17 May 2023 - Extraordinary

Good evening everyone.

Welcome to the Hawkesbury City Council's extraordinary council meeting for the 17th of May 2023. The Mayor, Sarah McMahon, is an apology for tonight, so under the Council's code of meeting practice, in the absence of the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor presides at meetings of Council. I will therefore be the chairperson for tonight's meeting, and I'll declare the meeting open. Firstly, Hawkesbury City Council acknowledges the Dharug and Darkinjung people as the traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury. We pay respects to all Elders past, present and emerging and acknowledge the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First Peoples of the country. I'd like to now hand over to the General Manager for some remarks, please.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Members of the public attending the meeting in person at the Deerubbin Centre are advised that in the event of an emergency, you'll be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit following the guidance of our warden. I would also like to advise that in accordance with Clause 5.3.3 of the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council are recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting of Council meetings. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary.

If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations. The recordings are stored on Council's record management system. Meetings of the Council may be separately recorded with the prior authority of the Council. For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the Council tonight, it is expected that you will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting. This request relates to both your address to Council and any answers given in response to questions from Councillors.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you very much, General Manager. We go now to apologies. I've received apologies from the Mayor, Councillor McMahon, and from Councillor Dogramaci. Are there any other apologies ? Doesn't look like it. Would someone like to move that we accept the apologies? Moved Councillor Lyons-Buckett, seconded Councillor Zamprogno. All those in favour say aye, and raise your hand. Declared carried. The General Manager received information from the following Councillors of their intention to seek to attend the extraordinary meeting by AUDIO-VISUAL link, having regard to the Council Chamber being unavailable due to renovations and the absence of alternative suitable facilities. They are Councillor Calvert, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Dogramaci, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Wheeler and Councillor Zamprogno.

Ten of those Councillors have been admitted to the meeting and are able to participate until Council makes a decision on whether to permit attendance by AUDIO-VISUAL link. Can someone please move that Councillors Calvert, Conolly, Djuric, Kotlash, Lyons-Buckett, Sheather, Reardon, Veigel, Wheeler and Zamprogno be permitted to attend the extraordinary Council meeting on 17 May 2023 by AUDIO-VISUAL link due to the Council Chamber being unavailable due to renovation and alternative suitable facilities being unavailable. I'll move that way. I'll move that way, Mr Mayor. And I'll second. Moved by Councillor Wheeler, seconded by Councillor Zamprogno. All those in favour, please raise your hands. Declare it carried

Do we

Have any declarations of interest, please? None. No. Okay. Well, we have only one item of business.

Okay, well, we have only one item of business tonight, and there are two public speakers. Hopefully we're all set up to go with our first public speaker, Stephanie Calaborns, please.

Thank you for allowing me to speak at tonight's extraordinary meeting. I'd like to speak firstly on the RFS land clearing code. Firstly, I'd state that the land clearing code allows clear vegetation up to 25 metres from property, can only clear for that boundary or several parcels not outside that area unless special provisions have been sought. Another thing is I'd argue has consent for land clearing occurred from all of the landowners involved. Also, Hawkesbury Council is on the koala LGA list. Koalas have high environmental significance. They are native animals. Landowners have a duty of care to avoid cruelty or harm to native introduced or domestic animals. Therefore , I argue are koalas exempt from protections.

Landowners who clear trees and vegetation under the Rural Boundary Clearing Code are not exempt from legislative responsibilities. They are also not exempt from prosecution under the Biodiversity Conservation Act for harm to a protected animal. Deliberate cruelty to animals under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act also applies, given koalas are animals.

There is also a responsibility to avoid harm to protected animals and deliver cruelty to animals through land clearing. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act states, you need to provide for the protection of the environment, especially those aspects of the environment that are matters of national environmental significance. You need to protect native species and, in particular, prevent the extinction and promote the recovery of threatened species. You must not have a significant impact on a listed threatened species included in the extinct or wild category. You must not have a significant impact on a listed or threatened species that is included in the extinct or in the wild category.

You must not take an action that has or will have a significant impact on a listed or threatened species. In endangered species, you must not have a significant impact on a listed or threatened species. Vulnerable species, a person must not take an action that has or will have a significant impact on a listed threatened species that is included in the vulnerable category. You must not partake in an activity that is likely to have a significant impact on a listed or threatened species included in the vulnerable category.

The species is a listed or threatened species in the community, or listed as the threatened ecological community, and it also states that the Minister must consider public comment. For example, what aspects and what work has been done at the council level. To fully consult, or even partially consult with the community, where is the community feedback? Who did you consult with? In your community engagement strategy, I've said numerous times, and I say for the third time now, dates back to

2007. Your community participation plan was only brought forward in 2019. What actions has Council done? Where is proof of the actions that Council has done to consult with the community, not just at the least level? Because, for example, if the Council is consulting at the lowest level, it's obviously going to fail. I believe that Council should be achieving high expectations because that's what the community expects of Council: for transparency, for honesty, to protect and include the community. You haven't done. I don't believe you've done it. I will then go to the Koala Habitat Protection Act. The City of Hawkesbury is included in the— the

Community of Hawkesbury needs to follow the federal law. Hawkesbury Council is considered in an area of high koala density. Therefore, I argue the City of Council, Hawkesbury, must follow this act.

I'm also going to argue some other things here.

The koala is on the endangered species list. Koalas are also considered vulnerable, and both vulnerable and endangered. There are offences that relate to not following this act.

Even though in January 1992, legislation came forward that actually covers koalas as a threatened species. However, in February 1992, the koalas were on the threatened list. In 1995, another law came forward with regard to koalas, that they were endangered. The concern that I have is even though Council might say, Oh, well, this doesn't apply to us, that doesn't apply to us, if there are laws, Commonwealth laws, in which I believe that Tanya Plibersek needs to be emailed or needs to be written to in regard to this, given that she is the Environment Minister.

Excuse me, Ms Calaborn, your five minutes is up. Okay Would you be happy to answer any questions? Yeah,

I'm happy to ask questions. Has

Anyone got any questions, please?

Doesn't look like there's any questions. Oh, Councillor Wheeler's got a question.

Sorry, Mr Deputy Mayor, I'm out of practice. Ms Calabornes, she was asking for us to do something with the Environment Minister. Could I ask her to complete that request?

I

Believe

Councillor Wheeler, if there are federal laws, Commonwealth laws that apply with regard to protection of native wildlife, and given the fact that the Minister for Environment is the named Minister for Environment. Yeah, if the Minister for Environment is the named Minister for Environment, that this federal Minister has a responsibility to act in regard to suggested breaches of legislative responsibilities by this Council.

Thank you. Any further? Councillor Sheather, you have a question.

Thanks, Ms Deputy Mayor. Stephanie, with the different regulations that you spoke of then, are you aware of any in the Hawkesbury that has been in conflict to those laws ?

Councillor Sheather, I've just spoken on them. I am happy to provide you a copy of the laws that I've looked at. I'm happy to provide every councillor a copy of the notes that I have sat and looked over the past couple of days in regard to conflicts , in particular the federal laws, and I'm happy to send copies of the federal laws that I've looked at from 1992—sorry, I apologise— one federal law and one state law from 1992 to 1995. And we also need to look at the local government community participation plan and the community engagement strategy, in which I believe that the local government hasn't adequately consulted with the community. I'm happy to send you all of my notes.

Thank you.

I can do that tomorrow or tonight.

Thank you. No further questions. Thank you, Ms Calabons. Thank you very much. Our second speaker is Mr John Grant, who's coming online from the north coast somewhere, I believe, John. Still on

Mute . Thank you.

Thank you . Yes, I am, and thank you all for the opportunity to speak this evening in support of this important motion from Councillor Lyons-Buckett. My name is John Grant, and I've been the media spokesperson for WIRES for almost a decade. I think it's worth me first mentioning that I had a property in Upper McDonald Roads, Annoburns, for almost 25 years, so I'm no stranger to this beautiful area, and I'm really keen to see it protected. I'd like to give you an idea first, Steve, of the value placed on native wildlife by both your residents and visitors. The WIRES 24/7 rescue officers recorded just under 10,000 calls for wildlife assistance from the Hawkesbury area in the past six years. I repeat that, almost 10,000 calls.

The annual assistance figures have jumped from 1,200 calls in 2017 to over 2,100 calls in 2022. Now that's almost doubling, an indication of the focus and concern for wildlife in your area. I don't have to tell any of you that the Hawkesbury region is privileged to contain some of Australia's most iconic and endangered species, including, of course, the koalas, spotted quolls, lyrebirds, just to name a few. Now the devastating Black Summer fires, which are still with us, remaining with us, have decimated these species, with many escaping and remaining only on the fringes of the gossiper's Mountain mega fire. That itself a term first coined during this unprecedented event. It therefore seems both inconceivable and counterintuitive that Council would in any way support further land clearing and habitat destruction via a code that was never meant to be applied to this region, especially in areas where WIRES has recorded sightings and trackings of koalas.

I’m of course happy to supply this data to Council if required. I must admit that I was surprised at the February 2022 Council meeting that the pleas of local koala rescuer Morgan Philpott and a highly valued neonatal care nurse went unheeded, and the advice and recommendations of the local fire captain about the introduction of the code could actually increase fire risks also went unheeded. Admittedly it was defeated by just one vote, but that’s enough in a democracy as we well know. Finally I would like to add that the eyes of the world’s media are watching what we as Australians are prepared to do to protect our threatened species. From the moment President Barack Obama tweeted to support WIRES during the Black Summer fires, I personally have been inundated with regular and continuing media calls locally and globally, including CBS, NBC, French TV, Sky UK, Good Morning Britain, plus weather channels from around the world.

Tonight, you as Councillors have an opportunity to make a real difference and help bring these species back from the brink of extinction. I’m confident that, given the overwhelming public and scientific support for their protection, that you will choose to make the right decision and give your support to this motion. I thank you and I’m happy to take any questions.

Thank you, Mr Grant. Are there any questions for Mr Grant, please?

Doesn't look like it. Okay, thank you, John. Thanks for participating. You're welcome. We move now to the business at hand. The notice of motion moved by Councillor Lyons-Buckett, I believe. You're moving that? Yes,

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Deputy Mayor

Do we have a seconder, please? Councillor Wheeler seconding. Councillor Lyons-Buckett, you wish to speak to your motion?

Yes, please, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Mr Mayor, and thank you to the speakers for raising those really good points around what I consider, Councillor Wheeler and I consider, to be a very urgent matter because of what we have seen unfolding before us. It's urgent because of what we stand to lose, and it's urgent because currently we are quite powerless to be doing much about it. So we need to take steps so that we don't stand by and see the loss of something so valuable, and something that's so valuable not just as the speakers have said, but that we use ourselves in our own policies and our own platforms to say that that's what we use as a drawcard of visitors to this area, that we want them to come as tourists because of our beautiful natural environment, and we don't want to lose that.

Aside from the fact that we have an obligation, of course, to be working to always protect our environment. It's part of our planning, it's part of our community strategic plan, and it's something that we must do. Briefly , just to alert people to what the Rural Boundary Clearing Code is. It is a code that was introduced after Black Summer bushfires. It was a political decision. It doesn't really have a foundation in an inquiry or any basis aside from the fact that it was introduced to assist . Initially it was introduced for the large properties out in Western New South Wales that have a lot of fence lines, and it was to assist them in having the boundaries cleared of vegetation to stop them losing fences in fires.

Hawkesbury City Council was not included in the initial release of the plan, but there was a provision that councils, peri-urban councils, could opt into the code if they wished, and our council has been the only council to do that so far. At the time, I think there was a push by some councillors to get it through, and it was passed on the casting vote of the mayor at the time. But what we've seen is what many of us who opposed that code and the introduction of the code is what we foreshadowed was going to happen, and that is that the code is implemented in areas without a correlation to the fire risk that exists in certain areas. So because we see that it is implemented via a rural zoning, that applies to a lot of land across our whole local government area.

So we have a lot of rurally zoned areas, and ironically, it does not apply to our most fire threatened areas, which are mostly zoned conservation living or C4, what used to be known as environmental living. So when we opposed it, those of us councillors who opposed it, we flagged the potential of this code to be misused because of that blanket zoning rule. And that is what we're seeing now. The reason it's been brought up is that we've had some incidents that have been raised where we have seen the justification is that it has been done under the rural boundary clearing code. Sometimes this is in areas where to get approval to remove vegetation, that approval might have been very hard to get, and also it's often on sites where there is no high fire risk.

It's also sometimes on particular blocks of land that aren't even eligible for the 10/50 clearing code because of the critically endangered ecological systems that exist on that land. So when these, the other thing is, of course, that the Rural Boundary Clearing Code is a self-assessed tool that is used online, and people look it up, see if they're eligible. If they're unaware of the value of the ecological systems on their property that may be threatened or endangered, or be a habitat for one of our threatened or endangered species, it's a self-assessment. So unless somebody has the capacity to identify the types of vegetation that are on their properties, then they're not necessarily in a position to make that call that they're compliant with the code.

The code in itself is not approval. The code is merely something that means if you clear in compliance with that code, which of course includes the exempt species that can't be moved, then you will not be prosecuted. So it isn't an approval as such. I think we have seen, as the speakers have both raised about the koalas, our iconic species, we know how important it is to protect them. We also know that the sightings within areas such as Kurrajong, around Grose Vale, up at Kurrajong Heights, have increased since the bushfires. I've seen there's koalas across from where I live, and I live in the middle of Kurrajong. So there's without doubt koala populations right in this village, and they're moving around because they're being driven out by the fires and by land clearing.

When we had the debate about the Rural Boundary Code, we asked of our staff if we had the resources to be able to police this code, to enforce this code when we get reports of clearing, and we were told that no, we did not have the resources. So that in itself is quite problematic. And another issue around that is that when we have reports made, we need a consistency in messaging back to the people and an explanation of what the Rural Boundary Clearing Code is. But moreover, we need to have the data around, and this is moving into what's in the motion now, that we need to have data around where this is being used as a justification, where there's complaints about clearing of vegetation, and where that is said to be being done under the Rural Boundary Clearing Code.

I think we need to collect that data so that we can understand just how this code is being implemented. Now , I don't expect for a minute that that'll be big numbers, because we also heard in that debate last year from the councillors who wanted to push it through that there wouldn't be extensive clearing because only well-resourced people would be able to actually undertake those works because of the expense involved in it. However, I think we are seeing it in a variety of places, and we are seeing it done in conjunction with development sites where it is being used to remove vegetation. Even if for those same development sites there may be a landscape plan to revegetate that very area where the vegetation was removed

Your time is up. Would you like to finish the point that you're on, please?

I'd just like to speak very briefly to point four, if I may, Mr Deputy Mayor, which is a call on the new government and therefore a new environment minister who will, under statute, be required to review this law this year, being two years since it came in. So points A to D are there to actually hopefully send in that information. I'd like councillor support to support us to give some guidance to the new minister in reviewing the code so that it could be made more in correlation with its intended objective, which is fire mitigation. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm now calling on a speaker against

The motion, please.

Speakers against the motion?

Councillor Kotlash, did your hand go up?

Sorry , I found it. I found it. I'm at a practice as well. Yes, look, I'm, whilst I understand and agree with a lot of the things that Councillor Lyons-Buckett has said, I am really not prepared to support this motion in its present state. I don't think it does what we think it's, what the mover intended. Look, there's a few reasons for that. I think I'll go through it point by point. It might be easier that way. For instance, in point one, what's actually being asked for in this motion doesn't actually specifically specify the Rural Boundary Clearing Code. When it's boiled down, it seems that this report being requested just requests clarification on council's role in compliance education and advice to landholders regarding land clearing and tree removal.

Well , that is a hugely broad topic , and I don't think a report of that nature is of any use in this particular context. I don't think it will get us to where we think we want to go.

Point two, again, I'm not convinced that this point adds to the above report because whilst I agree it would be interesting to know how many complaints we get . About vegetation removal , I think what we actually need to know is how many complaints do we get, and have we received, that the findings are that the owners or occupiers cleared land in breach of the Rural Boundary Clearing Code.

Even though I didn't support adopting this code, we did opt in. So when people clear land and they do so in accordance with that code,

They have every right to do that. I don't think that's a good idea. That is a hard thing for us to decide on now. There's a whole lot of other things that have to be reviewed in the actual code. So we could gather data, but I just don't think that the motion spells out the data that we probably need to gather. Point 3A, I actually agree with point 3. It would be very good to get an update on the koala mapping, and I think that's essential. It is vital that we do everything we possibly can to protect our koala populations. Now, in terms of point 4, I question whether Minister Sharp is actually the minister who will be dealing with the divisional review of the Rural Fires Act. I suspect it might be the Minister for Emergency Services, which is Minister Dib, because reading the legislation this afternoon it states that the minister cannot make , amend or repeal the Rural Boundary Clearing Code except with a written agreement of all of the following ministers.

And there's three ministers listed: the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, the Minister for Energy and Environment, and admittedly this was written in the previous ministerial setup, but nevertheless that's Minister Sharp's area now. And the third one is the Minister for Agriculture in Western New South Wales. Anyway, that's— I'll stand corrected if that's not the case. But nevertheless, all the things that are points that are mentioned in the motion, I imagine would be in a review. So instead of dictating content, I think it would be probably better if we wrote to the relevant minister and asked about the timing. I think that's relevant. It's probably August this year if it's two years from the adoption of the code .

We could list some of our concerns, and then we could offer our assistance, and I think that's probably the better way to go. The motion dictates some things that I think are pretty— I just don't think that's the way to get involved in, hopefully, a review of the code . And the other thing, I think that we could have a conversation with Minister Sharpe about the wildlife habitat mapping, in particular the koala mapping. But hopefully this will come out when we get our information in point three, which was our resolution from last year.

So on that note, I can't support this motion in its current state. I don't think it will do what I think most of the speakers previously thought it would do. I think we have to

Do everything we can to protect our natural environment. This isn't going to do it, just, you know,

Resisting this code. We have to start to work out what will work and what won't work. And we have to actually be mindful that this isn't our code. We can just give information to the state government about our experiences, and that's valid, I suspect. But again, there might be instances where the code has actually worked to.. . And, sorry, and to do what it was supposed to do. So anyway, on that note, one last thing. If people suspect that there's been illegal land clearing of any sort under any code, they should actually report that to council. And I think that that's the message. We, that, you know, we need to know this and we need to stop it. And there are ways of us stopping it. There are processes. So we'll stick to those. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm looking for a speaker in favour of the motion. Councillor Sheehy, you had your hand up. Are you speaking in favour?

I've got a couple of questions to the General Manager,

Deputy Mayor. Okay.

How many complaints will we have across our city in relation to the boundary clearing , or people that were assumed that the clearing may have been done under that pretext ? Is there very many?

Through you, Deputy Mayor. Council staff, in response to having received the motion late last week, have been collating those complaints, Councillor. As it stands today, of recent times, we think that those numbers of complaints are sitting around four or five at the moment, some of which were in relation to the Rural Boundary Clearing and some were not. So that's the number that we're currently sitting at, but as I said, in response to the motion, staff will be doing a more comprehensive check through our records.

Thank you. The other question was, when you were asked last year when we introduced the code about setting up a policy, it wasn't in the budget. It's not in this one either ? For next year , what sort of time and money would it cost to put this together that's been requested in this motion tonight?

Well, there's a number of sections of the motion, Councillor. So in relation to the first part, sorry, let me just bring it up.

In terms of providing a report back on the

Actions costs around possibilities through compliance, education and advice to landowners, that in itself, bringing the report back is not a particularly onerous or problematic thing for staff to be able to pull together. The more substantive challenge is certainly around the mapping of the koala populations and obtaining the necessary funding to prepare, in the initial circumstance, I believe, a koala plan of management, and then the accompanying mapping that goes with that is the far more substantive task on hand.

Okay, in relation to the funding for a project like the motion that was put up last year, are we progressing or looking for opportunities for funding for that project? Because it's not in our budget for this year.

Yes, we absolutely are. I might defer to the Manager Strategic Planning, who can just talk through some recent advice we've had on that. As I understand it, that our first hurdle is in fact to prepare a koala plan of management, and that will see us in a better position to obtain better grant funding for the koala mapping. But I will defer to Mr. Coons, if that's okay, Councillor. Thank you. Yes,

Thank you. So obviously, as following the council resolution there, we have undertaken a lot of research with other councils in terms of how they've undertaken their plans of management and sort of indicative costs. We've also been looking for available funding, and that's both through state and federal opportunities for funding. So at the moment, through the Saving Our Species funding, there's nothing available currently that's open. New South Wales Environmental Trust does have environmental research grants that will be available, but they're not open as yet. So we're basically trying to position ourselves so that when funding opportunities do open, that we can apply for funding through those various avenues.

Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Deputy Mayor.

Councillor Sheather, Councillor Wheeler, are you speaking in favour of the motion?

I have an amendment, Mr. Deputy Mayor.

Okay.

Unless Councillor Lyons-Buckett wants to take it as part of the original motion, I've sent it through to the staff. It's points one and two remain unchanged. As does point 3, there's a new point 4, and I'm sorry, I can't see the— I have to toggle between my email and Zoom, so I can't see the meeting while I'm reading this out. So point 3, the existing point 3 becomes point 4. Point 3 becomes receive a report detailing costings, potential external funding sources, and funding available under the first quarterly budget review of 23-24 to commence a comprehensive koala management plan. Point 5, and I've added an additional point A, requests that Hawkesbury LGA be removed from the Rural Boundary Clearing Code. Following on from Councillor Kotlash's comments, I'm happy to include not just the Minister for Environment, but also the Minister for Emergency Services in point 5. I think the

Hon. Penny Sharpe does two of the three roles that are required under the legislation already, so it would just be the Minister for Emergency Services that needed to be added to that request.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett, do you— Deputy Mayor

Yes. I believe that that motion would be out of order, given that we're requesting the Hawkesbury LGA be removed from the Rural Boundary Clearing Code. No notice has been given of that to the public, and there were very many interested parties last time we discussed

This. I agree that it should go to the public, but I don't think it's out of order. I think it would be sad if it goes through now without— Having consultation with the public, but I don't think it's out of order for the council to put it up at this stage. So, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, are you happy to accept those changes, or do we move this as a separate motion?

No, I'm happy to accept those changes, thank you. People may want to vote individually on each of them, though, if that's possible.

Yep. Councillor Wheeler, do you now wish to speak to the motion?

Regarding 5A then, if that is considered to be something that needs to go to the public for further consultation, perhaps point 5A would better read: request information on whether the Hawkesbury can be removed from the Rural Boundary Clearing Code provisions. Because I think our advice initially was that once you're in, you're in. I'm hopeful that a new government who opposed this code when the legislation was introduced will be better able to deal with a request for removal. That would then allow, once we then know whether we can withdraw or not, then we can take that down to public consultation.

Do you want to write that last bit in point A about public consultation? I

Think that's in there now. It's been amended.

Okay.

So I'll speak to the motion if I can, Deputy Mayor. So when we chose to opt into this code, and it should be noted that we are the only peri-urban council who chose to do so, we were warned by experts that it would be used to clear land for development. And that's exactly what we've seen in the last month. So as you enter Kurrajong, you're now faced with a significant bald patch, a site subject to a DA and awaiting a complying development certificate for demolition of a dwelling, now has a de-vegetated boundary. And when I checked with the planning staff, they confirmed that it was cleared under the Rural Boundary Clearing Code. That code states that it can be used for the purpose of bushfire hazard mitigation, and yet the bushfire assessment report for this property states that the site is incorrectly identified as bushfire prone, wasn't considered to be within a known fire path, and that bushfire was unlikely to occur, and that existing asset protection zones and emergency services access requirements already exceeded those needed.

So no need to clear any vegetation along the boundary for bushfire protection. One hundred percent not for bushfire protection, and one hundred percent for ease of development. Now, it should be noted that the property owner in this instance has not done anything unlawful. What this case highlights is that the code can be used in a way that is unsatisfactory for the public interest, especially in an area like Kurrajong, where previously every tree removed required a separate and individual approval. Because of this blanket approach and this ludicrous and unscientific legislation, thousands of hectares of the Hawkesbury are fair game, and we knew that when this Council chose to opt into this code.

Those of you who supported the introduction of this code pledged to support mapping and protection of koalas, so here's your chance. You were told that this tool would facilitate land clearing and harm biodiversity protections. We were told that it would be used in areas not at risk of bushfire. We were told by the RFS that it wasn't a useful tool for fire protection in the Hawkesbury and would, in fact, hinder firefighting efforts. And you still bent over backwards to have it applied here, and you told the public that it would all be fine with a bit of koala mapping. And yet, we still don't have koala mapping, and we don't have a koala protection plan. I've received clear evidence from WIRES that the Sydney Basin Koala Network and the state government databases SEED and BioLink, that this area is home to koalas.

The male koala who lives in this part of Kurrajong even has a name. He's been mapped so frequently. He's called Wally. He's probably wondering where some of his trees have gone. There are 709 records of koala sightings in this LGA, a figure that is thought to be a huge underestimate. The Rural Boundary Clearing Code has the potential to destroy habitat because this council has failed to prepare a comprehensive koala management plan, and we knew that when we introduced this legislation. These comprehensive KPOMs aren't new. Port Stephens has had one for more than 20 years. Last year, they used it to obtain $840,000 from the state government to prevent koalas being killed on their roads. Hawkesbury koala population is at risk without a KPOM.

Without one, the Koala Protection SEPP 2021 has very little power to protect koalas and their habitat. It's our responsibility to address that gap.

The justification given for opting into this voluntary code was property rights and the fact that most people wouldn't be able to use it. What we see now is the clear capacity to use this to advantage development, not fix bushfire protection. It behoves us as a council that

Tells the public that we value the environment, that tells the public that we value biodiversity, and that we take our responsibilities as custodians of this place seriously, to put in place all the systems that we can to protect this land. We never should have opted into this code to start with. What we now need to do is make sure that we have done everything possible to protect the biodiversity that is here, because this is going to make things far, far worse. I urge you to get behind this notice of motion. I will move a procedural motion that it's taken in seriatim so that you can support the bits of the motion that you agree with. But we cannot continue to just let this, the Rural Boundary Clearing Code, be used to decimate biodiversity and habitat in this LGA. Thanks.

Thank you. Do we have a speaker against the motion? Councillor Conolly, is that you?

Thank you. I'll speak against the motion. First of all, I just wanted to point out that the code of meeting practice says that for a matter to be urgent, it must require a decision by the council before the next scheduled ordinary meeting of the council. And I just point out that this motion is to call for costs, and write a letter about a review that's happening in August. So I really think that for us to be working together as a team in good faith, we need to be actually paying attention to the code and not calling everybody here to have a fourth go at a rescission motion, effectively for the Rural Boundary Clearing Code. This was discussed before the last council election, going that far back.

Then it was discussed after the council election. It was discussed at a rescission motion, and then a second rescission motion was able to be moved because the first one apparently wasn't dealt with correctly in the eyes of some councillors. So we have made this decision, and despite the fact that we've heard a lot of rhetoric tonight, nobody has offered any of it of what was just claimed, that this has led to mass land clearing, or that there's been huge problems as a result of this or attacks on our biodiversity. We've just heard from the staff we've had five complaints, four or five complaints over that time that we've been in the code. I would be willing to consider, and it is my job to consider, if someone was to bring evidence of the things that are being claimed, and we could consider that in a considered way with a report.

I'm outlining what was actually happening, not just what we've heard on the rumour mill, and what we've actually seen on the ground. Then of course we would consider if there was some evidence. But this is just another go, as we heard from Councillor Wheeler, with the additional change here of trying to get out of the Rural Boundary Clearing Code from councils who didn't want to be in it. And I acknowledge that that was always a genuinely held position of those councillors, that they had genuine concerns. But that's not what the majority of the council voted for, and it is frustrating to come back here for a fourth time to make the same decision. So I'll be voting against, and I'll move, Mr Mayor, that the motion be put.

Moving the motion be put, Councillor Conolly. Do we have a seconder for that?

Can't see the whole screen. Can someone, if someone seconds it, could they speak up?

Councillor Zamprogno, are you seconding that?

No, I was hoping to speak on the motion.

I'll second, Mr Mayor.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett is seconding it. Okay, it's been moved and seconded that the motion be put. All those in favour, please.

Mr Mayor, procedurally, am I allowed to speak against the motion that the motion be put?

Good question. I'll check with the general manager. General manager, is that possible?

I might just defer to the Director Corporate Services. It's not my belief that you can.

He's got up and left. Just check the rule book, Councillors. One moment.

While he's deliberating, Mr Mayor, I'd like to express a significant grievance that I'll be denied an opportunity to speak on this important matter with some relevant facts and figures that I've taken some time to prepare.

Okay, but I think you need to hang on to that. You're out of order at the moment. We're waiting on a reply from the Director of Corporate Services. Thanks

Mr Deputy Mayor. Just checking the code, so just..

It's my understanding that it's not to be debated,

But we'll just check.

It was 10.2.6.

Sorry

Councillor Conolly, what was that motion number?

Clause 10.2.6 of the code says, if at least two councillors have spoken in favour of the motion or an amendment, at least two have spoken against it, the chairperson must immediately put to the vote without debate a motion moved under clause 10.2.5. A seconder is not required for such motion.

There you go. Without debate. So that's the way I thought it was. So it needs to be put without debate. Councillor Conolly has moved that the motion be put. All those in favour of that motion, please raise your hand. In favour are... Councillor Conolly, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon,

Councillor Kotlash and Councillor Calvert. That's one, two, three, four,

Five, six. Is that right?

All those against, please raise your hand. Against is Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Djuric. That's four. So six in favour, four against. I declare it carried, that the motion be put. Before we proceed, Councillor Wheeler had a procedural motion about insertion. Do you want to put that now?

Yes, please. Is there a seconder for that? Councillor Lyons-Buckett. The motion is that all these matters be moved in seriatim. If you're in favour of that, please raise your hand. In favour is Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Conolly , Councillor Djuric and Councillor Zamprogno. Those against? Councillor Sheather. Declare it carried. So it'll be in seriatim. Councillor Lyons-Buckett, you wish to have right of reply? Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. And I'm sorry, Councillor Zamprogno. This, in fact, has happened all through this debate. I was denied the opportunity to speak last time, and in fact I was muted by Councillor Conolly. I think it's very disappointing that people have misunderstood this motion. It is urgent, and the reason it's urgent is because we are powerless to do anything, and this is an attempt to do something. So sit by and watch it happen and see just the damage that this can do. There's the reason for point one is—

Sorry, you've got on mute, Councillor.

I'm sorry. When three people complained about this, they got three different answers from the council, and this is the problem that we have. There isn't an understanding around this code, and there is not proper information to landowners about the tree removal, particularly around Kurrajong and Kurrajong Heights, which have specific provisions. Point one was to collate that material and to get it out to people. But if Councillor Kotlash thinks that's a waste of time, that's fine. So point two, the aim of point two is to collate information to illustrate the lack of correlation between the objective of the code, which is fire mitigation, and the places that are having land cleared. That's building data to feed into the review that the government will do so that they can see that there is a better way to structure criteria.

If the criteria focused on where there was a need for fire mitigation, then that would make sense. So I'm not saying anything around people who clear under the code correctly, but we need to know where the clearing is taking place. And of course, as I said before, we won't anticipate in big numbers because we know that everybody's saying you have to be well resourced, and only well resourced people will do that sort of clearing. Moving on to point three, and thank you, Councillor Wheeler, for adding the additional points. I think I knew there was four ministers that are involved with the review, but I rang Minister Sharpe's office, and apparently it does go in through the Minister of the Environment.

And of course, the minister for the environment is a couple— she has the portfolio of a couple of the ministers who are involved in the review, and I'm still waiting to hear back from them. It's not our code, but it's a code we have to live with. So therefore, I wanted us to take some action to try and get some answers before we have losses that have really detrimental impact. Impacts around in our area. We know how much we have lost already through fires, and we know how much we stand to lose. Anything, if we don't take some action, and let me just say it, there is a perception within the community that things are being covered up here and that things aren't being dealt with. We need to be shown that we are looking after our iconic species, that we are doing our utmost to ensure that threatened species are protected.

And that's what this was all in aim of. Nothing else. Councillor Connelly has, as usual, gone out on a limb and made out as if there was no need for this to be urgent, when the next meeting was going to be five weeks from when I first raised this. That's a long time to wait, and a lot can happen in five weeks. And I did try and raise this as an urgency motion last week, and it would have been over with and dealt with by now, and you wouldn't have had to come back had the Mayor allowed it to be heard at that point. If you want evidence of what happened, I have the emails from the Council saying that this has been done under the Rural Boundary Clearing Code, so I can send those to you if you like, and you'll know that the clearing was done under that.

What we're seeing is that there are a lot of blocks of land— a block of land that's 15 metres by 46 metres and being cleared with 25 metres from each boundary. You're an accountant, Councillor Connelly, you could do the maths on that and see how much vegetation might be left there. So it stands to reason that we do have a big threat on our doorstep, and we hear people over and over again in here say, I couldn't look people in the eye if I didn't do my best to preserve this or do whatever. Well, here we are, we're trying to do something. I'm trying to do it on behalf of the people who have contacted me, on behalf of the people that Mr Grant advocates for, who work tirelessly in organisations like WIRES.

We don't have a koala plan of management that can trigger other legislation to cover our area, and so we have to try and do something. This was going to be a start. I hope it will be supported at least in part, because if we don't progress it forward, we stand to lose the very thing that we then go out to the public to say, this is a drawcard to come to the Hawkesbury.

Thank you. Now, the item is to be moved in seriatim. Can we have the new motion up on the screen, please?

Thank you. And then, if, when everyone votes, if I could get the councillors back on the screen so they can count the votes, please. So can we leave the motion up now until they vote? Okay . First item is item 1, seeking a report on clarifying immediate actions , etc. If you're in favour of that, please raise your hand. In favour of that is Councillor Sam Probner, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, and Councillor Djuric. Against that, please raise your hand. Against is Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Reardon , Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Conolly. Declare that lost. Point 2 is within

The report include a number of complaints, etc. If you're in favour of that, please raise your hand. In favour, Councillor Sam Probner, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Djuric. If you're against that, please raise your hand. Against, Councillor Calvert. Councillor Kotlash , Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheeder, Councillor Connelly declare that lost. Item 3. Receiver report detailing costings, potential funding sources to commence a comprehensive koala management plan. If you're in favour of that, please raise your hand. In favour of that is Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Connelly, Councillor Djuric. If you're against, please raise your hand. Against is Councillor Sheeder. Declare that carried . Item 4.

Update Councillors on the progress of resolution of 8 February about funding for the koala population. If you're in favour of that, please raise your hand. Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Calvert, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Connelly, Councillor Djuric. Those against? Councillor Sheeder. Declare that carried. Item 5, and I'm assuming you're just doing 5 as a unit, not 5A then 5B, unless someone wants to correct me on that. Item 5, which has five parts to it. If you're in favour of item 5, please raise your hand. In favour of item 5 is Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Djuric.

If you're against item 5, please raise your hand. Councillor Calvert, Councillor... Cutlass Councillor Reardon and Councillor Veigel, Councillor Sheather, Councillor Connelly. Declare that lost. I think that is the end of that matter. There was only one item on the agenda tonight, and we have completed that. So thanks for your attendance, and I declare the meeting closed. Thank you.