22 February 2022 - Ordinary

Welcome everybody to tonight's ordinary meeting. I'd like to start by acknowledging the Darug and Dharugan people as traditional custodians of the land and acknowledging Aboriginal people, Aboriginal elders past, present and emerging. I'll hand over to the General Manager for the procedural items.

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 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 a person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. The recordings will be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations.

The recordings are stored on Council's record management system. For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the Council tonight, it is expected that you will refrain from 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. Thank you. Any apologies? I think we have a leave of absence to record, General Manager.

Yes, Mr Mayor. At the Council meeting of the 8th of February 2022, Council resolved to approve an application from Councillor Paul Veigel for leave of absence for the ordinary meeting of Council of the 22nd of February 2022.

Thank you . Declarations of interest? Any declarations? Councillor Richards? Thank you

Mr Mayor. Item 38 and item 43.

38, 43. Councillor Sheather? Mr Mayor, have you got a mayoral minute?

No. Are you referring to the RSL motion that I circulated? Yes . Yeah, that's a staff report. It is item 39.

Yeah, I declare less than a significant pecuniary interest. Be

Here to read your specific interest when we get to the item, just I'll just note that I have it there. So when we get to the item, we'll come back and let you read that on. Thank you. Any other interests to declare? I've got an interest in item 43.

Okay.

Okay, first, we've got a condolence motion. We might do that now, first up. So, Councillor Zamprogno indicated his intention to move a condolence motion. Sorry

There, Councillor Zamprogno, with the condolence motion.

Sorry, Mr Mayor, I'm having difficulty with my connection. It's very choppy . Can you hear me?

We can. It is a bit in and out. Sorry, I just thought it might be more appropriate to go straight to the condolence motion at this stage. Can

We bring that up on the screen if staff have access to it and someone else might, in the absence of Councillor Zamprogno being able to?

Someone want to move that so we can get it on the record.

I'm happy to move that, Mr Mayor.

Moved Councillor Wheeler, seconded Councillor Kotlash. In the absence of Councillor Zamprogno, I'll just say a few words and note on behalf of that I'm very happy that Councillor Zamprogno brought this up. It was very sad to hear of the passing of Dick, big personality in Tennyson, a local business that everybody knows, huge contribution to our community through service to the RFS and in other capacities as well. So, yeah, I think it's very appropriate that we honour that tonight. Did anybody else want to say anything here?

Yes, I think I've restored my connection, Mr Mayor. Yes,

Thank you, Councillor Zamprogno. All

Right then. I wanted to move this condolence motion and say that we have lost one of the greats recently with the passing of Dick Petrikas from Tennyson at the age of 83. Dick ran his business on Tennyson Road, selling all manner of farm equipment for over 50 years. He spent 43 of those as the captain of the Tennyson RFS from 1976 to 2001 and a further 14 years as deputy until his semi-retirement in 2015. Dick, his mother and sisters fled their ancestral home in Lithuania towards the end of World War II. Travelling by rowboat, they were intercepted by fishermen and ended up interned in a migrant camp that was eventually liberated by the British. The family decision to emigrate to Australia instead of Britain was apparently sealed by the impression that the family gained of Australia from watching Chips Rafferty movies.

They arrived at the migrant hostel in what is now Stavely National Park, just up the road from where I live, in 1948, and the rest is history. Dick and his family have been fixtures in the Hawkesbury community ever since. Dick's business traded with Colo Shire Council and then its successor, Hawkesbury Shire Council. He was awarded the National Medal in 1993 and had since added two clasps for his extraordinarily long service. Dick could be proud that his whole family went on to become contributors to the Hawkesbury community in their own right, in the RFS, SES and elsewhere. I acknowledge Dick's wife Julia and their children Chris, David, Marianne, Greg and Steve. I enjoyed speaking with Chris today, who is himself decorated with the Australian Fire Service Medal to put together these notes.

Dick left behind 11 grandchildren, eight great-grandchildren and more are on the way. We have lost too many of our local greats recently, with the passing of Alvor Volla and then Albert Newton, Peter Speight, Lionel Smith and now Dick Petrikas. I invite my fellow councillors to join me in a moment's silence to mark Dick's passing. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor. Councillor Sheather, did you want to say something as well?

Sorry, you've just muted yourself, Councillor Sheather. Yep. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, I've known Dick and the family for a long while. When we first started the Sports Council, we called a marriage between the community and council in relation to staffing and how they may— we may not have issues with staffing. And so a lot of voluntary work was done. And in those days, Dick had a lot of mowing equipment and the like. And it wasn't a day, it wasn't a week, it was 18 months that he worked with us. When I say worked with us, he supplied the equipment for volunteers to mow playing fields and the likes. That was the sort of bloke he is, and the rest of his family is no different. They're extremely community minded and, yeah, he'll be sorely missed.

Thank you. Councillor Lanes-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd just like to echo the words that the two previous councillors just said, and to also just thank the Petrikas family. They are one of the local families where we have generations of people that give service to this community. So the children, and particularly to Marion, I'd like to say thanks for their continuing service because then their children take it on, and we see what a valuable contribution they make. Thank you.

Thank you. So, Councillor Dobramaci. Yes

Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, yeah, and this kind of thing that, like I always admit that, you know, I'm behind times, as you know that I'm the new one. I didn't know the gentleman. Naturally I haven't met him, but in Western world, it's always like in situations like that, it's always in good words, and he was very dearly missed, and we send our condolences and this and that or whatever. I don't know whether you would agree with me or not. In times of like this, I think, you know, more than, you know, just words, whether it would be appropriate or not if we could collect some money and send it to his widow or his children. They may not need money, but I think, you know, some kind of a contribution that if nobody agrees with me, would somebody be kind enough to give me the address, and I will send him a small payment to contribute on behalf of the council. Thank you. Thanks,

Councillor. That sounds like more of a private arrangement. Okay So we'll put the motion first, all in favour? Declare it carried, and we'll carry out now that moment of silence.

If someone wanted to move the minutes from the previous meeting.

Moved Councillor Reardon, seconded Councillor Zamprogno. Any discussion? All those in favour? Carried.

We have two items subject to public address. Our first item subject to public address is item 39. We have two speakers against the motion, Mr. Geoffrey Brand and Mr. John Ross. So just let those people into the meeting.

Mr. Brand in the meeting? I can't see.

He was before.

Ah, here he is. On my screen. Mr. Brand, we're ready for you now.

Sorry, can you hear us, Geoff?

Can you hear us, Geoff, there?

If not, we might go to John Ross and come back to Mr. Brand. Mr. Ross, are you ready?

Yes, Mr. Mayor. Okay, sorry, if someone from staff could contact Mr. Brand just while Mr. Ross is speaking, so have him next. Thanks. When you're ready, Mr . Ross.

Thank you kindly. I'm seeking not

To support the recommendation provided by staff. The report itself is

Factually inaccurate in a major degree. The relevant legislation came into force

On the 1st of July 2018

Since that time, Council has

Expended something in the order of $800,

000 within that precinct, of which I would estimate 80% was funded by grant.

That would indicate quite clearly that the 2013 plan of management

Still has carriage with the Department of DPIE and OEH.

So the claim made by the author that this report is contingent upon the new legislation is not able to be substantiated.

The second element of this is that the community consultation that was conducted in 2020 itself should have been subject to a report to Council, either in the prior term or this term, and then voted upon by the elected body to determine the elected body's attitude towards whatever proposals and suggestions had come through on the community consultation. Now that has not occurred, and I cite that as a gross breach of the responsibilities of the elected body, and also support the recommendations not being reasonable . Now . Furthermore, the so-called 2022 Draft Plan of Management was, I believe, prepared on the basis of a desktop review.

Sorry, you're muted, Mr. Ross. I'm not sure how that happened. We lost you after desktop review.

Sorry, still muted. Mr. Ross, you're muted.

Is

That better?

That's better. So we lost you after your statement about being a desktop review.

Okay, yes. I believe the draft POMs we're looking at tonight was apparently prepared on the basis of a desktop review. Now , I cite that that desktop review has apparently been prepared without knowledge of a response from DPIE and OEH to an application under Section 60 of the Heritage Act, which was supplied to Council on the 5th of December 2018 in the form of a letter. That letter clearly enunciated specific conditions on the then proposed park upgrades. This is prior to some of this 800,000. Those conditions are not evident in the 2022

Upgraded Draft Plan of Management. Furthermore, Council undertook various works in the park. During the last term of Council, without approval of DPI or OEH, or compliance with normal planning and legislative approvals ,

Those changes and additions have not been incorporated in the 2022 document that we are looking at this evening, nor are the attendant Australian standards applicable to those works incorporated within the draft plan of management.

So, in other words, the report is inaccurate. The community consultation has failed . Thirdly, the staff have apparently sought a new draft plan of management, which is an update of the 2013 plan of management, which is still operative.

But the person charged with doing that has been given the wrong specifications or has not been informed by the staff of the activity between Council and DPI OEH in the interim.

Mr Rossi, your time's expired. We did lose a little bit while you muted, so if you could just wrap up

Yes, I'll close off now if I may with a few things.

The next point I would like to address is where to now. Firstly, reject all staff recommendations. Two, inform the lead proponent of McQuade Park development. That it is not available for enhanced commemorative structures, either temporary or permanent. Three, develop a plan of management—sorry, the draft plan of management as we're looking at, be rejected. Four , a new update of the 2013 plan of management be sought based on actual site conditions now, plus all DPIE OEH approvals and correspondence that have occurred in the interim. Lastly, the new update of the draft plan of management, when prepared, be initially submitted to the Heritage Advisory Committee and then go to Council for its ultimate approval before approaching DPIE OEH on any future development or improvements to the park area. Thank you. Thanks

Mr. Ross. I just have one question, which was if you could just give us some detail around what works you believe have been carried out that are not reflected in the plan.

I can do that. They are rather lengthy. I would suggest that staff might provide you, Mr. Mayor, and your fellow councillors, a letter addressed from the Office of Heritage in the name of—let me just dig out the person's name. The author is Katrina Stankowski. It is dated the 5th of December 2018. And it was addressed to a Mr Craig Johnson, then Parks Officer at Hawkesbury City Council, and the reference is Application under Section 60 of the Heritage Act 1977. Therein lies a number of elements. Some of what has come up in the community consultation was roundly rejected by DPI at that time, and the works have not been carried out , at least in part in one section of the letter, which is point 3, design modifications.

Amended drawings must be prepared by a suitably qualified landscape architect with a selection from the two trees on the island within the, sorry, the lake precinct, based on the historic values of the site and submitted with the Section 60 application. Now, there is no reference to that at all in the draft POM that I've looked at for this meeting. And in other words, Council is not compliant even with what was written at that stage, let alone what is proposing now. So there is a big void, which is only going to lead to disaster, I'm sorry, sir.

Thank you. Are there any further questions for Mr Ross? No . Thank you, Mr Ross. Thank you. Mr Brandy, there now, able to hear us? You're muted at the moment. That should pop up with a message asking you

To unmute. Unmute. There we are. Thank you. Good evening, Mr Mayor, Councillors, Council staff and guests and other attendees. So thank you for the opportunity to speak at your meeting

Tonight

But I wish to register the Windsor and District RSL sub-branch's disapproval of the draft plan of management from McQuade Park with its current requirements and restrictions for the placement of a new war memorial, which is now to be known as the cenotaph, in McQuade Park on the western side of the ornamental lake. The exact position is where the Anzac Day and Remembrance Day commemorations have been held since 2015. We believe that the placement by the ornamental lake will be a community and cultural item of interest to visitors. It will add to the cultural aspect of the park in keeping with Governor Macquarie's vision for park use. It will not deter or impinge on any other known or future activities within the park.

The Windsor and District sub-branch wish to make known that the construction costs of the cenotaph will be met wholly by the sub-branch at no cost to the Hawkesbury Council or the Hawkesbury community. The cenotaph will be a community asset and an asset that will continue to be a focal point for commemorations with safety of the attendees paramount. The Windsor and District RSL sub-branch has been trying to have the memorial—sorry, the cenotaph constructed since 2015. Needless to say, the Windsor and District RSL sub-branch members have become very frustrated with these delays. With metal, the requirements should have been placed upon us at quite costly expense to the sub-branch. At the direction from Council, we had to engage a heritage landscaper and a consultant archaeologist to check if there were any indigenous artefacts in or on the site.

It is now time for the Hawkesbury to have a major remembrance site for all of the community. The words we will remember them have a very powerful meaning that cannot be denied. We will remember those that paid the eternal sacrifice so that we can live the life that we live today. The cenotaph does not differentiate between events in our military history. It represents all events, wars and conflicts, and more importantly, all veterans. We have no intention or purpose or proposal that there be any diminishing of the importance of the existing memorial in Memorial Park, and we will continue to conduct smaller commemorations , commemoration services there, example the Boer War, as long as they can be conducted with safety being paramount to the public.

Because the report for determination, with the specific references to Windsor and District RSL sub-branch in the agenda does not reflect the actual draft plan of management, I therefore ask that serious consideration be given to not approving the draft plan of management in its present format.

Oh, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Brand. Have you got any questions, Mr.

Brand? Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councillor .

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's very...

Do you have YouTube on or anything there? Me? A lot of feedback. No, no, sorry, Mr. Brand. We're getting feedback whenever we speak.

He's muted now, so that might make...

If you wanted to ask your question while he's on mute, then he can answer. Yeah, okay.

Thank you, Mr. Brand, and I know this has been a lengthy process for you, and I know that the RSL have been trying for some time. I'm just wondering, can you tell us who drew up the plans for the... Memorial for the actual structure.

You're on mute now, Mr Brand, just a reminder.

Sorry. Sorry, Councillor Buckett, I'm back in line. Buckett, I'm back again. That's okay. I'm just trying to get the name of the actual. ..

I'm just wondering, is it a regular architecture or a heritage

Architecture? Sorry, you're on mute, Mr Brand.

My apology. Can you hear me now?

We can.

Hello. Yes, we can. Sorry. No, we had them drawn up by an engineering firm.

So they have engineering specifications

And everything with them? Yes, they do.

Okay . I'm just wondering, have they formed part of an application before ?

Sorry, you're on mute, Mr Brand. I'm not sure what's happening there.

Sorry, I'm back. Can you hear me? We

Can. Okay

When we had the consultant brought in, we raised the S60 application and had it placed with State Heritage. As we had already instigated a DA through council, we were of the belief that the DA had gone through to... State Heritage. However, we were then informed by State Heritage that they can't do anything with it until they get the DA from Council, and that was the first we knew, which was approximately, I think it was about three years after we— two years, sorry, after we started, about the December of 2017.

And Council then debated— council staff, that is, debated,

And eventually they told us in the July, I think it was, of 2018, or might have been '19, that they suddenly discovered that the general manager of the Hawkesbury Council did not have the authority to sign the DA because the property, the McQuade Park, did not belong to the Council and he didn't have the authority to do it. And until such time as they were then going to be in the process, which was going to take approximately 12 months, to get the land management transferred to the Council so they'd have the authority, and it's just drawn on and on and on.

Thank you. I do recall an application going in. Just one more question, if I may, Mr. Mayor. You said, I know, Jeff, that you've said, and I know you've said this in the past, that you have the money to build the structure. Where's that money coming from? Is that a grant money, or is that from the RSL club, or where's that coming from?

We will be applying for a grant. However, if we don't get the grant, the sub-branch will meet that cost themselves. Okay

Thank you.

Councillor, just really ask not ask your interest on the record. So if you could declare the interest and then you can ask the question if you're staying in the matter.

Yeah, thanks, Mr. Mayor. It's a less than significant pecuniary interest. I'm a member of the sub-branch. I haven't served on any committees, subcommittees or executive positions, either locally or state.

So less a significant non-pecuniary?

Yes.

Yes. Okay. So, and did you want to ask a question to Mr. Brand?

Yes, I did, Mr. Mayor.

Jeff, could you, excuse me, just explain the difference between a cenotaph and a war memorial? There's items in the business paper that relate to names or lack of names and the like. You might like to express the

Difference. Sorry

You're muted now.

Can you hear me now? Yes

Sorry

Yes, Councillor Sheather, the difference between a memorial and a cenotaph is a cenotaph does not have any names, individual names on it. It is just there as a point of commemoration, whereas a memorial, as the memorial in Memorial Park on the corner of Tebbutt Street and George Street.. . Reflects all the names of the people that were in those events. So the cenotaph is a point of remembrance that does not have individual names upon it.

Thanks. The proposal that the subbranch put to Council for the cenotaph has got three columns on it. Is the proposal to have Army, Navy and Air Force and that's all on that?

Sorry, you're just muted again.

That is correct, Les. They do have three columns: Army, Navy and Air Force.

And that is all. There's no other

Going on. Yep. Thanks, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Are there any further questions, Mr Brand? Councillor Richards, you had a question.

Sorry, Mr Mayor, no, mine wasn't a question. I just wanted to correct something on the record before debate began.

Okay, what did you want to correct?

On page 52, there is a mistake in the business paper where it mentions that it's Windsor and District RSL making a proposal, but throughout the report it mentions it's the sub-branch. I did speak to the general manager this afternoon who confirmed that is an error, and I just need to bring that to everyone's attention. It is not the RSL, it is the sub-branch, and they are two very separate entities.

Thank you. Did you have a motion to move, Councillor Richards? Yeah,

Thank you. I'd like to move a motion to debate. I think staff have a copy of that, if they could please bring that up.

The one that I circulated?

Yes, please, Mr Mayor.

Be able to show that on the screen and ask for a seconder. Seconded Councillor Sheather.

Councillor Richards, would you mind if I spoke on that first?

Very happy for you to. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. So, Councillors, this is a motion that I circulated earlier today after discussion with Mr Brand and others from the sub-branch over the weekend. As I indicated at an earlier briefing, I find the situation fairly unacceptable and a bit embarrassing. We've had the local RSL sub-branch looking to come to us, you know, almost five years ago, or maybe more than that now, seeking to have a memorial in McQuade Park. And it should not take that long. There should not be this much bureaucracy involved. I think we are where we are now, and there's nothing we can do about that, but all we can do is, as we go forward, signal our support and make it an easier process as possible from here.

For those of us who go to the ANZAC Day ceremony at Windsor, you would know that over the last decade that ceremony has been growing and growing and growing. When I first got elected to Council back in 2012, I think the first ANZAC Day ceremony I went to as a Councillor that next year, we did have it up on the corner near the pub at the old memorial, and there was, you know, at that point, a few hundred people, and it was difficult. You know, you couldn't see from the back, people right at the back couldn't hear properly. It's not set out well. From there, it's now grown into many, many, many thousands of people attending these ceremonies, and we've had the temporary memorial brought into the park each time.

That ceremony is really, for those of us who've been, it's a really moving ceremony. The location adds to it. You've got people all around the park, thousands of people who actually, because of the shape of the park, are able to hear and participate even if they're a long way back. And I think the fact that so many thousands of people are attending these ceremonies demonstrates that it has community support. This is something the community values, and therefore it should be reflected in the plan of management, that this is an activity that is important to our community. So what I'm suggesting here is two changes. The first one being fairly significant, which is the plan is amended before it's sent in to make allowance for a memorial for the type and scale that's been proposed by the Windsor RSL sub-branch in the location they've proposed it.

So I'm saying that we should change the plan so that the RSL sub-branch, in the plan it actually says that you can have a memorial of that type in that spot. Also, before us, there was some— we were presented with a list of conditions that should be included for the design of any future proposal of a memorial, and these are all in there, but I've taken out some conditions. I think that some of them were inappropriate. So the ones I've removed: first, that it be compatible with other passive recreation uses. I don't think that's appropriate at all, that a war memorial needs to be compatible with passive recreation. It is of value in and of itself. It is a standalone item, and it's important to our community.

Similarly, I don't think it needs to provide opportunities for multifunctional event space. Again, I just don't think that's appropriate. It wouldn't require any other war memorial anywhere in the Hawkesbury to be used for multifunctional events. That it continue to include removable elements— well, if we're going to change the plan to make allowance for a permanent memorial of the type and scale that's not required. Be contemporary in nature. There's already a design for us that I understand has been reviewed by the hierarchy of the RSL and deemed appropriate. It's been there at the park on a temporary basis every time for the last few years. I don't think we need to be prescriptive as to that element of design, and I'm also not sure why you would want a war memorial to be contemporary in nature.

Similarly, address all viewing directions. That would be good if it did, and if it could, that would be great. But I wouldn't want to, again, be prescriptive to try and rule out typical memorial at the RSL at Point Ford.

Again, there's another condition, which is a little bit repetitive, which was consider incorporating renewable elements to retain the open, uncluttered passive recreation character of this location. Again, if we're going to allow a permanent memorial, I don't think we need to include renewable elements. That it be designed by a heritage architect with experience in the design of memorials. For those of us who have seen the memorial, because I understand that the permanent memorial will just be very similar to the temporary one. First of all, I think that there's nothing wrong with that design, and I think broadly the community would agree with that. But even from a process point of view, I think it's more appropriate that at the DA stage it is assessed for its heritage impact, and it should be assessed on its impact, not on who designed it.

I think that's just an issue with that process, that we're going to be prescriptive not on what it looks like, but on who is involved in putting it together. And the final condition that I've suggested be removed is that it be designed in consultation with council staff and endorsed prior to the formal development application stage. Whilst I'm sure everybody working on this has the best of intentions, this has already been held up for years and been a lot of back and forth and a lot of bureaucracy. I don't think it needs to be designed with council staff and then submitted to council staff for assessment. I think that the RSL sub-branch should be able to put forward the memorial they deem appropriate, so long as it meets all the other conditions that a normal DA would have to.

So, councillors, I'm putting this forward. I think it's about having respect for the role of the RSL sub-branch and for the veterans that are involved. I think that, as I said, the huge attendance of the community demonstrates the community value and support, and I think we should be getting behind this, not getting in the way of it. Any further discussion?

Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I do just want to echo the words that you just said then, and I appreciate all of the elements that you have taken out and put into this amendment. I think it's no secret that I find the length of time and the process that it has taken for the RSL sub-branch to submit this DA, their idea, and to go through the hoops that they've had to be asked to jump through, and then the further hoops that they put into the original recommendation in the plan of management was just extraordinary. You know, we are all members of this community, and we should be proud of what our RSL sub-branches do for our veterans and for the very special things that they plan to commemorate occasions with.

And as you very rightly said, thousands upon thousands of Hawkesbury residents have attended the Anzac Day ceremony with the temporary structure in place for the last few years, and it has become something of a tradition now. And I want to thank the members of the sub-branch for coming up with that idea in the first place, and I actually want to apologise to them for the way this has played out over the last few years. It is absolutely categorically unacceptable what has gone on, and I am sorry that you are in this position, that you have gone through so much stress, when at the end of the day you are volunteers as well, like any other community organisation, trying to give something back to our community for a cause that we so very dearly, or absolutely, respect.

I think that the amendment on the floor tonight is a common sense approach to what has not been a common sense circumstance over the last few years. And I think that this amendment shows leadership. It shows a way forward where we are taking the RSL sub-branch and their concerns into consideration, where it shows that as an elected body of councillors, we have listened to not just what the sub-branch proposes, but also to what the community wants. And I think that that is our role moving forward. We absolutely have to eliminate as much red tape as possible, not just in this process, but in any process. I mean, the things that the sub-branch were asked to do that you have removed could have had the potential to have cost so much money and added so much time to the process.

And we have to just stop having that mentality. We as a council have to have the mindset where we say yes to something, or if there's a problem, we say, okay, there's a few issues we need to iron out, but you have our support as a council. We have to stop the mentality of, no, this is too hard, or no, it's going in the too hard basket, and it will sit on someone's desk for a few years while we try and decide what to do or pretend they'll forget. That is not the way we should be as a council. We have to be not just only encouraging these community-based ideas, but in other realms as well, encouraging investment, actually having our doors open to business, to the community and saying Hawkesbury City Council is an entity that wants you to come into our area with your ideas and we will support you.

And I think that we have to learn from the circumstances that have happened here. We have to allow that to never, ever happen again to any other community-based organisation, and we have to support the motion on the floor tonight. I think the words that you touched on there, Mr Mayor, was Towards respect, and respect is the key word in this moving forward. Respect for our veterans, respect for our volunteers, and to ensure that the Hawkesbury has a legacy moving forward. I'll say this as a last little statement. I don't think that when Governor Macquarie came here and named Windsor in 1810, he expected that the area would never ever change from the way it looked when he laid his eyes on it.

I think that our community needs to evolve, it needs to change and adapt in line with what the community wants and expects. And as I said, saying no to things is not the way forward, but saying yes to those things that enrich and make our community better are what we want to see as Hawkesbury City Councillors. So I absolutely support the motion on the floor. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

I've just got a number of questions, mainly coming out of things that have been said tonight. I'm just, just from your amendment that you put out, Mr Mayor, are you proposing in that—I'm just going with what it's like. First of all, let me say that I have the utmost respect for the RSL, and of course I have no issue with them having a memorial in a park. But I'm looking at this around the scope of changing here. And so are you proposing in your motion to have McQuade Park shift in its, you know, so in other words, to have it dedicated as the whole area being a memorial park? I know the corner of it is currently a memorial park. I'm just wondering, that's quite a significant shift. I'm just—your wording you have used makes me think that you are putting the primary focus of that park as being a memorial park. So say, for example, like Kurrajong Memorial Park, so is that your intent?

No, I worded it the way I did because the current report and even the plan makes reference to the proposal from the RSL sub-branch. So the proposal is limited to that area of the park, which is around the western edge of the ornamental pond. And so I think I put it this way so it's the simplest and easiest way to communicate our intentions, that the plan should be amended so that that proposal, as detailed in the plan, is supported.

Okay, so you want that specific detail and no changes to that. The second thing, and I think I heard the answer from Mr Brand of this, but the point about excluding specific names is just in that it's a cenotaph and not a war memorial with individual names. The third point is the veterans from all conflicts, including Indigenous. Does that mean that this would be a memorial including reference to the frontier wars and to the various historical conflicts involving our First Nations people?

So, I mean, that would be the intention. I think it's important to remember that this is the conditions list of the design of any future proposal. So at a DA stage, if there was a DA that came in for a memorial, this would be one of the conditions that we'd have to consider. It's not Council putting a memorial in, so I probably can't answer that, but that would be the intention.

Okay. Oh, so that is still in there. It's just changed a bit from the one that was sent round, that's all. And the other point was, is there anything in our livability project in that part of Windsor that is going to change anything around what's proposed in this plan of management? I haven't quite tied them together in my head of how that might be going.

I'll refer that to Director

City Planning. Thank you through you, Mr Mayor. So as the work has progressed around the plan of management, they have engaged with our consultants for the design of the livability program, but the livability program isn't undertaking actually any works within the park.

Okay, so it's just on the edge of it, but there to be compatible. I just had one more, and that was just around the way that we came to be having a new plan of management if we have an existing one. Was that a directive from the state government, like we had for, for example, the Pioneer Village and McMahons Park and so on? Is that a requirement by the state government that we are updating this plan of management, or did we not have a proper plan of management before?

Refer that to Director

City Planning. Thank you through you, Mr Mayor. My understanding is that the previous plan of management was developed as though the land were council-owned, and we discovered it was Crown land that required a different process. But I might ask the Manager of Parks and Recreation to confirm that, please.

Good evening, everybody. Yes, as the Director has indicated, the original plan was based on council owning it. When the Heritage Conservation Plan was done, it did identify the land as being council-owned. That was subsequently proven not the case when Crown land—we were looking at all the lands —so they identified it as being Crown land, and under the new Crown Land Act, we are required to do an individual plan of management as it is of historic significance.

Okay. So have we since rectified any other potential parcels of land that we might think we own that we don't? Because this isn't the first time I've heard that this has actually happened. I think we had another instance where we thought we were the owners and weren't. So has all that been rectified now, and we know exactly who owns what? Sorry.

So, yes, we did report back to Council. When Crown Land first raised the new Act, we basically went through a process with Crown Land to identify what was , I guess, land that Council were Crown Land managers for . Obviously Crown Land parcels that we're not Crown Land managers for . We did report those to Council. We then had to identify categories to each of those parcels, which we did, and we received that back, I think, a year ago now from Crown. And we obviously then have to work on plans of management for all those parks by the end of 2024. Some of those will be generic plans, some of them will be individual plans . But that is something that we need to make sure we complete by that time.

Thank you . Mr Mayor, I want to speak on it just now. I just, I do still have other questions. I'm just going to think on it for a minute, if that's okay. Thank you.

Councillor Sheather. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just in relation to the Cenotaph with the Indigenous, in the Defence Force, there's all nationalities and have been through most of our conflicts, including our Indigenous population . When they sign up into the Defence Forces , if they're lost in action, there's two places their names go. One's on a local war memorial, and the other one's in Canberra . And the process that the sub-branch go through to do that is pretty stringent. And in relation to this Cenotaph, it was as well. They got the same... Responsibilities an organisation, pretty well as Council has. It's not just something that come out of the blue and somebody decided they wanted to build one.

There's a whole process they've got to go through . Mr Brand touched on that a little bit, but the process is quite lengthy and the likes even before it come to Council . In relation to where it is, and you touched on it, Mr Mayor, the memorial up in the corner of the park, on a corner, uneven ground, the steps, Barry , to put flowers around the memorial itself is hard. Most of the people who do that, even there's a lot of school kids involved now, which is fantastic , it's hard. This is designed with plinths on it, so they don't have to bend down like that. They can be standing and place the flowers, and there's many of them. In relation to the park for the community

And Councillor Richards touched on it, the park is there for the community and it'll change over time. But the main use of the park these days is for sport, and with all those people that play through the seasons in one year, in one day there is more people that stand at that cenotaph , that one that's put in place and taken away in one morning, there's more than all the other park users put together . When you get about 20,000 people, that's a fair whack of our community, considering we've got more and memorials all around the place. But to come to Windsor for one morning, in particular Anzac Day, to have that many people there . If that's not in the public interest, I don't know what is .

And what's being proposed, the debate that I expect the executive had, and with their superiors in relation to this centre, would not have been easy, because it's not something that they want people or councils or individuals to have these things all over the place. There's a lot of thought goes into it, and

Our defence personnel deserve that. You know , there's very little council can do to give support from time to time to organisations like the sub-branch. This is one time that they can. And we stand up and beat our chests about how good our defence force is and the people that service. They've given us what we've got today, and we really don't appreciate the work and effort that goes into it. They go and give eulogies, they go to hospital visits, they look after widows and the like. The community don't see that. But on one day, and there's a few other days as well, the community shows their appreciation for what they do do . But there's lots of things that they don't know about. Like last night, there was over 3,000 defence personnel that slept in the streets, and the sub-branch work hard for that.

And there's very little we can do to show the respect for what they deserve, and this is one of them. And we should be working really hard to make it happen, not do six years. I don't know how many people locally in our sub-branch would have passed in six years , but they would have been looking forward to the sort of thing that's there, that's been proposed . The sub-branch don't have to close streets. They march from the bowling club , stay within the park, and there's never been issues. The police have never had an issue with it or the like. It's a good place, and I think our community expect it, and I think they deserve it. Thank you

Councillor Sheather . Councillor Wheeler

Thanks, Mr Mayor. A couple of questions first, if I could . I think I've got a better idea now of what we're actually sending to the minister. Does that include the RSL's plans for the permanent memorial

I refer that to Director Infrastructure Services

Through you, Mr Mayor. Select, as I understand it, select excerpts from the sub-branch's proposal are included in the current draft of the plan of management.

So that's the drawings that we've got in the annex to the business paper.

Yes, that's correct.

Thanks . Is it likely that points 1A and points 1B... can coexist.

So I guess I'm referring specifically to B1 and 2, which are protect the local heritage values and vistas and protect the open visual quality and low-key character of the lakeside landscape setting.

Yeah, can you refer that to the Director Infrastructure

Services. Through you, Mr Mayor, it's a little bit of a difficult question to answer, not being a heritage consultant or a development assessment officer. So I'm not too sure I can categorically say whether they can coexist or not.

So, I mean, whereas the question, just a follow-up question, whether it's to you or the Director City Planning , if we wanted to support 1A, for the avoidance of doubt about Council's intention, should we be removing points B1 and 2?

I think that there is a risk that the DA process would pick up points 1 and 2 through other means, through a referral to a heritage consultant — oh, sorry, the Heritage Advisory. So I'm not entirely sure, but I might ask my colleague, the Director of City Planning, to weigh in on this as well. Yeah,

Thank you . Yes, obviously once the application is received, we'd be then determining who needs to be referred to, and in this instance it would be referred to the Heritage Office for their input and consideration.

Thank you.

Thanks. So that's — yeah , this isn't helping me make up my mind. I think it would be, following on from what you've said, Mr Mayor , I think it's — sorry, and I've finished asking questions, sorry — I think it's...

I think it's likely that, I think if we removed 1B , 1 and 2, I wouldn't be able to support this motion. But I am concerned that we're going to set off on this path again and telling RSL that we're behind what they want, and then we're going to hit the brick wall that is the New South Wales Heritage Office, and it's all going to come unstuck again. So I guess I've got another question. Is there a mechanism where we can run this past—I know I asked this in the briefing the other night, but we seem to have moved to a different program from then. Is there a mechanism where we can get the advice from the Heritage Office on what's proposed in 1A and then go forward with this, rather than try and bludgeon this through or take it through to the Crown Lands Minister and then hit yet another stumbling block?

I'll put that to Director City Planning or Director Infrastructure

Services, whoever wants it.

Yeah, sorry. Well, yes, I mean, there have been instances, I suppose, separate through DA process where, you know, you could have a discussion with the Heritage Office to seek their input and, I suppose, try and understand their expectations in this process and, you know, particularly noting that there would be a DA process down the track . And in that respect, hopefully you'd then be able to address any concerns or information that they might be seeking prior to lodging an application. Is

That likely to take very long? I know that's

A bit of a

How long

That would be hard to answer, yes, I'm sorry.

Yeah, okay. Because my big concern around this is that we give the RSL false hope and say that we're behind this, it's good to go, we're getting this done, and then it hits yet another stumbling block. And because these hoops aren't all councils, you know, this is a state heritage listed park with a conservation management plan. That's not, you know, that we don't get to determine how we tweak. So I think we have to make sure when we go forward with this that it's something that's likely to be successful, rather than just get bound up yet again. I think the question, too, for the community would be really nice to see, and it might make this easier for people to process if we could see what percentage of the park would be taken up with this permanent cenotaph.

You know, there's, as Councillor Sheather raised, there's lots of uses for that park. The vast majority of them are quite legitimate, and it's our role to balance the uses of that park, and this is one of them. It's a particularly important one that I think needs to be, that the community needs to be behind so that they respect it. You know, I think we've all seen those things on YouTube, you know, when there's kids running amok over a cenotaph or, you know, and I think people, we don't want people to be maudlin around these structures, but we do want people to be respectful. And I think if this is presented to the community in a way that meets their heritage and open space requirements, it's more likely to be respected and looked after going forward.

I've spent a lot of time standing around cenotaphs in my life, both as the daughter of a sailor and soldier and as a soldier myself, and they are incredibly sombre places and very often become places of great worth to the community. If we go ahead with this plan, then this should be one of those spaces. So it needs to be well regarded . We also need, I think, to include the First Nations community early in this process. We're already talking about honouring veterans from all conflicts. I think we need to make sure that this is a process that we take people on, rather than yet again telling First Nations people what they're going to have. I think we also are going to have to have some pretty difficult conversations with them.

If we're going to be honouring the frontier wars in one section of the park, we need to be cognisant of the fact that there was a statue of Governor Macquarie who ordered the death of First Nations people in the early days of the colony in another part of the park. And we're going to have to work out how we do that in order to be sensitive and not pit one sector of the community against the other. Could I ask Mr Mayor for a bit of a tidy-up of your point B6, which currently says, honour veterans from all conflicts, including Indigenous, be publicly exhibited extensively. Yes

Two points have been put together.

Yeah, I don't think that's a sentence you want. And can we change the word? Can you either capitalise Indigenous and make it Indigenous people, or refer to First Nations people? I'm

Going to check the original condition and see if it's been lost in editing.

And can I just, and then can I just, and I'll leave that with you, and then just make one further comment. Two further comments. I would have liked to have a meeting. I think it would have been helpful for us to have perhaps the RSL address us at the briefing last week so that we could really hear what they wanted out of this process. We might have got to an easier place now. And I just want to comment on something that Councillor Sheather said earlier. There's lots of things that we can do to show respect for veterans and their families: affordable and social housing, and we should be building that into our LEP. That is within our power. Things that are not necessarily within our power: support of women, children and veterans when they come home, particularly better mental health and suicide prevention.

There's plenty that we can do that we aren't doing, and it's not just cenotaphs, unfortunately.

Thank you. Yeah, I had noticed as well that there should be a point seven after the word Indigenous,

And the B should be capitalised

Councillor Dogramaci.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. As you know that I have absolutely no idea what this is, and the important question that I would like to ask, if you'd be kind enough, either you, the mayor, or councillors, any one of them could correct me. What I want to know is that, well, as a matter of fact, when I was told, when I became a councillor, I couldn't believe that, you know, it was this kind of red tape and this sort of things. Obviously, RSL people, you know, have thought about it, and these people, you know, they gave their blood, they gave their tears, they gave their lives, their ultimate sacrifices, and here we are, well , you of course, because I don't know the details of it, and talking and doing this one.

Next, you know, they will say, like it says in here, gardens, vegetation to soften any harsh edges. Are we going to discuss whether we put tulips or roses all around and that sort of things? Nobody talks about anything about security cameras. That's something came into my mind. We know what happened in Sydney, how that monument was defaced a couple of years ago, I think. And the other thing, what I want, like I said, when I was told that being in a council or running this sort of things is not like running a company, do we really have to go through, you know, all these things one by one and I don't know why all these things, you know, taking, you know, for so many years. I was, well, somebody mentioned that, you know, four or five years.

Is it possible that, you know, we could find out, you know, who was sitting on these files? Why nothing has been done in the last five years? Who's responsible for this sort of thing? Let's bring these people and let's ask them a question. Why did they put this file right at the bottom? Why didn't they do anything about it? And for that reason, with the greatest respect, seven of you, you know, were in the council for the last five, six years. Why nothing happened? And is it just like, you know, to put this thing, you know, for five, six years and upset these people in RSL and make them suffer? I don't know, really. Point of order,

Mr. Mayor. Point of order

Councillor Dogramaci is impugning our motives. No one has done this to insult these people.

Well, I mean, you know, why five, six years have been waiting? Like, you know, for what reason?

I'll uphold the point of order. Councillor Dogramaci, we've just got to make sure we're talking about the matter before us, not about any

Other

Councillors

Like I said, accept my apologies. I don't know about it. Just, you know, as much as I could, you know, pick it up, you know, from what other councillors said and what I heard. All I am saying is that, you know, just pass it through. Don't wait, you know, for the government for this one coming and then make these people suffer for another year, two or three or five years. I mean, no one is going to put that senate upside down. I mean, these are all common sense. Just put it there. Don't waste any more time. These people have suffered enough for the last five, six years. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Reardon.

Sorry, Councillor Reardon, you're on mute.

Is that better?

Yep. Yes.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'd just like to say I'm very supportive of this amendment. I don't think it will spoil the vistas or the views in the park. I think the position it's going to be in with the landscaping, it will be very nice. And I notice in our business paper that 70% of the community were also in support of the idea.

Thank you . Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think a lot of the things I was alluding to have sort of been cleared up now. I think the one thing that still sits in my mind is what exactly—I know that when this first came up and when Mr Brand came to us in 2017 to follow up on this, and I was following up on it, was that I was being told all the time it was at the heritage office. Now, what I would like to understand is what exactly the advice we got from that that could help us inform it going forward. I think this is what I'm trying to get at. It's been somewhere for some time. I know there's the issue around the plan of management, but that actual application, or that's what I was being told, it was somewhere having something done.

And I think that that doesn't have to delay or do anything about this particular motion. But I think that we should clarify exactly what we understand about what we, you know, because as Councillor Wheeler said, we don't want to propel it forward only to hit another roadblock somewhere and then have to, you know, retrace and start doing it again . I think that the aim that I would see is to have the most fitting monument that we can have in line with the aesthetic of the park, and one that also does gain the respect of the community, as we do, of course, all respect and thank our veterans for their service. As someone who has probably been to every Anzac Day since I was born, which is 61 years ago, I think that in most towns it is a central focal point, and it is somewhere where we gather to give our respect to veterans.

And it is also somewhere that people like to go into the different towns and look at them. And the little one on the corner is very nice, and I'm glad to see that that will still be used for the commemorations of those specific conflicts, the Korean War and the one at the Boer War Memorial. I think that that will be really good to see. But I know that the RSL will be very pleased to see this go forward . I'm just hopeful that we can perhaps garner a little bit more of existing stuff to help it and to ensure that we don't come up against something in the application that would hold it up. I was going to perhaps suggest deferring. I didn't want to, but I think that's cleared some of it up. But I do still think that whatever Mr Ross was alluding to when he was speaking, I'd also be interested to know what that advice said in that letter that he referred to as well.

So I'm pleased, aside from... Sorry, aside from this part of the—

Sorry . Aside from this part of the plan of management, I think there's a lot of really good aspects in the rest of the plan of management. McQuade Park is a central part of our township and, I mean, we really should be giving it the attention that it deserves, and it will be good to have a plan of management and to see some things happening there to capitalise on the history that's there, to see the beautiful old church and, you know, I look forward to seeing what feedback we get when it goes to the Crown Lands for review. Thank you.

Thank you. Sorry about that. I've just got Mr Macquarie getting some instructions regarding the motion right now. Hit stop video instead of mute while I was discussing that. So, is that a question, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, or it's an amendment, or— What was that, Mr Mayor? So you said you're going to move a motion to defer, but you wanted that— No

I said I had thought of doing that because I had these concerns around the outstanding heritage advice and also what Mr Ross had raised, what was in that letter. But I think that this could proceed and that could perhaps be looked at. I just think that, I just felt there was a few things that maybe we didn't know exactly about, but I think that's enough, you know, to be looked at aside from the actual motion here. Thank you.

If I may, Mr Mayor, if that's okay. To address the points raised by Councillor Lyons-Buckett, we would expect that if not as part of any referral to Crown Lands , as part of the public exhibition process, that there would be a referral to the New South Wales Heritage Office undertaken at that point , so that when Council then saw the results of that community engagement process back again, that that would then be informed with the advice of New South Wales Heritage.

Thank you. Okay. Being no further speakers, would I reply, Councillor Richards?

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and I'll keep it brief. Just to say that I hope this does go through tonight, and I would like to request, if I may, if I'm not out of line, that the staff do pay particular attention to this one when it's off with the Minister and hope that we get a timely response. And if it does seem to be sitting longer than necessary with the Minister, that we do keep following that up so it can come back to Council so that we can place that on public exhibition. So I guess my last remark, so to ensure that we let this one stay is quite near the top of the pile of priorities, given how long the RSL sub-branch and, of course, our entire community have waited for this process. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you . So we'll put the motion . All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. Mayor, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Latham, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Dobromirci, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Richards, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash , Councillor Calvert , Councillor Michaels absent from the vote, Declare carried.

Our next item is subject to public address, item 43. I have an interest to declare in this item. I have a significant non-pecuniary interest, so I'll be leaving the meeting. The nature of the interest is that my father is the New South Wales Parliamentary Secretary for Education. Whilst it is a different minister and ministry, it is the same department. Whilst I don't believe there's any real conflict, I think there's a significant risk of a perception of conflict, so for caution I'll leave the meeting, which means that I'll be put in the waiting room and Councillor Cowell will need to chair the meeting.

Mr Mayor. Yes. Could I just say before you go, did you just say I didn't vote?

No, Councillor Vager was absent. Oh, sorry.

I thought you said me because my thing keeps dropping in and out. Thank you.

No worries.

Mr Mayor, can I declare my interest as well?

Yeah, I guess, yeah, before I go you can do that.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I'll be declaring a significant non-pecuniary interest and I'll also be leaving the meeting. As a federal candidate, TAFE receives federal funding, so I won't be participating in the debate or the vote. So

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Over to me, is it?

Yeah, out of respect for where we need to be put in the waiting room, please . Okay.

I don't know if I can do it to myself.

Sorry, could Councillor Richards and myself be put in the waiting room, please, someone who's a host? Donna

Are you there?

I think it's because I'm a host, I can't put in the waiting room, so I'll just switch my video and leave this room. Okay .

Okay then. Item 43, which is subject to public address, we have three speakers, I believe, and the first one is Mr. Phil Chadwick. You there, Mr. Chadwick? Yes,

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.

Please go ahead.

Thank you, Council. My name is Philip Chadwick. I'm the Deputy Secretary for the New South Wales Teachers Federation, Deputy Secretary Post Schools. That, in other words, means TAFE. Prior to that, I spent six years as Federation's TAFE organiser for Western Sydney, gave me coverage of Richmond College of TAFE. TAFE New South Wales is an Australian icon that provides vocational education and skills to Australians young and old, in the good times and the worst of times. Council, I speak to you tonight to seek your support for this motion and for this Australian icon, TAFE. I speak on behalf of Federation's TAFE members, TAFE face punitive action for speaking out under the TAFE New South Wales Code of Conduct.

This motion raises three concerns in regard to Richmond TAFE that need to be addressed. Firstly, teacher shortages are impacting upon the vital work done by the conservation and land management courses. Classes have been suspended for semester one due to teacher shortages. This is not just a problem for Richmond TAFE. The problem is statewide. Since 2012, more than 8,000 teaching positions have been cut. Yes, since 2016, a few hundred positions have been reinstated, but this is just a drop in the bucket when it comes to fixing the problem. TAFE New South Wales is finding it incredibly difficult to attract and retain suitably qualified teaching staff. Qualified industry experts not attracted to casual employment for only a few days a week.

Teachers leave or retire and are not being replaced. This needs to be addressed so that vital semester two courses in conservation and land management are not delayed or cancelled altogether. Secondly, we need to address the cessation of equine courses at Richmond College. This decision makes no sense at all. The equine industry is booming in the Hawkesbury. Just last week I heard news that the showground had received a substantial upgrade to the equine facilities. I am highly surprised at comments that equine enrolments at TAFE Richmond are in decline and have dropped by 92%, while at the same time private colleges are flourishing while only offering online versions of equine courses. Do students in the horse industry really only want to study online, and is online-only versions of course actually appropriate for the equine industry?

Students, one of the things that we've found as teachers during the COVID pandemic, when many, many courses were forced online, that students actually prefer to have the option of being able to do things face to face. Courses such as equine horse studies, performance horses, that is an online thing. You can't actually teach someone how to ride a horse, how to manage a horse, and how to do it safely by looking at a video clip on a computer screen. However, the bigger question that needs to be asked is what obstacles are being Put in place to prevent students enrolling at Richmond College. Federation members have advised that despite COVID and the loss of international students, had enrolments been allowed to continue, Richmond TAFE would have had 30 to 40 new students in equine studies in 2022.

Despite overcoming two years of COVID, no new students are unable to enrol in Richmond because the courses are simply not being offered. This decision was made late last year with no industry consultation. Teachers and the Federation were only found out after the decision had been made.

Consequently, any students that had enrolled were called by one of the TAFE managers and they were notified that the courses would not be running. This course cuts the courses, will cost 12 local jobs, 12 local jobs that provide work for local industry experts, which are highly respected within the industry. It will also take away the potential aspirations of youth in the Hawkesbury wishing to get a job in the equine industry. It also casts doubt upon, thirdly, casts doubt upon the future of Richmond TAFE in its entirety. As courses are pushed online, it undermines the viability of the college itself. If more and more courses are pushed online, what do you actually need the college for if the students are sitting home watching the courses on YouTube?

We've been here before. We've seen this occur at Chelora. We've seen this happen at Bega TAFE, and only this time last year we saw almost exactly the same thing where Scone TAFE. The subjects were white-handed one by one.

You're actually out of time, Chadwick. Can you round off now, please?

Yep, thanks. Moved online. Council, I seek your support in this motion, and I thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr Chadwick. Has anyone got any questions? Councillor Sheather, is that a question?

Yeah. Thank you, Mr Deputy Mayor. Mr Chadwick, what's your background? And you spoke very well on the matter. I just wish to know

What your work is, what your background is

Since 1990, I was employed by TAFE New South Wales as an electrical trades teacher. I've got 22 years' experience as a trade teacher. My background is I'm a qualified electrician. For about the last six years, I've been working for the Teachers Federation as an organiser. I advocate and support TAFE teachers for the last six years all through Western Sydney, and for the last 12 months, I've been in the position of deputy secretary, which I now have responsibility and carriage for all of the TAFE teachers, all the TAFE colleges throughout the state of New South Wales. Great, thanks very much.

Thank you. Any further questions? Thanks, Mr Chadwick. Second speaker is Stephanie Callaborn. Is she here? I can't see her on the page . Do we know whether she's here or not?

Does the staff know whether she's here or not?

Someone on a phone.

Stephanie, are you here?

If that's you down in there with just the phone, you're on mute.

We have a third speaker, Lindy Morris. Lindy, you're here. I can see you. Would you like to address the council, please?

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor and councillors for having me on tonight. It's very sad, really, that I'm sitting here talking to you. The decision to close the face-to-face training at Richmond is catastrophic for my business, or the not-for-profit that I run. Three years ago, I started a not-for-profit to help mentor and guide young people who wanted to work with horses, particularly in the thoroughbred industry, because I felt like in Australia we didn't do a great job at connecting those dots for young people. And we came up with a 12-month educational program, and the beginning of that 12-month program starts at Richmond TAFE, and we recruit students from all over Australia, and they live at Western Sydney University, and they all attend Richmond TAFE for three months to start off their 12-month program.

And we structure it that way because it allows young people to learn safely on the ground with horses before they go into the workplace. So what was really sad when I saw today that Robyn Preston was quoted in the Hawkesbury paper saying that, you know, there are a lot of other RTOs offering this sort of training. I can guarantee you that there is one other RTO in Australia called Melbourne Polytechnic. That offer face-to-face training on thoroughbreds or on horses, and she's quoted as saying that there's, you know, courses at TAFE in Penrith and Blacktown that offered this. It's just simply not correct. Richmond TAFE is so unique, and it's so incredible, and the teachers that work there and the horses that they have are second to none in the world.

So what you're sitting on in Richmond is this absolute goldmine of talent and experience, which takes years and years and years to build up. And in the blink of an eye, it's being shut down. Like we were told just after Christmas that this semester would be the last semester of our students there. And I just, I just could not believe it. I was absolutely speechless that this could happen. TAFE New South Wales should be shouting the accolades of Richmond from the rooftops. I can't... I've been to the British Racing School and similar schools in Ireland, and the kids that Richmond turn out, or the young people that Richmond turn out, are on par with any of those top schools internationally. So I have to apologise because when I did my submission to you guys, obviously I'm for the motion and against the closing down of the equine section of Richmond TAFE.

But if any of you can help us not see this closed, we've had 110 students through Richmond over the past three years, and that was with COVID. All of those students moved to Richmond, live at the university. We love Richmond. It's where we want our kids to be based. It's, you know, we can do excursions into Sydney. It's just perfectly based in proximity, and it's just a great resource, and the teachers are phenomenal. And I'm just very sad that this could happen. Okay,

Thank you. Are you happy to answer any questions, Mr...? Sure, sure. Councillor Wheeler, you have a question?

Thanks, Mr Deputy Mayor. Maurice , this has been presented to you as a permanent cessation of equine studies. This isn't just because it's not like the conservation management thing where there aren't the teachers or you haven't got the students for this year and it might come back. This is the end. Is that right?

Yeah, that's what we've been informed. Yes, that this officially, I think it's in consultation, but I think that is a TAFE terminology, and excuse my ignorance, I'm not across all the ins and outs of how TAFE use, because it is a complex space. But as I understand it, this semester now that our students are, therefore that is the last. And it's not through lack of teachers, obviously they've got.

And it would appear not through lack of students either.

Well, not from our perspective. I mean, TAFE, the minister is citing numbers of decline of 92 percent since 2016, but I think when you actually scratch the surface and dig down, the numbers that they're comparing are apples and oranges. Back in 2016, TAFE New South Wales were in a formal partnership with Racing New South Wales, and 500 of those students, or half of those students that they're quoting, had to do an online induction, like a horse-safe induction, that have been factored in. So it's really difficult because there's a lot of misinformation out there. But I think the most important aspect, if I can say this to you guys, once Richmond Equine TAFE is gone, Anyone, any young person that wants to learn on horses for a career in horses, whether it's in breeding or racing or the performance horse industry, they will have to do that on the job.

There is no buffer. There is no going to a place and learning safely. Before you go into the workplace. So if you think about an 18-year-old who all they dream about is working with horses, they will not have an opportunity to learn with a teacher and a horse. You know, it's pretty scary from a safety standpoint. It's frightening.

So if I'm a city kid who's desperate to work in the equine industry, and I haven't ridden a horse because my parents don't have one, and they can't afford for me to ride on the weekend, and they can't move to the, you know, out here, for example. And I've had lots of friends who moved out here as kids because they were horse mad and wanted to work with horses. So that's it for me in lots of ways. Unless I can pay to

Enter the industry, that's it. That's it for anyone in New South Wales. Richmond is the last man standing. That is it. So when I say we ship people in, our program is a national program, so we fly people in from Tasmania, Western Australia, Northern Territory, because there is not one RTO in those states. So it's not even just the kids in the Hawkesbury area. It's the kids across Australia. And the beauty of Richmond is you've got Western Sydney University there, and we utilise that campus so that kids that come from far-flung places that have no opportunity, as you say, Councillor Wheeler, to learn, they have that with Richmond because you've got the university butted up next door, which used to be the old Hawkesbury Ag.

So gone are the days where there's agricultural colleges; they're all shut down as well. So, you know, yeah, it's pretty dire. If Richmond goes, well, my not-for-profit, which has put 110 kids through, I've raised over a million dollars to put those kids through Richmond TAFE, because we pay for the out-of-state students and all the accommodation. You know, we put a lot into these courses. So that's, you know, all of that work is gone, and it's not about me and it's not about my organisation, but for me it's about the young people we help and the stories of people that we have helped from not a horse background that are now achieving their dreams and are great people because they are doing what they love.

And, you know, in a society where depression and suicide rates amongst young people are enormous and unemployment rates, and here you've got a resource that allows people to truly do what they feel like they're born to do safely. And that's the tragedy.

Thank you, Miss Marie. Councillor Dogramaci, do you have a question?

Yes, Mr Deputy Mayor. Lindy, when is going to be the last day so you will close the door?

I haven't got TAFE's last date. Our students finish at the end of April, and I believe that's it after they leave. So it'd be sometime at the end of April.

Okay. Is it possible that you and I could meet, or some of your teachers as well?

Yes, I'm in Richmond most weeks visiting our students in training, so we could arrange to meet in Richmond, yes.

Well, how soon can we make that?

I should be there on Friday, this Friday.

You've got my details, I think. Would you be kind enough to send me some details and confirm a date and a time? Sure. I'll come and I'll see every single one of your teachers and, if necessary, the students as well. Could you do that, please?

Absolutely. And anyone else, any of the other councillors on this call, if anyone wants to come and see firsthand what we're doing at Richmond or what the TAFE teachers do with the students, it's quite extraordinary. And I think you'd be, yeah, incredibly impressed with what happens in your backyard. And sometimes it takes seeing it to sort of really resonate into how great the training is.

Okay. If you'd be kind enough, just get a few teachers, one, the front line, and some students if you want. I think I can do something. I will do my best. Thank you, Mr Deputy Mayor. Thank you. I'll wait for your call. Thank you. Thank you

Ms. Maris, and Stephanie Calaborn, looks like we found you. Would you like to address the council, please? Yes

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm a student. I've been a student of TAFE since 2016, doing quite a few courses through TAFE. Earlier this afternoon, I sent through a PowerPoint that, if it's okay with Council, I'd like to go through, if that's all right. Firstly, I'd like to give an acknowledgement of country and say that I fully respect and acknowledge the Darug Nation as traditional custodians of the Hawkesbury, who offered friendship to Governor Phillip, and despite the doctrine of reception, which is a legislation that oversees all laws, custodians has been used for much of what we take for granted today as a capitalist society, both on the Hawkesbury and Australia-wide. Firstly, I'll

Have to ask the general manager whether that's possible for your PowerPoint to be shared.

I've sent it earlier, Mr. Mayor.

Okay, and secondly, you only have four minutes left, so if we could share the PowerPoint. Okay.

I'm not sure how to...

Yeah, I've sent it, but I can talk to it because, like you said, I've got like about four minutes left, so I'd like to just talk through the PowerPoint if that's okay with you. Earlier I have sent it through, so yeah

Okay, so I'd like to talk about the community and business aspects because I'm talking to the motion from Councillor Wheeler, and I fully support Councillor Wheeler's motion.

For example , there are environmental benefits. For example, to actually have land where horses graze is actually appealing to the community rather than have ongoing built-up dwellings. Industry benefits. For example, you've got stakeholder engagement. You've got a growing community, so knowledge, for example, specific knowledge that local industries want, local industries need. When I'm talking about businesses and industries, I'm talking about vets, for example. I'm talking about cash flow into the community. I'm talking about the racing industry. I'm talking about the liquor and gaming industry and so forth. Small business opportunities and, as I've said earlier, employment opportunities.

I'd also like to talk about the Hawkesbury weed control aspect that Councillor Wheeler put forward. Talking about integrated weed management, so it's more than just looking at managing weeds from one aspect. You're looking about educating and training people from the ground up in grassroots knowledge, educating early, intervening in pesticide, you know, because a pesticide like green algae, for example, is a pest. Intervene early. Respect for the community. So, for example, if you're training people in knowledge and skills, they will respect the community. Readiness for Western Sydney University. Western Sydney University, who would be taking graduates from TAFE, people who are graduates from TAFE are skills ready, not just jumping in at the higher end, actually jumping in at that grassroots level with knowledge and capacity to be able to draft their assignments to standards and so forth.

So less opportunity for failure with vocational education knowledge. Geographical distance to the next college. In cases, people are travelling three hours from one college to another so that they can maintain skills that in courses that TAFE is no longer running. So, for example, as a comparison, Hawkesbury local government area comparison with New South Wales and Australia by educational statistics. The ABS census data in 2016 indicates that Hawkesbury, when compared with New South Wales and Australia, ranks as follows. Certificate II, 19% of the population. In New South Wales, Certificate II is 12.9% of the population. Australia, Certificate II is 12.8% of the population. A Certificate IV in the Hawkesbury, 4.8% of the population.

In the Certificate IV level in New South Wales, it's 2.8% of the population. In the Certificate IV level in Australia, it's 2.9% of the population. The advanced diploma and diploma, all of these which TAFE runs, 9.4% in the Hawkesbury , I think it's 8.8% in New South Wales and 8.9% in Australia. So the Hawkesbury outranks vocational education by both New South Wales and Australia. Finally, I'd like to talk about Fit for Purpose. I have a diagram which you will find on your emails of a trailer that actually has community children's services running out of the back of a trailer, which actually states, ensuring this came from Emeritus Professor Peter Colebrake, who wrote the review of, or who oversaw the review of the Higher Education Provider Category in 2020.

Fit for Purpose ensures that categories are fit for purpose for all stakeholders, including students, the regulator and the educational sector, both now and into the future. So I don't really understand how—

Yeah, I've just got one more

I'd like to round up, yes, please. Yeah , the right to education, the right to education, which is a human rights legislation that Australia must follow. The right to education despite social class, resourcing of institutions including salaries for teachers, restrictions on the ability to study, and standards which must be met by institutions. So it really concerns me as a student when I see that there are such gross oversights of— Issues when it actually comes to digital technology, there are massive, massive concerns. And I add that the New South Wales government currently is not following the standards, the Australian Skills Quality Education Standards, Association standards, and the NCBR, which is the Centre for Vocational Education and Research. We have major issues with digital technology, and I'll leave it at that, Mr. Mayor.

So would you agree to answer questions if there are any? Yes,

I would, Mr. Mayor.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett, do you have a question?

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor, I did. Thank you for that, Stephanie, and—there you are. Thank you for that, and thank you for your passion speaking about it. I can see how meaningful it has been for you with your TAFE studies. What do you think will happen to the people in that bracket of people if they can't—the sort of people that you're saying go to TAFE—what will happen to them if they can't access that sort of avenue to gain their skills? Are there alternatives for them?

In what I'm studying, Councillor, I do not feel that there are alternatives close by. And I strongly argue that, with regard to following the human rights legislation, that there are severe concerns around legislation not being followed, social inclusion measures not being followed, issues around digital technology, which is—students, I can promise you, Councillor, students are giving up. And so what is happening is, to me, I hate to say it, but I feel I should say it, is that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy by the government at this stage. To have less students because students give up because the gaps are widening between social classes because of the lack of capacity to be skilled.

Thank you. Thank you for that answer, and just one other thing, and I've got my answer to this, but I'd like to hear what you say about it. What's the impact on the industries that rely on ready skilled people if we're not churning any of them out?

Well, yeah, there's , as I teed it on before, there is a huge gap in the skills workforce. And there is, despite the fact that the New South Wales government is, I must say, is funding courses, there is an issue around the capacity to be enrolled because there's a huge enrolment debacle. And it means that in the Hawkesbury area, there are major concerns about skills needs. I can see on social media, Councillor, quite often that people are looking for workers, you know, and they can't get them. And , you know, look, I must say that I am really concerned about it. I'm really passionate about it, and I believe, and I believe not just from hearing me out, because I've actually met, and I need to point the pin where it needs to be pointed, I have met with the business coordinator at Richmond TAFE.

I have asked her how come she is not getting out and consulting with the community. Why they are not socially including the community. And the business coordinator informed me it's the teacher's responsibility. And I said, no, it is not just the teacher's responsibility. You're the business coordinator. How come you can sit there and collect your weekly, fortnightly or monthly pay check and think it's okay to leave people behind? I must admit, Councillor, that I am at TAFE now so I can learn, but I'm also at TAFE to make a difference because I want to give back what I've received, you know. And it's only, I think that's what a just society is, and I won't leave without doing everything that I can do to make a difference while I'm there.

Thank you, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, you finished your questions.

I'm finished, thank you, Councillor Calvert, and thank you, Stephanie, for that answer. Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler, you have a question.

Thanks

Mr Mayor. Yeah, I'm hoping—thank you, Ms Calaboni, that was a really, really useful presentation and really filled in a lot of gaps. I think I've got one more gap. Can you explain to me what a connected learning point and what a connected learning centre are, and how they fit into the way TAFE functions?

If it's okay with you, Councillor, I'd like to give you my personal experience with digital technology and the shift towards connected learning centre, if I'm allowed to—if you'll allow me to give three or four examples. Yeah

Just don't take too long, that's all. Yeah

Okay. Well, a first example for me is issues around students not having their student ID cards. There were issues around no ID cards for students, so we had to do an assessment. So because there were issues around that, the teacher was reading out students' ID cards over digital technology. There are issues around the capacity to be able to upload assessments. Just yesterday I was trying to upload an assessment, and every time—I, sorry, I apologise—I had to... all the students had to show the teacher what track they were on regarding their assessment so that she could check to see if we were on the right track. Every time I tried to share my document on MS Teams, I got booted. So on three occasions I was booted off MS Teams yesterday, and that's not the first time.

It has happened to me many, many times. One day, with two librarians assisting me at TAFE, it took an hour and a half for me to be able to log in to my student portal so that I can access my emails, so that I can log in to MS Teams. And then, for example, another example that happened yesterday was there was an issue online with TAFE Digital. So our assessment, we were told because we could not click the correct box—the correct answer in the box—the teacher informed us because we couldn't click the correct box to actually be able to send our assessment through, we were told to click the incorrect answer. So that that was accepted. Now, every single one of those pieces of information that I've given you is actually a legislative breach according to the ASQA standards and the Vocational Education and Training Regulation Act.

So every one of those complaints that I've told you is what I'm going to forward, and I'm informing you that the Hawkesbury, with regard to the digital technology aspect in regard to Richmond TAFE and TAFE New South Wales is failing. And I'm saying to you, I understand what an ASQA complaint is because I've already had a campus audited and I'm about to have another one. You cannot continue in this vein of digital technology and put people out into the workforce that are not getting trained, because another violation of the standards is to not actually, when you actually say that you are going to provide a learning package, you say how many hours the student is going to get. So if the teachers are spending 30%, sometimes more percent of their time with digital issues, we are not getting the full component of our training package, which is another violation of the standards.

Absolutely. Yeah . Okay, that's what I

Have to say.

Councillor Wheeler, do you have another question?

No, that's okay. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Okay,

Thank you, Stephanie, and thank you all three speakers. Some great information given to us there. That's the end of our speakers, and now we move to the notice of motion. Councillor Wheeler, are you moving what's in the business paper or something? No

Mr Mayor, I've circulated earlier this evening a revised motion,

And hopefully that will come up on the screen.

I'll second that, Mr Mayor. Just like magic, Mr Mayor.

There it is. Councillor Lyons-Buckett is seconding that. Councillor Wheeler, you wish to speak to that?

Yes, thanks, Mr Deputy Mayor.

Look, I think we've heard the excellent input from the speakers, and I really want to thank them for giving their time this evening and discussing this with them. It's a really sensitive issue for people. It involves their employment and it involves their education, which then impacts on their employment. And one of the things that I think becomes very clear when you talk to people about TAFE is that TAFE impacts people at different—people use TAFE at different points in their lives. And it's very often at the change in career point or the very beginning of a career point that people most rely on TAFE, and it becomes incredibly important . I've just noticed a minor error. We've got Mr. Mister David Shoebridge. I can assure you that he is just one Mister. He might get the work of two done, but he is indeed just one

TAFE is also one of the jewels in the crown of the Hawkesbury, and we have several of our planning documents that rely on TAFE both for—and talk up the impact of TAFE, both on the skilling up of the equine industry and its worth to the Hawkesbury, the provision of services, employment and education, and also as a drawcard to the Hawkesbury, and the benefit of having that area devoted to trades education, because that's really the power of TAFE, that hands-on skilling up of the population and the making of a workforce that we've seen gradually devalued. Mr. Deputy Mayor, I think it was probably about 2013 when you and I stood outside Richmond TAFE protesting that round of cuts, and I think Mr. Chadwick was there, certainly— John Kay was there, and he's been dead for more than five years.

So this is the continual death of a thousand cuts that TAFE has seen over the past decade that I think we have to stand up and try to prevent. We've heard a lot about what's going wrong for TAFE, and I think we really need to make urgent representation both to the member for Hawkesbury, and her comments today show that she doesn't understand the magnitude of this problem. She said that people aren't enrolling because they don't want to do the course. That's not true. Clearly that's not true. We've just heard that they've been prevented from enrolling. They've been told that they've got nothing to enroll in. So it's not quite the same as not wanting to do it. We've heard that the figures that have been quoted by the minister are incorrect and based on what was effectively an industry white card run by Racing New South Wales.

Again, if you're going to present statistics to argue for something, then your statistics need to be correct. You can't be using whatever you like. We've heard, and you'll see that that's one of the changes to the notice of motion around the Certificate III for conservation and land management, that that's happened because—and this is a course that the Hawkesbury River County Council, that we are a constituent council of, relies on. We heard this at our HRCC meeting a couple of weeks ago from the general manager. Without the course to back up the training of these trainees that HRCC relies on to do our weed management work, we can't put those trainees on because their employment depends on them being actively trained by TAFE.

Now, from what I understand from speaking to the HRCC general manager, there is no other course that does this training, this will. So you can drive for three hours to go to Tocal, up near Maitland. But they don't teach the same management practices that HRCC uses. So the trainees are not only travelling a long way, and these are kids, you know, these are 16 and 17-year-old kids in the main. They're not well paid. They go into an industry that isn't well paid. At the very least, they can be provided with good training. I think we need to have a lengthy discussion about the appropriateness in our LGA of a shift to this, I've lost the name of it again, connected learning centre, which is basically little hubs of three or four students, up to five students, in satellite locations with a teacher overseeing.

Now, for anybody who's had an online learning experience with their children, or even their adult TAFE or university-level children through COVID, you know how lacking that process is when you can't get kids into the classroom for practical stuff. I'll pause now, Mr Mayor, and save the rest for right of reply, I think. Thanks. Okay,

Thank you, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. You wish to speak?

Yes, please. I'll speak in support of the motion and thank Councillor Wheeler for bringing it forward and for the speakers for speaking about it. What an incredibly unfortunate situation this is for us at a local level. I think when I remember when the Richmond TAFE opened amongst great fanfare, and what a wonderful addition to our community and to our local economy it was deemed to be. So I think this is very sad for all of us that have seen it there operating for as long as it has. I might be wrong, and I think Suzanne Stewart probably remembers this, if I'm right or not, but when we did some work around Hawkesbury Horizons around the equine industry, I think the statistic was that the Hawkesbury has the most horses per head of population anywhere in New South Wales or Australia.

But we have a very high and very vibrant both ownership of horses, but also industries around that, ranging from all sorts of equine-related activities, either horse racing or polo or all sorts of other horse breeding, horse selling, and of course the people are learning skills to work in that area. And as Councillor Wheeler said, not everyone has the opportunity to break into those industries if you're relying on hands-on getting a place at a farm, unless you know someone, that's not going to happen easily. But I think that more—not more importantly, but one of the important aspects is that we do rely as one of our major industries on our educational precinct, and that's our university and our TAFE and our various schools that we have here.

It's a part of many of our strategies and plans. It's something identified as a strength of ours in the Western District Plan, and I think we refer to it quite frequently in our Community Strategic Plan as well. So I'm wondering, we can't afford to lose these levels of skills, not just here but anywhere. It will take a long time to recover. I think they've seen these issues around TAFE before in various trades and so on. When they cut courses and cut numbers, then a few years down the track, you've got this backlog and people are trying to scramble to catch up with people skilled to fill the working positions. And it's not just the equine courses here. It's very concerning to see a specialised area around conservation and land management also under threat of, you know, having people wanting to train in that to have to drive three hours to attend a TAFE.

That just is not acceptable that that's happening. I did have a question. I don't know if anyone can answer it here, but we know there's millions of dollars being poured into educational precincts connected to the Aerotropolis and connected to the Western Parkland City. And I'm just wondering if it's an unreasonable assumption to think that in some way this is a sacrifice for more education being put in elsewhere, a little bit like the loss of farmland for a lot more housing. Perhaps we're losing these agriculturally related courses in line with that. I don't know if anyone can answer me of whether there's any connection or any plan to incorporate what's being lost here into any of the new educational precincts that are rising up around Bradfield.

Who are you aiming the question at? The general

Manager? Well, the general manager, the mayor isn't here, or I would have asked him about the mayoral forum if anything like that had been discussed. But maybe the general manager or director of planning may have come up with it in one of the Western Sydney discussions.

Director of Planning, General Manager.

Yeah, it's through you, Deputy Mayor. Look, certainly nothing that I'm aware of, and indeed there's been a heavy focus through the Aerotropolis on the whole issue of, you know, matter of agribusiness, and that's been something that they were keen to promote. I'll refer to the Director City Planning to see if she may be aware of anything contrary.

No, I'm not aware of anything specifically. Through the city deals, education is one of the outcome areas that they're looking at, but I'm not across the information or the planning that's underway or how that might be impacting the Hawkesbury and, you know, the new Aerotropolis.

Okay, well, perhaps it could be raised that we could be offering these wonderful things. If we can retain them here, that would be a wonderful thing for our community to see. So thank you for the speakers . It's an interesting area to hear about, and it's a really disturbing and very sad thing to see happening in our community. And I agree with Ms. Stephanie that, you know, the right to education is a very important right, but unfortunately in Australia we don't codify our international rights necessarily into domestic law very well. So thank you for raising that. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor Dogramaci.

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Mayor. As you know, as I always say that, you know, give it to my ignorance in these kind of matters. I do things in a different way. Now, and here it says contact the member for Hawkesbury, Ms. Preston, and the member, Susan Templeman. The way that I look at it is, again, different. We'll contact them. We'll write them a letter, and they will pass it to their relative department, and that's it. Bureaucrats, you know, will get into it, and they will reply to them. Is it possible that if we could invite both of them, and we will ask them questions, and we'll ask them what are they prepared to do, where are they going to take, you know, this problem to their relative ministers or friends or whoever they are, so they could give their word directly to us, and we'll take it from there. I don't know whether we could do that or not. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor.

It is possible, Councillor Dogramaci. One way would be to ask Councillor Wheeler if she wants to add that point to her motion.

Yes, please, Councillor, because these, when I say these politicians, you know, they know to turn things, you know, upside down and pass the buck. How about we invite both of them to come in person?

Would you be happy to do that?

Happy to add that as an additional point, Mr. Mayor

It's up to you. You want to add that? Sorry.

I'm happy to, yes.

Yeah, there you go, Councillor Dogramaci. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Do you have

Anything else to add?

No

That's all. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, thank you. Councillor Sam Prono.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. Look, I do agree with Councillor Dogramaci that there are competing narratives out here, and that's at the core of the remarks that I want to make, because it would appear that there is some misapprehension, or perhaps misrepresentation, about this. I support the TAFE system, and I agree with the general proposition that it suffered from a very slow and corrosive underinvestment for many years, as an educator I can say that. On that basis, I'm happy to support Councillor Wheeler's point 2B, which relates to a different course, which suffers from staff under-resourcing. But it's not clear to me that what's happening with the equine courses at Richmond TAFE are as they have been represented to us.

I get the feeling that this is fevered commentary, and that there are some contradictory propositions, and that we're being invited to have Council declare a position without enough clarity about which of those narratives is correct. In fact, I've heard some commentary in social media that Richmond TAFE will be closed off or flogged off, and that's not only incorrect, but it's frankly inflammatory and irresponsible. Now, I was listening to Lindy, and she says that the Minister quoted a claim that since 2017 there's been a 92% reduction in the four equine courses under discussion. And I was also listening to Stephanie when she quoted the relative strength and importance of the equine industry in this district.

But I don't think that this is a debate about the health or importance of the equine sector in our district. Of course it's important, and it's a very healthy sector. But it strikes me as a false syllogism. You see, the real issue is the disconnect between the health of the equine industry and what seems to be a very genuine and sharp drop-off in demand for just four specific courses at this TAFE. It bears remembering that the New South Wales Government has spent $1.5 million on Richmond TAFE and has developed courses in farriery and agriculture to be delivered in 2022. And that money will be invested in a new veterinary clinic. And an agricultural livestock facilities and equipment and the aforementioned connected learning point.

Now, that doesn't sound like abandonment of the TAFE to me. And I note that Philip mentioned the fate of 12 staff whose positions were in doubt, but I am told that TAFE are in the process of redeploying those teachers to other duties. Now, there was some footage that appeared on social media today as a kind of proof that there's demand for these courses. But what I saw in that footage was proof that the TAFE is following through on its pledge that all the current students will be able to complete their courses at Richmond TAFE, and that the equine industry remains important to the local economy. I think what's happening here is that the tertiary educational landscape is evolving. There's a sharp decline in enrolment, and it's not a reflection of the equine industry.

It's a function of students voting with their feet, which students are free to do in a market. Lindy Maurice says that there aren't other registered training organisations, RTOs, in this space. But I am told that there are four other RTOs offering the same training within this catchment, not necessarily other TAFE campuses, as Lindy suggested, but third parties. Lindy mentioned a formal partnership with Racing New South Wales, but I believe it's the case that they are one of those RTOs and that they have their own intake. There appear to be really divergent narratives out there, and we're not sufficiently informed to form the judgment that we're being invited to. As much as we all support the TAFE system, I think that the government is entitled to ask a common sense question, and that is, you know, what the viability of particular courses are when the enrolment has dropped off so sharply and where that finite resourcing should be allocated.

Those questions are asked all the time, and they have very little to do with Hawkesbury Council. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Semprono. I'll consider that as speaking against the motion. Are there any other speakers? If not, I just wanted to add that during my— before I retired, I worked very closely with TAFE in Western Sydney, and the thing that always concerned me was that funding for TAFE used to go up and down like a yo-yo from one year to the next, depending on the political persuasion of the government at the time. And that, to me, is just not the way that you should be running an educational institution. I always think that the funding for TAFE should be set at some kind of minimum percentage of the budget, and you should never go below that. Happy to go above it, but to use it as a way of balancing your budget from year to year I always found disgraceful, and it upsets communities like ours.

It puts people out of work. So I'm very happy to support this motion, but I think it's actually a bigger problem than what's in this motion. It's the way TAFE gets treated from year to year right across the state. So no further speakers. Councillor Wheeler, would you like right of reply?

Yes. Thanks, Mr Deputy Mayor. And look, I completely agree with you. Political ideology shouldn't be determining the fortunes of an education provider that's as important as TAFE. And the fact that we have seen over the last decade the gradual decline of this once envy-of-the-world-level organisation due to political chicanery, and the build-up of private providers that profit from public education funding and have profit as their key motive rather than student welfare and educational standards, frankly should be a national disgrace. But this is the space that we work in, and that's why this notice of motion confines itself to these things. I'm not quite sure that Councillor Zamprogno was listening to the speakers earlier.

We've heard from people who work at TAFE or who study at TAFE that people have been prevented from enrolling, that people who were enrolled were told that they couldn't be enrolled, not because there wasn't sufficient demand, but because they decided not to run the course. We're also well aware that the minister is quoting a percentage statistic to back his claims that there's been a drop-off in interest. Percentages are dodgy statistics when they're used incorrectly, and in this instance I would suggest that they are being used incorrectly. Percentages are really convenient for showing what you want to show, which may or may not actually be fact. They change with the denominator, and they change with the inclusion criteria.

So the minister's percentage, the minister's 92% drop-off, does not compare apples with apples, and it's a disingenuous statistic. And frankly, if that's all he's got, he wants to give it up as a bad job. He should be above using statistics in such a miniculative manner.

We've also heard, you know, I think we've heard some really compelling arguments from the speakers, and I want to repeat Mr Chadwick's comment that the loss of TAFE takes away people's aspirations. And I think that's a tragedy, frankly. People's educational journeys are saved by TAFE. I have a number of close friends whose lives were completely turned around because they could access the sort of practical hands-on adult learning that TAFE provides that you don't get at school, and you certainly don't get at university. In fact, TAFE has got many people to university and a higher education, a better, more secure job, and a different life. We talked earlier about care for veterans. There are plenty of veterans who use TAFE as a way of integrating back into society and getting a job that keeps them both Housed and sane going forward.

We've heard a lot about how this is, about how you think — we've heard that you can go and do this somewhere else, these courses somewhere else. But it's not the same as the hands-on education that TAFE provides. It's an industry specific — in many instances it's industry specific. It's run by Racing New South Wales, which frankly are the big winners out of all of this. They certainly were at Scone, where a multi-million dollar campus, incredibly valuable land, effectively handed to Racing New South Wales when TAFE was devalued. And we've also heard about the attrition of staff. Now this has been an ongoing tactic in the devaluing of TAFE, where TAFE staff have — TAFE teaching staff have been shifted across to casual employment contracts over the course of the last decade, which means that many of them are not employed for the three months that they're on Christmas holidays.

That's a long time to live on air.

No wonder they go somewhere else. No wonder they're losing staff. People don't want to go into TAFE to teach because it's no longer secure employment. So why would they? Why would you set yourself up for that as your job when you can go somewhere else and be better respected? Now these aren't necessarily decisions of TAFE. These are decisions of government. The people that we're writing to and asking for a fairer deal for the students and the industry and for the LGA that we represent.

If the shift's to just being about teaching racing, then a whole other segments of the equine industry fall away. Dressage, everyone loves to go to the show and watch all the horse stuff. There's no place for that if Racing New South Wales runs these courses. All of the horse management, people that the racing industry breaks, frankly, because it's a really arduous industry that people don't survive in physically and in some cases mentally. are able to either sidestep with the skills that they've learnt for TAFE or retrain using TAFE. This is a vital piece of Hawkesbury infrastructure, and we should— Round up now, please, Councillor Wheeler.

I've just finished, Mr Mayor. Thank you. Okay,

Thank you. I'd like to put the motion, if I can have the screen cleared, please. Thank you. All those in favour of the motion, please raise your

Hand . In favour, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Djuric, and Councillor Calvert. All those against, please. Councillor Seng Progno. Nobody else. Absent is the Mayor, sorry, Councillor Waggell and Councillor Richards. Have I missed anyone? Declare the motion carried. Thank you.

We could invite the Mayor and Councillor Richards back, please.

Okay. Thank you, everybody. So I assume we're up to items on block. Somebody wanted to move that. Moved Councillor Kotlash. Seconded Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

All those in favour? Against? Carried.

Next item then is item 34, the draft voluntary planning agreement. Now, no one's called that up, but it's a planning decision, so it requires a decision. So if someone wanted to move the recommendation. I'll move the recommendation. Seconded, Councillor Sheather. Was there any discussion? If not, put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Jurek, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Coltlash, Councillor Reardon. Against? I didn't record a vote from Councillor Dogramaci or Richards, sorry. I have no idea what we're talking about. Okay, in favour, Councillor Richards; against, Councillor Dogramaci. Declare it carried. Councillor Blackwell absent for the vote.

Next item is item 35, the National General Assembly of Local Government

If someone wants to move something there.

Moved, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, the recommendation . Seconder ? Seconded, Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Lyons-Buckett

No need to really speak, Mr Mayor. Just, I think that if there are any motions, it says we to get them in by the 28th so that we can consider them at the next meeting. So, yep. I think that once we’ve voted on it, I guess that’s when you call for people interested in going. I’m not, but I’m just saying that. But I did just wonder if—I didn’t see anything in what I read here about the regional forum. I think I’ve been to them before, but I was just wondering if anyone had any more details on that. Don’t worry if you don’t. I think I know what it is, but I didn’t see anything written about it except it’s an option. Thank you

Through

You, Mr Mayor, I don’t have that detail on hand, and I’d be happy to circulate that to councillors after the meeting.

Take that on notice.

Councillor Wheeler

I'm wondering if it's possible to defer the decision about who goes to the next council meeting when we decide whether we're sending motions or not. There seems to be a couple of, it looks like they're running a hybrid-style conference, and so far every one of the hybrid options I've been to has been a bloody disaster, so it'll be interesting to see if they can manage that. But I'm, I guess I don't really want to go to Canberra, although it was nice last year. It did provide a nice little not-lockdown bubble for those of us who went where you could just wander about and not wear a mask, and then all of a sudden we came home and it was all on. But I'm wondering if, if we decide to send motions, I think we're going to have to have someone to speak to them.

So we do need to send somebody, and then I think we need to have a discussion about whether we send someone physically into the room to debate, or whether we can just manage with someone online. You only get one vote per member body, so it's not like you need to have five people to have five votes like we do with Local Government New South Wales. But I think we probably need to consider whether we're going in for the, you know, to argue for a motion or not before we decide whether people want to give up, you know, three or four days for a trip to Canberra

So to do that, I think the motion could just be point one of the recommendation, I believe, and then staff could bring back points two and three with the motions on the table. Councillor Lyons Buckett, are you happy with that?

That's fine, thank you, Mr Mayor. So

The motion before us then is just point one of the recommendation. Okay.

I guess the only consideration, Mr Mayor, is if there's early bird pricing that we're missing out on if we put it off for a couple of weeks, because it's really expensive. I

Guess, yeah, but I think it's a really good idea, Council. Well, the flip side is if we don't, we could send anybody and save a lot of money, so .

Councillor Kotlash

Thank you, Mr Mayor . I agree with Councillor Wheeler that it would be good to be able to have a bit more time to put these motions in. I have quite a few that I'd like, but I don't know whether I've got enough after get them done by the 28th, but that seems like a really tight time frame. I think it's also really expensive, but a virtual attendance of $689 seems outrageous. So I think we should send people to Canberra on that note. Yeah, happy to just have the first point. That was going to be my point. So , yeah, that's my take on it. Thank you.

Okay. In that case, there's no further discussion . Put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand . Favour: Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Richards. Against: Councillor Dogramaci, who can't use against. Councillor McMahon. Vote: Mayor. Carried.

Next item then is item 36, our submission to the Commissioner reform.

Somebody move something. I

Will move the motion in the business paper, Mr Mayor.

Seconded, Councillor Wheeler, seconded Councillor Kotlash. No

Discussion . Put the motion . Sorry, Councillor Wheeler, you're on mute, Councillor Wheeler.

Sorry, Mr Mayor, I'm struggling with the transition to the laptop. Clearly I'm badly out of practice, or getting old or something. I think the submission from the staff, I think, raises a lot of really useful points. I think we need to be really cautious about these changes to the legislation, and there's been some things that have been raised, some of which span the state, but some of which are highly relevant to the Hawkesbury LGA, particularly the problems around infill development and contributions for infill development. We've just passed another VPA for some infill development. We know that that $30,000 per block isn't going to cover the infrastructure that we need to put up . Sorry, the legislation, what am I talking— the infrastructure that we're going to need to put in.

It never does. The caps on VPAs and on developer contributions leave great gaping holes across our LGA, maybe not when the development first hits, but certainly when people move into it and they expect all the things they were promised in the brochure that aren't there. Or in the case of some of our areas like Glossodia and Freeman's Reach, years down the track where things haven't been done properly, and we then have to stump up the money to fix them. There's, I've got real, real concerns about the impact of inflation on capacity to actually fund work when we get to that work. You know, the money that you obtain from the developer is, particularly in areas of, in times of very low interest rates, is frequently not matched by the interest that you might get while you sit on that money waiting to deliver the infrastructure.

The infrastructure seems to always cost a significant amount more than was projected . And then what we see repeatedly is existing ratepayers subsidising new developments, whether it be through an SRV or through going without somewhere else or through having to run down what we have . And the developer profits and moves on. And we've seen that repeatedly here. When you force councils, and there's the push to get councils to put in an SRV to raise money that isn't covered by infrastructure contributions , it doesn't only shift the cost burden onto the rates base of the LGA, it shifts the political burden as well from state governments that pass this legislation onto local councils who then have to expend their political capital asking for a rates rise and making that decision to the people.

And I think many of us are well aware of the impacts of that as a council. We really need very strict mechanisms around the regional infrastructure contributions. The idea that you can get one LGA to pay and that money can be used across the Sydney basin for infrastructure is extraordinary. And I think if our community was aware of that, they would be shocked that you could bleed money out of the Hawkesbury LGA and have that money end up in Vaucluse or Mosman is extraordinary. And it may be improbable, but the legislation currently allows for that. We need a much more transparent and equitable process of the distribution of the RIC funding. And we need to really use sale value for land value, because that's the price that councils have to pay when they buy that land for infrastructure, and we've seen that affect this council before.

Ratepayers should be entitled to just cost considerations in the same way that everybody else in this equation is. After all, they're the ones who pay at the end of the day .

I don't know why, and the submission covers this, I don't know why you would seek to cap contributions required to provide public infrastructure. A 20% cap means that existing residents either cover the gap or they do without. The community shouldn't go without while there's windfall profits for developers. That's not a reasonable expectation of anybody when dealing with a piece of legislation. And the other thing that is highlighted in the report to us is the need for Council to establish an affordable housing contribution scheme as soon as possible, because currently we don't have one. And we've now had, in the last decade, we've had one or two big housing developments. We're due for another two more, and at no stage have we been able to extract an affordable housing contribution from any of those developers.

And that leaves us with a big hole, but in the future it leaves our community with a big hole, and we need to correct that. At the moment, I think it's going to be too little, too late. Thanks

At one speaker in favour. Anyone wishing to speak against?

Nobody against. Further speakers in favour then, if required. Councillor

Zamprogno . Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll start with a question to staff and then make some remarks, probably to the Director of City Planning. The two reforms identified in the consultant's report to us and the briefing that we received recently indicated 7.11 and 7.12. Now, 7.12 has more impact in situations like the situation that we're proposing in our new LEP, where we open up the area to more granny flat or secondary dwelling development. 7.12, if I'm not mistaken, is the mechanism by which we would gain some funds for local infrastructure. My question is, did the report that we received analyse the impact of these reforms to section 7.12 in the light of what we are seeking to do in our new LEP, like that? I

Refer that to Director City Planning

Thank you through you, Mr Mayor . The analysis was done was based on current trends and, I suppose, what's happened to date, as opposed to what we might anticipate happening in the future under the new...

Thank you. Right, okay then. So my remarks are these. I support us making the submission. I've read through it. I think it broadly hits the right points. I think we are right to be sceptical about this. I think the state government has a poor track record, and for them to, after decades of cost shifting, simply move to a model that says, look, we're just going to take all of this money, and we're going to leave you with even less autonomy about where that money is spent sounds like a bad deal. I'm unconvinced that the analysis that we were given effectively says that for our circumstances, it's cost neutral, and I... Concur with Councillor Wheeler that there are a range of other unintended or foreseeable consequences that could be quite negative for us.

I think our ratepayers are rightly very sceptical about any idea that means that when they look at a development like Vineyard Stage 1, Stage 2 , and that developer contributions are being collected by somebody, is that if they fall short, it is for those residents in Kurrajong or Bilpin or Oakville or elsewhere, they're going to end up paying for the infrastructure because the developer contribution scheme wasn't adequate to start with. And I've gone on for years about the fact that our neighbouring LGAs were able to levy developer contributions up to the cap and then had a generous top-up through schemes like LICS, the Local Infrastructure Growth Scheme, that meant that they were able to ultimately spend between $70,000 and $90,000 per block to get the appropriate infrastructure in.

We were never vouchsafed that kind of money, and now even what we've been collecting to try and do infrastructure with, it sounds as though it's going to be taken away, and I think that deal stinks. So let's make this submission and be heard and summarily ignored like we tend to be. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor. I'm not sure that's exactly what the submission says, just for clarity. I think the submission raises a number of issues that Councillor Wheeler raised, but broadly doesn't raise a problem with the reform in general because the reform in general is likely to be a positive outcome for Hawkesbury City Council's financial position going forward . Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I had a question that I was actually going to ask in the last item, but I wasn't quick enough, but it relates sort of to this as well. So we know in the previous item with the BPAs, basically a BPA is our only option there because we don't have the contributions plans for those specific areas and so on. I'm just wondering, in terms with this sort of reform, what impact that would have on our capacity to be making more meaningful developer contribution plans for the specific areas around, you know, in the different parts of the Hawkesbury, or is it going to deplete us from doing that, if you know what I mean? Like, is it sort of trying to substitute for what we may be moving towards getting developer contribution plans for any areas that might be targeted for any future growth?

That's the Director's in play

Yes, it doesn't deplete our ability, but, I mean, ultimately though, what this is prompting us to do, and to be honest is on our to-do list, is to review and update our 712 plan . And this will allow us to obviously adjust the rates, the current rates, and to collect more money as we apply in different areas. Thank you. There was just one other thing I wanted to draw attention to

In the discussion section on page 35, and that was around, I just thought that maybe an explanation was required for people in terms of the changes to the rate pegging. But it says that the potential impacts and key considerations include the premise of the Government's contribution reform package, that the population growth adjustments to the rate peg will provide councils with sufficient revenue to meet the needs of the growing communities. Could Given we have been given a rate peg of 0.7%, would that be something that is a fair statement applied to our council area

Asim, the rate peg is definitely enough sufficient. Yes, you could say the rate peg is not sufficient, and that is certainly an argument that many councils across the state are making. Okay,

Thank you. I think the rest of what's been said, particularly echo what Councillor Wheeler said about the shortfalls that our ratepayers end up paying, we are seeing that there. And I mean, ideally, I think factored into when they come up with these various plans is that we have to look at the longevity of infrastructure delivery because, for example, around Pitt Town and so on, there's some of the original infrastructure that was put in for that development is now having to either be repaired or upgraded or redone, and then that is the developer contributions are gone, but the work still needs to be done. So then if it's not grant funded or it's not still coming out of contributions, then the ratepayers are having to pay for that. And I think that that's where we will find an increasing burden if we have money taken out into a regional fund as well. Thank you.

Thank you . Any further discussion? Okay

We'll put the motion . All those in favour, please raise your hand . Motion. Councillor Conolly, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Richards, Councillor Zamprogno. Against? Councillor Dogramaci and Councillor Birkett. Declared carried.

Next item is 38.

Want to wish to move something here?

Can I declare my interest please, Mr Mayor? Sorry,

Yes, please.

Thank you. My interest is less than significant, non-pecuniary. I'll be staying in the vote. As the federal candidate, there has been federal funding in the past for this, but after confirmation with the general manager, point three, in terms of the agencies they are writing to, it is only state government agencies, so I'll be staying in the vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Somebody wish to move something here?

Anybody want to move the recommendation or something else? Move the recommendation, Councillor Wheeler.

Could I add a point? Could I get some advice on adding a point four, Mr Mayor?

Do you have a specific point four?

I'd like, I think it's valuable to have a public update, and I know we've got an email update and the residents have been told, but it would be really helpful to have an update about what's happening with the roads, particularly the roads or the infrastructure recovery stuff that comes to us regularly in a council meeting, in part because under the current code, where you can't ask questions without notice, there's no capacity for us to ask staff on the public record without a ten-day time lag about these infrastructure projects, and I think it might be helpful for the community who have really have, you know, they've waited more than 12 months now, or at least 12 months for some of this work, and they're starting to get a bit fractious.

If we could build a regular report in a council meeting into the, into a— if we could build into council meetings a regular report on the roads or the infrastructure upgrades.

I don't see why you can't move that.

So I guess point four would say council receive a report, a report to the council meeting, or I don't know, words that actually make sense because clearly I'm not at the moment, every two months.

Yeah, council receive an update on infrastructure recovery in the form of a report to council at least every two months. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah . So that's a bit of manager for comment on that, and that's it.

Through you, Mr Mayor, that's perfectly fine. We have no problems preparing a report of that nature. We'll just start to taper them off as the works progress, I presume.

A seconder for that?

I'll second it,

Mr Mayor. Seconded, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Discussion?

Okay.

Put the motion then. Sorry, Mr Mayor, just briefly. Just, I just want to comment on that extraordinary figure of damage of 31.2 million and two years to fix it, and just get some comment if possible on the mechanism, what mechanism we've got in place to ensure that we can forward fund and complete this work in the timeframe that we've been given. I mean, that's an extraordinary amount of work for a council of our size.

Just to clarify, the question is about

The cash flow or about the project management? Well, about both. I mean, apparently we've got two years to acquit this funding when we get it, or to complete the work.

How do we do this?

Yeah, I might throw that question to the General Manager at the moment. I might just point—just echo that sentiment, though, and just let Council know that I've certainly raised that both with meetings with state politicians as well as our federal member, that a clear gap in this whole thing is that we get funded and we're the first responders, but there is no assistance with project management. There is no assistance for the fact that we're delivering work equal to a couple of years of capital projects in one go, whilst we're also, in many cases, suffering damage to our own council assets and trying to recover from that as well as staff disturbances. So I think it is a big gap. Certainly raised it, no joy at the moment, but I think we do have to keep advocating in that space. But I'll refer that question specifically to the General Manager. Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and certainly it's going to be a challenge for us. I might actually pass to the Chief Financial Officer, particularly around that thirty-odd million dollars and the arrangements that we have in place and that we've been seeking preliminary approval from Transport from New South Wales on those particular projects. She will certainly be more across the details of those payments, Emma.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So at the moment, we have quite a number of claims that have been lodged with various agencies. So those claims include claims for emergency and immediate restoration works that have already been undertaken, and there's also claims that have been made based on estimates, some of which are quoted in this report. So in terms of forward funding, I mean, at this stage the cash flow has been sufficient to be able to do those emergency works. The concern is that when we commence on the major projects such as Greens Road and Upper Colo Bridge, obviously at that point we do need some certainty around the timing of funding. My understanding is that there was some discussions around getting some funding upfront based on some approved designs.

So that's what we're going to continue to pursue to make sure that the cash keeps coming in to fund those big projects. So there's no immediate issue now with cash flow, but certainly if we start doing those big projects, there is going to be an impact, and the fallback position would be to go and get loans if we start having issues with the cash flow. Thanks, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just had a question about the table, about the table 1, the road location damming . Hang on, was it table 2? No, table 1. Just around the number of landslips that are occurring, I'm just wondering, first of all, I would think, I don't recall over the past nine years or so having this level of damage, and I assume it's to do with the increasing heavy inundation and extreme weather that goes on. But I'm just wondering what sort of monitoring or stabilising is done around to address the risk of landslip , and are they likely to be due to an instability, or are they just random how this occurs? I don't know how you would know if one's happening. But I'm just thinking, if this is going to be a cost that we're facing or we have to be recouping for, is it something that's monitored? Is there something in a road or an area that you can tell? I'll

Put that to the Director of Infrastructure Services.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Through you , Mr Mayor, the area is known in geotechnical circles for its susceptibility to landslips owing to the geology of the area. So it's an inherent risk in where most of our roads lie . No doubt the presence of the drought prior to the flooding in 2020, which commenced in 2020, had a large part to do with not experiencing any landslips on our network. With respect to detecting them, we don't have, I'm not aware of any program to monitor landslips. These often occur in naturally occurring slopes, not necessarily cuttings, and any inspection program would be in addition to and beyond what we currently do in terms of inspecting our road network.

Thank you. I just wondered in terms of, so are we ever undertaking any works that we're sort of not certain that we're going to get money back in times of emergency? Are we fairly guaranteed that mostly we will recoup everything that we do? I'll refer that to the Chief Financial

Officer. Thanks,

Mr. Mayor. So the claims at the moment are a mix of works that we've already undertaken as emergency works, so that expenditure has already been incurred and claims have been put in. So at this stage, we don't really have certainty that we will receive that money, but hopefully we will. In terms of undertaking other major works that we didn't need to undertake straight away, the process has been that we've put in the claim based on an estimate, and essentially we will wait until we get some certainty around approval before we can actually finalise the scope and undertake the works. The reason why we need to wait is that the funding will dictate the standard at which those works are completed.

So if we went and sort of undertook the work before knowing what we're going to get, we could be at risk of not getting fully funded for that work. So that is why there is some major works that probably urgently need the funding, so we can start on. Thank you.

Thank you for that. And just one ancillary question, because I just saw it came up in the report when I read the report. Do we have any updates on the PFAS investigations that were being undertaken by the RAF a couple of years ago around Rickerby Creek in particular, and any information on any further spread of that contamination or any further incidents in either one of the any of the lagoons, Bakers Lagoon or around the Rickerby Creek area? Because that seemed to be a thing and then it just vanished. So I don't know if we ever got a concluding report on it or what sort of happened with the PFAS contamination. I'm

Not sure it's totally relevant to the item we're talking about, which is the funding

Well

It is mentioned in there

It's referred to in there. That's why I'm asking it.

I don't know that it would impact our decision though, that's what I'm saying. But I'll probably refer it to the general manager.

Yeah, and I'll be honest, council's in my sort of eight months here at council, it's not something that's been spoken of other than we knew that we had to do a little bit of work down there at Cornwall as part of those restoration works. Perhaps the director infrastructure services

Sorry, Linda. Well, I don't know the latest, and you're right, it has gone a little bit quiet. I don't know if it's due to COVID, but we can follow up on the actions that the RAF base are doing in relation to PFAS and send that information through. Take that

Notice. Yep. Thank you. Okay

Being no further discussion, or no one speaking against the motion, we'll put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Buckett, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Richards. Against: Councillor Dobramaczi . Councillor Barker was absent from the vote. Declare it carried.

Next item is 41,

Quarterly budget review statement. Does anyone want to move to receive that?

Moved, Councillor Zamprogno, recommendation. Seconded, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Any discussion? Put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour of the motion are Councillor Conolly, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Richards. Against? Councillor Dobramaczi, Councillor Vickless. Vote declared carried.

Next item will be notice of motion one.

Councillor Wheeler

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'll move the motion as it appears in the business paper.

Seconded, Councillor Lyons-Buckett

Discussion? So, look, this is basically exactly what it says on the tin. Back in December 2017, Council passed a motion to look at , to develop a report about increasing our tree canopy. And really because we were then pushed, strategic planning was pushed to shift straight into the LEP and DCP review due to the requirements of the state government, and because we didn't have a sustainability officer at the time, this went onto the back burner. I don't think that the sustainability, that the strategic planning staff have any more time on their hands, and I suspect that the staff member who had begun doing this work has now left Council. But I think the current committee structure allows us as a committee to start the work on this and perhaps take some of that pressure off the staff and finally get this up and running.

We've had some funding for tree planting, and that's great. But if we had an LGA-wide policy about tree canopy improvement, it would facilitate us getting more funding and also make that funding easier to roll out once we got it. I think we're relying too heavily on the areas of the LGA that have good tree cover to up our tree cover statistics, and because it's pretty evident when you drive around lots of the LGA, the urban parts of the LGA, that the tree cover is sparse at best. By having a policy, we upskill our residents and give them information about appropriate species. That means that they are less likely to have a weed impact, but they're also less likely to be trees that are constantly hacked by Integral Energy when they come through on their annual tree...

A tree destruction path, which gets people really upset and puts a lot of trees at risk. It also makes a lot of trees unsafe due to inappropriate pruning techniques. If we can plant the right tree in the right spot at the beginning, that gets around all of those problems. So I think this is, basically this is just digging up an old motion and trying to get some action on it because I think it will be valuable for the LGA going forward. It will also feed into the livability city deals work through Windsor, Richmond and South Windsor, and hopefully complement that with a rollout of street tree plantings through our other urban areas and potentially car parks and other council-owned spaces. Thanks.

Thank you. Councillor

Sheather. Yeah , thanks, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor, I was impressed with the information that, in relation to this notice. The only concern that I have is that there needs to be programs done in some areas where trees are going to be planted. Now I spoke to staff about it. I'm talking about along pathways, roadways , where there's other infrastructure, power lines, gas, water, all that sort of stuff . Around parks and stuff , you know, there's different varieties of trees, as Councillor Wheeler indicated, that when it comes to public thoroughfares where you've got cars, you've got people walking and the like, where you can have root infiltration into roadworks, kerb and gutter, all that sort of stuff.

So I don't have— I think that what's been proposed is pretty good. I just think the council needs a policy on what variation of trees are planted in areas where they're going to be issues, or otherwise we, you know, the plane trees down in Richmond is a good example. Beautiful . Try walking along behind them and have a look at some of the road works that are there. So it's horses for courses. But in saying that, I spoke to the staff about it, and they said that wouldn't be hard to program such a direction. And so I'm speaking in favour of the motion, by the way. It's just a concern I have in that regard. Thank you.

Thanks. I'll just speak briefly in support of the motion as well. Council's recently started planting just over 300 trees as part of the Greening Our Cities grant program we received from the New South Wales Government, and the feedback we're getting on that project already is overwhelmingly positive. Everybody's on board. Everybody wants more of this happening. So I think that this motion is good, and like Councillor Wheeler said, it brings up something that sort of seems to have got lost, refer it to the committee, and the committee can develop, recommend back to council what policy we should be adopting to make this happen. So I think let's support it.

Deputy Mayor. Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. I also support this, but I just wanted to add a few things. Where you've got these new housing estates like Marsden Park, the streets are so narrow that if you try and plant a tree there, a lot of the residents pull them out because there's no parking, no parking available for them, and they don't want a tree taking over their parking spot. They don't mind if the people down the other end of the street have got trees, but they don't want them in front of their place. And so when Blacktown Council planted a lot of trees in there, a lot of them disappeared. And so planting trees to me is— Not just about planting the tree, it's about planning the whole development, the whole estate, so that trees are integrated into the planning from the start and there's room for them.

And that's the only way that you're going to achieve some of the aims of cooling our suburbs. And I'm sure Councillor Wheeler knows that, but I'd just like to somehow, if we can note that or get the committee to note that in future planning, we build in space for trees in any future housing developments. And the other thing is, I think there is a list of preferred trees. From memory it came from Parramatta, but I'm not sure. But those preferred trees may not be totally applicable to Hawkesbury, but I think it'd be a starting point for this discussion. I'll see if I can look that up and add it to the mix. But yes, I support this motion. Thank you.

Thank you. Four speakers in favour. Anyone against? Before we go to further speakers in favour, Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you. And briefly, my remarks are: A , I think this is a good example of how our revamp committee structures ought to work. We find something worthy like this and we delegate it to one of those new super committees, and I look forward to seeing whether that model works in this case. Secondly, I would be delighted if this work leads to some intelligence about what we're doing with trees in areas that are currently being clear felled for the development around Vineyard Stage 1, and I suspect similar things will probably end up happening. Happett Jacaranda at Mosman as well. We've got stands of existing trees being felled. It strikes me as a great tragedy. I think in some cases it's remnant Cumberland woodland.

I would have thought that it would have been protected. Manifestly it isn't. And I think we can get a head start, instead of planting a new tree, save an existing one that's a hundred times the size. So I don't know whether it falls within the remit. I'm simply expressing the hope that it does. Thank you.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll only be brief, and I couldn't agree more with what Councillor Zamprogno just said about it. You know, we try and save the trees instead of knocking it down and then talking about what we're planting instead of, and we're set to possibly lose, you know, more and more trees over time. But just further to what Councillor Calvert just said about the list of suitable trees, there was just recently a study came out looking at suitable street trees factoring in climate change and going forward. So I think that this gives us an opportunity to update even what we were talking about in 2018 and incorporate these new studies around what is going to survive as we move into those very, very hot times going forward.

So I think this is a good opportunity and look forward to seeing it more getting in action and, of course, contributing to the state tree canopy quota or whatever it's called target, the state tree canopy target.

Thank you. No speakers against? Councillor Wheeler.

I'll just write a reply if I may , Mr Mayor.

Briefly, no speakers were against. I

Just wanted to comment on a couple of things that were raised, and I've made notes of Councillor Calvert's comments about... About estate planning, and I think that that's something that can come out of the work of the committee. I think it's really worth pursuing. I think once we've got a strong policy on tree canopy and tree planting, we're in a much better bargaining position with developers when they come to us and they want to put various plans in place. We can say, well, look, no, you know, we've got this agreed position, and then I think some of that work then needs to be shunted into the DCP as well, so that we've got even stronger positions on what we will tolerate as a council to improve things .

Councillor Sheather's comments about appropriate trees. Again, I think a policy will enable people to choose trees quite quickly that are appropriate. We've had some input from HEN already, and it would be the Hawkesbury Environment Network, and I think we need to go back and revisit that. It would be great if we could then get our community nursery to stock the appropriate trees for people to get and plant, or for council to plant. And regarding the plane trees leading into Richmond, you know, it's one of the bugbears in Windsor Mall, in fact, is the plane trees, because half the LGA is allergic to them, and I'm one of them. You know, if you've ever tried to sit under them when they've got all their little puffballs raining down on you, it's really miserable.

But those trees actually are very unlikely to survive the next couple of decades with increasing temperatures. They're already showing severe signs of stress, and the University of New South Wales has flagged them as an area that may not survive increasing temperatures with climate change. So we really have to, you know, we have to future-proof the recommendations that we make. And I think, too, regarding Councillor Zamprogno's comments about protecting the trees that we've already got, I think that needs to be a key part of any policy, and I've noted that as something the committee can explore. But I think we probably need to start looking at better mapping and better capacity to monitor this.

You know, that came out in our discussions last week around the rural boundary clearing code. We know we have a deficit. If we're fair dinkum about doing this, then we need to cover all our bases, both protection and planting. Thanks.

Thank you . Put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. I move the motion. Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Dr Marci, Councillor Carver, Councillor Sheather, Councillor [unclear], Councillor Ridden, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor [unclear], Councillor Richards. Councillor Magill was absent from the vote. Carried.

Next item is 44 at the Maggots. Councillor Kotlash, with that.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Seconded, Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you.

I'll start by saying that I love maggots. I had the opportunity to study them when I was at uni, and Les, it's okay. It's okay to love maggots.

They're truly beautiful little creatures. It's hard to believe that they are. They're really lovely. They play a very important role in our natural world, and they're nature's converters. And it seems now they're being harnessed into helping us deal with our food waste problem in a really sustainable way. I got my motivation for this notice of motion from Albury City Council, who have just started using their first maggot-based food waste system. The system is a modular one, and it kind of looks like a shipping container, a large shipping container, and it uses all sorts of racks and robotics to organise how they feed the maggots . And it uses black soldier fly larvae, and they consume food waste from all sorts of sources like industry, restaurants, supermarkets.

Any source that has some sort of organic food waste, it can be used. And it's also, they're able to also consume some packaging, which is also very exciting.

Another huge benefit of these types of systems are that they are truly sustainable, as they have by-products that are highly valuable. They produce protein for animal feed and high-quality soil conditioner, and these are as an end product of the process. If you look at our Rural Land Strategy, you'll see that the Hawkesbury has plenty of chicken, duck and poultry and egg producers.

We have those sorts of industries that can directly benefit from the, I guess, the waste products, if we want to use that very outdated term, waste, the, I guess, the by-products of this process. So I was a bit startled to know that a lot of these industries actually import high-protein feed, soya-based high-protein feed for their animals. They import it, you know, it comes from other places in the world, and yet we can actually produce high-quality protein, you know, on our doorstep. So that's kind of, I think that's really exciting. And there's also a myriad of vegetable and turf growers, orchards, who can use the soil conditioner, the other by-product that comes out of these sorts of systems.

There's also a system at Barangaroo in an underground car park that services a lot of that kind of precinct. And so that's its versatility. It can actually be in a space like that, just on a slab, and it doesn't have any odour, it doesn't have any— Well , I think it has some odor, but it doesn't have a huge impact on the surrounds. So it takes up a few parking spaces in the Barangaroo underground parking. So look, just to summarise, this is obviously a new technology and it has to be explored. But just to summarise, what I'm asking Council to support is to include these types of systems in our waste strategy. And this will help us attract any sort of grant funding that might be appropriate to this and available.

If we have these types of things in our strategy and recognise them, that gives us a bit more strength in that area. I want to ask the Environment Committee to help the process of consulting and to be able to help us with our decision making and input into our waste strategy. So that's kind of a parallel process, I guess. And another parallel process is that I'd really like to see us look at the possibility of a cost-effective way of us implementing possibly a pilot project or something that gets us into this technology kind of now, not in three, four years or, you know, when we've finished the strategy. I want to be able to get the staff to see if we can investigate what is needed in this area and to be able to put it into our budget process , our budget consideration process for next year.

One of the things that I learnt about these systems is that quite often they're leased. So it's not a huge capital cost for Council, and it's managed by companies that lease them, so they come and manage it. So to us, it's a sort of a cost saving at the ready, I guess. And I'd really

Love to see

Us do this, and I hope that you're all, as the Mayor might say, pro maggot. Thank you.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor. Yeah , thank you, Mr Mayor. If you get Councillor Kotlash talking about maggots, five minutes is there. Sorry.

Exactly . But

I just wanted to add that I agree with this, but I think I'd like us to put something in there about working with WesROC on this issue because I know WesROC has a lot of programs with waste, and I think this could be included. And maybe we just mention the word WesROC in the point which talks about the committee, point four. Yeah. Nothing formal, just that we talk to them and see how we can work with them if we could. Okay.

Thank you. Okay. Do we need—I don't know that we need to, just for simplicity. We probably don't need to change the resolution. I think we could, General Manager, we could take that as an action.

I'm happy just to put that in. It's not a problem. Yeah.

What do you want to put in then? Oh, well, I'd

Say council requests that the Environment Committee broaden community, including WesROC. There you go. That'll do.

So

We do it by the

Committee. It makes sense from other government agencies in industry, WesROC, hospitality industry, and the wider community.

That'll do. Yeah

This is what I was avoiding, but that's good. Seconder, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, are you okay if we make that change? Yes. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and I too am a lover of maggots and having studied in a similar vein at one point. But what I'd just like to add, and I think this is great, and I think that these are all the systems that are coming now that are emerging and that we can capitalise on. I just think that in point five, in looking at a pilot form, we did have, when we had the FOGO working group in the waste committee, we did have a ready, willing supply of restaurant people who were ready to be involved in a pilot. And we had arrived around that as well after looking at the difficulties of implementing in the residential area around collection and all that sort of stuff. So the restaurants were prepared to give their, you know, bring their things or have a collection point.

So perhaps when we get to that point, it will be easier to start off with someone like restaurants who have a ready supply, because I think that there were some issues around introducing it in the other sector. But I think that it will be great, and I think that's wonderful of Albury City Council, which is quite a big council, so that's really good that they've done that. And I look forward to seeing what we can do. But definitely also I think that when we have that environment committee, we could either invite or one of us could invite the people who were working on the waste committee on this, because there were people who actually work in the industry. So they might have some, not on that specific project, but on other areas around that, particularly about the end use for a lot of these things.

So that would be very beneficial to introduce as well.

Thank you. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Firstly, I think it's very early in the term for us to be having comments like, Item 44, all about the maggots. I think that might go down. I'm not as fond of maggots, but that's because my research has been done on humans, and maggots are not compatible. I think what's really nice here is that we're talking about shifting to a closed-loop system. And I think, Councillor Kotlash raising the idea that you would be importing soy feed for stock when we've got this going to waste, like this is currently rotting in our landfill. It's a major component, up to 50% of the landfill that we dump every week is something that could be producing multiple end products. Getting around our landfill problems, we know we've got about seven years left if we just adopt a business-as-usual system, but we've also got a legislative requirement now to shift to FOGO.

And people are crying out for it. I've been keeping an eye on Council's webpage where we've got that ongoing waste survey, and the comments that are coming back on Facebook about that stuff are really, really interesting. And I think we probably need to put our helmets on when we deal with this. I think today's question is whether you want more hard rubbish collection, and that's probably not as cheerful. But the FOGO post got loads of really positive comments. People want this. They've seen Penrith running it for nearly a decade, and they want it here. And I think we need to jump on board. This may be a system that works for us in a landfill site that's increasingly close, I suppose, to development, but is also constrained by a high water table, potential flooding, and runoff concerns.

This is actually a pretty clean system and works pretty well. It even comes, apparently from what I've read of the Albury model, with a de-packager, which allows you to get the produce out of the plastic that it frequently comes in. So I think this looks like it's a public-private partnership for Albury. I know they've done some other really interesting public-private partnership stuff on their tip around solar power and methane generation. The other thing that I'd really like to see us running on our waste management site is a much bigger tip shop of the scale of something like Bilgola or Moss Vale, where you're really starting to repurpose the stuff that comes over that weighbridge. But this should also reduce, I hope, some of the costs that we pay to the EPA.

You know, that $3 million that we pay to the EPA every year, we could start recovering some of those costs by producing a usable end product, a usable sellable end product, rather than just dumping this stuff. I think getting the restaurants on board is going to be key, and I suspect maybe the supermarkets as well, because I think apparently the Albury setup produces five tonnes of food waste a day. That's a lot of waste. But I think we may need to get some sort of— we probably need a bulk, yeah, someone who provides the bulk for this, and that may be all of those restaurants together, or it may be one big contributor like Woolies or Coles or Aldi, you know, who are outsourcing, who are trying to repurpose a lot of their stuff.

You know, they're not just sending everything to landfill. But I think we might need to be in partnership with one of those organisations so that we've got the scale that makes this viable. Thanks.

Thank you. No speakers against. Do we need a mover, please? Councillor Kotlash.

I'd just like to say just a few more things. My understanding of this system is because it's modular, it's very flexible, because if you happen to be able to tap into the domestic— I was going to say the domestic waste market, but the domestic collection— if we have separate bins for food waste, then you'll be able to tack on another module. So that's the, you know, that's the beauty of this. So it's very flexible, and I can't wait to find out whether it'll suit our purposes. I think because we do have a tip, and we do have a tip that's, you know, running out of space, and, you know, if we can do those sums about whether this is going to be cost effective in the long term, and whether, you know, how long it might extend our cells in the tip form might, you know, prove to be really exciting. I

Was going to say something about what Councillor Lyons-Buckett said, and I've just forgotten it, I'm afraid. Sorry, that's it. Go maggots. With the motion, all those in favour please raise your hand. Favourer: Councillor Conolly, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ridden, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Richards, Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Veigel was absent from the vote. Declare it carried.

Next item is item 45, Councillor Lyons-Buckett

I'll move the motion, Mr Mayor, with a point four, which I've sent through to Tracy, which is to— I haven't got it in front of me, but it's basically that this go into consideration for the operational plan in 2022-23, the cost of the review, of course, to do that because there is a financial cost.

Seconder?

Call out. I can't see you if you're doing it Councillor Wheeler. Sorry,

Mr Mayor,

I'll second that.

Speaking for an — Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll speak to the motion. This is something that I think—I know I have raised it in the past, but I thought now was another really opportune time to bring it forward and to consider certain things around the parking availability in our town centres, partly because of changes in retail habits and hopefully of the capture of people to shop locally and support our small businesses a little more now that they've often made a realisation of what wonderful local businesses that we have. But one of the main things is around the timed parking zones and whether they're adequate for what we need. Now, of course, we need the varied timing because, you know, like near the post office, 15 minutes is good because you shouldn't take longer.

Although now even post offices have transformed into these sort of buildings full of big packages because so many people also shop online, shop locally. So just looking around that, I did raise it with Ms Perrin around Christmas time where the one-hour parking zone in the back of Coles was, you know, people were being fined in there. And quite frankly, at Christmas time in Coles, one hour was not enough to get in to do your shopping, and we were encouraging people as we were sort of coming out of the lockdown, encouraging people to shop in our small businesses in that area. So looking at the timing of the parking, and then something that has long been brought up, and it's brought up in various sections, there's not a lot of businesses.

Some businesses have on-site parking in the town centres, but a lot of them don't. So in the arcades, etc., there's often a business operator that's a solo business operator, and for them to go and move their car from the timed parking area, they have to lock up. up their shop and go out and move their car and come back. And for some people, that is a lost customer perhaps at that time while they're out doing that. So I think that other councils must have, you know, things around these sort of systems. It may not be viable. This is why I think we should look at it, because of course I don't even know how many people that applies to. And of course, the translation from what we hear in anecdotal evidence to what may actually be the numbers is what we need to know, because we do get people very outraged around parking.

Today, there's another on the Hawkesbury Mums and Dads page. There's another thing around parking officers marking tyres in Windsor somewhere, and that generates everybody questioning what council's motive is. In the past, I think we've raised, should we have some sort of paid parking somewhere? I don't know. I think people don't want to pay for parking because they can go to another nearby centre and not pay for parking. But I think it's just time that we had a look around this. And because I knew that there was some work done around parking in the liveability project and some changes in the parking in the main streets and so on, I just think this is a timely to put it in to consider if we're going to understand what the cost would be to do a review of this nature.

I think it's inevitable. I think at some point we're going to have to look at this because I think it directly relates to our retention of people shopping in our town centres. If you go out, and today I took my mother out, she's nearly 97, and we went to the nail salon and we went to some other places like that, and it's not a fast thing to do. It takes takes time, and you simply can't do it in an hour. It can take, you know, three or so hours. And then if you want to go locally, then you've got to find a car park and then walk, you know, a longer way to be parked in a residential street, then walk to the shopping centre. So I think that, and I wasn't here, I was in Springwood, but I think that it's, I hope this gets support to at least consider looking at it in the operational plan, because I think it's something that our business community expects us to do and our shoppers expect us to do, to be updated on what the availability is and issues around the timing and for business operators as well.

Thank you. Thanks.

Deputy Mayor.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I'm just wondering whether the Traffic Committee should be playing a role in this as well. That's just a general question for you, Mr. Mayor.

I would have thought they'd refer that to the Director of Infrastructure Services.

Thank you through you, Mr. Mayor. The Traffic Committee is a statutory committee that is charged with the responsibility of considering any proposal by Council to exercise its delegations for the regulation of traffic regulating devices. If there were proposals to arise out of any such work that would modify time parking, then those specific proposals would go to the Traffic Committee, but not a broader study of a town centre scale.

Okay, so we wouldn't have them in the study, but if the study came up with some recommendations, those would go to the Traffic Committee. Is that the idea? Yes

That's correct. So anything that would modify on-road traffic regulations, such as conversion from one period of time parking to a different one. Loading zones, no stopping zones, no parking zones, etc.

Okay

Thanks. Thank you. Councillor

Thanks, Mr Mayor, and I want to thank Councillor Lyons-Buckett for bringing this to Council. This has been an ongoing issue in the time that I've been on Council. It was raised repeatedly during the Town Centres Working Group, and it comes up over and over and over from both business owners and people using our town centres. I had many conversations with the previous Director of Infrastructure about some sort of interim measure to address this. I know we're looking at parking in the town centres work with the city deals and liveability funding, and I know that it's one of the things that we hope that is being addressed in that work. But we can't wait. This is impacting businesses. People are also getting fined, and it's easy to say people should just move their cars or people should just be more careful.

But I think anybody who's lived here for any length of time has probably had a parking fine because they just haven't realised how short some of the time frames are. We've also got some real inconsistencies with some parking areas where you can have a four-hour limit in one spot and a two-hour limit in another spot, and come out, as I did attending a Council function, to a $160-odd fine because you incorrectly parked in the two-hour spot and thought you had a bit more time on your hands. I paid that fine, but it did hurt. So I think we need to move on this. I don't think we can continue to kick this can down the road. The other issue that I discussed with Mr. Organ when he was still here is bringing in some sort of timing mechanism that means that you can't move your car within a car park.

So one of the business owners in Richmond, who's in one of the malls there, reports that the employees of Services New South Wales come out and swap their cars over at lunchtime, which means that those car parks are never really empty in that large car park at the back of, I think it's Park Mall that runs through to the park, so that would make sense. And so when people, when shoppers come, and they don't want to be there for a particularly long time, but they want to go to a string of small businesses, so they're not in and out in 10 minutes. You know, they want to go to the butcher and the fruit shop and possibly round to the post office. And I mean, these days, you get stuck in the post office for a good half an hour just picking up a single parcel.

So I think, you know, we need to not be able to park, but to have a decent load that you want to carry, it's onerous to lug it down to Francis Street where there's untimed parking. It's too far. So we need that reasonable turnover of parking close to the shops, and it shouldn't be taken up with employees and business owners who are there for eight to 10 hours. You know, I can understand business owners if they're there late, hairdressers particularly, which often have a young staff wanting to be able to park close to their shop, and I think we need to look at some sort of permit system in those instances. But if you've just got employees who could walk up the street once a day and back home again, they should not be sitting in our shortest-stay car parks.

And these are the things that we have to address in the parking systems that we've got, and we need to do it now. I don't think the community is going to be willing to, nor should they have to wait for another couple of years while we put this off to do it as part of a bigger picture.

No one's spoken against it. Did you want to write a reply, Councillor Lyons-Buckett? Not necessary, thanks. We put the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand. In favour of the motion, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Durick, Councillor Di Bramachi, Councillor Calvert, Councillor St. Progne, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Richards, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Michael. Votes. Carried.

Item 46, Councillor Dogramaci, move that.

Yeah, is there a seconder for that?

Seconder for item 46?

No, I think it fails for a seconder.

Item 47. Moved that, Councillor Dogramaci. Yep . Is there a seconder for item 47?

I second that, Bows as well.

Item 48, response to councillor questions, taken on notice. Any questions there?

No.

I have a motion to go into confidential. Thank you . Moved, Councillor Richards, seconded, Councillor Kotlash. Any discussion? Put the motion. All those in favour? Against? Declare that carried.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. In respect of item 04.9 regarding a property matter, leased to Urban City Consulting Pty Ltd, Johnson Wing, 4 Christie Street, Windsor. Whilst in closed session, the Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Potlash, seconded Councillor Sheather: 1. That Council agree to enter into a new lease with Urban City Consulting Pty Ltd in regard to the Johnson Wing and four car spaces, 4 Christie Street, Windsor, as outlined in this report. 2. Authority be given for any documentation in association with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council. 3. Details of Council's resolution be conveyed to the lessee, together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as appropriate legal documentation to put such resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by all parties.

For the motion were Councillors Conolly, Calvert, Richards, Reardon, Djuric, Sheather, Zamprogno, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett. Against the motion was Councillor Docwraci, and Councillor Veigel was absent for the vote. In respect of item 05.0 regarding a proposed road closure adjoining 24 Toll House Way, Windsor. Whilst in closed session, the Council resolved on the motion of Councillor Potlash, seconded Councillor Sheather : 1 . That Council approve the sale of the road reserve adjoining 24 Toll House Way, Windsor, which comprises an area of 126 square metres, as shown in Attachment 1 to the report, to Joanne Margaret Schembri in the amount detailed in the report. 2. Authority be given for the sale and any documentation in association with the matter to be executed under the seal of Council.

3. For the motion were Councillors Conolly, Calvert, Richards, Reardon, Djuric, Sheather, Zamprogno, Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett. Against the motion were Councillor Docwraci and Councillor Veigel was absent for the vote. Thank you. Can I just ask, was my name read out? And you were the mover of the motion, but yes.

Thank you . Being no further business, will declare the meeting closed at 10 p.m. Thank you everybody for your attendance.