17 February 2022 - Extraordinary

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

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd also like to advise that in accordance with clause 5.18 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council are recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting of Council meetings. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary. If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such address is in accordance with the relevant regulations.

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

Thank you. Do we have any apologies? I think all the Councillors are here. Any declarations of interest?

No. In which case, we'll move on to our—

In which case, we'll move on to our only motion tonight, which is a precision motion. We've got three public speakers on the motion. Our first speaker is Mr. Morgan Philpott.

Morgan is there. Yes. G'day. Okay, thank you. We're ready for you. Okay,

Thank you for allowing me to speak at this meeting tonight. It's with the developments over the last week and the increase in the status of the koala to endangered, I do find it somewhat staggering that we are even at this meeting. Now , it's been very clear for a long time that the number one threat to this iconic Australian species is the removal and fragmentation of existing habitat. And certainly the New South Wales Parliamentary Committee that looked into koalas and released their findings on 30th of June 2020 found that koalas will become extinct before 2050 in New South Wales unless there is urgent government intervention to prevent habitat loss. Now they went on further to say that there must be a significant increase in koala habitat protection from logging, mining, land clearing and urban development.

So it is beyond argument that we are the reason that we are seeing koala numbers plummet in this state. And with the announcement from the Morrison government now of a 50 million dollar recovery package to the koalas, which goes along on top of the 24 million dollars which was set aside for this in 2019. So that's a total of 74 million dollars allocated to protect koalas. Of that money, 47 million dollars of that has been put aside to protect and restore habitat. And again, this is where we find ourselves here, deciding whether or not we are going to opt in to a code which was not deemed necessary for our area, which could potentially see the loss of up to nearly 40,000 acres of habitat. Now, Associate Professor and ecologist Dr Ben Moore and his colleagues from the Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment have been running analysis on what this code means across New South Wales.

Now, they have not run thorough analysis in our area because they were unaware that Hawkesbury was going to opt in. And certainly, I think much further consultation is needed with people like this who are experts in this field. So what they have told me, what Ben has sent me figures of this afternoon, is that across New South Wales, the total land capture is about 2.5 million hectares of land that can be cleared. Of that, 1.3 million hectares is land which has tree cover, which, as we all know, it's not just koalas that rely on this, but a gamut of other Australian native wildlife. So these numbers are equivalent to about 34 years of land clearing at rates in New South Wales reported in New South Wales between 2009 and 2017.

Now, with what we know in regards to the habitat destruction being the number one cause of the decline of this species, I find it very distressing that we are still here at this meeting having to still discuss whether or not we are going to allow potentially more large-scale clearing. Now, I understand that perhaps not everybody will be in a position to clear their land, but as Council has made it very clear, they do not have the ability to police this code. So it's fair to accept that there will be some members out there who may not meet the criteria for this code, but will decide, knowing that Council cannot police this, that they will chance their hand and have a crack at this anyway, and with a pretty good chance that they will get away with doing that illegally without being caught.

Now, our koalas in our area are very special. We know from the good work of Dr Kelly Lee from CEO of Science for Wildlife, who has done the genetic sequencing of our koalas, that they are off the charts in terms of their genetic diversity, far higher than any other colony in Australia that's been done. In essence, what that means is they hold the genes for the entire species. So this should make them a centre of conservation, which means we should be protecting their habitat, not trying to tear it down. Now, Councillor Richards recently with Susan Lay was, and I'll quote her in the media, that it's a responsibility of any government to listen to experts. This is what we are asking, that experts are called in to address Council, and people like Dr Ben Moore could shine a light on what's happening here and what this means ultimately to the species.

Now, I understand that there's going to be division and differing opinions on this. So it's not just the residents of Hawkesbury that are weighing in on this and looking at it, and it's not just the residents of New South Wales or even Australia.

Just bring to your attention, Mr Philpott, that your time has expired, so I'm going to finish on this thought.

Okay, certainly. So the eyes of the world are watching what we do with our koalas, and Australia has a moral and ecological responsibility to save these iconic and unique animals. Thank you.

Thank you. Was there any questions for Mr Philpott? No, thank you for that. Our next speaker is Stuart McKinlay.

Can you hear me, Patrick? Good evening, Mr Mayor and Councillors. My name is Stewie McKinlay. I am the senior deputy captain at Bilpin RFS, currently employed by Hawkesbury Council as a plumbing inspector. I am not representing either the RFS or the Council. I speak as one of the people responsible for implementing backburns and hazard reductions in Bilpin. This is Ross, my brother. He has been instrumental in developing the Grose Wollemi Strategic Plan. I want to cover four key issues, but five minutes isn't a lot of time to explain the implications of your proposal. One of my roles during a bushfire event is to plan and implement backburns, keeping ahead of the fire front, creating a black buffer between assets and the fire front.

It's hot, dangerous and difficult work that has to be done quickly, 24 hours a day, efficiently as possible. Once a backburn starts, there is no off button. The burn continues for as long as it takes to contain the fire. Backburns are started at the interface between the bush and the open ground. This proposed code will not help with this in Bilpin. Because random strips of land cleared hundreds of metres into the bush, following boundaries at all angles across the landscape, will make this task much harder and will not help asset protection. Given more time, we could explain how inappropriate this is for Bilpin.

We have big concerns about the waste left on site after this type of clearing, strict conditions about pile burning restrict landowners, and they will struggle to deal with it legally. Material simply pushed into the bush as a big windrow is a serious fire hazard and can't be dealt with during a fire event. It is assumed that assets will be installed along these new boundaries,

Fences and sheds, and we will be responsible for protecting them against the fire, which we can't do safely.

The boundary clearing won't necessarily mean our firefighter vehicles have access to the boundary. Our volunteers won't be put into risky situations by surrounded by unburnt bush. We are one of the frontline brigades in the Hawkesbury, so implementing our containment strategies protects many other communities from Blacksands Ridge to Bowen Mountain. The RFS is investing 10 to 15 million dollars to make our backburning operations safer and faster, but this code, in its present form, would work against that, making it slower and much more dangerous. The Rural Boundary Clearing Code needs to be thought through much more. Our LGA was excluded for a reason. We believe the terrain in Bilpin is not suitable for the code. Thank you, and here's my brother to talk about the trail.

Hi, as she said, my name's Ross McInlay. I own the Auto One store just in Macquarie Street near the council chambers, and I've been a member of Bilpin RFS for over 20 years. For the past nine years, I have been working on what's called the Gross Wollomi fire strategy. The main aim of that plan is to keep fire to protect the Hawkesbury district and the Lower Blue Mountains from fire coming out of the Wollomi National Park, which is where it traditionally comes from.

The centrepiece of that plan is a network of 74 kilometres of fire trail around the Bilpin Brigade area.

Now, the RFS has agreed to fund the construction of that 74 kilometres of fire trail, which I believe, which I estimate will be 10 to 15 million dollars in construction, and construction started two weeks ago. So this plan is already being implemented.

Now, the most important part of that for this meeting is that the placement of that 74 kilometres of fire trails has been meticulously planned over seven major fire events by many, many RFS personnel. So it'd be fairly safe to say it's in the right place for fire mitigation. Now, there is only four kilometres of that 74 kilometres of fire trail that's on boundary lines. All of the rest is not. So it's safe to say that any clearing of boundary lines outside of that four kilometres in Bilpin is not good fire mitigation. The main purpose of that trail structure is to create the containment lines that Stuart was talking about. Now , the containment lines really aren't just in Bilpin. We work with Mount Lagoon and they end up down at Colo River or down at— Time has

Expired there, so I'll get you to finish on this point if that's okay. Sure

Sure. So it's really important for you to understand that if that containment line strategy does not work, every Hawkesbury community west of the river and every Lower Blue Mountains community is potentially at risk of fire.

Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr McKinlay? Thank you for that. The next speaker and final speaker is Mr Bill Shields.

Sorry, just muted, Mr Shields.

Oh, unmuted. Thank you, Mr Mayor and Councillors. I'm not sure whether five minutes is going to allow me to cover what I'd like to say, but I'll attempt to. Thank you for the opportunity. I've been a resident of Bilpin since '55. I've been involved in the RFS for 60 years. I served for 30 years as a captain and a group captain in the Hawkesbury for 16 years. I've been an on-ground fire manager for most of the major fires up to and including the 2013 fires. I'm also a member of the independent bushfire group that has done independent research of all of the major fires in New South Wales. During the late '80s and '90s, I, with a number of other people, walked the entire length of the brigade area, visiting every property, mapping the entire length of the brigade, identifying many important things firefighters need to know during fires.

I've flown it many times during and after fires, and I probably understand it as best as anyone. I am speaking tonight because many people kept asking me my advice, and so I listened to the last council meeting. I went online and looked at what was said, and I came away confused. I came away not sure whether it was a de facto clearing process or a genuine attempt To create asset protection or what. I believe the Council has the responsibility to go through the process that was discussed last year and do it properly if they are going to do it. After fires, there's a lot of heat and a lot of smoke and not much light, and so we get random things being said. We had a minister after the fire saying 40 metres either side of the highway should be cleared.

Fortunately, that hasn't happened. Item 28 of the Bushfire Inquiry makes no mention of boundary clearing. The recommendation was that the clearing policies be made clear and easy to navigate for the community to navigate without undue cost or complexity.

Now, it makes no mention of boundary fences, and it seems to me that the issue about fires and assets burning is what's within 60 or 70 metres of the asset. I've done some extensive research on major fires to, in Western Australia, Kinglake, Marysville, Victoria, and observations of the south coast of the recent fires. And in Kinglake and Marysville, 80% of the properties were within 10 metres of unmitigated bush. And again, I'm curious to know what clearing 25 metre strip some distance from the asset will achieve. The only visible asset on the property in question is 50 to 60 metres from the bush anyway. Let me give you a little lesson on fire science. A fire in heavily fueled country like the south coast will generate between 100 to 150,000 kilowatts of energy per metre of fire front.

And here we are talking about a property in which is transitional shale forest. Very poor transitional shale forest down to sandstone. And while it may not have the fuels of heavily forested country, it still will generate 30 ,000 to 40,000 kilowatts. That's 30 to 40,000 one-bar radiators per metre of firefront. No firefighter is going to be sent down there to protect any asset protection zone. Not only that, once you get a break in fuels, regardless of what happens to the land between there and the asset, it's still going to carry fire. And if it's open grassland , it's going to carry fire faster than it would if it was bushland. The other issue is as soon as fire hits a large break, one of the saving factors in fires where you're close to bush is the convection column carries most of the embers to great heights, up to 15,000 feet or even more.

And what happens is that they fall. By the time they get back to earth, most of them have gone out. When you put a break in it, what happens is the convection column collapses and the embers are going to fall much closer to the asset. So I don't see this is going to be of much value. Boundary clearing is a simplistic response to a complex issue. Bushfire risk could be increased by clearing. Boundary clearing, I don't think many people in Bilpin will avail themselves of it. If you look at the satellite image of Bilpin or aerial photography, everything above the 600 metre line, which is where the shale soils runs out, has already been cleared. And most of it, by the time Ross is finished, will have a track around the outside edge of it.

I think Council should take its time and carefully review this process, because I think you're going to open a can of worms and I think it's going to cause a lot of problems.

In the process. Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr Shields? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, and thanks Mr Shields for speaking. You and I had extensive discussions prior to deferring this, and in fact, much of my understanding of how this code will play out in the LGA comes from discussions with you and other people from the RFS. And it's why I'm not a fan, and certainly not a fan of moving quickly. Can I just check then, do you think that clearing along boundaries will protect assets in the LGA?

No. Not unless the boundary was within 50 or 60 metres of the asset.

Yeah, okay. Yep. In which case you would be able to clear it anyway under the 10/50 code. Yes Yeah. So there's no need for this, in that case. How far did the Gospers Mountain fire jump?

Well, I mean, it'll jump across Bells Line of Road, so it'll jump across 25 metres. That's not a problem at all. A bit further than 25 metres. Really, how far fires will go is dependent on the fuels that are burning. I mean, if you go to Victoria and you look at the ribbon gum and stuff, it'll go a lot further. But most of our good country with those sorts of trees on it's been cleared, so we're left with transitional shale forest, which will still carry embers, but not the same distance that heavily forested country will. But it certainly carried it across Bells Line of Road.

And to your understanding, who developed this code? Was it developed by the RFS?

I don't know. It seems to me that it's come out of nowhere. I suspect it's someone's political machinations, and whether it's an excuse to validate some of the unnecessary boundary clearing that was done, particularly in the Monaro, where they cleared hundreds of, well, 100 kilometres of fence lines just for the sake of it. They were never used for backburning or the fire. Thanks very much.

Thank you, Councillor Lanesbucket.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Bill, for that talk. Interesting as always. I'm just wondering, I heard you mention shale sandstone transition forest vegetation I don't want to put you on the spot here, but are you aware of the various prohibited species to be cleared? And I would imagine that a lot of the properties in Bilpin actually have those species on them. Are you aware of that? Because I think people may not understand that it's just not anything that can be cleared. There's actually a lot of vegetation cannot be cleared. Would you have any idea roughly where the most rural zoned land in Bilpin would have species that can't be removed?

Oh, look, I don't understand that. I'm out of my depth there, but there are very few areas of shale forested land left that should be protected. And the transitional shale, there are strips of it outside the fences as the country goes into sandstone. And look, there are species out there. I know, in fact, in the area behind the property in question, while we were doing our survey, the person from National Parks identified a swamp mahogany, which was rare for the area.

Yeah. Okay. Thanks, Bill.

Thank you. Thanks, Mr Shields, our final speaker. So, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, did you want to move the precision motion?

I think Councillor Wheeler is moving it. I'll second it, Mr Mayor.

Moved, Councillor Wheeler, seconded, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'll briefly introduce, and then I've got a series of questions for the staff, if I may. So we're revisiting this precision motion because we didn't get a chance to debate it in the last Council meeting. I'm sorry that it has resulted in an extraordinary Council meeting. That wasn't my doing. It certainly wasn't the doing of the people who brought this precision motion forward. I will also foreshadow a substantive motion that includes consultation with a July deadline, boundary mapping, koala mapping, the use of federal funding for koala protection and mapping, and a briefing to Council's Emergency Management Committee from the RFS regarding the Gross Wollemi Strategic Fire Plan that we've just heard about. Sorry, I'm in the middle of a bad storm.

I'll ask some questions of the staff first, if I could, Mr Mayor, if the timer could stop while I do that.

I received some questions today from a journalist that I know he forwarded to Council and that haven't come to Councillors with a response yet. So, given that we're debating this now, I think we need to deal with the questions now. So, through you, Mr Mayor, would the Rural Boundary Clearing Code Allow landowners to clear vegetation around their property, that would normally require a DA to do so.

That's in direct to sea planning.

So depending on the— thank you, through you, Mr Mayor. Depending on the circumstances, and obviously each site is quite different, there is a potential that vegetation could be cleared , which under normal circumstances may require a development application.

What happens if there's a— if there's, say there's a process in place for biodiversity offsets for a property, would the code negate the need for those biodiversity offsets?

No.

No.

Is it likely that the boundary clearing code will reduce connectivity between remnant patches of vegetation in areas like Oakville, Kermond, Freeman's Reach and Glossodia?

That's a bit difficult to say. Again, the if and when, you know, people take up this opportunity is, you know, could be sporadic until— and it's not something that we'd be able to say clearly, yes, it's going to result in , you know, reduction of the remnant patches because it's individual sites. You know, at the end of the day, we won't know what's been removed, where and what, you know, are they part of that? Are they affecting the connectivity?

So it's possible, but we don't know.

At this point in time, I wouldn't be able to say yes, it's going to do that.

And so, given that biodiversity protections passed in 2017 rely on connectivity in order for them to hold, is it possible then that clearing using this code will reduce those biodiversity protections?

Again, that's really hard to say. We understand the intent of the Biodiversity Act in terms of protecting biodiversity. However, people clearing, wanting to clear, still, the code does outline what the requirements are for property owners, and they need to be considering those acts such as the Biodiversity Act, as well as a range of other matters. So apart from that, it would be hard to say what the outcome would be.

So given that we've got a lot of rural zoned land, which isn't in bushfire prone areas , is there any safeguard to protect against clearing of those rural zoned areas simply because this code allows for it? So I guess I'm asking, can people clear under this code when it's not for bushfire mitigation?

Okay, so the code, as we all know, applies to all rural zoned land. The code outlines the requirements of what people are to do and ultimately

It's making it clear that an owner of a property needs to consider the tool and address all the issues prior to clearing and undertaking any clearing on the boundary.

Okay, thanks. So I spent some time on Council's DA tracker today looking at properties that were in rural zones that had, and also on some real estate pages looking at properties that were up for sale or had sold recently, and looking at what the impacts of this code might be on those. All of them were rural-zoned properties. And it was working out whether you can clear is actually really complicated. So there's a property that's currently under offer in Vineyard, and I was alerted to it due to a post on the Oakville Facebook page. It has a patch of remnant vegetation at the back of the block, which appears to be covered under the biodiversity mapping, the state biodiversity values map. And that back strip of the property is covered.

Now, you would probably know that if you were a developer and you put in a DA and you needed to put in a biodiversity report, it would flag that. And a nice example is another property on Vincent Road, which has come before this council, has been through Gateway and is now at the DA stage, and part of it's got a biodiversity report in, and it flags a pocket of vegetation that is, I think it's shale transition forest , that's all along the boundary. Now, it's clear from the biodiversity report for that property that they can't clear under this legislation because it's a protected piece of land. But getting— The landowner to that point is extraordinarily, is difficult if no one has flagged that for you.

So you can get onto the biodiversity values map and have a look, but

Where will property owners find this information? Will they be able to front up to the duty planner and will they talk them through it, or are they expected to sort this out for themselves? I see the clock has started. I'm still asking a question. How do landowners know that they can't clear on their property after they've read the That's a question to staff

Councillor Wheeler.

Yes, it is. Well,

The question's been going for two minutes and 25 seconds so far. So what was the question?

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that the code of meeting practice had a time limit on questions this time.

It's about taking

The question is, I'm not taking advantage, Mr Mayor. I'm asking a legitimate question. How does a property owner know that the vegetation on their property is exempt under this code? And do we have the resources to help them find that out?

And is that council's obligation to tell them, Director City Planning? Okay,

Thank you. At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of the owner of the land to maintain—the code basically outlines that it's their responsibility to maintain a copy of the Rural Boundary Clearing online tool search results. So they do the, you know, if once we opt in and it's switched on that we've opted in in terms of the RFS, then the obligation is on the owner to basically maintain a copy of the Rural Boundary Clearing online tool, which, you know, results in the day that the clearing is undertaken. And to have those results available in the circumstances that, you know, somebody in authority seeks, you know, evidence of their search.

I was not anticipating, I mean, in terms of council service, we would, you know, like anything else from state agencies or state government, we have available through our website. Our duty officer would point people in the right direction, but at the end of the day, it's not council's tool. We wouldn't be in a position to provide detailed advice around what they should or should not be doing.

So, in effect, landowners are on their own. Can we police this tool?

As in the use of the tool?

Yes. Do we have the resources to police this tool?

I would not suggest that it's council's role to police the policing of the tool.

So whose role is it?

I would be discussing this with the RFS, I would assume, to see how it is being policed, if there was a policing element to it.

Could I suggest that that question is maybe clarified? What do you mean when you say police the tool?

So if we get a report of someone clearing property, which is in, say , an RU2 zone, and they clear protected vegetation, Cumberland Plain, for example,

They're then liable under the Act because they've cleared, and there's stiff fines. If the report comes into council, who looks at what's happened with it? Who says this is the wrong thing to do? So

If council were to receive a complaint around land clearing, as we do now, we would then operate under any legislation that applies to investigate and then determine what action, and obviously, you know, the extent of the clearing, what legislation applies, would then guide the directions of the officer investigating. So in terms of if somebody's clearing under this rural boundary code, as I said previously, the onus is on the property owner to maintain a copy of the tool search, the online tool search that they've undertaken. So then the council officer would then, in response to complaint, come in, please show us the evidence of that, and then go from there.

So, in the first instance, we would.

If the complaints come to Council, then yes, we would be investigating it as we do other complaints.

Do we have the capacity to do this with our current resourcing strategy?

So, in terms of resourcing, we regularly have to assess things based on capacity, risk, and, you know, so if you're asking me, we don't have dedicated resources for this, but we ultimately respond to complaints. That's what we do. And if there were a flurry of complaints around this, then, you know, obviously we'd be investigating them. But I don't have— yeah, ultimately we'd be responding to complaints as they come.

Okay, thanks. No more questions, Mr. Mayor. So I'll speak briefly now. So this confirms— this is dropping landowners in the hot seat for them working out whether this code applies to them or not. We've all received a letter today from the Chair of the Hawkesbury River County Council stating that this will increase the weed burden for Council, and that could make landowners responsible under the Biosecurity Act for increase in weeds on their property. We've just heard that really it's up to the landowner to work out whether— now this is really confusing. I've spent all afternoon trying to sort out from random properties that are already in our system that have some decent biodiversity mapping done in several cases, whether they— whether what they are doing actually, how the code impacts on what these people want to do.

We — We aren't ready for this. You've heard, I think, extensively from the RFS tonight, and it's exactly the same thing that we've been telling you, the information that we've been trying to pass on to you from the RFS. When we initially tried that, you laughed at these people and insinuated that they weren't willing to speak publicly, and that they either didn't exist and were some imaginary friend of Councillor Zamprogno's, or that their testimony shouldn't be considered because they didn't wish to speak publicly. And yet tonight they have come before you to say that this won't work and to ask you to listen to them. And we should; it's our responsibility to listen to them. This code was not developed by the RFS.

It was developed by the Minister. He has quoted Enhancer as saying that Rural Boundary Clearing Code will be developed by me as the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. That's not the RFS, is it? That's the Minister. You're making a knee-jerk political decision without adequate information. There are

You've had— you've only given us two reasons why this legislation is a good idea: property rights, and not everyone will do it. We were lectured extensively when I was first a councillor by you, Mr Mayor, that we shouldn't make decisions based on what people might or might not do. And yet here we're supposed to be pitching all our hope onto that. So this is, this is frankly a decision based on hope: hope that we can resource it, hope that we can police it, hope that people won't do the wrong thing, and hope that it might do something about bushfire mitigation. And you've just heard tonight that it won't.

Thank you. Had one speaker in favour. Does anyone wish to speak against the resolution motion? Councillor Dobromil.

Sorry, you're on mute, Councillor Dogramaci. Yep.

Can you hear me now? We can. Now , please, don't time me yet, but what I'm trying to say is that what a beautiful country that we live in, we are expressing our thoughts, doesn't matter right, left, middle or extreme or whatever.

Just to clarify for those, when a councillor says don't time me, that doesn't mean we just turn the clock off as we've done for the last two speakers. We just keep timing, and if we have to

Make— Okay. Well, I didn't know that. Give it to my ignorance in this. No, that's okay. Okay. Now, what I'm saying is that I'm new, as you all know that. What I would like to say that also—

Can you hear me? Yes. Yes, I'm quite along.

Sorry, you're muted

Can you hear me now?

We can.

Okay. Yeah. Now, I would like to start with making a comment. Susan Templeman. I read on one of the news that she suggested that, you know, I often vote with Liberals on this matter. You are wrong, madam. Susan, you are wrong. You are mistaken. Don't judge me with my choice of voting twice with Liberals. Twice voting for the same motion should not be construed as often in English as you suggested. And if you don't know the difference, refer to Oxford Dictionary. If you don't have one, I'll present you one. Most people are scared, worried or feel guilty stating which party they voted before. Susan, you remember at Bligh Park, I voted for you. It's not because I didn't like Sarah, but at that time I didn't feel that her party was doing the right thing for us.

So— And you know that my surname starts with dog, and I rarely bark. But please understand that my bite is worse than if I bark. Now, this matter has been brought, you know, twice, and I don't think that, you know, it's for the sake of saving koalas or this and that. And here I am. I'm challenging every single one of those who are opposing this code. Susan Templeman, your yearly income is $200,000, $5,000 a week, maybe $1,000 a day. How about you and the $300,000 we receive from this council, next to half a million dollars? How about if you are fair dinkum that, you know, all of us contribute this money for koala preservation society or whatever it is? So we'll see that, you know, whether you are really fighting for this matter or not.

Now, we know that dogs and cars kill about 4,300 koalas every year. Does that mean that we're going to kill the dogs, or does that mean we are going to stop driving? It will happen. It's nature. It will just happen. It's been happening for the last, what, 40,000 years since the first people , you know, arrived in here from Indonesia or whatever you might call it. Now , we know that three-quarter of the Hawkesbury LGA is up like a park tenure, and of course we don't see koalas in Windsor. We don't see them in Main Street in Richmond. We don't see spotted-tailed quoll or native cat, we call it, in Richmond. Hawkesbury is a haven for a number of threatened species of flora and fauna. Not only koala.

So why is it only koala? Why are we doing this? It's just because, you know, they are cuddly. Now, this native cat I mentioned, size of a domestic cat, and they climb and they devour a variety of prey, birds including possums, baby wallabies. Does that mean that, you know, we are going to kill, you know, this cat to save wallabies? We also have, I think, grey-headed bat. They are too important and species living in Hawkesbury and surrounding areas. Now, we know that koalas are nomadic creatures, and they will move for breeding and multiply. They multiply if they are diseased. It's called wet bottom. It didn't kill them before vehicles and dogs do. And koalas, we all know, they love eucalyptus leaves.

And here, for example, in Bowen Mountains, I've had a look at it. There are two or three different types of leaves they love. One of them, I think it was red gum, and the other one was grey box or perhaps ironbark. And I investigated. I took some time and have a look at it. And in immediate LGA and surrounding mountainous areas, our cuddly koalas will venture out far away in search of, you know, their diet and favourite red gum, I think, beyond the LGA, far away from the close urban dwelling. So I don't know why is the fuss. I mean, thousands of years ago, you know, this area, or hundreds of years ago, we didn't have these houses in here. Richmond, Bilpin, whatever, you name it, 100, 150 years ago, we didn't have these houses.

I mean, they were multiplying and then, you know, we came in. So does that mean that, you know, we'll all move back, you know, to Sydney and let them populate in this area in Richmond? What is this progress? We call it progress, you know, that's how it— That is the

Expiration of time, Councillor Dogramaci, so I couldn't finish at this point.

How long do I have?

You got this sentence.

Only one sentence. Well, what I'm saying is that use practicality and have common sense.

It has to go through

Thank you.

We've had one speaker in favour, one against. Councillor Lones Buckett?

I think Councillor Zamprogno was before me, Mr Mayor.

Okay. Councillor Zamprogno. I was happy to yield, but look, there's two things that I want to do. The first thing I'd like to do is move an amendment, and the amendment is to move those items that were in the substantive motion into this motion as additional points. So previously this had been presented in two parts, a rescission motion and then a substantive motion to follow. My intent, and I'll seek a seconder, is to move the six clauses in the substantive motion to be points two through seven in this motion.

I'll just seek some advice. Obviously, at the last meeting, as amendment moved, and yourself, Councillor Zamprogno, were very much against it and said it was not procedurally correct. And I understand the general manager got some advice after the meeting. So I'll just ask the general manager for any thoughts on that before we put that to the meeting.

Yeah, I might just pass that one over to Mr McElroy if he's there. I think he would have the written advice with him. But the substance of your commentary is correct, Mr Mayor, in that for it to be an amendment, there still has to be a substantial portion of the motion that was originally put to the, i.e. the rescission motion would still need to be on a part of that original motion. Charles, do you want to take that further? Well

Laurie. Mr McElroy's just joined us now.

Sorry . Yes, sorry about that. Through you, Mr Mayor, I can deal with that. So, advice that Council has received in relation to what can be put by way of amendment to a rescission motion is that it ought to be something that changes, improves or corrects the original motion, but that doesn't result in a motion that can no longer be identified as relating to the original, or one that relates to a different matter to the original motion, or one that is directly contradictory to the original motion. So the substance of it is that an amendment mustn't be such that it, of its nature, results in the original motion losing its identity. So it's a matter for the chairperson to determine whether or not that amendment would so substantially alter the substance of the motion, which at the moment is just the rescission motion, that it's not in order as an amendment.

Mr— an abundance of caution, I'm going to rule the amendment out of order. No, Mr— If the— No, no, I'm speaking, Councillor Zamprogno, so you just wait a moment. If the rescission motion is successful, you can then move that as a substantive motion anyway. So, for an abundance of caution, I rule it out of order. Sorry, you're muted, Councillor Zamprogno. Did you want to continue to speak to the motion?

Yes, no, I was just trying to provide some assistance. I hadn't been given the opportunity to defend the propriety of the amendment.

No, that's not an opportunity you have, Councillor Zamprogno, under meeting practice. So I've ruled the amendment out of order. You can continue to speak on the motion. Motion of dissent, Mr Mayor. Okay, there's a motion of dissent in that ruling.

We'll put that motion then. No, Mr Mayor, the Code of Meeting Practice says that I have the right to speak to a motion. Sorry, you're right. I think you've got 30 seconds under the code, potentially that's correct or one minute

Very well . Mr Mayor, I— Point of order, Mr Mayor.

Yes, Councillor Wheeler.

There's no time limit under the code for a motion of dissent.

I don't have that in front of me, so I'll take Councillor Wheeler's advice, and we'll just get you to be as quick as possible, Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. My dissent is on the following grounds. The rescission motion contained a single point, which was to rescind the motion of a previous meeting. It is entirely proper and in order to add additional points. The quality of the rescission motion as a rescission motion is preserved; it is still point one. The additional points certainly relate to the same subject matter, and simply seek for us to deal with this in one go and to do additional things in addition to rescinding. Now , the dissent that we expressed at the previous meeting was that the amendment completely extinguished the character of the rescission motion as a rescission motion, and the legal advice that Council subsequently received justified that view, that you made a procedural error in ruling that amendment in order.

And it would be extraordinary if this amendment, which preserves the character of the rescission motion as a rescission motion, but simply adds additional and relevant actions, if you were to rule that to be out of order. That is the basis of my dissent.

Thank you. Put the motion of dissent. All those in favour of the motion of dissent in that ruling, please raise your hand. Favourite Councillors Zamprogno, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, against , Councillor Conolly, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Readen, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Richards. Declare it failed. Would you like to speak to the motion, Councillor Zamprogno?

I will speak to the motion, Mr Mayor. So I

Want to emphasise that this rescission motion is not about whether or not we should adopt the Rural Boundary Clearing Code, and I am frustrated at the misrepresentation that it is a binary proposition about whether we should be in or out. I've consistently claimed that this is a more nuanced discussion that we need to have. At the moment, we're not having it. It's about whether it will be the practice of this Council, in this term, to implement policies that substantially change current policies, current practices, without consultation, without relevant stakeholders and experts. I find it extraordinary that those here who frequently and publicly profess their respect for, say, the RFS, would actively seek to cut them out and other groups of having anything to say, whether it's for or against this Code, by ramming it through.

It's a substantial change to our land management practices, and it's been perfectly obvious that there's a variety of opinion out there. We've also heard that following the Gospers Mountain fires, the Wollondilly Gross Wildfire Mitigation and Community Resilience Management Plan, which will cost between ten and fifteen million dollars to implement, will improve fire breaks and trails and in areas like Bilpin, and we've been furnished proofs. But the experts who developed that local plan and are now in the process of implementing it do not think that the Rural Boundary Clearing Code integrates well into that strategy or provides any degree of fire mitigation given our local circumstances. They do point out, and it makes common sense to me, that the best place for fire breaks are along ridge lines and along forest boundaries, and that they augment existing fire trails, and crucially that land clearing ought to occur near assets requiring protection.

This code does not do that, and the challenges that I laid out at the last meeting have not been answered. It is not enough to reduce this to the proposition that if you support fire safety, that you must automatically support the code. It is clearly not the case. It is not good enough to express support for the code, but then to fail to answer the very reasonable question why it needs to be adopted now, why it needs to be adopted with no consultation, without any resourcing for compliance or enforcement. It is not acceptable to adopt this summarily without explaining why we can't take just a few months to have those questions answered and then hold a more informed vote towards the middle of the year about whether to proceed.

That is what this is about. That's all the rescission motion and the substantive motion that will follow is asking for. It's asking for a few months to have council staff answer those unaddressed issues and to conduct consultation with the stakeholders, including the local RFS. It would be a betrayal of trust in the community for us not to do so. And frankly, the optics of doing so, given the positions that some councillors have publicly professed to hold about respect for the RFS or support for koala habitats, are dreadful. The optics are simply politically dreadful. The one example cited by one councillor about why we should adopt this code was freely admitted by that applicant to have nothing to do with reducing their fire hazard .

And when it went all the way up the chain and came all the way down— Councillor Zamprogno

I was clear at the last meeting when this was discussed, we're not going to discuss an individual's circumstances, and they have not agreed to have their personal details shared in council meeting.

Look, I yield, Mr Mayor, except to point out that when this question was put to that member of the public, they were eager to answer the question in a public— And

I would be too, Councillor Zamprogno, if I've been publicly accused of something, but that doesn't make it fair. So please carry on.

Look, prudent course of action tonight is to pass the rescission motion and then to give staff a deadline. In speaking with some of my council colleagues, the concern manifestly was that we ask council for reports and then it disappears into the never-never. I want this dealt with before the next fire danger season. We can pass the rescission motion, which simply means pause, and then pass the substantive motion with a deadline to have council come back to us with the relevant information no later than June or July, and I can't imagine why anybody wouldn't get behind that. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Zamprogno. I'll take the opportunity to speak against the rescission motion that's before us tonight. And I wanted just to correct or put my side of a few things that have been said tonight. First of all, that this is, that our LGA was excluded from the Rural Boundary Clearing Code. Our LGA was not excluded from the Rural Boundary Clearing Code. Our LGA was one of those included in the Sydney region, and those in the Sydney region were told that councils should consider whether the code should apply to them, because for some Sydney councils it obviously would not apply, and for other Sydney councils it may apply. And therefore the state government asked Sydney councils to consider whether they wanted to opt in or not, which is what we did.

Also, the idea that this was not developed by the RFS, that's been a line that's been brought out many times. You just have to, if you've actually read the code, it's very clear it was developed by the RFS. It says so on page two, you know, we're signed off by the Commissioner of the RFS. Also, to say that we've heard from the RFS tonight and that they're against it is just completely inaccurate. It disregards the fact that we had the captain of the Kurrajong Heights RFS tell us last week, urged us in fact, to opt in and vote against the rescission motion. So I think all we can glean there is that we've had some discussion with RFS captains, and that there's differing opinions amongst different RFS brigades, as you'd expect, there might be on a contentious issue.

And also, I just wanted to make sure that nobody actually believed that I laughed at anybody in the RFS, because that's just completely untrue. What happened was that Councillor Zamprogno and Councillor Wheeler both came to the meeting when this was first discussed and said that the people in the RFS had all spoken to her, agreed with them, and that we should place weight on that, even though that we weren't able to get any details of who those people in the RFS were or how they'd agreed with them. We were all just supposed to believe it, and I found that a silly way to be making public decisions.

Point of order, Mr Mayor.

Sorry,

Misrepresentation, Mr Mayor.

What's the misrepresentation, Councillor Wheeler?

That really

Isn't what happened

Thank you. Okay. The other point I just wanted to make was around a question that was asked earlier to one of the speakers, who indicated that if you had a property that was within 50 or 60 metres of the boundary, that therefore there would be some asset protection benefit of having a little boundary there, a cleared boundary there. Yes, you could within 50 metres of the home use the 10-50 rule, but not if you needed access from the road to that boundary that was within 50 metres of the asset. As I have seen on site where some people have shown me what they intend to do, that is exactly the situation where the boundary near their house could be cleared. However, you couldn't get the vehicles down there because once you get further than 50 metres away from the house up to the main road, they're no longer allowed to clear under the current regulations.

Look, I think, to sum this up, this is about balance. We've had terrible bushfires, and I think it's understandable that farmers and other rural property holders want to be able to protect their properties from bushfire. People went through horrible trauma, fear, watching what happened, and don't feel safe, and they want to be able to clear and do what they need to do to protect their properties. Also, fully understandably, many other people are concerned about the impact that has on biodiversity and about any clearing at all. And I think that what we're trying to say is that I think the issue here is that obviously you've got two competing interests, and you need to pick somewhere in the middle that respects both.

Farmers and rural property holders would like us to go a lot further than this. We have to acknowledge that too. People who are concerned with conservation of biodiversity would like us to not go this far. I acknowledge that, and it's up to us to make this difficult decision, and of course it's going to be a difficult decision. I don't accept at all that this has been rammed through. This has been discussed four times now at this council. It's not been rammed through at all. I also want to take the time to point out that there was a decision very clearly made at the last Council meeting that this Council did not want to rescind this motion. That was very clear, and anyone who says they don't understand that is not telling the truth, in my opinion.

They found a technical way to get this back on the agenda by saying that the actual rescission motion was never put because it was amended first. However, I think every single person in this room, every Councillor, knew exactly what they were voting on, and they knew if they voted on the amendment, they were voting against the rescission motion and voted to do something else instead. So I think it's a bit disingenuous to bring this back again. There's certainly been no new information offered by anybody at all so far as to why we should at this time rescind the motion we weren't willing to last week. I'm looking forward to making a final decision on this, and this is why I asked for an extraordinary meeting, because I don't think it's fair that we just kept— that we resolved opted in quite some time ago, and due to continual rescission motions, we haven't been able to put that resolution into effect.

I didn't want to make anybody wait any longer. It's not fair, and it's not being genuine with the community. I understand that the people who voted, who want this rescission motion, those Councillors do want that very genuine and have their own genuine concerns, and they tend to fall more on the side of the conservationists than the farmers and the property holders. I get that, and that's fair enough. But the decision was made. It was made democratically. To keep bringing it back and finding new ways to bring it back, I think is the wrong thing to do. We need to try and work together now, even though we've had a disagreement, get back on the same page and look at what we do agree on, rather than continually dredging up the same old disagreement, hoping for a different outcome.

So I'm not going to be supporting the rescission motion tonight. I don't see why anyone would. I don't see— no one's offered a reason as to why anyone would change their mind.

Mr Mayor? Councillor Veigel. Yes. Yes, thanks, Mr Mayor.

Sorry, don't use hands anymore.

Sorry, Councillor Veigel. Yes. No, sorry.

Can I talk? Is that okay? Sorry, I missed.

Point of order,

Or — If it's procedural, point of order, yeah, if it's a point of order. Or is that going back to Councillor— So

What did you want?

Yeah, I just, if I could, am I able to propose procedural motion? Yeah, motion. To let the motion be put, please. Got

A motion. Instead of by Council. So—

Point of order, Mr Mayor. Not ramming anything through, though, are we?

Point of order, Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Point of order, Mr Mayor. We go by putting our hand up. I've had my hand up. You spoke against. I had my hand up. I ask that I be allowed to speak, please.

Okay, well, we need to vote first, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. It's quite valid to move a procedural motion. What

Do we have to vote on?

There's been a procedural motion moved. No, but Councillor

Veigel didn't follow procedure.

Okay, so we'll put the motion. All those in favour that the motion be put, please raise your hand. Motion of dissent, Mr Mayor. Councillor Reid and Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Richards. Against? Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Duric, Councillor Calvert. Declare it carried on the casting vote of the Mayor.

There is no

Democracy in this

Council. Right of reply, Councillor Wheeler.

Well, this, Councillor Lyons-Buckett is completely correct. We've just heard a sanctimonious— We've just heard a sanctimonious spiel from you, Mr Mayor, about how you are not ramming this through, and lo, here we are having it rammed through. What, were you sick of listening to people actually have a proper debate about things? That this is appalling and unheard of in this council over the last two terms, the previous term and this. If there are differing opinions, perhaps we should consult with all stakeholders instead of ramming this through. Using your casting vote is not discussion. It's the very definition of ramming something through, and you have used it repeatedly in this instance. There is plenty of new information, particularly that the information from Bilpin regarding the gross wall— sorry, the gross wallamai strategy, that is a significant new piece of information.

You have just had three experienced firefighters, men who have put themselves on the line in serious fires, including the recent Section 44, while you were all at home safe in bed, I will add, to fight and mitigate fire, have told you that this will make their lives worse, and you don't think you've got any new information. Good grief. The arrogance is astounding. We have heard that this won't work in the Hawkesbury by people who've been on the front line of firefighting and who know better than us, but you're still pushing this through. We've heard repeatedly that this will destroy habitat and biodiversity, especially the habitat of the now endangered koala, which you're happy to stand around and throw money at for PR exercises and photo shoots.

Sorry,

Councillor Wheeler, just to remind you of the code of meeting practice, you are required to speak to the matter, not make personal attack after personal attack.

That's not a personal

Attack,

Mr. Mayor. Speak

To the matter before us, please, Councillor Wheeler.

We've heard that we cannot properly enforce the protections of endangered vegetation. We've heard that this is not developed by the RFS. It was developed by the minister, something that you continue, a piece of misinformation that you continue to peddle. We've heard that this will add an additional weed burden to the LGA. We've heard that you're all for koalas, $50 million for koala conservation. How are you going to conserve them if you refuse to conserve their habitat? We've seen from the State of Environment report tabled in Parliament this week

Your comments should be directed through the chair, not to any other councillors.

I'm not directing them to any other councillors. Well, you

Just said you've heard from me that I'm putting $50 million to koalas. I don't know when I'm doing that, Councillor Wheeler.

I was referring to the Liberal Party, Mr Mayor. I didn't think it was you individually.

Yes, well, I'd like you to direct comments to the chair. Thank you.

Okay, so you're not putting any money personally to koalas, but your party is. That's good, lovely, thank you. We've heard from the State of Environment report tabled in Parliament this week that shows that land clearing in New South Wales has trebled over the past 10 years, and yet this code is exact— 34 years' worth of clearing, we heard from Mr Philpott this evening, 34 years' worth at current rates. Extraordinary. 18 more species threatened with extinction. Average temperatures increasing by 1.1 degrees. Increased temperatures which are causing natural disasters, including mega fires in this LGA. You have given us two reasons why this legislation is a good idea: property rights and everyone will do it.

So we're just hoping that people will do the right thing. And if they don't, we're hoping that we might be able to catch them, but maybe we won't, and then it'll on their head be it, not ours. Isn't that nice? And that's not exactly good governance, is it? Two weeks of urgent letters from RFS members and scientists, as well as the concerns of our staff, should give you enough pause to act responsibly. You'll see that this rescission motion, the substantive motion as I laid out, is not intended to be the end of the matter. It's an attempt to give us time in a wet summer to gather information and make a truly informed decision. By opting in— if we choose to opt in, we should do it with the information and resources to do so safely and responsibly for the sake of the people, the safety of the people who live in this LGA, and for the safety of the firefighters who put themselves at risk to fight those fires.

You are not doing that. You are carrying out a knee-jerk political response to the appeals of a couple of landowners. This is madness, and it will end in devastation. If someone dies as a result of this code in Bilpin because their containment strategy, carefully worked out over years, costing $10 million, fails because of this boundary clearing, on your head be it. I hope people put lots of memes up about you and blame all the fires on you, because I copped it last time. This is a disgrace. The way this has been handled is an absolute disgrace. Shame on you.

Thanks, Councillor Wheeler. We'll put the motion now. Point of

Order, Mr Mayor.

What's the point

Of

Order, Councillor Zamprogno?

Mr Mayor, I want to cite to you clause 10.21 of the Model Code of Meeting Practice that says that a councillor, other than the mover of an original motion, has the right to speak once on a motion and once on each amendment to it. You have denied that right

To— There's not a point of order, Councillor Zamprogno. The council resolved the motion should be put. We'll put the motion now. All those in favour of the resolution motion, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Zamprogno. Against, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Baguley, Councillor Richards. Declare it lost on the casting vote of the Mayor. Thank you, everybody. That was our only item.

Thank you, everybody. That was our only item for the meeting tonight, so I'll declare the meeting closed at 7:07 p.m.