12 October 2021 - Ordinary

Welcome everybody to tonight's meeting. I'd like to start by acknowledging the Darug and Darkinjung people as traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury, pay respect to all elders past, present and emerging, and acknowledge all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the first people of the country. And I'll just hand over to the General Manager.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd 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 are made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations, and the recordings are stored on Council's record management system.

For the benefit of any persons addressing Council this evening, it's 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. And have we got any apologies? Is everybody here? Eleven

Twelve, good . Any declarations of interest? Councillor Reynolds, sorry, miscounted . I've got a problem with this computer. Okay , we'll note that as an apology until he can get in . Declarations of interest. I've got an interest in item 201. Are there any other interests to declare? Councillor Garrow?

I have an interest in item 1194.

Okay. And then

Okay , in which case we'll move to the minutes. Councillor Wheeler. Mr Mayor, I've got less than significant non-pecuniary

Interest in item 1195.

Sorry, were there any others? I didn't actually have that . I can see the hands . Councillor Richards

On mute. Item 1195, thank you

Mr Mayor. Okay.

All right.

Someone wish to move the minutes from the previous meeting? Moved Councillor Zamprogno, seconded Councillor Garrow. All those in favour? Declared carried.

And then we go to the items on block. There's no public speakers tonight. Somebody wish to move those. Moved, Deputy Mayor, seconded Councillor Garrow. So all those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Ross, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Tree, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Councillor Reynolds was absent for the vote; to declare them carried.

Order, Mr Mayor. I don't recall seeing the list of items that were on block. Could you oblige me by just listing the ones that are on block?

Yes, they've just been passed, but it was 196 and 199.

That list was emailed out earlier, sorry about that. So then our next item for discussion is item 193.

Anybody wish to move anything there?

Moved. Councillor Wheeler, the recommendation. Seconded, Councillor Garrow. Discussion, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, just a couple of questions, if I may. I've had a couple of people. Firstly, this has been really well received from what I've seen in the community and has already been viewed as a really welcome resource for people, the sites themselves, the protections offered. But in addition to that, the background information has already proven quite useful. People have been using it in their homeschooling learnings and already going and looking at some of the areas with the background information contained in the heritage study. So I think it's already showing that it's a welcome and useful resource. I have had a few people say to me that they have either knowledge of areas that aren't included or that they have areas that aren't included on their own properties, and they're wondering what they should do about those and what the steps are for having them included in future studies or at least having those sites noted by council staff so they can be protected.

To the Manager of Strategic Planning.

Thank you,

Mr Mayor

So there are a number of recommendations or management focus areas that are in the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Study, and that includes focus area number five, which is around further studies and investigations. And that includes recommendations regarding a review of sites that are actually already on the, what's known as the Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System, or otherwise known as AHIMS, but also engagement with the local Aboriginal community and the community generally in respect of known unregistered sites. So it's basically a process of ongoing review the community and the local Aboriginal community is able to undertake with Council to identify those particular sites.

So can I just clarify then that if they were to, say, contact Council and seek to have that information added to the information that we already have, that Council has a means of recording that and storing it for subsequent reviews? Yeah

Definitely. So it would be definitely considered as part of whether to be included as part of the AHIMS register as well. Thanks. Thank you. Is the first speaker in favour? Is anyone wishing to speak against? No. Okay, we have a further speakers in favour. Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I actually had a question. It was with regarding in the implementation plan

Or at the

End on

Page 42 of the strategy, regarding about engaging a full-time or part-time staff member to manage the administration of Aboriginal cultural heritage in the Hawkesbury. Is that going to be allocated to an existing staff member, or is it going to be a whole new position generated?

Refer that to the General Manager.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Through you, at this stage, Councillors, we'd be anticipating that all of the items listed in the implementation plan, particularly those that require funding, would be subject to the ongoing annual operational plan and budget processes. So we'll continue to feed those in at this point. So as to whether it would be a standalone position or incorporated into the description of duties for an existing role, we couldn't answer at this particular point in time.

Thank you. Thank you. So, in other words, we can anticipate that coming up in the following budget in the next Council, that some of those high priority actions to be implemented would be perhaps resourced or put in for resourcing. That's wonderful. Thank you. I'd just like to echo what Councillor Wheeler said in how well received this has been within the community, and I think that the recommendations are great, and I look forward to seeing the future work that's done in this regard. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I am not that happy with the way that the recommendation is worded in the business paper, and I was just trying to get it up. I think it says , from memory, it says that we will adopt this study. Now, that means that we're adopting something that we don't know the cost of as yet. So would it, I guess I would request Councillor Wheeler, I think Councillor Wheeler moved the recommendation, to add a point. That , sorry, I'm still trying to get it open. Point three, well, point two was to receive and note the study, and then point three would be what the general manager just said, is that the recommendations from this study would be further

Investigated in the operational plan processes and the funding for that. It just seems like we're adopting something that we're not quite sure how much it costs. I mean, I think that overall the study is very positive, and I enjoyed reading it. It was really a delight to read. But I still think it's, we're adopting something that we're not very , you know, we're not very certain of the cost of those things. So if Councillor Will is amenable to adding that point, if she's not, I will move that as an amendment.

So is that, that would just be that the implementation items are referred to by staff in the development of the next operational plan? Yes,

Yes. Point two, we receive and note the study, and that the recommendations or the implementation— there's a couple of ways that this is structured. There are kind of areas of implementation, which the manager of strategic planning just read out. There's five of those, and then there's implementation— there's an implementation plan on page 42. So, and there's also timing of those, you know, there's high, to medium and low priority. So I've just got the recommendation in front of me, thank you. So we note— Sorry.

No

Number one is noting the outcome of the public exhibition. That's fine. Adopt— Number two is to receive and note the study, and point three would be that the implementation plan be subject to the processes of our annual operating plan.

Would you, just to anticipate an issue there, rather than say subject to, how would you feel about referred to? Because I think I

Was— Oh, referred to, yeah. That's right. I was going

To say something similar, which is just to make sure it doesn't get lost more than anything, that it actually goes next year. Councillor Wheeler.

I'd prefer to keep point two as adopt because I think this study has protective elements to it. I think we need to not just receive and note it, but we need to adopt it as a document that confers protection onto the sites that are listed. But I do think it's a good idea that we flag that this needs to come to the development of the operational plan so that it doesn't end up as one of those documents in a drawer when it comes to actually acting on the, you know, not just the protections, but the rollout of the other measures.

Okay. Happy with that, Councillor Kotlash, or are you moving an amendment

I'm still— I'd just like to get some more information about what adopting this study actually means. I didn't read it like—

To me, adopting something is we agree with everything in the study, and that can't be how we go on this. It's an iterative process. There's lots of different things that need to be considered. And this study is definitely one of the biggest ones, I admit to that. But I don't think it's the whole situation. It's not the whole. I think we're giving it more... I don't know. I'm just, sorry, I'm asking a very long-winded question. Could somebody explain that mechanism of protection that Councillor Wheeler just referred to if we do adopt this plan?

Manager Strategic Planning,

Did you want that one? Yeah, thank you, Mr Mayor. So obviously there's a number of those key management focus areas, and they cover a fair number of different items there. So part of that deals with the identification of the AHIM sites. So adoption allows us to sort of proceed with the process in terms of securing those sites in terms of protecting. But in terms of the others, it's, I guess, by adopting the strategy, that allows council officers to proceed with, I guess, investigating the further implementation of the plan, which is subject to council's budgetary controls . And as we've sort of highlighted in the report, the further advancement of those various sort of focus areas really depends on either receiving further grant funding or council's internal budget allocation.

Thank you.

Yeah, okay, well, I'll just... we can leave it at point two as adopt. Oh, well, says me. I'm happy with that, but point three I think we need to make sure that it doesn't go...

What doesn't slip off our radar

Are there any further speakers?

If not, right of reply, Councillor Wheeler. Thanks,

Mr. Mayor. Just to address a couple of the issues that Councillor Kotlash has raised, if you look at the high priority actions, there are things like provide a copy of the document to personnel responsible for dealing with development applications, and to implement internal training for council staff. These are things that we can do now within our current budget mechanisms. I think if we leave this as something that we just receive a note, but we don't begin the adoption and implementation of this, then we risk making Aboriginal heritage a separate piece of our cultural heritage that waits for yet another budget in order to start being rolled out. The part of the point of this, I think, is that we get a continuous treatment of heritage across the LGA, that Aboriginal heritage is not subservient to European heritage, that we don't have a focus on European heritage because that's what we've planned currently, or that's what we've got protected under the LEP currently, where we have all of these incredibly valuable sites that need to be acted on now.

I thank Councillor Kotlash for bringing the point about making sure that this is tagged in the operational plan. I think often we move through things in council and we think that we've got these things that will flow through to the budget, and then we get to that tail end of the budget process and there's a bit of a mad scramble thinking, oh, this thing that I really wanted to be in there, there's no room or there's no money left for it. And so I think if we flag this early, hopefully that won't happen to the next council as this comes through. What I'm really hoping is that this study now, the publicly available information, and also the move of this council to really put some resources and some understanding into our First Nations heritage will do much to further the long history around understanding of the long history of this place, how this place has affected, how this history has affected where we are now at this point in time, and also how we can build our reconciliation plans around a better understanding of our past , the First Nations past, our shared past at that time of first contact and the time of invasion, and also the place where we are now and how we move forward from there.

And I think this is not the end; this is the beginning of a long and I hope really fruitful process.

Sorry, Councillor Wheeler, you were finished? You sort of muted at the end there. Okay, good. We'll just take this down from the screen and then we'll put the motion.

All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Ross, Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Tree, Councillor Reynolds,

Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Ross, Councillor Garrow. Carried.

Sorry, and all the councillors are on one screen for some reason, so I'm having trouble finding everyone. Next item is item 194. Councillor Garrow has an interest to read.

Yes, I have a pecuniary interest. I have a family member that owns one of the parks mentioned in this motion.

Okay, so we'll just wait for Councillor Garrow to be put in the waiting room. Okay. Somebody wish to move something for 194? Deputy Mayor? Move the recommendation. Yes

I'll move the recommendation.

Councillor Kotlash, seconded. Discussion?

Not a lot of discussion. I think this is a really good approach in this situation. We know that this has had a number of issues around the caravan parks, you know, over time, and the flood brought probably some of those to the fore. I think it's a really good time frame. Two years is long enough for a lot of these approvals and the rebuild to be put back into place, and I think that hopefully we'll end up with a much more resilient operation of the van- for the van park operations. And I think that the fact that the people can now get on and operate their activities and get in before the summer to do their businesses will be much better for them. But I think the fact that this gives an opportunity to work with those operators and be able to fix up any issues and, of course, to also look, I guess, around the construction to make it safer in flood time and so on.

And I think this has been a really good approach of how this has gone forward to get to this result.

Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. This is a great report. I'm pleased that council planning staff have put this forward to the council meeting tonight. It has been undoubtedly quite a long process to get to this point, considering the flood was back towards the start of the year. But I'm glad that we're here now. And I have, you know, just been contacted so many times by caravan park owners just frustrated beyond belief with trying to get their parks, you know, back on track. If any councillors or any members of the public were able to see what some of these caravan parks looked like immediately after the flood, you would have thought an atomic bomb went off. Like, it was just devastatingly heartbreaking.

And it's not just about people being able to get back and water ski or whatever before summer. You've got to remember that these people operating caravan parks, some of these, they're small business people. So they're people trying to make a living, and this is how they do their living. And, you know, not only that, some of these caravan parks, seriously, they have a lot of people, and a lot of tenants had contacted me as well, concerned about their permissibility to get back on the sites that they lease. So there was so much concern for this in the LGA. And I'm just super happy we've got some sort of a resolution tonight. When I was told that this was going to be a possibility, the feedback I had received from caravan park owners and operators was that they found that this was a good way forward.

That means that our planning department now have a good couple of years up their sleeves to be able to look at those compliance issues, to look at the legalities around their operations, and make sure that we clean up and tidy up the terms of their operations. So I think this is a great way forward. I may have been frustrated in some of my communications trying to advocate for these people, but I think it's good that we've got there now, and I thank the staff for being on top of it. And I hope that within this two-year period, we're able to clean up everything to do with these caravan parks so that they can focus on providing the services to their clients, operating their small businesses, and of course so that our residents who are the caravan park tenants can enjoy a nice summer on the water after what's been a really rough couple of years in the Hawkesbury.

Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just a couple of questions, if I may. Firstly, does this leave us open to any risks or indemnity issues, given that these sites are obviously flood affected and we know the damage that is likely to occur?

That to Director City Planning.

Thank you. Through you, Mr Mayor. No, that was certainly one of the key questions I asked of our legal advisers as we were trying to confirm the process that we could undertake going forward. Ultimately, the two years, as has been said, really just allows Council the opportunity to make sure that all the caravan parks are operating in accordance with required approvals. But yes, from a risk point of view back to Council, no, that isn't an issue.

Thanks. And the other question then is, do we have the resources to do this in the time frame,

Along with our other responsibilities? That's why we're giving ourselves two years, because it is within our current resources. I do have a small group of staff working with me who kind of wanted to work on addressing caravan parks, and so I've got a mixed project team. We meet weekly as we're working through the issues. But ultimately, the two years does allow us to blend it into everyone's normal day-to-day. It's part of their jobs, but just blend it into their day-to-day work.

So we're not dropping other things or extending the timelines on other things in order to do this?

No, no. Deliberately, that's why we've gone for a two year. Framework . Okay

Thanks. One of the other things that's front of mind for me is that the SES have done some work over, and in fact they did the bulk of the work between the smaller flood last year and the large flood this year, about the vulnerability of caravan parks and particularly the issues around long-stay caravan parks and flood vulnerability and the residents who live in those parks with that increased vulnerability. And I think we need to keep that front of mind as well when we look at these places over this two-year period and what we do long term. I think we need to have a really robust discussion about the fact that caravan parks are being used for emergency and effectively surrogate affordable housing for some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, and we need to deal with the fact then that those people, they're not the same as holidaymakers.

They're not the same as people who have the caravan as effectively a second residence for holidays, for skiing, for recreation. We have people who are relying on these parks as permanent housing, and in many cases it is quite inadequate, and they are very vulnerable. They have real difficulties navigating the system. They have real difficulties navigating the system if they require evacuation, and we saw that very, very clearly at Wilberforce. Incredibly traumatised people. These people hadn't lost their holiday water skis; they had lost everything, and they had nowhere to live. And we struggled to put resources in place around these people, and it made it incredibly difficult for our staff, who did an amazing job on the ground trying to help them navigate these processes.

If we're going to use these parks as long-term housing for people, we need to have a robust conversation about whether we are putting our most vulnerable people at greater risk than they can cope with. Because I've got serious concerns that that is in fact what we're doing.

We also, I think, need to have a conversation about what we do about those places when we find that they are non-compliant. So we have had issues in the past, for example, around effluent, where we know that there are too many vans on site, that there is greater effluent disposal going on than the system is designed for, that effluent usually ends up in the river or on a neighbouring block. These are things that we have to look at. You know, while most of these people are doing the right thing and are really determined to do the right thing and look after their residents or the people who come there for holidays, we do have some rogue operators, and they leave both the environment and their neighbours, but particularly the people who rely on them for long-term accommodation, at a real disadvantage. And that's a conversation that we have to have.

Thank you. Councillor

Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. I would like to further question the Director in regard to the fact that it is claimed that there will be no budgetary implication other than potentially legal costs. It would seem with this volume of sites which are involved, and no doubt, as we've just heard, the complexity of matters that are likely to arise, that there is going to be a considerable input from our workforce, which would, I would suggest... And bearing in mind the level of development applications that I've witnessed being submitted to Council, as a whole, on a weekly basis, which appear to show quite a substantial increase, that we are now not going to be able to indeed finance this operation from existing resources. And I'm wondering whether there might be some reconsideration by the staff of, in fact, the financial cost of conducting these processes, please

I'll refer that to the Director of City Planning for comment. Okay,

Thank you . So over the two years, and essentially I would say in the last few months, yes, there's been a spike in having to look at the caravans and other flood-impacted properties that obviously was not part of our work plan because we weren't anticipating such a significant flood. However, over the next two years, working with—we won't, we'll be basically pacing the work with each of the caravan operators , and each caravan will be different in terms of, you know, how much information we have that's readily available, how much information they have, and also how compliant they have or have not been . That work has commenced already. It is part of the—and it's shared. It's not necessarily the development assessment staff.

It is our environmental health and our compliance and building certification team that's kind of working with me on this , and it's, you know, it is—it's going to be just part of their job . Inspecting caravan sites is already part of the job . Ultimately, this is just part of a, you know, strategic program of work to be done over the next two years. So within the cost of the staffing, I'm not anticipating engaging other staff for it . However, yes, if there are legal issues that need investigation or addressing, then, you know, I would even have to seek legal advice if and when that arises. Yeah, Councillor Ross.

Thank you,

Mr Mayor. I remain deeply concerned in that regard to cost and the expectations that the Director professes. And I think we're going to find that this is going to be a much more time-consuming and therefore costly exercise and will impact on the availability of resources, frankly. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Ross

I'll just speak briefly to the matter. I support the motion. I think this has been a really complex issue, obviously. A lot of these, the vast majority of the issues were obviously there before the flood, and like other natural disasters, this has just brought all these issues to the front of our attention, reminded us all why they're so important, that people do comply with these rules, but also given us the situation where we've got all these parks that want to reopen, and we've only got a certain amount of resources to get that happening. And I think this is a really good way forward. Obviously it's been quite contentious, and I did see some public commentary that I feel I need to address as the Mayor, to defend our staff who have been working on this really very complex issue for the last few months, and the member for Macquarie did make some comments that she couldn't understand what we've been doing and why we hadn't sorted this and why our parks weren't able to be open when every other park was.

And I just wanted to point out publicly the member for Macquarie never contacted me. Never asked about it. We have no representations on this matter at all from the Member for Macquarie. Simply, I would hope in the future before that sort of public commentary is made, that, you know, a phone call, a letter, an email, just mention it to me at one of the many community events would have been good . But I think this is a good way forward. I think the community can see that our staff have been working really hard on this , and they've come up with an outcome that allows parks to open in time for summer. So I'm quite satisfied with that . Were there any further speakers?

If not, we'll go right of reply. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think that those good contributions. I think, I do hope that we have the conversations that Councillor Wheeler raised, not just around caravan parks, but of course around accommodation for our vulnerable populations anyway, and our overall resilience in terms of natural disasters. That will be good and timely. I think in terms of the resourcing, I believe that a fair bit of the groundwork's already been done in identifying what the issues are, so that in turn will, I guess, assist with it moving forward. And I know how much time that an individual non-compliance issue seems to take up, so being able to deal with things generally and to have a whole set of parameters around that will help progress it forward, I would think, in a much more timely manner.

So even though it has taken some time, I think that to get to this point, from my understanding and from the representations I've made on behalf of people, the sheer complexity of it has now been overcome somewhat in coming up with a way forward, which is quite an effective response. And I think that that's a good amount of time. Two years is quite a good amount of time to achieve those sort of things. So hopefully it will all go smoothly. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour of the motion are Councillor Buckett, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Calvert, Councillor — screen move, sorry— Councillor Ross, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Tree, Councillor Rasmussen. That's carried . Did I read everyone's name out?

Mr. Mayor. Councillor Garrow is outside. Councillor Garrow is absent for the vote. Thank you . Okay, declare it carried, and we'll let Councillor Garrow back in.

Peter, lower your hand, Councillor Ross, as well.

That's okay.

Councillor Garrow has rejoined the meeting. So we've got item 195. There are a couple of declarations, please. Councillor Richards

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm declaring a less than significant non-pecuniary interest. I'm a member of the Hawkesbury RFS Communications Brigade. And

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm declaring a less than significant non-pecuniary interest. Both my son and I are members of the Rural Fire Service, but my membership includes no involvement in the use of the code, so there's no reason for further action.

Thank you. Okay. Does somebody wish to move something here?

Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm not 100% sure of my exact wording, but I'd like to move that—change recommendation to the fact that Hawkesbury City Council opts in immediately to the code.

Okay, so that Hawkesbury Council opt into the New South Wales Rural Fire Service's Rural Boundary Clearing Code. Yes, Councillor Tree. Discussion?

Discussion, Councillor Richards? Yes

Yes, thank you. Sorry, I didn't know if that was open to me. Thank you. I would like to take up some of my allocated time this evening to read out a submission . It was sent to me—in fact, I think it may have been sent to all of the councillors, I'm not 100% sure—but it was sent to me. It's from a gentleman who lives in Bilpin by the name of Martin Tebbett. He obviously has some technical issues with getting onto Zoom meetings, and he has asked me to read this submission from him. So I'm very happy to use my time to do so. So before I start that submission, I want to make sure that people understand that these are the words of Martin Tebbett. I'm doing this on his behalf, and these are not my words until I finish speaking.

So I'll start now. Hazard reduction, rural boundary clearing code. The Hawkesbury City Council Planning Department's key considerations advised to Councillors on the Rural Boundary Clearing Code contains a claim that, in a worst case scenario, 15,800 hectares or 5.7% of our LGA could be cleared. This sounds very alarming, but we submit it lacks perspective, and Councillors should factor into these considerations that it does not appear to allow for many realities, which may include lots where fence lines are already cleared, lots facing main roads, lots that owners particularly wish to keep untouched, and mountainous terrain where it is probably impossible to clear. The advice also does not highlight that many blocks adjoin the numerous national parks, including Wollemi and Blue Mountains, and these landowners constantly face even greater extreme risk.

Balanced against this figure of 15,800 hectares or 39,000 acres or 5.7% of the Hawkesbury LGA that could be vulnerable is a New South Wales Department of Planning, Industry and Environment statistic that as at 28 January 2020, and fires were still burning then, New South Wales had 5.3 million hectares, that's 13 million acres or 6.7% of the state actually burnt. The 15,800 hectares figure in the Hawkesbury is equivalent to just 0.3% of that 13 million hectares that burnt. As at 9 March 2020, there was an estimated 18.6 million hectares or 45 million acres burnt across Australia. The DPIE also advises that more than 80% of the World Heritage listed Greater Blue Mountains area and 54% of the New South Wales components of the Gondwana Rainforests of Australia World Heritage property were fire affected.

We are concerned that Councillors may be receiving advice and information that do not reside in a bushfire prone area and have not actually been on the receiving end of fire terror. We submit that the recommendation to consult with the Hawkesbury community means well, but it may also allow for an imbalance of views from those who are not at risk of bushfire. Under the heading of potential impacts, council staff seem to have provided 13 negative impacts and one positive, being that council may be criticised by property owners in bushfire areas for not opting in. This could mean that the authors at council may be endeavouring to influence the considerations and encouraging councillors to opt out.

This includes a reference to landholders being able to apply to the RFS for a bushfire hazard reduction certificate. This onerous approval application requires the completion of two pages of details and maps, which must be done by the 12-page instructions that we have experienced to be unreasonable. It is actually titled the Bushfire Environmental Assessment Code Supporting Document, Bushfire Hazard Reduction Certificate Environmental Approval Application Form. On two occasions, we have endured this process only to be refused on the illogical basis that our fence was not fully established. This was correct, given the fence had already been burnt out by the bushfire. Many other restrictive conditions can also attach if approved.

All have seen the absolute destruction of the 2019-20 fires, and surely a reasonable, rational view and presentation to councillors of the potential impacts ought to include informed opinions from residents that live in and have directly experienced the ravages of fire. We submit that human life, personal possessions, and the mental health of fire victims ought to be at the top of council's considerations: Marion and Martin Tebbutt. I'll just flick back to my screen. I'm not sure how long I have left. I can't see a timer, Mr. Mayor.

About 30 seconds.

Sorry?

30 seconds.

Oh, okay. Well, I just want to make a very quick personal assessment there, now that I've concluded with Mr. Tebbutt's words, is that I do strongly support that. And having been to many properties after the 2019-20 bushfires and being so personally affected by what I'd seen other people experience that it committed me to join the RFS, I believe that we should be allowing people to protect not only their lives but their assets. And what we need to consider is that many of these buildings and properties were built well before any of our time of being elected, but we now have an opportunity to allow these people to protect us, and I think that this does that. And I firmly therefore believe that Hawkesbury City Council should be opting in, and opting in now, as we are in the bushfire season, and it is well before us, and I think that any delay could actually potentially result in harm.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to move an amendment, and I had sent the wording of that amendment to Mr McElroy previously . I'd like to propose that and seek a seconder.

Just wait for it to be brought up on the screen.

Thank you. I'll just suggest that and seek a seconder.

Seconded, Councillor Reynolds.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Look, I think it's appropriate to just set some context here. The massive devastation that was wrought by the Gospers Mountain fire, I think places us under a moral obligation to review our hazard management practices. I think that to do nothing would be an unconscionable abrogation of our duty. I support the reform of hazard management. I'm looking for reasons to support this code, but I'm frankly very disappointed with the way that Councillor Richards has advanced it. She's taken an incredibly important question and has very naively reduced it to a yes-no proposition, which isn't particularly nuanced. It ignores the obvious, and that is that we need to do a lot more work to establish what will be needed to make this code work well and then resource council to do it.

The real importance of this issue has weighed on my conscience. I think we're all seized of the consequences of both action and inaction here, and the memory of 65 homes lost in our own LGA has led me to read and consult very widely over the last few weeks, including with very many wise heads in the RFS and with what I would describe as eminent experts in this field. Their responses have echoed the misgivings that I suspected others may have in this chamber. You see, when I asked them whether we should adopt this code, their answer has consistently been yes, but , and I want to focus on the but. Even this code's defenders tell me that we need to do more work. I'm told that this code would not have prevented the kind of fire we saw in 2019-2020, but may provide protection against other fires.

This code may have a significant impact on the tree cover across our RU zones.

I asked council staff if we possess the geospatial and mapping tools that allow us to quantify the degree of tree cover on a per property basis and then also track changes over time. I was told that we do not. I know that the technology exists. When I was in Canberra recently at the local government conference, I spent a lot of time speaking with several providers like Nearmap who do possess that technology and make it available to LGAs. What we can't measure, we can't assess the impact of, and that worries me. I've been also warned that addressing one hazard through this code creates another. There is no guidance from this code about what we do with the windrows, that is to say the piles of combustible debris that may be left after land clearing activities.

Others point out that this code would only operate in RU zonings and offers nothing for residents in the 1,800 properties in our LGA that are zoned E4 Environmental Living, who are arguably at even greater risk. Our rural land strategy that we adopted recently talks about future selective rezoning of properties from RU into E zonings, which would move those properties completely out of the remit of this code. The code directs landowners to self-assess their eligibility, but it also warns that landowners need to seek professional advice about a score of exclusions that could apply based on the species of trees present, wildlife habitats, site slopes, soil erosion, landslip risk, Aboriginal cultural significance, the presence of watercourses, adjacent zonings, or the presence of 13 different ecological communities, not to mention varying restrictions surrounding the use of herbicides, chain clearing, burning and landowner consent.

I worry that people are ill-equipped to do this without help. The code refers people to a mapping tool that the RFS website provides to establish eligibility, but that only gets you so far. And I might add that nobody can even access that tool at the moment because we haven't opted in, and we can't even see how adequate that tool will be for us. The proposed code specifically directs landowners to consult their local councils for advice on these matters. The motion that Councillor Richards advanced offers nothing in consideration of the resourcing that we might need to budget for and put into place to offer guidance to landowners who, in the vast majority, like the tebbits that Councillor Richards cites, want to be good stewards of their land.

Now I know that many might make an argument that it's only a vanishing minority of people who might not act in good faith and abuse this code to engage in land clearing activities that are not predicated on reducing their fire risk. But it is a well-known fact of good government that if people know that Council is capable of not only providing that guidance that leaves people without excuse, but that there is a regime for compliance and enforcement, they will be well motivated to do the right thing. And I am coming to my conclusion, Mr Mayor. I hope that you and Councillor Richards understand that many here hold these reasonable concerns about a code that was only made public a month ago, and if you were confident that they had persuasive answers, Councillor Richards could have advanced a motion that drove this process forward by heeding the recommendation of staff and begin a process rather than offer something simplistic

If I can finish with just this analogy. In the Hawkesbury River County Council, when we engage in weed activities, we go into those areas, we make appointments with landowners, we walk the property with them, we identify the problem species, and we partner with landowners to help them be good stewards. Your

Time has well and truly expired, so if you want

To summarise right

There.

I'd like to think that we can do the same in our council, and that's why I've proposed this amendment. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor Zamprogno. I'll just speak against the amendment briefly, and I'll draw on— I think one of Council's unproclaimed heroes, Margaret Thatcher was once approached, and a journalist spoke about anonymous sources to give credibility to his claims. And she responded with, Well, give me their names. And I would suggest the same thing might actually apply here, where just saying, I've spoken to really, really good experts and they've all told me I'm right. If you're not willing to tell us who it is and what they've said and where on the record that is, I don't know that we can really pay much attention to that . I think this is a code that's been developed by the state government .

It's already been out in the community for a long time . There's been, you know, a long time to have a look at it. It's also not our code. It's a code that's been developed by the state government, not by us . We can do this process, and if the motion, if the amendment passes, I'll support it. I hope it doesn't, because I think that people actually want to clear their land and protect themselves and their property now, not in a year. By the time we get around to do this process, come back, make a decision, and if we opt in, this fire season's over and we're going to next year. And I'd ask councillors to consider how they might feel if we do have, and I hope we don't have . Another event, but if we do have another fire event and someone who might have cleared their boundary and that could have made a difference, I won't be very happy that we spent extra time sitting around talking about this, sending it out for consultation, coming back with reports, when we could have just opted in.

Like, this already applies to many councils and they didn't go through this process of consultation. They didn't go through a process of getting reports on the resourcing or anything like that. They would just opted in and they've done fine. In terms of what resourcing would be required, I mean, we can ask for that report, but again, we're talking about clearing is an activity at the moment that cannot be done. We are already responsible for the compliance of that. We're changing the rules, but why that would increase the compliance activity when the rules are actually being relaxed, that to me, that's illogical. The rules currently don't allow any clearing and we're responsible for all that compliance to make sure there isn't a clearing and whatever geospatial mapping tools we have would apply right now, there's no difference there except that some of the clearing is now allowed.

That's the key difference. So why that would take more resourcing for us to do the compliance of that, I'm not sure. So I think that for our community, it's really important that we opt in now, that we give them the power to do, give them the authority to do, you know, what they need to do on their own land to protect their own houses now, not kick this down the can and come up with all sorts of excuses to push this decision away so that we don't have to say no before an election when we know we're going to have an unpopular view. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I've just got a series of questions. Given the complexity of this issue, I just wanted to clarify some things. I just question what you just said, that this has been out in the community for some time for consultation. I don't believe that's true. I didn't

Say so. I didn't say it got out on consultation. I said it's been out in the community for a long time.

I thought it only came out in September. That's

What I read. Yes. Yep. We're now into October. That's been out there for over a month.

That's not a long time. Well,

How long would you want to put it on consultation for, Deputy Mayor?

Well, no, Mr Mayor, but what I'm saying is it only came up in this council just recently. It was from the state government. The RFS put it out in September. We didn't put it out, is what I'm saying. I'm just clarifying that, because it sounded like we'd put it out for exhibition and we haven't. Mr Mayor, I'm just wondering, I do have a question for you. I'm just wondering if this is a matter that's been discussed at Bushfire Committee, if you attend that, which the Mayor generally does.

I don't believe it's been discussed since September, no. I'd have to go back and check that.

Okay. Well, I have a question on that regard, because I'd be interested in if there's an official take on this from the Hawkesbury RFS. I know there's been contradictory opinions from individual RFS members, but I think I'd be interested to know what their official position is, but we've not received anything on that from them.

General Manager?

I might just pass that to the Manager of Strategic Planning, if that's okay.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So, yeah, we've received nothing official from RFS in this respect, no. Thank you, Mr Cairns

The next question was around the mapping and has any mapping of this area, does Council have access to mapping that's been done after the bushfires, official mapping, particularly around the ecological communities?

Manager

Strategic Planning. I'm not aware of any such mapping, no.

Okay, so we don't have the up-to-date mapping to see what was lost in the fires as such?

Not to my knowledge, no.

Thank you. My third question was around what can a landowner currently clear in a rural zoning, and what can they currently clear under the various rules that do exist in an E4 or an E3, if we have any of that zoning?

Without permission, I assume is the question?

No, with permission. I want to know what people can do to maintain their properties. In other words, I want to know—

Without grant, without planning and planning permission, I mean, so what they can do without an

Approval. I just want to know what clearing people can do on their property, with or without approval. I just want to know what options are currently available for people to prepare their property for fire mitigation, so to speak.

Are you referring that to the Manager Strategic Planning

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So there are a number of avenues that property owners can explore. So there's the existing 10/50 vegetation clearing scheme. So that's in designated areas where, without seeking approval, property owners can clear trees on property within 10 metres of a home, and they can clear underlying vegetation such as shrubs, but not trees, within 50 metres of a home. There's an online tool on the New South Wales RFS website that highlights those designated areas. So that could be a combination of either rural zone properties or environmental zone properties. Obviously , it depends on each circumstance, and you put your address into that tool to find out if you are in a designated area or not.

There's also the New South Wales RFS Bushfire Hazard Reduction Certificate, where property owners can apply for removal of vegetation, and that typically allows for clearances from boundary fences of up to six metres. Then there's obviously the ability for property owners to apply for a tree removal permit or development application to remove vegetation as well.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll just process that, then I may speak again if I get the opportunity. Thank you.

Councillor

Reynolds. Yes

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I support the amendment, obviously because I seconded it. I think this is a really concerning issue , and probably the most concerning part is the RFS itself said that this boundary code does not apply to the Hawkesbury, as well as some neighbouring councils. And you mentioned councils that have already opted in. I'd like to know the names of those councils because none of our neighbouring councils have. The Hills hasn't, Hornsby hasn't, Blue Mountains hasn't.

The big issue is, as I said, the RFS has said it doesn't apply here. Now, like I was an active member of the RFS, and I know that when you put your yellows on and you climb aboard an RFS vehicle, you're putting your life in the hands of the RFS, and you're trusting them as you head, you know, into a hazardous situation. You trust in their experience and their knowledge and their skill to keep you safe. Yet the RFS, with all its skill, experience and knowledge, states that the boundary code does not apply to the Hawkesbury. Now, there's no information here contrary to that RFS position. There's no data, and there's no science to support it. I too have spoken to members of the RFS who won't give their names, actually because of fear of retribution, and so I'm going to honour that.

But I want to know what makes those who support the original motion think that they know more about this stuff than the RFS. You know, the RFS—sorry, the New South Wales government commissioned an independent inquiry into the bushfires, and the inquiry made 76 recommendations. Boundary clearing was not one of them. Now, we know it was an issue of a stoush between the Nationals and the Liberals, and it's, you know, probably come up from that. Again, the RFS personnel that I spoke to, some of the most experienced firefighters in the country, none of them knows where the 25 metres come from. They all want to know where it came from.

Some of them did say that they believe that the boundary clearing code was intended for areas west of us, where they don't have what one referred to as, they don't have tactical fire advantage lines or a fire trail system like we do, so that they don't have, you know, strategic trails and tactical methods to fight a fire.

So, I mean, if we need more fire trails, then we should be addressing that. And the people concerned said that instead of, you know, 25 metres cleared down to mineral earth, that's no vegetation, that's no composted leaves, that's nothing. It's just dirt and nothing else. That really does nothing when you've got a fire jumping from ridge to ridge. And they said instead people should concentrate on clearing fuel from around their homes and the rest of their property under the 10/50 law, which they can do now without any

Approvals necessary. And they also said that, you know, the 25 metre rule has the potential to put people in harm's way if it creates the false impression they are safer and they stay in a strategically dangerous position with a fire approaching. So, I mean, if you could get, you know, Karen or Rob Rogers or, you know, senior RFS personnel to come to us and say, You guys really need to adopt this opt in on this boundary clearance code, then, hey, you know, we're all for it. I mean, we have confidence in them, but we don't have confidence in, you know, a motion just says opt in without any reason to justify it apart from fear. So that's all I'll say at this stage.

Thanks, mate. Thank you. I'll just clarify, of course, that the RFS do not have a position on this. The letter we have says the New South Wales Government has provided the following councils the option to join this scheme. As a result, the Rural Boundary Clearing provisions do not apply to these council areas unless the council makes a request in writing to the Commissioner of the New South Wales RFS. So they've just stated the facts. They've not stated any position.

Again, I'll just point out the RFS, as I said, the RFS personnel said if it was critical that the Hawkesbury have this code applied, it would be applied to the Hawkesbury as it is applied to other councils.

Thank you. I wasn't entering into debate. I was just clarifying for the record what the letter actually says, which is quite different to what you reported that it says. And I think if we have to have a common— It's not exactly the same. We have to have a common set of facts or there's no point having a debate, Councillor Reynolds. If you want to have a

Debate, I'm fine, but read the code.

The code says it does not apply. So I'm actually speaking right now, Councillor Reynolds. Well,

How can we get to speak twice?

Councillor Reynolds, I'm chairing the meeting, and I've asked you to stop speaking because I was clarifying what the letter from the RFS actually says for people watching on Zoom, because it does not say what it says

What you purported that it says. I was quoting the code, sir, the code, not the letter.

No, you said the RFS, and the RFS didn't write the code.

They did. They did write the code. The

Government has issued the code. It's been done by the government. It was written by the RFS

It's under RFS. It's under the RFS. You're being disorderly

Councillor Reynolds. You're being dishonest , sir. Councillor Reynolds, you're being disorderly. I refer anyone watching that to page 28 of the business paper, and you can see the actual facts there, because you won't hear them from that address. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm currently looking at the New South Wales Rural Fire Service Boundary Clearing Code of Practice version 1, 2021. On page 6, it clearly states by the RFS, the Rural Boundary Clearing Code will not apply to Blacktown City Council and a long list of councils, including Hawkesbury City Council, unless the council requests to have the code applied to their local government area.

Does it say

Should not or

Will not, Councillor Wheeler? Because that's the point I was making. Should not or will not? Will not. Exactly. So there haven't been a position. Mr Mayor

I thought I had the floor.

Well, you wanted to take issue with what I just said, Councillor Wheeler, which is why I was— You

Have my time start from this point, please, given that you are taking up my time, Mr Mayor.

The rural boundary— in order to evaluate— I'm speaking in support of the amendment. In order to evaluate whether this code is fit for purpose in this LGA, we should look at the Bushfire Inquiry recommendations. Of the 76 recommendations made, and I note that the review of vegetation clearing to ensure process recommends that vegetation clearing processes are clear and easy to navigate, and that they enable the appropriate bushfire risk management by individual landowners. So if we look at the 25 metre clearing, we can see it's certainly easy to navigate. You can just rip through anything after you've had a bit of quick self-assessment. And once you've decided that you fit, you can get out your chainsaw or your grader, and you can hope that it's not koala habitat or that you don't get caught.

Does it enable appropriate bushfire risk management? And I think that really is the question that we need to ask here. I can't find a single piece of expert or scientific literature that states that it does. But senior RFS members I've spoken to over the weekend, and I've spent hours on the phone, remain unconvinced, and their comments range from knock it back and it's an excuse for clearing land unnecessarily, to it's a knee-jerk reaction to satisfy the Nats.

The people that I spoke to, people who have risked their lives in major bushfires over the last two decades.

Said things like, a clear edge won't make any bloody difference. It won't stop ember attack. It won't stop spotting. It won't work without topography. It wouldn't have made any difference in the 2019-2020 fires, where fires spotted from ridge line to ridge line. It won't affect wildfire behaviour. You can already clear enough to get a truck around a boundary. You don't need to clear 25 metres. It would only make a small difference if it was completely bare, wet ground. It would be a moot point once the fire got to the national park anyway. It will give people a false sense of security and possibly stop people evacuating early enough because they think that their property is safer than it is.

There's enough scope in the current legislation to clear to protect property under the 10-50 rules, to get vehicles, including fire trucks, around boundaries, but to also maintain corridors and protect biodiversity. The code leaves more questions than answers. Its wording is really vague. What I find really troubling is that none of these senior RFS members I spoke to were willing to speak on the public record due to fear of backlash or reprisal. And while you can smirk and shake your head, Mr Mayor, but these are the legitimate concerns of people who in 2019-2020 put their lives at risk for our community. And I was in the comms room when this happened, listening to people cowering in vehicles during burnovers.

So do not smirk at

Their unwillingness. Excuse me, Councillor Wheeler, you are out of order, Councillor Wheeler. You do not speak to any other councillor like that, including myself. I'm allowed to have any reaction I'd like, and the reason I'm smirking, obviously, is because all the nameless experts that are being invoked to make us tell us what to do. If people, we're all supposed to believe you just because you say so, that you've spoken to all the RFS people and they all agree with you, but none of them will say it. And I find that quite troubling. I find it really troubling too,

Mr Mayor, because what it speaks to is a culture where people who stick their heads above the parapet in this LGA are then publicly castigated, threatened with violence, spat on, and these are the reports that I've had from these people: that their children have been picked on at school, that they are unable to go into some areas of the LGA because of the open hostility that they've been exposed to after attempting to save people's lives and property. So these aren't faceless, nameless experts who are too gutless to front the public or to front this council. They are people who have risked themselves in a volunteer capacity and now don't feel comfortable speaking up in front of this community. For those of us who cop death threats, for those of us who cop threats of violence because we were considered to be greenies, because those of us who are told to go into hiding in the 2019-2025—

Sorry, it hasn't expired. Sorry, you've got one minute. My mistake.

We need to be really conscious of the tone of this debate in the public arena as we take this forward, and referring to people as faceless experts is not a responsible way forward. I still can't find any evidence that this will work in our context with respect to our geography, our topography, our residential development patterns. There's plenty of evidence that this will affect biodiversity, that it will affect connectivity between endangered communities, that it will affect soil moisture and stability and surface temperatures, all of which increase bushfire risk. We have e4 zones at very high risk that are not covered by this code, that we have to have a robust discussion about a way forward for.

What we have here is a hospital pass from the state government. It puts the onus onto landowners, the council and the RFS. It was not a recommendation of the Royal Commission. We need far more information and we need a way forward, simply

Opting is inadequate

To protect lives, property or the environment. So we do have to have a lengthier, more developed discussion about this.

Thank you. I just clarified, I didn't say I didn't use the word faceless expert, I said nameless expert, and that was to reference the fact that so many people are telling us that, you know, that the RFS agrees with them, but the RFS just won't say it, and I think that's an irresponsible way to make public decisions, is that we're supposed to listen to that sort of evidence that certain people are against things, but we can't name them or tell you who we spoke to. I think that would be very irresponsible for anybody here to give any weight to that Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and we can probably assist with that by supporting this amendment, and therefore I think we should be seeking a comment from the Hawkesbury Rural Fire Service because clearly this is not something that is thought about uniformly within our RFS, and the only information is what is from the New South Wales Fire Service without any specific local content here. So I'll speak in favour of the amendment. The questions I asked earlier are ones that I think are really important because I think it shows that there is a lot of uncertainty around this issue, and I think we all have the commitment to do what we can in terms of ensuring our community is safe, but it's irresponsible to go ahead without knowing all these other answers.

And one in particular that gives me concern is that after questioning Mr Kearns around what people can do, I'm really wanting us to understand why someone would have had an application rejected, and it's quite possible that the rejection of that application could be the same things that would prevent them applying this code. So I think that we just really have to understand because there's a number of things you can't do under the code, and they may be the same things that are preventing that application being passed. I think that really what we need to do, and Councillor Zamprono and Councillor Wheeler just alluded to that, is that we really need to educate and work with our community to find a solution to this.

And I don't think that just opting into that code now is the solution because of the potential for the misuse of the code and also the exclusion of some of our most vulnerable properties, all along the back areas, the areas that back into the national parks and so on. They are not being covered by this, and we need to look at a way to work with our community, to take everyone together to find the ways that will improve land management for fire. Most people that live in the bush have a fairly good idea, but not everybody does. And, you know, we also then have to be able to see the most up-to-date mapping that we can see so that we can really get some idea of what the impacts of this would be.

And as others have raised, there was nothing in the Royal Commission, or in the recommendations from the inquiry, rather, that said that this was the answer. And when we think of what the objective of hazard reduction is, the objective of hazard reduction is to protect assets, not to protect a boundary. So in just clearing a boundary between the boundary and someone's house, you could have a massive bushland, and so that isn't necessarily the answer because that's not necessarily going to make them any safer. I think that it's quite random, the 25 metres. I can't see any evidence around it, but I think that there's probably a better way, and I think Councillor Zamprono's motion here puts us on the path to finding that better way to work with the community, and a big part of that is going to be to guide the landowners on how to actually make their properties safer and also how to engage with neighbouring.

neighbouring properties, so that there's a consistency, because it's no point one person doing something if your neighbours haven't done anything. So it needs a concerted, orchestrated approach to actually get proper protection. So I'll be supporting the amendment. Councillor

Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd like to suggest— I'm supporting this amendment as well, but I'd like to suggest that we get back to actually addressing what a lot of people in the Hawkesbury need to hear is how what we could do now for this upcoming fire season that might actually help people to use the instruments that we already have in place. And I think that the Deputy Mayor was right when she said that we have the 1050— I'm not sure what we call it— that option to apply for removal of vegetation. What could we do, and this might be a suggestion to add a fourth point to the amendment if Councillor Zamprogno is amenable to that, what could staff suggest we do now to make that process easier? I think that would be a better way forward . I can't think why clearing a boundary would address the

Bushfires recommendation, I think it was number 28, which said that there was too much red tape, it was too complicated for people to navigate to actually manage their land for bushfire protection. So let's try to make it easier. That would address that recommendation. Clearing boundaries... In such a broad way, in such an open slather way, to me is very dangerous and doesn't really go along with the precautionary principle that we should, you know, not do anything until we're sure of what we're doing . So I'd like to see if, and I don't know whether that that's possible for staff to suggest some changes or something that we might be able to apply to the current rules. But I'd like to see that as a fourth point.

So what would the fourth point be exactly? The

Fourth point would be that staff look at ways to expedite the current clearing, the current clearing mechanisms we have. Now, in the, I think in the report it's called, sorry, I haven't got it in front of me, it's called 1050, which is the current, I'm just zooming down here to see if I can find it, which is the current process for applying to manage your land for bushfire.

I'll ask a question, if I can.

Yep.

To the manager of strategic planning, I suppose, Mr. Kearns, is there a possibility in the process of applying for the permission to clear, is there any wiggle room around making that less complicated and faster

Thank you. So I guess it's important to note that both the 1050 vegetation clearing scheme and the existing bushfire hazard reduction certificates are actually New South Wales RFS provisions. So the 1050 scheme is such that you don't actually have to apply. So there's provisions for people, property owners to Clear that, you know, within 10 metres of a home , and then the underlying vegetation, you know, doesn't include trees within 50 metres of a home provided during a designated area. So there's an online tool for the New South Wales RFS site that sort of highlights if you are in a designated area or not . And if you are in a designated area, then you're able to utilise the 10-50 rule without actually formally applying . You probably only have to apply for a bushfire hazard reduction certificate, and that's through New South Wales RFS.

Okay, so that's out of our hands, so that would possibly be inappropriate to put that in this recommendation

I'll ask another question if I can, and I'm sorry, I know we're going— this is a very important issue, so I think it's worth delving into this. If a person wanted to clear 25 metres around their boundary for protection of, I don't know, their fence, possibly, or to stop the, you know, the rapid rate of a fire, or whatever the reason is, which again I can't find either in the literature. So if they wanted to do that, they would have to apply to the Rural Fire Service, not to Council. No

In that instance you've outlined there, they would have to apply for a development application to remove that vegetation. So

It is within our— Yes

So to the extent described that you've just outlined there, it would have to be through a development application process. Yeah.

Okay, so we could put a fourth point to say, could staff give us some guidelines around how we might expedite people putting in a DA if they have genuine concerns about, and can demonstrate that having a 25 metre cleared boundary around their property would actually , would give them some protection under some, I mean, you know, if people really want to do that, I think they need to go to a DA or a process. They just can't, you know, we just can't say to people, yep, that's a great idea because we reckon it might help. So

I'm happy to move that as an amendment to this amendment. So

We can only deal with one amendment at a time. You can foreshadow a second amendment

Could I possibly, through you, Mr Mayor, ask Councillor Zamprogno if he's got some... Forwards on his amenable to that.

So ,

I can speak to that very briefly, indulgence, Mr Mayor. So I've put a suggested point 4 in the group chat, and for the benefit of those who can't see that, it says, Council works with the RFS to ensure communications to the local community maximise fire preparedness, including existing hazard reduction opportunities. But the Mayor has very properly pointed out, and now that I'm looking at a later item, item 198 in reports of committees, puts forward a very similar proposal and then suggests that we allocate money for the publication of an emergency management guide. So I would be happy to take on an additional point and suggest those words, but equally, I'd be probably happier to leave this as it is and then come back to this question in item 198, where we could engage in a more substantive act and vote funds for the publication of an emergency management guide, which I think would be even better.

Councillor Kotlash

Yeah, Councillor

Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor . Look, what I'm trying to get to here is, if we have a bunch of people out there that really want to do this, and they think they've got valid and credible reasons for doing this , if Council is able to give them a mechanism so that they can do it now, so we don't hold up this process to this fire season. And as the Royal Commission, as the Bushfire Inquiry said, these processes are too complex. Can we make the DI process, can we do that? Can Council offer that process? Rapidly now for this fire season. And if the question is, no, we can't because it's too complicated, I suppose there lies the issues. Yeah

The other point to make here, just procedurally, Councillor [unclear], is that this report is not likely to come back before the end, before this fire season is well and truly underway. Unfortunately, not likely to come back until the new council, I'd imagine. So, talking about a report coming back in February, on that point. Good

Point, Mr Mayor, thinking on my feet, never my strong point. Okay, so I'm

Still going to vote against this because I think it's too much of a knee-jerk reaction. Thank you.

Thank you . Councillor Tree.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm just thinking that the DA process is probably not the proper channel to do that because I

Think that there are too many potential holdups with that process. I mean, just a simple process of changing simple things for businesses and all sorts of things in the community can take up to 18 months, and by then the bushfire season has disappeared. So perhaps something, we need some sort of policy that can encapsulate what people want to achieve here . I doubt there'll be a massive take-up. I don't think everyone's as resourced as some people may think, and that clearing is actually would be an expensive endeavour. So I don't foresee that there'd be a huge take-up just for the heck of it. I think that people would use it wisely for the most part. You may get a couple of people, but you're always going to get a couple of people, and they're probably clearing already , regardless of what the rules are anyway, because that's their state of mind and their approach to the rules .

But I just don't think that a DA process is the way to go. I think, Council, if they were going to do something for this next season, has to be a far more streamlined process and something that's going to facilitate the process and not hold it up, which DA processes are prone to do. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor, do you have a question

Mr Mayor, it was just a comment on your thing, your comment in the chat and Councillor Zamprogno's, and I just wanted to point it out because it was my understanding that the Emergency Management Guide was a guide and not a comprehensive document with a whole lot of information. It was more a grab-to thing in a crisis. I'm just wondering if, in light of that, either someone could clarify that or Councillor Zamprogno might want to reconsider that it would be a separate thing to actually work with landholders, because that would be a specific, you know, section of the community that that would be.

Thank you. Councillor Calvert.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just to start with a question, if I might. This code seems like a very blunt instrument, and we've been faced with either to opt in or opt out. Is there an opportunity for us to say that we will

Adopt the code as an interim process until our report is finished

Refer that to Manager Strategic Planning

I would probably say no, because, I mean, the correspondence from RFS is asking Council to consider whether it's opting in or not . And then if it opts in, obviously then the RFS makes their provisions in terms of updating their website and including then there on their boundary clearing tool

So, yeah

I don't know that

We could do it as an interim way.

Could we investigate that possibility as part of this report that's being called for and get a quick answer to that?

We can certainly ask

The question .

If we have that's a question I noticed, Councillor Calvert, is to if we opt in, can we opt out again later? Essentially what we're asking.

Can we opt in on a temporary basis? Yeah. Yeah. And I don't want the answer to that to come next Easter. I'd like that to be something we can get an answer to very quickly.

If we take it as a question on notice, we should have an answer to the next meeting.

Okay. Well , can I say that, you know, I've received a lot of messages from people living up my way, and many of them are concerned that the bushfires are coming back and they're very keen and anxious to do anything they can to stop them. But

Most of the people that I've spoken to, and I'm not going to mention names either, but they have their doubts about this code working in isolation, that it needs to be part of a much bigger program of bushfire. .. Control, and I think that's what Councillor Zamprogno is looking at doing here. But I, like others, I'm worried that this is going to be something that goes into the ether and never comes back again. We really need to drive this very quickly, and that's why I'm trying to get this as an interim policy and get a quick response . We've also, might be nearly a year ago now, we put up the notion that we would consider cool burnings or cultural burnings, and we were going to have a committee investigate that and get some way forward on that, and that really hasn't happened yet.

I mean, there's been a few informal discussions, but that should have happened already. And if we had that happening in conjunction with a much wider look at bushfires, which is something I requested straight after the bushfires, that we have, that we sit down as a council and work out what the strategies should be, and we still haven't really done that to any great effect. We did get a report back at the last disaster and emergency committee, but that was only like a month or two ago. This all should have happened a year ago, and now we're reaching a situation where we're going headlong into another bushfire season, and I don't think we're ready for it in terms of the things that we could be introducing, and I have great concerns about that.

But having said that, I don't think that just opting into this code is going to be the answer . One of the things that I think Councillor Tree mentioned, this is that — It's the private landholder's job to do the clearing. And those of you who've done any clearing know that that's a very expensive process, especially in areas that are hard to get to. And I believe that it is also the private landholder's job to get rid of all the material that is cleared. That's another expensive process. So what the code does is it discriminates against people who don't have a lot of money or resources to do these things. All that needs to be looked into, and to just suddenly make this, adopt this code right now, I think would be dangerous.

However, I'd be very happy to have it adopted on an interim basis for this summer until we get to a better result. But I don't think I'm going to get any support for that. I'll ask Councillor Zamprogno if he wants to maybe integrate that. I know I've got that question on notice, but as well as, see if he would integrate it into his amendment.

As in ask for the report to deal with that question as well? So did you mean ask for the report to also deal with that question about whether we can opt in on a temporary basis?

Yes .

Councillor Zamprogno, are you happy with that?

Look, I'd be happy to add point 2E saying that the report that we will receive includes advice concerning whether the code can be opted in on a temporary basis, if that... Thank you very much.

Councillor Reynolds is a seconder. Are you happy with that change ? Yes. Councillor Rasmussen.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, I'm supporting the amendment. Although I'm not sure about the last bit of it, but anyway, let's stick with it as it is. But Mr Mayor, I've got a question, or several questions, in fact. One of them is, what is the evidence that 25 metres—do we have any evidence, I should ask about—that 25 metres is going to save lives, or in fact is going to create greater safety? What's the evidence for that? Do we know? Have we got any writings? Is there any analysis on that? What's the science behind the 25? Why not 100?

So . That's a question for staff.

Yes, it is, Mr Mayor. Yeah

You deal with

It. Have we received any valid evidence from anybody that 25 metres is going to give our community, our members, greater safety? I

Refer that to the Manager, Strategic Planning.

Thank you.

Mr Mayor, so I guess on our reading of the

Rural Boundary Clearing Code, what didn't seem to be obvious as to where the scientific basis for the 25 metres came from.

Thank you. Sorry, what was that? It's not obvious? It didn't seem obvious to us where the 25 metres came from. Well,

That's good because it wasn't obvious to me either, so I thought I'd ask anyway if we had any. So, in fact, as Councillor Reynolds and others and Wheeler's already said, what we could end up with here, in fact, is a false sense of security. People are thinking that, okay, we adopt the 25, okay, we can go and clear, spend money, resources, we'll do 25 metres, and now we should be safe. Now, clearly. That would be leading them into a death trap that none of us want to have on our conscience. I certainly don't. So look, we need a lot more information on this basis. We just cannot opt in. That is just a silly, silly thing to say. Now, years and years ago, I don't know, some of you don't want to hear lessons, but I did write a long, long report after the 1994 fires, and they were the first of the big fires, the really big fires, like we've seen more recently as well.

And what I said was, for heaven's sake, Albury and the states, go for spotter airplanes, go for fire fighter, fire spotting airplanes. Do it now. They work. Get the RAFT teams going. They do work if you spot them early enough. You can prevent the very large bushfires, the very large ones, from even taking hold. Now, okay, that can be done now. We can lease, or somebody, the state could lease these spotter planes right now. Now, the RAFT teams might take a bit longer to train up, but it is possible for this season. So we don't have to defend, you know, 100 metre flames on our doorstep, because they never got, they never started to get to that height. And 100 metre, and they are 100 or 150 when I was flying around those days , they would disturb a black hawk at 200 metres in the air, 200 metres in the air.

So a 200 metre plane or 100 metre plane with 25 metre so-called safety zone, is just not going to work. I mean, it just doesn't make sense. And if you want to set people up, opt in. If you want to set them up, opt in. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you.

Any further speakers on the amendment? No , we'll put the amendment. Just wait for it to come off the screen . Skye , you to lower your hand, Councillor Rasmussen, if that's okay. So I'll put the amendment. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Sorry, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Calvert , Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Ross, Councillor Garrow. Against ? Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree. Declare it carried.

Any further discussion on the motion?

The only point I want to make to you very briefly is that I've heard a lot of discussion from people supporting this amendment as to why we should not opt into the code, and that's not what this amendment says. This amendment says we should do consultation, we should have another report come back, and that might question, but people might be led to question why we would be putting that up and if that's what we really mean. Councillor Zamprogno?

Sorry, you've got—you’re on mute, Councillor Zamprogno.

Am I able to speak to this now that it is the motion?

Yes, if you feel it's necessary to get it passed, yep.

No, no, all right then. No, no, I mean just briefly to address some of the points that have been made, and including to you, Mr Mayor. You know, if a member of the Greens party and somebody who is as right of centre as I both come to you and say that we've been speaking with local people, eminent people, decorated people, people who are experts in this field whose profession is things like bushfire hazard consultancy, and we say that there seems to be a common theme of caution in the potential adoption of this code, then we're not fibbing. And if they don't want to become embroiled in a political discussion, that is their right, and you shouldn't be so sceptical or cynical.

That's the only point that I really wanted to make by way of follow-up. Thank you. Thank you.

Right of reply, Councillor Richards

Thank you, Mr Mayor. It's been very interesting to listen to the debate tonight. The criticism that opting in was ridiculous, I think mentioned three times by Councillor Zamprogno, my name in wanting to opt in, other people calling it silly, a whole suite of debate around the fact that it would be dangerous. Well— Quite frankly, I think it's dangerous to not opt in immediately, which is why I wanted that recommendation up initially. Like other people tonight in the meeting who have said that they've spoken to experts in the RFS, well, I mean, so have I. But I was happy to read out the names tonight, not of someone in the RFS, but the words of someone who's been greatly impacted and holds a definite fear right now that the fire season is coming up.

I think that if we're all going to be quite frank in our discussions tonight, that the amendment here is simply to push the can down the road so that names do not have to be for or against it, with something quite important coming up in December. We have a bushfire season in front of us right now, and I think that it's very, very dangerous not to be putting a way forward to opt in or opt out of that now, especially when the work has State Government and the RFS in terms of this code. I believe Councillor Tree is 100% correct that there will not be a rush on people taking up this option if the Council were to opt in. A lot of people just don't have the money or the resources to be able to do it.

But I think that those who are severely concerned because their property and their lives were significantly put at risk a couple of years ago are carrying that trauma, and they're carrying that fear again that something could happen. And, you know, their concerns are just as genuine and also deserve a platform to be aired on and not dismissed by other people. I find that quite appalling. I think that there has been a sense of alarmist language used here tonight, alarmist in many ways, including the fact that It's almost trying to say that if we opted into this right now, you know, X thousand amount of hectares would be almost cut down overnight. I find that quite extraordinary. That's just not going to be the reality of the situation.

I think it's interesting that people can clear land, call it timber production, and quite frankly make a profit on it in certain areas is allowed, but people certainly cannot clear their land when they want to protect their homes or protect the lives of themselves and their loved ones. Considering, as I said, when it's not Hawkesbury City Council deciding what it should be, it's the state government and the RFS code that we are debating here tonight, which quite frankly, while many may profess to be a jack of all trades, let's just be honest, pretty much an expert in none. So I think that trying to sit here tonight and say that people know better when I certainly am not an expert in that area is something that I would not be willing to put my hand up and say.

So I think that it should have been something that we opted into tonight. I clear that I'm not in the majority on this one, but I'm very proud to go back to the members of my community and say that I wanted to opt in. Very proud of that, regardless of what other councillors may think, and that I can go back and say to them that I valued your perspective and I valued the fact that you wanted to put your property and your family safety first and foremost. But unfortunately, it wasn't the majority view of council. Thank you . Thanks,

Councillor Richards. So we'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Favour are Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Richards, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Carver, Councillor Tree, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ross, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow. Declared carried.

Our next item is item 197. Now, I've received a request from the Showground Association that we defer consideration of this matter. They've asked that they have a chance to address some of the claims in the report, and they'd like to have a meeting with myself and the staff to go through those. If someone wanted to move that way, I would recommend supporting that. Moved: Deputy Mayor, seconded Councillor Zamprogno. This was brought to Council quite some time ago, and we've certainly taken our time considering it, bringing a report back. So I think it's just courteous to give them a little bit of time to address our concerns now that they've been publicly raised. Any other discussion? No. We'll put the motion.

All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Richards, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Buckett, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Tree, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds. Against ? Councillor Ross. Councillor Kotlash was in favour. Absent for the vote. Okay. Councillor Kotlash absent for the vote. Declared carried.

Next item is 198, the Disaster and Emergency Management Committee.

Just to point here that the items in italics under 3 and 4 shouldn't be there. They're part of that text, so that was just pointed out to me. Councillor Richards, the recommendation is it?

Move the recommendation, Mr Mayor, with a slight amendment.

Very slight. I just wanted to amend point 4, and excuse me, I'm just flicking back to my business paper here, which discusses the information to be sent out. I would like to add the words somewhere in that point that that information is collated and sent out this month. I think with bushfire season coming up, the whole point of this is to get that information out there quickly, and I think that if we miss the boat on that one and it was past the fire season, that would be pointless and our money would be wasted. So I'd like to add the words this month, please.

I might just seek advice from the, is it Manager Corporate Communications, or who would be producing it, as to whether that's possible. I know we were advised the committee that it's pretty much ready.

Manager Corporate Communications comment, or General Manager?

Through you, Mr Mayor, thank you. Well, we are meeting councillors tomorrow to go through the content of the pamphlet, or the flyer.

It will be a challenge to get that information distributed by the end of October.

Okay. If we said by mid-November, is that more achievable?

Yes, I think that will be achievable.

Would that be okay, Councillor Richards? Well, when can we get confirmation when the rates notice was supposed to be going out?

The rates notice will go out in the next couple of weeks, so it will be after that.

I'm

Just having a look here.

Okay, so it will be after that. Okay, well, I guess we need to put the words in then if that's just not an achievable outcome as soon as possible. I think it needs to be made a priority, considering we're spending that much money of ratepayers' funds on it. I think it needs a priority that it is out as soon as possible. So if we could perhaps, yeah, by mid-November, I think we need to give a timeframe, not just say as soon as possible. So mid-November if that's achievable, please.

Seconder for that? Seconder, Deputy Mayor. Any further discussion, Councillor Richards? No,

Thank you,

Mr. Mayor. Deputy Mayor?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I was going to raise a similar thing. It's been a long time coming, this emergency management guide, but it will be wonderful once it finally gets out. I actually had just a couple of questions around point three of the recommendation, which was about to just receive. Is there no decision being made around this emergency management officer, or is that waiting till the next budget, or it just says to receive a note, and it seems that there's been a lot of information done about it, but no decision being taken on it.

So I think the recommendation is to receive a report to be able to make that decision. Okay,

So when would be making that decision?

Yes, so when will that report be coming back, General Manager?

Through you, Mr. Mayor. So there's two actions here, Councillors. The first is for us to proceed to go forth and appoint the role on a temporary basis, noting that we had some temporary funding available through surplus funds elsewhere, and then we will report back. I would—we're kind of running out of time—but at the earliest opportunity around the funding situation. So I'm not sure that we'll get there before the election, Councillors. It may well be sort of a January prospect.

Sorry, I

Was just going to say, so in time for the next budget, though, that we could have it in.

Without question, we're intending to proceed noting if Council was to endorse the approach, we're intending to proceed to go through a recruitment on a temporary basis, basically. So we go through that established position descriptions and the like, noting that we had temporary surplus funds available.

Just let the acting director comment there as well.

Yeah, thanks, Chair, Mr Mayor. Just to add to that, in the minutes of the committee, it was resolved to receive a report on the financial details and on the role itself. So we have provided that in the discussion part of these minutes so that if Council wish to proceed to make a decision tonight based on that information, they could. Noting that we do, as the general manager said, the funding that's currently available is only for six months. As in the report, it would be, that would be quite a challenge to get someone on a temporary basis, so we could certainly try that. But , like, we could look at obviously putting that position, if Council endorses the position in principle to be on an ongoing basis, we could resolve tonight, Council could resolve tonight to place that in future operational plans.

And in the report, there's also the potential sources of funding on an ongoing basis. So the information has been provided if Council wish to make a bit more of a permanent decision tonight rather than a temporary role, it's at Council's discretion. Thank you, Mr Mayor

Thank you. That's where I was sort of heading, because I thought if we're just receiving and noting that information without making a decision, we don't know when we'll ever get to have another committee meeting, as they're not scheduled. So we wouldn't obviously probably be having another one in this term, or maybe we would be, but I'm assuming that otherwise that slips back into that committee system and we just revisit it when the committee comes up again. Is that correct? If we don't make a decision tonight.

The recommendation is the report actually comes to Council rather than the

Committee. Okay, straight to it. All right. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I've got a similar question around recommendation one, which is that we're receiving those number of points. I'm just a little bit— one was seeking a workshop, and I'm not, of course, I'm not expecting that that would be able to be held before the end of the Council term, but I'm a little concerned that these things are just being received and noted and disappeared without any anything around when would they come back. So when would we revisit that? Do we always have to wait until there's another committee meeting before we would then again set a time when we might have a workshop? I mean, this is all— everything is being expanded and stretched out so far that we're not really achieving anything in that regard.

And I'm concerned that one of those was to have this particular workshop and so on, so that will now just vanish, and we'll have to wait for a new year and a new Council term for it to come up, and then we have a meeting, and then we'll have to set a committee meeting. I'm just finding this, the lack of continuity of things. I'm just wondering if someone can explain to me the mechanism, and I hope it would be that that would automatically be scheduled as a workshop, but I fear that that wouldn't be how it works.

Yeah, that's a good point because, I mean, my understanding was that those points are the ones that should be continuing on the committee, and that's why Council didn't need to resolve anything. But point six in particular seems like it should be something we're adopting tonight, go ahead and do. I'll just refer that to the acting director.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. So as per the recommendation, we're asking Council to adopt, to receive and note points 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8. So if Council wishes to give a bit more specific direction on point 6, we can certainly add that to this recommendation, which then can be acted upon without further meeting of the committee. But I just also want to point

Out

In terms of organising that workshop, there would be quite a fair bit involved in that, and that's the challenge we face without having a dedicated resource. It's activities like those. So I just wanted to point that out.

Thanks .

I understand that, of course, and I don't anticipate it all this soon. It's more the point of where does it go if we haven't sort of scheduled it in some shape or form, like to have it in such and such time or whatever. I'm just a bit concerned that already there's a number of things that have come up in past times that seem to have sort of been missed, but that's okay. I think that we can probably just raise that, ensure that that is in the next Emergency Management Committee. Just while I'm speaking, Mr Mayor, I'd just like to say publicly how important or how welcome the report from Ann Ledbeater was when she did look at that, even though it was quite slow in coming, that it was some valuable information in that and something that I hope that we'll be taking very much forward in our planning around disaster management planning and particularly around the role of councillors and so on.

I'm just wondering, Mr Mayor, if Councillor Richards is intending to add something more of a decision around that emergency management officer position , at least in principle at this point, so it again is something that we would be following up. If not, I might move an amendment.

Can I just ask a question to— The General Manager. So that point two, I understood that point two meant we were going to go ahead and hire someone now

And

A report's coming back on how we're going to fund that into the future. Is that correct, General Manager, or do we need to resolve something more specific?

No, that's exactly was my point earlier, Councillors, was that we were just going to get on with it and we'll come back to you around funding options.

Okay, all right. Thank you. I got a little confused because of the suggestion of a temporary role and then not a temporary role, but that's okay. That's fine. It

May be a longer-term contract position, but no, our intent is to get on and recruit it. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

I'm not sure if this is just following on from the Deputy Mayor's comments there. If Councillor Richards was inclined to, I think it would be a good idea to

Change point one that Council receive and note the minutes in respect to point one, four and seven, and Council endorse the committee's recommendations in regards to points six and eight, so that we've actually resolved that way. I'm not sure if that's something you're interested in changing, Councillor Richards. That's

Completely fine, Mr Mayor.

Deputy Mayor happy

With that?

Yes. Yep. Councillor Wheeler. Thanks,

Mr Mayor . Some of my issues have now been

Clarified, and so I think it's really important that we get someone in this position and we get moving on this stuff. As a matter of priority, for a variety of reasons. First, we are now moving into this caretaker period at a really odd time. This is not the time that Council would normally go into a caretaker period, nor would we have such a long caretaker period, and nor would it be over the Christmas break, which then is in the middle of our bushfire period and also in the lead-up to, we hope, not another flood period as well. And not on the back of a pandemic and a series of natural disasters. So I think what we've got here as a result of a whole lot of things that have happened, including those disasters, including the pandemic and its impact on us being with the staff face to face, being in those environments where you can actually talk to people rather than this much more artificial Zoom setup, which does stifle discussion and means that it's much more difficult for us to tackle some of these things that we would normally just do as part of a conversation in a briefing or something.

It feels to me like we've lost both momentum and continuity around a number of really important issues, and disaster management I think is one of those areas. And this isn't anyone's fault; it's a matter of circumstance. If we had a dedicated emergency management coordinator, I think we would have far better continuity. And that's one of the reasons why I think this position is so necessary, and it's necessary that we fill it now and establish funding capacity for it into the future. Normally I wouldn't say that about a staff position. I feel really strongly that we shouldn't hire people into potentially insecure work positions. But given what we've faced over the last couple of years, I think we need to be very clear that emergency management has to be one of our key priorities as a council.

And so consequently, I think if we have to squeeze somewhere else in order to continue to fund this position, then that's going to have to be a key focus of the next council. There also does seem to be some loss of continuity around the Emergency Management Committee, and I think it would be useful going forward — or it's too late for this council, excuse me — but one of the things that was valuable in the floodplain risk management committee was that we met on a fixed schedule, so we knew when we were meeting, we knew when things would come back to us, and we knew when we would need to make decisions and recommendations to council and how that would fit into the budgetary cycle, the operational plan, that sort of thing.

Having that really fixed schedule focused us, I think, and helped the staff focus on when they needed to bring things forward. And I think that that's something that our committees need to look at going forward as well. I know it's been a problem with the heritage committee that we seem to have lost our meeting points and that meeting schedule, and that has led to a great deal of loss of momentum. So I think that's something that needs to be revisited within the committee structure. But certainly I think if we can move forward on the Emergency Management Guide tomorrow and get that out to people, and I think we do have to just prioritise that and find the financial capacity. And because if we don't find the financial capacity to get people well prepared, we wear it down the track anyway.

You know, we wear it as a council, and the community wears it as well. So it's one of those, hopefully, to spend money to help all of us save money down the track, and also save property and potentially life. And then the movement to have a dedicated Emergency Management Coordinator on staff that we can rely on, that can keep this going in the background, I think is a big move for this council in the right direction. Okay

Being no further speakers, we'll go right to reply. Councillor Richards. Not necessary

Mr Mayor.

Okay. In which case we'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Mayor, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ross, Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Tree, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Reynolds. Yep. Declared carried. धन्यव ाद, everybody.

Next item is questions taken on notice. If there's any questions there.

And if not, we'll get someone to move we go into confidential. Moved, Councillor Richards, seconded Councillor Garrow. All in favour? Declared carried.

Okay, we're back on the live stream. I'll just read my interests onto the tape for item 2.1, then hand over to the General Manager. So, in closed session, I declared that I had a less than significant non-pecuniary interest in item 2.01. I occasionally work with RSM Australia due to having mutual clients, and they were one of the tenderers for the service. There's no further action because there's no financial or significant relationship with RSM, and I didn't stand to gain anything if they weren't awarded the tender. General Manager.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. In regards to item 2.01 regarding the tender for the provision of internal audit services, whilst in closed session, Council resolved on the motion of Councillors Zamprogno and seconded by Councillor Rasmussen that: one, Council accept the tender offer of Centium Pty Ltd for the provision of internal audit services to Council for the period ending 30 June 2024, with the option of a further two by one-year periods, which may be exercised at the discretion of Council. Two, delegate to the General Manager the authority to sign documents relating to the contract for the provision of internal audit services to Council. And three, authorise the affixing of the seal of Council to any documentation in regard to this matter, if necessary.

The matter was resolved on the... For the motion were Councillors Conolly, Lyons-Buckett, Richards, Zamprogno, Kotlash, Calvert, Councillors Wheeler, Garrow, Rasmussen, Reynolds. Against the motion was Councillor Ross. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

You're on mute, Mr Mayor.

That being the final item of business, we'll declare the meeting closed at 8.45 p.m. Thanks, everybody. Good evening, all.