping. We're not the decision makers, and we need to really have our community understand whose role it is to be making the decisions, and to get them to understand how we as councillors can listen to them and engage with the community and try and come up with a solution that is the best for our area without a lot of the animosity and divisions that we've seen in the past, and without pitting resident against resident, which, as we would all acknowledge, everybody has had enough of.

So I thank—I don't know enough about the purple route. I don't know enough about any of them. We need information. We need assistance, and we need to be on the front foot with this because it is a major infrastructure project. That is something that we need, but we need to do the best we can with it.

Thank you, Councillor Tree.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think that what I'm hearing is that there are a number of varying opinions in the community about what the best route would be. I'm wondering whether it would be better if we got an urgent briefing with Transport for New South Wales, because from recollections, we haven't had a briefing on this since, I think it was May last year, and much has changed since then. So I was wondering whether Councillor Ross would be open to us requesting, as a matter of urgency, a briefing by Transport for New South Wales.

Councillor Ross, did you want to comment on that?

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you, Councillor. I would be happy to include that as a point four, but I would like to retain the impact of the other three points, which I think will remain valid and reflect the concerns of this council in the majority. Thank you.

Well, I'd like to foreshadow a motion, because I don't think— I think

Do you want to foreshadow a motion or move an amendment to that? I'll

Move an amendment.

So the amendment would just be justice and lone point to seek an urgent briefing from— Exactly.

I did send that to Charles earlier today. I'm just thinking that we've—

Is there a seconder for that amendment? Sorry. Seconded, Councillor Calvert. Sorry, go ahead, Councillor Tree.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm just hearing that there are a lot of— and even Councillor Buckett has mentioned herself that, you know, we don't know enough information. We, as a council, I don't think we're privy to all of the details that are out there to be looked at. And the community are rightfully so a sort of a little bit unsure. And I think we need to make decisions based on having all of the relevant information and how the route might impact on residents, all of the routes, all the proposed routes, and the wider community. And the most effective way that this can be achieved is for us as councillors to have that information so that we can make informed decisions. It has to be with Transport for New South Wales.

I don't think we can, you know, I don't think council staff probably have as much detail as them to be able to share with us. I didn't read Councillor Ross's notice of motion as endorsing the purple line per se, based on what the speakers were mentioning, just based on his wording. But we do need to be careful because residents are understandably upset whenever a new road is suggested and a line appears on a map. So I think it'd be responsible for us as councillors so we don't publicly announce support for yet another new route that has not been marked on any map to date, which would become, you know, the source of much angst in the community, and it may not even be a viable option. So I don't think we can support the notice of motion as it is because we don't have enough information.

And we certainly don't want residents becoming unnecessarily distressed during this consultation period. And as you've highlighted, we've got a month left, and we probably really should be, as a council, all of council informed and all of council staff informed what's happening. As I said, we haven't had a briefing since last year, and I just think that this would be a more prudent way forward so that we could make informed decisions, so that we don't unnecessarily upset the community, and so that we can hopefully get some sort of consensus that everyone's happy to live with, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. I'll speak in favour of the amendment. I had previously asked the general manager to try and seek a briefing, so I might ask for comment in a moment as to what's been done there. But I think it's important that rather than see this go down the way previous projects have gone down with the RMS, where council takes a position against their preferred option from the outset and is seen to be obstructive, I think, similar to what I think Councillor Lyons-Buckett said, we have a role here to be advocates for our community. And rather than demand a particular solution, we have the ability to bring the RMS to the residents that are affected and talk about ways, whatever the preferred route is, talk about ways that the impact of that can be mitigated, if there's sensible changes that could be made, that we have data on to provide that data.

And I see that as our role, rather than us going out there and picking a line and being for or against what is clearly becoming a very divisive issue. We should have a briefing. By the Transport for New South Wales project team, we should be entitled to that level of respect. We should get the data. I sat in one of the Q&A sessions yesterday , I think. Yep, it's Tuesday yesterday. The live Q&A sessions that Transport for New South Wales ran, and they indicated even at that point that they're going to release more traffic data. So I certainly don't think we're at the point where we've got all the information we can be making a call here. If they're going to release more information, if they're intending to run this consultation for another month, there's certainly a lot more data we can gather, both in terms of information about the project, but also data on what the community thinks and what the community wants us as their representatives to do.

So I'd certainly be inclined to go with the amendment and get that briefing to put us in a position to make a submission prior to the end of the consultation period, but with a lot more information than we have now. So just, General Manager, have we made any progress already with requesting a briefing?

Yes, through you, Mr Mayor, we've arranged for Transport for New South Wales to come and brief councillors at a briefing session on the 20th of July.

Oh, perfect. Thank you.

Sorry, I can't see the participants list one moment, I'll find it.

Sorry, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I too was going to move an amendment that included a request for a briefing from Transport for New South Wales to Council, but I have included in that some additional points that go to some of the substance of the speakers and some of Council's positions previously. So I'll foreshadow that amendment unless— Councillor Tree is willing to consider adding some additional points to her amendment. But I think it's, I think this is an interesting case where we've got, I think the community is quite clear and wants the same thing around increased traffic flow, increased flood immunity, increased resilience, and as little impact on

Place and residents as possible. And while that sounds like a utopian dream, I don't think that it's unreasonable with a budget now as large as we have before us to expect that we get a solution that fits the problem. And that's what the community group has asked Transport for New South Wales from the beginning of the consultation period, that we be given a solution that fits the two key problems of this space, which is flood-free access and better traffic flow. What we have been given to date until this increase in funding has been a solution that fits the budget. I have to say that having been involved in the community consultation, I'm surprised that the solution hasn't evolved greatly apart from a dogleg around the side of North Richmond, and it's feeling like a bit of a wasted opportunity when the budget has been doubled that the project has not got significantly better, or the solution has not got significantly better than the one we were offered for half the budget.

It's worth the community noting how these routes were determined. Community members who were selected because of their membership to various different community groups in the Richmond, Kurrajong, North Richmond area, or the chairs of a couple of council committees, chairs and members of council's then committees, heritage and floodplain advisory, were requested to provide input. We were given a map and a texta and asked to draw some routes on the map. None of us are traffic engineers. None of us had the traffic data or any of the tools to do anything more than draw some lines on the map. For Transport for New South Wales to be presenting to the community that these were the express desires of that community group, as was done in the community consultation session that I attended yesterday, is frankly incorrect and unreasonable.

Mr Morris is correct about the funding constraints given for the options report. The options report was prepared on a $250 million budget. That the options report hasn't been updated to deal with now a doubled budget, I think is perhaps something that council needs to question in our advocacy capacity. What all of this demonstrates is that we need more information, and we need to meet with Transport for New South Wales to stand up for a better outcome, a better traffic flow, better flood immunity, less impact on agriculture, less impact on residents who are already living in these places like Southey Road. Less impact on heritage and biodiversity, and we need to be assured that the project has been properly assessed in relation to the new upgraded budget, because I'm not convinced that that is what's happening here, and I find that really troubling.

I would like us to make, to have a resolution that clearly states what we want in terms of flood immunity and traffic flow. I would like us to be able to clearly state that we want the options report to reflect a larger budget, or that we at least note that it reflects a much smaller budget. But I will also think that the other thing that is worth noting is the upgrade of the driftway, which is included in all of the options reports, an upgrade of the driftway as the first port of call. And I'm hoping to move an amendment that includes all of these points. Thank you.

Any further discussion on this amendment? Councillor Reynolds.

Yeah, thanks, Mr. Mayor. I support the amendment, and I may support Councillor Wheel's amendment as well as it goes a little bit further. I don't think we should be committing to any particular bridge route at the moment. As everybody said, we've had no briefing, nothing from Transport for New South Wales. You know, the options report is flawed. You know, it doesn't give consideration to the other options with the new budget of 500 million. The costs, you know, don't add up. Previous reports said the green route. Would cost $70 million more than $250 million, so that's, you know, what, $320 million. And it said that the purple route would cost another $130 million, so we're talking $380 million for the purple route.

And you have to ask, well, where's the other $120 million going? And they're now saying that the purple route can't be done for $500 million. So there's a lot of contradictions and mixed messaging coming from Transport for New South Wales. So I do support us going to a briefing with Transport for New South Wales, although I am concerned.

I have to admit, I'm concerned with the information that comes from Transport for New South Wales. Personally, I think this bridge corridor is a done deal. You know, it's already been decided. That's the way the projects have worked in this state for a long time since the M4. You know, the M5 WestConnex, Bulli Dealer, Grafton, Berry, where the government and department chiefs and other vested interests decide where they want the bridge, and then they get the department to build a case around that. Then the preferred option is announced, and then the government points at the department and says, They said it's got to go there. We have to take their advice. That's the way it works, and that's well known.

I am really concerned about the division in the community that's appeared. I'm concerned that the current petition does this, and it's really disappointing to hear the speakers talk divisively rather than in the realms of collaboration with other people. It's interesting to hear the MAS Council not to choose a preferred option, yet the government already has.

And it's kind of a bit weird to hear them complain about politicising the issue when two of them are the members of a political party. I, you know, I think the—

I mean, it's logical for a bypass to go to the south. It follows the standard rules. We learned at Windsor Bridge design is that in a floodplain, you follow high ground. You look for the high ground and you follow high ground, and you use existing corridors as much as possible to keep the cost down. Like some other speakers, they mentioned combining the bridge over the Grose River, like not doing that and combining that with a southern route. I'm not going to call it the purple route because I think the purple route should be thrown out. I don't think there's any need for it to go through Redbank. I understand that another corridor— I've been told another corridor was proposed by Councillor Richardson and her partner, which has great merit and perhaps should be considered.

It too went to the south and it went through properties of people who weren't opposed to it, provided there was some kind of, like, satellite development offset. So, I mean, that really needs to be considered, and it's a shame she's not here to tell us about that. Perhaps she can in a briefing.

I, as I say, I'm really concerned that the decision has already been made and we're going through now just a box-ticking exercise. However, we have to represent the community and we have to do the best we can for them . And I really hope— That the community, who the people who were appearing as the various community leaders in this, for example, the people with the petition and Mr Buchanan and Mr Morris can work together. I'm sure that the people who are promoting the green route at the moment, and again, as Councillor Buckett said, it's a shame we didn't get to ask some questions, because one of my questions was if a southern route was designed that did not impact on Redbank and had minimal impact on other properties, would you support it?

And we didn't get to hear that answer, and that's a real shame, because then we start again with a bit of a blank sheet and, you know, there's more possibilities open. But as I said, it's pretty obvious to me that this is already done. We know Celestino—it was interesting to hear one of the speakers say that the bridge should be in the position because it feeds towards Glossodia. Now, sort of, you know, straight away your alarm bell goes off because we know Celestino has spoken with Transport for New South Wales about Peels Dairy. We know that they have said that their development would provide funding for another crossing, and so obviously there's, you know, Celestino are very big. They've got a lot of weight to throw around, and I think that that's come into play.

But I think we should go to a briefing and we should ask questions. We should put the case for our community, and I really hope that the community can get involved, can be objective . And study the documents, like, for example, Mr Morris, I think, ... I'm just going to wrap up. Yeah, I'll just wrap up and say it's good to see some of the community members going through the reports and looking at them objectively and asking questions, and that's what needs to be done. And I would encourage them to pass those questions on to us so that we can then put them to Transport for New South Wales and the state member. So, yeah thanks, Pat.

Thank you. Further speakers on the amendment? Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Look, I was certainly opposed to Councillor Ross's notice of motion. I'm delighted that the amendment calls for a briefing. I'll pause very briefly to reflect on the irony of Councillor Tree asking for a briefing and that she can find her way clear to graces with her presence. Look, some points that I want to make along the way is that four-fifths of the funding of this project comes from the federal government, so they are not the kind of tier of government that are going to be as affected by the plea of a potential developer to, you know, favour one route over the other. If they're stumping up four-fifths of the money, they're going to be looking at the most cost-effective option, and certainly the green route has that characteristic.

I found the online community consultation that occurred yesterday to be very informative. I feel that some of the people who spoke against this notice, who spoke in favour of this notice of motion from the gallery, could have better availed themselves of that opportunity. They might have learned something. For Councillor Ross's benefit, he made a mention of Wild Rivers. It turns out that the Colo River is a wild river and it already has three bridges over it. And I really do have to feel for the people who are crystallising their opposition to the green option in favour of the purple option, because I also feel like they're horribly wedged on this question. People like Susan Templeman must be in a real knot about this.

She can't not support the whole project, and she can't not support the green option, because if that's the option that's going to be , ultimately it would mean that she was opposed to the same project that she's desperately tried to take credit for. But she can't support the green option because that's the government's option, and she can't not support the purple route because that's the alternative option that's obviously being put forward now by the re-crystallised COB, ITEs, NRD, CAA types to whip the Liberal government. But she can't support the purple route because—

Point of order, Mr Mayor. Is this relevant to the motion ?

As relevant as lots of other things that have been said, I guess, to be fair to everyone. Yep. Make your point. If we could wrap this up. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

And Susan Templeman can't support the purple route because the purple option has the same defects as the Bells Line of Road corridor proposal, which she opposed, and worse, has the worst impacts of any of the proposals on Aboriginal heritage and threatened ecological communities . In fact, I've fielded many angry calls— Point

Of order, Mr Mayor.

Yes?

I'm struggling to see any mention of the federal member in the amendment which we're currently discussing, and I'm wondering why this is at all relevant to the current discussion, whether we have a briefing or not.

I think that's probably fair. The reason I let it go is because we've had lots of discussion about other people. We've had discussion about Sarah Richards and Matthew Bennett and Celestino and everybody else, so I thought it might be a bit unfair if I stopped just councillors

I yield. But I do want to conclude with a question, and it's for our Director of Infrastructure through you, Mr Mayor. Does our Mesoscopic Regional Traffic Study give us any insight? Could the green or purple routes be plugged in to that study to tell us anything that stands independently? Of the work that Transport for New South Wales are doing, since people have expressed scepticism as to the independence of Transport for New South Wales data , and I'll conclude there. That's to Director of Infrastructure Services

Probably it's a little bit of a roundabout way. The modelling that Council did, our model, was used as the basis for the Transport for New South Wales modelling. If we were to go back and do model any of these options there, there would be substantial cost in doing that. And I think the first instance would be to go back, identify what the issues are and get some answers from Transport for New South Wales in the first instance before we embarked on further modelling at fairly high cost. So we'd need to go back and drill into their model as well.

Thank you. Any further discussion, Councillor Zamprogno? No. Okay. Any further discussion on the amendment? Councillor Colash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd just like to say that I support the amendment, but I'd also like to ask a question, if I could, about

The traffic study that we had commissioned, and don't get confused, I'm not talking about the traffic study in terms of Kermon Karajong, I'm talking about the traffic study that Councillor Calvert instigated, I think as a Mayoral Minute a couple of years ago. And that was to, my understanding was that that traffic study was to put us into a position where we had this sort of information so that when we did have to have To figure out our position on something that we could clearly and with data, you know, put our sort of best foot forward. And I was just wondering if staff had an update on where that study has gotten to.

Through you, Mr Mayor, the traffic study was completed. The modelling was completed, the study. There are a number of findings that came from that. We did some testing of various scenarios within that model in terms of growth, the impact of the proposed Grose River crossing. So the modelling was completed. In my response back to Councillor Zamprogno's question, we would need to do further scenario testing using that model of any of the options if you want to know what those impacts were. I'd probably go one step further, and that will give you the traffic modelling, and some of the discussion tonight has been about some of the other impacts. So again, that's part of the—we can get the traffic and capacity issues, but we would need to then look at the environmental and economic impacts as well, and that's part of what would come out of the Transport for New South Wales work.

Thank you, Mr. Organ. That's not quite what I meant. I'm sorry, I can't remember the consultant's name. It wasn't the modelling study. It was the overarching traffic consultant that we engaged. I'm sorry, through you, Mr. Mayor, Councillor Calvert might remember the consultant. I just can't recall what happened to that study.

Yeah, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about either. Can you take that on notice—but can you take that on notice to find what you're talking about in email and get an answer before the briefing?

Okay, I'll dig it out. I'm sorry, I haven't got time to do it at the moment. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further discussion on the amendment? If not, we'll put the amendment. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour of the amendment are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Tree, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Zamprogno. I can't see everyone on one screen. Against the amendment, Councillor Ross, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Rasmussen

I'm

Sorry,

I

Didn't count that. What is that ? What was the result of that vote? Is that six votes to five

Against? Mr

Mayor, that

Was five

Votes for, six votes against. Thank you. So declare it lost, and Councillor Wheeler is going to move a different amendment.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I've sent words through to the staff. Okay

Just wait for those to come up on the screen for a moment. Feel free to start speaking to it though.

And

We'll get a seconder once it's on the board. Yep

Yeah, start speaking. Yep

So look, it's effectively the briefing from Transport for New South Wales, but it also includes those items that I raised earlier: the in-principle support for the upgrade of the driftway, the note that the options report is based on a significantly smaller budget, and a note that I think is prudent that Council requires a solution that offers the best possible flood immunity and traffic flow, and I think that speaks to your... The point that you made earlier about council acting in an advocacy position, none of this seeks to pit one option against the other. None of it seeks to make the voice of one segment of the community louder than the other or more important than the other. It really seeks to get council in a position where we understand what's going on with this really significant project in our own backyard.

I think the support of the upgrade of the driftway is prudent, given that that's the project that's most likely to begin early. That's— sorry, you were waiting for a seconder. Yeah

I might just interrupt now. That's my fault, but seconded, Deputy Mayor? Yes. Yes, thank you. Continue.

So the upgrade of the driftway is common

To the suggested routes, to several of the suggested routes. The what's previously known as the hybrid option, certainly the green route and the purple route both use the driftway. It is phase one of the project and due to begin next year, according to Transport for New South Wales, well overdue, I think, regardless of what happens in stage two of this project.

The budget, I've discussed the changes to the budget and how that should affect the options and the modelling and also the analysis that's done. And I think point four , frankly, is something that council has continued to advocate for and something that we have seen really be at issue in the last six months. I just want to take a brief moment to comment on the green route, which is now being presented as the preferred option. With the much smaller budget, we were informed that the green route was within budget. We were also informed at the most recent session, or the delayed session of the community consultation group, that the dogleg was added because of the— The increased budget, that that dog leg around North Richmond, the supposed North Richmond bypass was added because of, basically to fill up the budget.

We were told as a community group that that wasn't possible, that it wasn't desirable, in fact, that they didn't want to pull business away from businesses in North Richmond, that the budget wouldn't support a bypass, and that modelling for those businesses didn't support the bypass. And now the talk coming from Transport for New South Wales is that the community group had requested that bypass, and that was why they were delivering it. I think it's, I find it disturbing that Transport for New South Wales is happy to use the work of that community group that was given in good faith to defend the decisions that it's made that may or may not be supported by the options group. And I want the public to know that those people who, including myself, who engaged in that process did our level best to represent the interests of the residents of the Hawkesbury, and that we did not have information, sufficient information, to be pitting one route against the other, or to in fact be playing the role of traffic engineers and to be presenting the views of that group or the work of that group as, in some way, a defence for the decisions of Transport for New South Wales.

I find really quite disturbing . I'm also disturbed by the use of the term nonsense groups for those people who are not in favour of the green option. Several of these people are personally affected by that route, and I think it's more than reasonable for them to be very upset about the impacts on their property, in some cases the complete loss of their property. And I would urge members of the community who are not personally affected or who feel that they might be more affected by one route or another not to demonise other members of their community, but instead to be sensitive to what they're currently going through. Please don't fall for the divide and conquer tactics that are so frequently used.

In the case of these projects, we saw this at Windsor. We saw the deep, deep divisions within the community, some divisions which may never heal. What we want is the best solution for everybody. We know that there will be people more affected than others. We know that there will be people who benefit more and people who are deeply impacted. But let's not fall for this game of making some people the heroes and some people the villains. And let's please not fall for, not go down the path. of one group slagging off at another group, when some of these people are really actually devastated by the information that they've been given, including one person well known to all members of the Rural Fire Service for her tireless efforts over the 2019-2020 Christmas fires, who found out about the impact on her property when a news crew arrived on her doorstep.

I watched her being bullied in the community consultation yesterday. This must stop. This notice of motion is an attempt for Council to gain enough information for us to take some sort of advocacy and leadership role in moving this project forward. Let's not go down the path of the Windsor Bridge replacement project ever again.

Councillor Wheeler. I'll speak in favour of the amendment. I think the amendment is far better than the motion before us. I think it's going to lead us to say, in broad terms, what our objectives are, but then also recognise we don't have the information to choose which of the routes currently on offer, or routes not yet on offer, meet those objectives. The only part that I'm struggling with is point 3. I mean, what your last comment there, let's not have the Windsor Bridge experience again. I think point 3 does very little other than to make a political statement that we think the transport's not done this properly, which might be the case, it might not be the case, but I think it's divisive.

And I actually agree with you regarding the Windsor Bridge process. I think whatever side you're on, rightly or wrongly, you've got to look back and say, well, Council made a heap of noise, we had a whole lot of stuff going on and really didn't achieve anything. There's no difference in the outcome, and that's got to be the barometer of success. So I don't think we want to go into this picking a side and championing one route over another. We want to go into it in a constructive way. We want to be strong in standing up for our residents, but we don't want to go in there trying to score political points and telling them that the whole process is flawed because they're not using the current budget, especially when they're out there saying that they started this not looking at budget, they started this looking at merit and then worked up to the budget, which ruled some routes out.

So whether that's true or not, I obviously don't know, and neither does anyone on this Council. But I think it would be not a good idea to include point 3, and I don't think it really adds anything other than a political point. But I will support the amendment because it's better than the motion. Whether I'll support that if it becomes the motion, I'm not sure. Councillor Ross on the amendment.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I direct my comment as follows. I'm totally uneasy with the point number three, from the point of view that this is actually the first options report that has been put on the table, to my knowledge. And I believe that making the statement as in point three is factually not accurate, and therefore I think deserves excision . And I would also suggest to the mover of the amendment that to

Enable an informed consideration of matters,

My support would only be forthcoming if the Transport for New South Wales people would put an option on the table which excluded the construction of the Grose River Bridge, because that is purely a hypothetical matter over which they've got no control, per se. And I believe that the project needs to be looked at in light of Not having that particular route as being a crux for the proposition being put. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Reynolds.

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. I think if councillors read the options report, it says quite early on in the piece that the budget they have is $250 million. $500 million is not mentioned in the budget in the options report. It states that $200 million is coming from the federal government and it's being followed up with $50 million from the state government. So point three is actually right. It's actually correct. And I fail to see how point three is actually political when we're talking about a report that was done by Transport for New South Wales, which is a non-political organisation in that it will be there regardless of whichever political party is in power. I mean, Transport for New South Wales is not part of the Liberal Party. So I don't see how questioning or making a statement, which is actually true, is political.

That kind of view concerns me. The rest of the, of course, the rest of the amendment I'm in favour of. And again, to echo Councillor Wheeler's thing, we don't want a repeat of Windsor. Actually, to be honest with everyone, in the beginning, Councillor Garrow was on one side and I was on the other side.

That's the way that it worked. There was the infamous battle between Option 1 and Option 6, and that's the way, again, the way the system works is they give one option that impacts on people, and then they have their preferred option, and they say to the people that are impacted, if they get their way, your lives are going to be ruined because you'll have a road going past your house. And then the division starts. And when, you know, there's infinite number of options in reality. So we're onto that now We know, we know we've twigged to that. And I hope that the people who get involved in the Richmond Bridge project, the community members who get involved in it, take that into account, as you said, Mr Mayor and Councillor Wheeler said. Thanks.

Councillor Calvin.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. The original amendment requested us to take this to a briefing session and discuss all these things. And the amendment that's on the table now, I don't think adds anything. All it does is start to discuss things here and now when we should be saying, no, let's not discuss these now. Let's take them to the briefing session. And these three points, two, three and four, I don't think they add anything to that position.

Supporting the driftway, I think is something we could discuss at a briefing session. Is it likely that we're going to say that we don't support the upgrade of the driftway? I don't think so. And point three about a smaller budget, well, yeah, the budget has changed. So what? What is point three trying to tell us? I don't think it tells us anything. And number four requires a solution that offers the best possible flood immunity and traffic flow.

Isn't that a motherhood statement? Are we likely to have a solution or require a solution that offers the worst or the second best possible flood immunity and traffic flow? I don't think so. So those points, two, three and four, to me— are all redundant and don't add anything to the regional amendment . And I can't see why we're going through this, putting in things that have no effect and have no output . I'd be happy to support this amendment if it was just point one, but I can't see myself supporting it in its present form. Thank you.

Okay, Councillor Kotlash on the amendment.

Excuse me, vote in series . In seriatim, if I have to use that silly word, should we vote individually point one to four, please?

Well, we can't on the amendment because the two options are so different it wouldn't work. But when the amendment becomes a motion, we certainly could do that, yeah, if the amendment becomes a motion, I should say, yeah. So I think we first need to vote on the amendment and then we can do that if we wanted to.

So no further speakers on the amendment. We'll put the amendment. If I can just, yeah, thank you. All those in favour of the amendment, please raise your hand. Favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Tree, Councillor—

Deputy Mayor has everything to talk. Apparently she's got a hand up and she's waving and jumping up and down.

I've put it, I mean, okay.

Sorry, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Yeah,

Three question, if I may, sorry, I did have my hand up. Just regarding, I'll just speak briefly to the amendment, if that's okay. At the time when we were on the community reference group, I had actually asked if a route could be designed that was the ultimate route regardless of cost. So what would be the really best, least impact, most resistant, low impacts on heritage, et cetera, could they design that? So in the event that we could at one time lobby for more money, could we have a route that was costed and designed to be like that? And they said no, they had to design for the budget. So I think what Councillor Wheeler's point three is, is noting that the routes in the option report have been designed to a budget.

So now we have a different budget, and so therefore she's noting that now we have doubled that. I think that the issue about the driftway is that all of the routes include doing the upgrade of the driftway, and the driftway has been said to be stage one, which means it will proceed. So I think by committing to that being stage one, and it is unlikely anyone would oppose that because clearly it's work that needs to be done anyway. And I assume that they are already planning to do it because that's how it was delivered to people from the Transport for New South Wales people. So committing to supporting the driftway means that that, in a sense, can be removed somewhat from the further discussions about the other area, which is stage two, which is the actual bridge crossing and whatever happens around North Richmond and on the other side.

So I think it's very logical to actually put in that we support the driftway in principle, if everyone does, because I think that will be great when that gets started and that is a road upgrade, or, I mean, not that we say it goes ahead, but I think that they are, I think that they're proceeding with that. I'd just like to say too that, I mean, I think in this whole situation, this is a piece of major infrastructure that we as a community deserve. We have a major entryway out of Sydney, which is one of the biggest routes out of Sydney besides the Great Western Highway to the west. And as taxpayers, we deserve this level of infrastructure to be put into our community. We shouldn't have to feel that we are incredibly grateful just because we are being given something.

We really have waited a long time, and that's why it is so important we get it right. And I look forward to whatever moves we can take to be moving that forward. But I think that Councillor Wheeler's amendment put some good points, and I think that once we have the briefing, which will be more about the stage two, then we can start to move forward.

Thank you.

Okay.

So, Councillors, with the raising of the hands, if I say there being no further speakers and wait a moment, and I can't see you, just jump in on audio, because I'm probably not supposed to really let anyone speak once I've called for a vote, but we'll just do it again so it's done properly.

Excuse me, Mr Mayor,

Councillor Tree is seeking—

Thank you. Councillor Tree.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm just— look, I was going to support the amendment because it was going to get us to the briefing, but I feel like the amount of detail that Councillor Wheeler has put into her amendment is stuff I don't, you know, like I just want to have all of the detail. I want to be privy to the information. I didn't really want to commit to things that I don't know how it sort of all fits in with each other. Admittedly, yes, the driftway is important, but I just think that we need to get the information from the briefing prior to committing to the other things. And so I'm just wondering whether Councillor Wheeler might take a couple of those out.

Councillor Wheeler, do you want to change your mind?

Look, I'm happy to test the amendment as it stands, Mr Mayor, and then move to, in seriatim, further

Motion. I think that's a good plan, yeah.

There being no further speakers on the amendment, I'll put the vote. All those in favour of the amendment, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Zemprogno, Councillor Tree. Against: Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Ross. Councillor Richards absent for this vote and the last one, which I didn't put on the record. We'll declare the amendment carried. The moment now becomes the motion. Was there any further discussion on the motion?

If not, we'll go right over to reply, Councillor Ross.

Thank you. Well, I find myself in a position where I don't support this matter. I also believe that point three has been not correctly represented.

The preferred option report is the first report we've received. I don't see that we've seen one prior to this. And admittedly , it speaks to a lesser amount of dollars, but it's been written in the context of the extra potentiality of the doubling of the funding. So I'll leave it at that.

Thank you. So there's been a request that we put the motion into three items. So we'll first go point one of the motion , all those in favour of point one, which was the request

We'll need that on the screen. We

Can't have it on the screen while we're voting because I can't see everyone then. So point one was the wording around requesting a briefing, if anyone needs the exact words, let me know. Right, okay. Yep. So point one, all those in favour. In favour are Councillor Tree, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ross, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Richards, as in for the vote. Declare point one carried. Point two, which I believe was the support in principle for the driftway. Yep. All those in favour of point two, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Tree, Councillor Ross, Councillor Zampogna, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrett, Councillor Rasmussen.

Against: Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert. Councillor Richards is absent for the vote. Declare that carried. Point three, which was the statement around the budget. All those in favour of point three, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrett, Councillor Rasmussen. Against: Councillor Tree , Councillor Conolly, Councillor Ross, Councillor Zampogna, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert. Councillor Richards being absent for the vote. Number three is lost. And point four was around wanting a solution with the best flood immunity and traffic. All those in favour of point four, please raise your hand. Favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ross, Councillor Zampogna, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrett, Councillor Rasmussen , against Councillor Ross.

Against: Councillor Kotlash , Councillor Calvert. Councillor Richards being absent for the vote. Declare that carried. So points one, two and four were carried. Okay. That concludes our items subject to public address. So we go back to item 116, which is the first Mayoral minute.

Back to item 116, which is the first mayoral minute.

So I'll rewait for Councillor Richards to be re-admitted. Yes. Okay.

So I'll put forward the item as the mayoral minute number one in regards to the late John Miller. As I've said in the background there, John was somebody we spoke about at his passing earlier in the year, made a huge contribution to the Hawkesbury community. Recently, Councillor Richards organised a meeting between me and herself and some of John's family, and we spoke about what would be a fitting tribute to John, given his huge contribution to the community in regards to tourism infrastructure and the history that he documented, and the family indicated a whole list of sites that John had a special connection to, some of which are listed there: Thompson Square, the Drummond Centre, Streeton's Lookout, or I Am Common.

And essentially the motion before us tonight is just that we, again, formally acknowledge the contribution made by John, and we do that by installing a plaque or other suitable memorial somewhere, and that we, rather than be prescriptive, we ask for a report to Council outlining what might be an appropriate memorial and where that might be. So I hope this would be nice for John's family if it had unanimous support, and I think hopefully we can all agree that John did make a huge contribution. So I'll open it up for any debate. Councillor Lyons-Buckett

Thank you. I agree. I think that John did make an enormous contribution to this community. We shared a very long friendship , and even though we were quite different in many ways and in many areas we disagreed, but we had the common ground, which was to work for the best. outcomes that we could have in the Hawkesbury and a shared love of the history and the agriculture of the region. And John was a true gentleman. He was really somebody who had so much knowledge that he was so generous with sharing to people that it was always a pleasure to stop and have a chat with him, and have a chat he liked to do, as we would all know. So it was, I had wonderful conversations with him, and I'm not going to take up a lot of time, seeing it's ten o'clock and we've only just done two items.

I think that if I could just say. There was two times with John besides his 90th birthday when he was enjoying himself immensely, but two times when I saw how proud he was, and I think maybe they go towards where we could maybe put a plaque or some memorial to him. One was when he was our official ambassador in May of 2017, when he went to the Boer Memorial dedication in Canberra, and he was so proud to be the ambassador for this area. And he went off there and represented us, of course, so well and so wonderfully. And of course, he had written his book about the Australian Army nurse, Julia Blyd Johnson, which is one of the few books of women around that time in that war. But really, the place I think that I saw John where he was most in his element was standing at Streeton's lookout and looking out across the river, majestic view, and dreaming of how he could have a platform out over there so people could come and they could enjoy the very views that Streeton painted in Purple Noon transparent light.

And I think that somewhere at Streeton's lookout would enable the dedication both to John as a person and his contribution, and also of the wonderful legacy that we've got from Streeton in having those visions from that area painted and kept in our national galleries and so on. So I welcome this wholeheartedly, and I support it and look forward to the report. But if I could put a plug in, I would think that Streeton's lookout was a really good for that.

Thanks. Okay . Councillor Richards. Yeah, thank you, Mr Mayor, and I thank you very much for bringing this Mayoral Minute forward. John Miller absolutely was an extraordinary individual, and I think some words I posted on my Facebook page at his very sad passing are very fitting now, and I'll just read them out very quickly. He lived his life deeply committed to the Hawkesbury and to championing countless projects that would improve the lives of its residents. He was a member of numerous local boards and committees over many decades, while he fought strongly for our best interests, constantly writing letters to ministers and phoning those, like us, even at 6:30 a.m. in the morning with decision-making powers to get things done.

He had an intense love of tourism and was a staunch advocate for increasing the popularity of the Hawkesbury as a tourism destination. As for many years he ran the ghost tours in Windsor. He also had a deep appreciation of local history, authoring the DVD A Review of Hawkesbury History and writing the book Sister Julia Bly Johnson: A Hawkesbury Angel of Mercy. As a passionate community representative, John spent so much of his 91 years developing ideas and making connections to see his visions come to fruition. He was very popular in the local media too. I couldn't actually tell you how many front pages of the Gazette he had, ensuring his voice was heard where it mattered. We owe so much to him.

In fact, Hawkesbury would not be gaining its third crossing if it had not been for John Miller. That's my opinion of that, and I say it with all sincerity. He had pushed this case for infrastructure for years, which is why I made sure that he was the first person I visited to deliver the news in 2019 when we knew we were receiving some funding. He was a great friend of mine from the very start, and I'll be eternally grateful for his guidance, friendship and kindness. John was a farmer, historian, family man, Hawkesbury ambassador, loyal Liberal, but most importantly of all, husband to the absolute love of his life, Beryl. There are few individuals who make a decades-long contribution to their local area like John did.

He was relentless in his ideas and his passion for change. Due to his tireless advocacy, it would be very fitting to have some sort of memorial or acknowledgement for John. The Mayor is absolutely correct in taking the lead on this issue and starting the journey to properly and fittingly honour this great man. It was my pleasure to meet with John's family recently, talk about some times we had together, share some photos and videos that they had never seen before, and talk about what we can do to honour this great man. They have offered up a number of sites in the Hawkesbury that were special to John, and hopefully they can be incorporated somehow into the report, which I look very forward to receiving to see how we can progress this further.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor, and thank you for bringing this motion. John Miller was a tireless advocate for the Hawkesbury and for the people of the Hawkesbury. I think it's entirely fitting that he is honoured in some way. I think the question of where to put a memorial is difficult, given that we have a couple of the places that are mentioned are already dedicated to other things. John Miller was a very active library user, but that area is already dedicated to Rex Stubbs, and so perhaps that isn't the best place to explore. But I agree that Streeton's Lookout would be a really useful way forward. It looks out over the floodplain that John was a tireless advocate for better treatment of, and also almost all of the Hawkesbury Valley that he loved and worked so tirelessly for.

And that does seem a very fitting place for something to honour his legacy. John and I didn't always see eye to eye on many things, but he always disagreed with grace and respect, and I really appreciated that you could have a really good, honest and respectful discussion with John about points around which you differed. And that takes a great deal, I think, for people to do. But really, the thing that I will remember John for is his great devotion to his wife Beryl. Everybody should have a life partner who adores them in the way John adored Beryl, and I think that that is really, regardless of what we erect to his memory, that really is the thing that I find most notable about John's life.

And I really want to make mention of the love that the two of them shared. It was a beautiful thing to witness.

Councillor Garrow.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to mirror both the Deputy Mayor and Councillor Wheeler's sentiment in regards to the option of Streeton Lookout. Mr Miller definitely was an interesting character and he spent many a time in my family home and was a very dear friend to my dad. And those of you who know him, which all of us do know that we never saw him without Beryl by his side. And I was just wondering whether we could possibly include, requesting back to his family, possibly if we were to go to the option of Street and Lookout, if we could include Beryl in that memorial as well, and maybe a chair, a placked chair or some sort of the two of them sitting side by side overlooking Streeton Lookout. Never a time did we see John that he didn't have Beryl with him, and I think it's only fitting that we honour the pair of them together.

Sure. Yeah, I think, yeah , we can. I think, yeah, we've got it here. We're going to have the further consultation with the family, so we can certainly take that on board and see if that would be appropriate with Beryl's current situation.

Councillors, Zamprogno. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I want to thank you for bringing this mayoral minute. John Miller was also a close friend and frequent correspondent, particularly on matters of flood mitigation, many, and I'm not sure I'm not alone, were in receipt of his calls at inappropriate times of the morning. He rose early. It was often on his mind and he'd call. And I certainly echo the sentiments concerning his enduring devotion for Beryl. He was an inspiration. I have a question for the Manager of Corporate Communications. The memorial wall outside the main entrance of Council, I know that we normally reserve that. Those plaques for those who have passed. But do we have a protocol for how long a person needs to have passed to be eligible for consideration for a plaque on that wall?

Refer that to the General Manager.

I'd have to take that one on notice, Councillors.

Thank you. I was asking the Manager of Corporate Communications because I believe he— Sorry, did I miss that completely? Sorry.

If the Manager of Corporate Communications wants to answer, or otherwise it'll be taken on notice. Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I too would have to take that on notice.

We'll just take it on notice

The one time then.

Right then. So if there's any— I mean, I would take the view that Council can do whatever it wants. I just wanted to be mindful of any precedent if there was a gap where we needed to leave respectfully. But I mean, if there is no such protocol, or if we took the view that the contribution that the man made immediately makes his eligibility plain to everybody, I would advocate, in addition to some fitting memorial at a significant location, his inclusion for the next Australia Day plaque on that wall. Thank you.

I'm sure we can investigate all those options. I guess we just wanted— I wanted to have Councillors' endorsements so that staff can go away and do that work and bring us back in consultation with John's family what's most appropriate. Thank you for all those contributions. I don't have anything to say in my reply, so we'll put the motion. All those in favour? Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Ross, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Collash. Declared carried.

Items on block. Somebody wish to move those? Moved Councillor Lyons-Buckett, seconded Councillor Zamprogno. All in favour?

Against? Declare it carried.

Next item, therefore, is item 119.

Councillor Kotlash. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to move the recommendation in the business paper with an amendment, point five, if you may.

One second, sorry.

Yes, what's — I have sent the staff some words earlier this afternoon.

Okay, is there a seconder for that?

Seconded, Councillor Calvert.

Discussion, Councillor Kotlash.

So, did you want to discuss that, Councillor Kotlash? Oh,

Thank you. Sorry, I'm really having a struggle hearing tonight. Yes, thank you. I think the recommendation is straightforward up in point five, and I think in the recommendation in the business paper it just has point A, and I'd like to add those three extra points. I guess what was missing from the report is the feasibility of, and the economic potential to sort of split greywater—and I don't know whether brown water is a good term, but I just made it up, but you get it, I guess— because it seemed to me that our pump-out was, you know, what we're doing is

Combining the sewage to be mostly water, and if we could just treat, split it and treat it in different ways that was, you know, obviously environmentally safe, et cetera, that that might be a really big opportunity to reduce costs and also reduce the big trucks that have to fly around our LGA. Constantly , it seems, picking up sewage . I think that's probably a good thing to have in the upcoming report. Now, in the report, it was mentioned that there was anecdotal evidence to suggest what people wanted and what people have and what people want to do and , you know, etc., etc. I would like to see a survey of the people that have pump-out systems to really get some proper data. I don't want to hear anymore anecdotal evidence .

I don't ascribe to anecdotal evidence. It's an oxymoron, but anyway. A draft survey would be really good, and I think if that draft survey comes back, we can, you know, fine-tune it. And point D is I'd really like us to be able to revise our DCP so that it gives people the flexibility to be able to use any system that meets certain standards. At the moment, I think we tend to be a bit blinkered by systems that we're used to and that we're comfortable with and we've worked with before. But in this situation, I think we have to be really flexible, and I believe that that probably can be a part of the revised DCP So that's really all I wanted to change in the business paper. I think once we get the The information from a draft survey back, then we could start to really much, much better fine tune this area and get some changes and some results.

I know it's a hard one and, you know, I think we have to see this through and just make the final attempt to get some better data. Thank you.

Thank you.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you. I think you forgot to call up item 118.

Oh, just been pointed out to me, so we'll do that next. Yep

Yes, I think, you know, this is a long time coming, dealing with this ongoing issue, of course, that we have. And I think that I'm quite concerned that really all this information is basically information we've had before, and where it seems to be so stagnant and we're not really getting anywhere. I think surveying residents may get some data, but I think the issue is with that, and I did bring a notice of motion last year regarding this, is that people don't understand any of it. There's a really big lack of understanding around sewer, around pump out, around all the systems. There's so many. It's an area that is just very complicated for some people because they just don't realise all the differences that occur in here.

So I would still like, and the notice of motion wasn't supported, but the idea of that was that we could have some explanations around the costs and the charges associated with all those systems, and to have had an update last year in August on how we were going with this report, which would have meant we were 10 months ahead of what we are now had that been supported, which would have been good. But it wasn't, and so we've come this long without it, and now we've got it, and there's still so much work to be done. But I think if we could build up some sort of online resource of commonly raised issues and so on that the community are concerned about, then we will start to increase their understanding of it.

And that's where we have to start, because it's ultimately going to be up to people. We need to know from the people what sort of cost are they willing to go to to deal with some solution, because they already have a big and compounding cost each year with the increasing sullage rates. And so what do they see as the future? What would they pay to retrofit a house? What would be the consequences of all of these things? And now we've got to have another report before we're even going to be engaging with them along those lines whatsoever. So I think doing a survey, people will just complain. They'll just say, whatever, they're sick of paying for it because of this really big level of misunderstanding.

And I mean, we're not bureaucrats. We are representatives of the people, and we should be engaging with this community engagement to get the information back from them and to assist them to understand the various complications, mainly around this. When I look at this and I see point two, we have been lobbying the state government literally for as long as I remember, probably, I don't know, 30 years or so. And it seems that the response never changes. Sydney Water is not going to give it to us, and that's that. They've also told us they're not going to put the sewer on. So we probably need to change tack on that and really put the efforts into doing other things now. And we need to be upfront and clear with the community.

We need to tell them that it's not likely the sewer is going on, and we need to really make sure that they understand that because there is just such—I can't even say it anymore. This is just so much lack of understanding around that. I speak to people about this over and over and over. They don't understand that aspect of it, and they don't understand the aspect around inspections and so on. But I think that's improving with the monitoring and the people going out. And, yeah, it's just hard for them, particularly the people that feel that they're being charged more for having an inspection when they have a buyer cycle, or for being a single household when there's a big household next door.

So there's a lot of issues around that that we could really build a resource and have that available for people to understand, particularly around the regulatory and the legislative requirements that we have in doing inspections and so on like that. I think that the information is in there of the various systems, but that's probably reasonably meaningless to most people until we can present it to them in terms of what would be feasible and what the impacts, if one area was to get a solution, what would be the impacts on the other remaining unsewered areas. So there's still a lot of work to be done. It's the ongoing saga, I guess. But the fact of it is, it's becoming quite untenable to have the sullage trucks driving around the narrow streets up and down the hills and so on.

We really have to take some hard discussions to the community as soon as possible and get them so that we can assist them to get a better way forward.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Yeah, I have to say, on initially reading the report that came to Council, that I was disappointed. I feel like we haven't made any progress, and I didn't feel that the recommendations, as presented in the business paper, would allow us to make any further progress. I think the addition of 0.5 is an improvement. I do have some concerns around the whole process. One of them is there seems to be a great deal of confusion, and I know this exists based on the comments that I've seen from another councillor as well, about what we're actually advocating for and what an alternative sewer system could be. And I think some of the things that Councillor [unclear] has put in 0.5 are starting to take us away from the 1950s sewer management style of pumping everything to a central place, in this case probably North Richmond, and treating it and then putting it into the river.

Yeah, a great idea in 1950, sadly considered a great idea by Sydney Water in 2010 for the Three Towns Sewage System as well, and not proving quite so flood resilient as they perhaps hoped. But that's not going to be the way forward with these properties. What we really need to be having serious discussions about are small-scale and on-site management systems that better use water, that are better long-term solutions for both the householder and the environment, that provide more resilience to- to the property itself that keep water on the property, in the case of Bowen Mountain, often where that water is captured and used , and that makes the surrounding landscape better as well. So in the instance of Bowen Mountain, for example, highly fire prone, and yet here is a water source to keep the soil and the vegetation on those properties wet that doesn't require the use of potable drinking water.

It also means that you're not getting a sewer truck up there. One of the big problems with the fires was the use of water tankers and sewage trucks on roads that the RFS needed to access or that had been closed. And you can't close a road to a sewer truck. That causes other problems for the householder. So we really need to be moving towards far better, more modern, better adapted systems, and

We just don't seem to be getting there. Everything seems to be too hard. I am, like Councillor Kotlash, I am concerned about the reference to anecdote about homeowners finding these things too difficult. What I would really like to see is two rounds of surveys: a pre-information survey that attempts to assess the problems that homeowners feel that they're experiencing, and in most cases I think that's probably high cost. For some of them, they may be volume constraints. But also then post-information surveys, because once we know what the problems actually are, and the Deputy Mayor is right, many of those simply will be complaints about cost. But we hopefully can get some information about how active they want to be in the management of these systems.

But I think we have to take some of those results with a grain of salt. If we can deliver well-timed, well-researched, well-placed information about alternative systems, I think—I don't think we should write the community off as a group of people who largely just want to flush and forget, because many of these systems are extremely sophisticated and actually improve the quality of life for the people who live on those blocks. They certainly make a massive difference to the costs that many of them experience now, and that should be the thing that we need to be looking at. The other thing that we really need to do is make sure that our staff are really well informed about options, because they are the first port of call for these property owners, and they are going on site to these properties, and they also need to understand the requirements of the existing system so that they can defend councils.

And I'm assuming that they are able to do this already, but we do need to make sure that they can. That homeowners are left, once the council compliance officers or the inspection, the person delivering the inspection has examined the system,

The homeowner needs to be in no doubt whatsoever that what the council inspector has done is not the same as the guy who comes every six months to top up the chlorine and check that the pump is working. These are two different functions, and that's where a whole lot of this confusion occurs in the community, where they think that council is simply raking in a profit by double handling a service that they've already paid for. That's why the community needs to be far better informed. If we're not going to do it online with some sort of consultation from council, then we need to be doing it through our council staff. And I'm hoping that that information can come back to us as part of this report as well. So could I suggest perhaps an E to point five that details the information council gives to homeowners around the inspection requirements for these systems.

Councillor Kotlash, you okay with that addition, or is that going to be amended?

I think I heard it correctly that Councillor Wheeler wants an extra point to say something about the inspections of all systems.

So the report should detail the information that council is giving to residents when we do inspections.

So it's just detailing the existing information that we're providing when we complete an inspection.

I'm a bit confused because I was under the impression that pump-outs didn't get inspected very often, in fact.

There's nothing to inspect other than— anyway, I. .

I guess this is not for— it's not for bump-outs, it's

Across the board. I'm all for including, you know, extra information. I am sorry, I am struggling to hear you at the moment.

Are you happy to include that point E, given it's just a request for further information? Yep. Okay. Amanda, can we get that down?

Who is the seconder? Councillor Calvert, are you also happy with that?

Yes, I'm happy with that, Mr Mayor. Thank you.

All right. Well, there being no further speakers, I'll go right of reply. Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just a couple of points about what was said. I mostly agree with Councillor Lyons-Buckett and Councillor Wheeler, and I think we're on the same page on this one, which is terrific. I must say that I don't agree that we can say that there's a lack of information in the community. Before we do any surveying or asking people what they know and what they think about these, we can't make that assumption. Just because a few people might ring you up doesn't mean that that's a representation of all of those people. So I think we have to get a bit

More thorough with understanding what people think about this and understanding the problem. So we'll characterise the problem and then we'll definitely be in a better position to try and make these solutions.

I don't think a survey will just invite criticism. Hopefully, a survey will be a sort of a structured way of us listening to our community. There might be a lot of criticisms, but we might learn some things. So I don't take that comment on board at all. I think somebody meant building a resource, and I think this is covered off in point three. I think the staff are now mindful that there is a need for a resource to be on our website with modern, up-to-date information on these sorts of things. So I'll leave it at that. I'm hopeful that we're on the right track. It's been a slow, very slow process, I must say , and I am a bit disappointed that it has taken us such a long time. But I think we're getting closer to being able to offer our community some more options and some support on the way, so they can save a bit of money, hopefully, and be better for the environment.

So I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Kotlash. Put the motion now. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour the motion: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Richards, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Tree. Against? Councillor Ross. That's declared carried.

I skipped item 118, so we'll go back to that, which is the operational plan, back from exhibition. Councillor , move, Councillor Wheeler, the recommendation, is it?

No. Anybody wish to move the recommendation or anything else? Item 118.

Bearing in mind it is the 29th of June, this is our budget for next year. We don't want to move this; we really need to move something else.

So I don't think we can do our duty if we just move on. We do need to move something here, given that Council needs to be funded from Thursday. This is our last chance to move something, so we'll need to have something moved on this matter.

Yeah, I've got my hand up.

Oh, good. Moved, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Is there a seconder? No,

No, no, I'm not moving that. I've moved something else

Okay, you would like to move something else. What would you like to move, Councillor Lyons-Buckett?

I've just sent it in , I think. I've just done it. I've just sent it to— I'll just find it. It's spur of the moment. I've just sent it to— oh,

It's come. It was very fast.

So I'll just seek some advice from the general manager on the wording of adopting something conditionally. Okay. Whether we can do that. I'm not sure what the practical implication of adopting something conditionally would be.

Through you, Mr Mayor, it wouldn't be conditional . It needs to be—those sub-points need to be an amendment to the operational plan.

Okay. I can have those as an amendment. I think the sentiment is fairly obvious what it is, so I'm happy with a reword of that if necessary.

Could it be that number one is to adopt the plan and number two is that council requires a briefing to address the following matters urgently or something?

Yes.

Yeah

The point being that I'm not happy to pass it as it is because the requested information that we sought in the last meeting about this hasn't been really provided.

Okay. So on the basis that we're rewording that to say, one, adopt the plan and, two, have a briefing arranged to urgently answer the following questions, and listing those points below it, is there a seconder for that?

I can't see the list, sorry, so if you can—Councillor Wheeler, seconding that?

No, I've got a question before I do, if I may, Mr Mayor.

Would you mind maybe second it depending on the answer, because I probably should seek a seconder first if I can before we have debate on it.

Yes, okay.

Yeah.

All right. Being the other seconder, if you want to ask your question.

I'm concerned about point four in the additional information with regards to the third party organisations and contributions to organisations.

That's part of the operational plan. So I'm not sure how to deal with that point whilst adopting the operational plan. It appears to me that if we accept point one, then we accept the contributions to those third party organisations, regardless of the details that we're given to enable those decisions. So they don't sit well together, I don't think. I don't know if we can excise those third party organisations and contributions as part of point one and then ask for those specific details to come back to us as that collective group of things. Is that possible?

I think the simpler way to do it, before I put that to the general manager, might be, if it meets the same purpose, is that if we had a briefing next week and we decided we wanted to do something different here, there's nothing to stop us going back and amending the plan we've adopted at the next meeting of council if we want to, to change something, rather than trying to not adopt at all. Might be simpler if that would meet the same objective.

I think the aim is to show supporting the levy to go ahead and so on, so we're operational, but looking at some other issues within the plan.

I refer that to the General Manager for comment.

Through you, Mr Mayor, you're perfectly correct. In Council adopting the budget doesn't necessarily prevent it from making decisions at a later point with respect to some of these ongoing services, and that certainly if Councillors of a mind to want to deal with this quickly, we can certainly do that. Alternatively, these matters can equally be dealt with through a quarterly budget review.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett or Councillor Wheeler, did you have any further comment on how you intended to move forward?

I'll let Councillor Wheeler speak because I'm actually just trying to find my

Notes

I'm still not sure whether that's satisfactory for me. I've raised—this will be the third operational plan where I have raised concerns about these third-party contributions , and I have voiced on each of those occasions that I am really uncomfortable in passing those contributions and that I feel that it doesn't meet my fiduciary responsibility as an elected councillor because we simply are not in receipt of sufficient information to ensure that that is money well spent. I know that we're undergoing the process of third-party review for one of them in particular. We're still waiting back on information, and that we've received some information about two others. But I am really uncomfortable about allocating more funding in the hope that we would get the numbers on perhaps this council or a new council to turn that back.

And also the implications for those third-party organisations should we change the funding at a quarterly review, having allocated it this evening. This isn't satisfactory. We have been asking these same questions for two years, and yet we are still presented with this need to spend, to commit the ratepayers' money to this stuff. I find this—we raised issues in the previous council meeting, or the meeting before that, and asked that they be dealt with. What we've got back is a series of points basically saying no change. We indicated that that wasn't satisfactory to council, and yet we have really had no advancement on the position that we and the residents, the flood-affected residents who addressed council last time, asked for.

So I'm really struggling here. I'm hoping that some of the discussion will help clarify my thoughts, but I'm really, really not comfortable with this process.

Thanks, Councillor Wheeler. I would make the point that whether or not you change it in the quarterly review, or whether you don't fund an entire organisation on the 29th of June for the following year, neither is going to be very convenient. And I take your point that we had asked— A very long time ago, and for a long time nothing happened. It was excuse after excuse as to why nothing could be progressed, and I acknowledge that. We have been working on this. We have had a number of briefing reports come forward now. I don't think it's at all feasible, though, that we could just decide not to fund Peppercorn, for example, this year, or not fund community sport this year. I don't think either of those avenues is going to work.

And if we were going to make a huge change like that, you know, April would have been the time to do it, not when we were putting the plan on exhibition, not when it came back to be adopted on the 29th of June. So I feel quite strongly that if we're going to do anything other than adopt the operational plan as per the recommendation, that we should be adopting the plan and then, two, seeking an urgent briefing on these items to try and fix them, and we can either amend the plan shortly or change it in a quarterly review as the opportunity comes around. But I'm still not very clear, sorry, Councillor Lansbaugh, on what exactly is the motion, is it? Because what's on the board now is out of order.

We can't conditionally adopt it, so we need to have a motion.

Look, I'm actually to pass the plan as it is, but I want a really strong commitment that we're going to deal with these issues that have been raised. So we raised, when I look through the answers on pages 29 and 30 about the questions that we asked, these came from residents who have asked us to find out what's going on. And there we read that we're still waiting on the Geotech report for the road at Greens Road. So when are we going to know any of this? We had the question around the funding that they were promised from Robyn Preston, and why hasn't anyone rung her up and confirmed that for us? Like, why do we have the same answers that are going out in weekly emails to the community, and they're crying out for us to give them some timeframes and to do some of this work.

And things, I just think then we're told there's this all this money in this fund, but can we access it? How do we access it? What could it do for us, and how could we get to that? I just felt a level of frustration when I saw it, that we're still at square one rather than actually progressing at all. And I do understand and I respect that we have to pass a budget because that is how we operate. And I'm surprised that there was nobody else willing to move it. I don't have an issue with many things in it, but as Councillor Wheeler said, it's the things that we've repeatedly been asking for that we haven't got any, you know, that we haven't got any responses to, or we haven't had any movement on, to enable us to feel that we are doing our best duty in dealing with this.

And I know that. We have raised it back previously. It's not like we've left it until tonight, and there's a number of different areas within that, of course. There's the many issues, of course, around the things like the garbage trial that I wouldn't think would be too hard, and I know Mr. Organ said he had to get the costings on that. But it's like we need some sort of a robust discussion around this, you know, sort of immediately before it floats away again and becomes an issue for the next council. Or we seem to go year to year and we keep asking and it doesn't have anything changed. So I think maybe if we had more engagement as a council group where we could actually look at these things that emerge out of the meetings, and I just, you know— Mr. Mayor.

Yes.

I don't think we have a motion on the table, and we have discussion going on. I would like to move the recommendation in the business paper.

I've

Put a motion . Well, the motion has not been moved, as far as I know.

Yes,

Councillor Wheeler seconded it.

I'll ask. Yeah, the question, I guess I was coming back was I wanted to get clear on what that motion was. That was the question at the start of this address , because it wasn't totally clear. What's on the board right now cannot be it. So from what I understood from what you were just saying, your motion will be the recommendation in the business paper, but you just want to make the point that we need further information on these matters.

The specific matters that I had listed, and I can't see it, I've only got a black screen. So I'll just defer to Councillor Wheeler because she was the one wanting to alter something, if she wants to suggest some words on that, because I can't currently see it and— I don't have an actual business paper that I can access right at this second.

Councillor Wheeler, did you want to move something else? Mr Mayor

Could we see the previous motion?

The motion that the Deputy Mayor put up?

That's what I've got on the screen now.

I can only see black.

Could we have the minute secretary re-share that document, perhaps?

Yeah, maybe try taking it down and putting it up again.

I can see it,

Mr Mayor. It just flashed up and now it's gone, and we've got all of us again.

Yep, I can see it.

Yeah, I've got it. I've got it now. So, I guess points one to six, and I note in the business paper that point four is missing its number. I think point four must be—is point four interest charges, or is there just not a point four in the business paper? Could we have that clarified? But I think point one basically calls for the points in the business paper, and then perhaps council receive the—so ,

That could—so points one to five or six, depending on the numbering in the business paper, and then an additional point perhaps that answers to the following question, to the following questions.

Could I—sorry, if you don't mind, could I suggest— No, sure . So the current point six, instead of being—could we leave the recommendation as it is, but in point six change it from the report be received and noted to the report be received and noted, however Council does not feel the report provides satisfactory answers and must be reported back to the next Council meeting with additional information? I'm happy with that.

Well, I would rather it go to a briefing, because the trouble is if we just ask for a report back to Council, which is what we did before, we might not necessarily get the answers that we were after or the level of answers that we were after, because that's what we asked for before and we haven't got the answers that

We— So it could just be received, noted, and sent to the next briefing session.

Mr Mayor, could I suggest that we ask the general manager for some help with the words here, just to get us over this merry-go-round in a

Circle? Thanks, Councillor Rasmussen. So point six could just be received, noted and sent to a briefing session, and referred to a briefing session, if that's what we're trying to get at. Or the next briefing session. Does that work, the mover and seconder? Yep.

The next briefing session for me.

Yes, the next briefing session. Happy with that, Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Is that—I was waiting for the general manager's input onto it.

The general manager can't tell us what to move. The general manager has already given us a recommendation, which we're not going with. So you can't do that to the staff. If you're going to change it—

No, I think Councillor Rasmussen asked a question of the—

So Councillor Rasmussen asked if we get the general manager involved to give us a different recommendation, which we, of course, cannot do.

No, I didn't. No, I did not. Stop what I said at all. I know it's getting late.

Councillor Rasmussen, you are out of order. You are out of order in the first instance as well. Oh, goodness me. You can't ask the staff to give you wording for a different motion other than that of what they have recommended to us. If we want something else—

Of course you can. It's been happening for days. You

Are out of order, Councillor Rasmussen.

Oh, goodness me.

And we will require a motion, or we're going to have to just go with Councillor Carver's motion moving the recommendation if we don't have a motion. So was that the motion we wanted to go with, that would go to the next briefing session?

Well, I was happy with that, but I can't see it, but I'm assuming that, yeah,

That's— So essentially just the recommendation and then adding to the point six, be referred to the next briefing session.

Is there any further discussion?

Councillor Ross.

I'll just withdraw at the moment until I consider this item on the screen, sir. Thank you.

Okay. At the moment, you're the only one who's put their hand up to speak, so Councillor Gary.

I just wanted to point out the last point, the specific details enabling decisions to be made about third-party organisations—oh, it's just one of my things— and other organisations. Can we make sure that we are getting reported back on Wesrock as well? I mean, there's still an outstanding notice of motion. Of yours, Mr Mayor, from July 12, 2016, which was asking for a report to be brought back to Council detailing Council's options in regards to its continued membership of LVROC. And I think this seems to consistently slip through the radar when we are following up on our third parties. Thank you.

Yeah, I think that's, yeah, we can certainly look at that.

Yeah.

Thank you for following up.

Any further discussion? Councillor Ross, is anyone, other one wishing to speak? So are you ready now?

Thank you, yes. I would like to put the point that whereas

Councillors lack information on a great deal of the operational plan, there are about nine pages dedicated to expenditure of one sort or another, and about 90 pages to fees. I would suggest, and I believe one of my colleagues has previously suggested, and I would like to pursue it now, that councillors be provided with a line-by-line access to the expenditure involved in the operational plan as a read-only document for their understanding and perusal, please. Okay . Any

Further speakers?

Not being anyone

Put the motion, sorry

Right of reply, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. I don't think it's necessary, Mr Mayor. I'm expecting that the discussions will be quite robust at the briefing, and we can sort out what sort of information we were still after at that point.

Okay. All right, well, if we can take that down so we can, yep, thank you. Put the motion. All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zanprogno, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Tree, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Calvert. Against? Councillor Ross, Councillor Richards. Declare it carried.

Next item therefore is item 121.

I'll move the recommendation, Mr Mayor.

Moved, Councillor Wheeler. Do I have a

Seconder? Seconded, Councillor Zamprogno. We are using the little hands on the side, Councillor Zamprogno, as well. Discussion, Councillor Wheeler.

Sorry, you're on mute at the moment.

Sorry, talking to— at least no one argues. I don't think it's necessary to have to speak much on this. This is obviously a really important matter for us, but quite correctly it's been identified that we simply need better modelling before we can apply all of this information. So I think the staff have covered this as well as we can, given the position that we're currently in.

Thank you. Any further discussion? No, we'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Ross, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards, Councillor Lanesbury, Councillor Calvert. Declare it carried.

Next item is the investment report, item 123

Moving that, Councillor Wheeler, or is it left over or both?

Sorry, it’s on block, I think, sir. Oh, it was dealt on block. Sorry, thank you . So is that the only remaining items are the questions. So item 125, response to Councillor questions

On notice. Business arising. Councillor Garrow.

Sorry, apologies. Couldn’t find my little hand to put it up quick enough. In relation to 125, questions on notice, question number six, specifically asked for Westrock as well as the other items, and it has been omitted from the answers to questions. Okay

So that will be on notice as well . Any further questions on these items or matters arising? Item .

Item 126 , Councillor Wheeler.

Sorry, Mr. Mayor, I was slow getting my hand for 125, or it was slow reacting, one or the other. There's reference in the business paper that the response has been reported in item 116, and that really isn't the case. We haven't got information. The information that was requested, we've got bits of information, but not enough for Council to make proper information. When councillors ask for this information, it would be really helpful if we could get some timelines. Just saying, we're waiting for, is deeply frustrating, I think, for those of us who are trying to feed information back to the community. To be just told we're waiting is unhelpful. I think we want some timelines and we want some action plans for advancing some of these issues.

Thank you. Item 126. Are there any questions or matters arising? Those questions.

Item 127.

Yes.

Yes, Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Item 127 regarding the questions around emergency management. I'm very, very, very concerned that this isn't an area that we've progressed with at all. We started a review after the bushfire. There's some answers there, but I just would like to know when there is planned to have one of these new disaster management committee meetings. Is that on the horizon? Will we have one in this term of Council again? We've only ever had one, and when will we look at these things, particularly around the evacuation centres? We're only a couple of months of moving into what could perhaps be another fire season. We could also have another flood, and we have not done anything as a Council in terms of preparation.

If I could just say, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno and I were at the Australian Local Government Conference last week, and we saw incredible work that has been done by mayors in disaster-affected areas in terms of their recovery strategies and also in their levels of preparation of moving forward and getting their communities really well prepared for any further events. They've been strong advocates for additional services, and they've really got some great economic and resilient issues going on, particularly the Mayor of Shoalhaven, Amanda Findlay, who I think we should at some point have come up and give us a bit of guidance on how the Shoalhaven are coping with their emergency management, because it was second to none what they've done and how their community has benefited from their planning and so on.

So I really cannot stress how important it is that we prioritise this. Our community expects us to be working on this, and I've not seen anything happening on it for a long time. So could we please have a scheduled meeting of that committee whenever possible? Thank you.

So I can see in the answers to the questions that the report will be submitted in July. So I think that's, given that we're on the 29th of June, that's probably the best priority we can get right now, save getting it tomorrow. So certainly I don't think it's fair to say that nothing's happened, and yeah, it's definitely coming, and at that time in July, Council could refer it to that committee if we wanted to get input from those other stakeholders. Okay Is there anything else on 127?

If someone wants to move, we go into confidential. Moved, Councillor Richards, seconded, Councillor Garrow. All those in favour? Against? Carried.

We are now back in open session. I'll just refer to the General Manager to give an update of what we resolved in closed session.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. In regard to item 128 regarding a lease from Crepe Myrtle, 442 and part of number 441 Cornwallis Road, Cornwallis, whilst in closed session, the Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by Councillor Zamprogno,

That Council agree to enter into a new lease between Hawkesbury City Council and Crepe Myrtle Pty Limited for 442 and part of 441 Cornwallis Road, Cornwallis, as outlined in the report. Authority be given for any documentation in association with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council. And point three, details of Council's resolution be conveyed to the proposed lessee, together with advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as appropriate legal documentation to put such a resolution into effect has been agreed and executed by all parties. That motion was carried unanimously with the votes of the Mayor, Councillor Conolly, Deputy Mayor Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillors Ross, Wheeler, Tree, Richards, Calvert, Khot, Lash, Garrow.

I'm hoping I've captured everyone there, Councillors. And in regard to items 129 regarding lease to OSR Pty Limited for the Windsor Function Centre at 7 Dight Street, Windsor, whilst in closed session, the Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Rasmussen, seconded by Councillor Lyons-Buckett,

That Council agree to enter into a new lease with OSR Group for the property known as the Windsor Function Centre at 7 Dight Street, Windsor, as outlined in the report. Point two, authority be given for the lease and any other documentation in association with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council. Point three, details of Council's resolution be conveyed to the proposed lessee, together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as appropriate legal documentation to put such resolution into effect has been agreed and executed by all parties. That item was also carried unanimously with the votes of Councillors Conolly, Ross, Wheeler, Zamprogno, Tree, Richards, Calvert, Khot, Lash and Garrow. And Councillor Rasmussen. And Councillor Rasmussen, who moved the motion. Thank you.

Thank you. There being no further business, we'll declare the meeting closed at 11.14. Thank you.