14 October 2025 - Ordinary

Thank you, councillors.

Welcome this evening and the gallery. Hawkesbury City Council acknowledges the Darug and Dharugan people as the traditional custodians of the land of the Hawkesbury. We pay respect to all elders, past, present and emerging, and acknowledge all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as First People of this country

Members of the public attending the meeting this evening are advised that in the event of an emergency, you will be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit following the guidance of our warden. I'd like to advise that in accordance with clause 5.33 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 and live stream of Council meetings. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary, and if any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting.

The gallery can be seen in the live stream video, and if you do not wish to be recorded in the live stream, please move into the foyer and we will turn the foyer speakers on for you. 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 and uploaded to Council's website. 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 you'll 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. Finally, it is requested that any person participating in or attending the meeting this evening has their mobile phone on them, can you please either turn it off or turn it to silent. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, General Manager.

We have an apology from Councillor Zembrowski. Someone like to move that way?

Councillor Reardon. Councillor Wheeler. Those in favour? Against? Carried.

Confirmation of the minutes. Sorry. Declarations of interest, is there any declarations this evening? Thank you, councillors.

Confirmation of the minutes.

Those in favour? Against? Carried. That was moved by Councillor Creed and seconded by Councillor Reardon.

We have a few exception reports this evening. I'll read them out. It's 10.3.1,

10.3.2, 10.4.2, 10.4.3, 10.4.5, 10.4.7, 10.5.1, 10.5.2, 10.5.4, 11.1.2,

And 15.3.1, 15.3.2, 15.5.1.

Sorry, their attachments.

Yeah, that's right. Would someone like to move? Don't we do speakers first? Sorry?

I thought we did items with speakers first.

Sorry, I missed that, Councillor.

I'm sorry, I thought we did items with speakers first. Yep.

Thank you, Councillor. Should we have —

Now you've read them out, I'm happy to

Move that now. Yep, thank you.

Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Reardon. Those in favour?

Against? It's carried unanimously. It's Councillor Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Veigel, Regan and Sheather.

Subjects to address by public speakers, there's one this evening. It's 12.1.2, inclusion of freeboard with floodplain planning level, and the speaker is Mr Wayne Mitchell.

Wayne, there's five minutes. You'll get a—at four minutes you'll get a buzz. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, councillors. My name is Wayne Mitchell. I'm a local resident and also a member of Council's Floodplain Management Committee. However, I'm speaking tonight as a concerned resident and I'm not representing the Floodplain Committee in any way. Just for background information, I have a professional background in floodplain management, having worked in executive positions at Penrith City Council where I was responsible for development assessment and floodplain management. I'm speaking tonight in support of the rescission motion 12.1.1 to have a freeboard added to the city's flood planning level. This would be achieved by rescinding the previous resolution to defer a decision about this and return to the original substantive motion of the meeting of 29 July, which was to adopt the inclusion of a 0.5 freeboard to Council's existing floodplain planning level.

Just some important background information that I think needs to be considered when talking about this issue. The Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment is well known as one of the most at-risk areas for potential catastrophic flooding in the country because of its unique geology, with such a large catchment area feeding into the narrow gorge around Sackville. A flood has already been recorded of 19.7 metres, and the PMF is estimated to be potentially several metres higher. Hawkesbury City is at the epicentre of this flood risk, where flood heights are at the highest and the most people are at risk. This Council has an enormous responsibility for the safety and resilience of its community. Floods of this significance have happened and will happen again.

For example, the 2022 flood in Lismore was around two metres above their 100-year flood level and well above previous records. This was followed up again this year with the Taree and Mid North Coast floods that were again higher than previous records and above 100-year levels. The Floodplain Committee worked through detailed technical studies and had many presentations and discussions with technical experts over months to develop the draft Hawkesbury-Nepean Flood Risk Study and Plan. The Council subsequently determined not to adopt one of the key recommendations of the study, which was to both raise the flood planning level and to include a freeboard level in it. When that recommendation regarding flood planning levels were deferred from the adopted Risk Management Plan, an alternate proposal was recommended by Council's Floodplain Management Committee to at least add a half a metre freeboard to the current level as an interim position until such time as any New South Wales Government work is completed under the Disaster Action Plan.

Unfortunately, that recommendation was also rejected by Council at its July meeting. I urge the councillors to re-read the report to that meeting that is included again in tonight's business paper as an attachment. Your staff provided a well-researched and detailed report, which I felt was quite conclusive about the need to include an additional half metre to your flood planning level for freeboard purposes. The guiding principles for floodplain management in New South Wales are contained in the Flood Risk Management Manual that was recently updated in 2023. To my knowledge, all versions of this manual since 1984 have recommended a flood planning level that should include a freeboard, considering the variability and uncertainty involved in setting flood levels.

A quote from Council's own risk management study includes the following statement: The freeboard can be considered as a compulsory safety factor used to provide reasonable certainty that the reduced flood risk exposure provided by the selection of a particular flood as a basis for flood planning level is provided, giving the following factors: uncertainty in estimating levels, determining flood inputs, differences in water levels because of factors such as water surge due to localised blockages or vehicles moving through water, wave action as a result of vehicles and wind, the cumulative effect of infill development. I don't know of any other council in the Sydney region that does not include a freeboard safety margin in its flood planning level controls.

I listened to the debate at your previous meetings, and I did not hear any reasonable reason for not including a freeboard provision. Council's flood planning levels are completely irrelevant to insurance coverage in the area. The insurance industry has stated on numerous occasions that they make the decisions based on actual flood risk, which is determined by many factors, primarily flood studies and flood data. Flood planning controls do not sterilise land from development; they protect the community from future flood events and ensure buildings are more resilient to flooding. Your focus should be on implementing Updating your planning controls so residents below a flood planning level have greater certainty.

And finally, I always like to refer to guiding principles of key government documents. One of the key principles of the Floodplain Risk Manual for local government is to both think and act strategically. Ignoring technical experts' advice and keeping flood planning levels at dangerously low levels is certainly not thinking or acting strategically. Thank you. Thank you.

Councillor Kotlash, are you happy to answer questions? I'd be happy, Mr Mayor. Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Wayne, and I'd just like to say

A really big thank you for the work that you have done on the Floodplain Committee and fronting up to talk to us tonight. I think that shows that you obviously care deeply about this issue and it's obvious that you have, you know what you're talking about. My question to you is, there's been a lot of talk about the insurance industry using the planning instruments to assess insurance risk, but would you agree that the freeboard is variable, so they wouldn't know how to use it anyway? I mean, that's the nature of freeboard, isn't it? It's the uncertainty, the extra uncertainty. So an insurance company couldn't use that anyway, could they?

They've repeatedly said at flood conferences, at briefings to councillors, that they don't use the flood planning level to determine their insurance risk. They do use flood studies, and there's been numerous studies, the recent one by the state government. It's publicly available. Many of the insurance companies do their own detailed flood studies.

They

Base their risk on actual flood data and flood modelling, not on flood planning levels, and that's been repeated previously. The flood planning level is to guide your planning decisions to make sure your buildings are both designed and built appropriately in appropriate areas. It also guides advice to you give to your community when purchasing properties. It's a fundamental basis of your planning work around keeping your community safe from flooding.

Councillor Ryan. Yes, Mr Mitchell. We had some questions and some advice in relation to indemnity and that with Council, and councillors, if we don't accept these levels, you've got a lot of knowledge in that area. What is your opinion on that issue?

I have read the council report that gave advice about council's risk and potential lack of indemnity. I believe that you've now had two detailed

Technical flood risk management studies and plans that have been developed by leading experts in the field that are repeatedly used by both the state government and local government throughout the state. They have all said, given you advice about what you need to do, and the indemnity under the Local Government Act is you follow best practice, you follow advice, and if you don't follow that advice, that leaves you open to risk, liability. And by not following the advice in good faith, I think you have potentially opened yourself up to liability. And my reading of that legal advice you had... Certainly could be interpreted that way.

Thank you for that. Appreciate that.

Mark, during the discussions of the floodplain management, we were given the briefing by the consultant that said we were going to have a rise in the river of one brick, in my recall, a year, that would give us a height in 2030 of between 300 and 400 millimetres at Windsor. Do you remember that?

I remember the discussion about rising levels due to climate change and the rainfall data that's being provided by government, yes.

Do you know that we're four years off being 2030. Do you know if there's any significant rise in the river at this stage?

I think a lot of that is there's ongoing detailed research and investigation about rainfall and climate data and climate change. All of that data seems to be pointing to changing weather patterns, more intense rainfall, different rainfall patterns. There's just so much uncertainty about that. That's why, again, back to the floodplain manual, it talks about a one in 100 level isn't locked in stone. That's just a general guide. Catchments that have greater risk should consider different levels, and that was both the advice of the consultant, but also based on their knowledge of current and emerging rainfall data that your current 100-year level will... will become what is currently the 200-year level within five years. So that was the expert's advice that was given to the committee.

Yep. That advice is probably a couple of years old now. Do you know of any other councils prior to that that adopted a different level to a 1% flood for their building standard?

I don't, no. But that was, again, other councils have different freeboard levels as well. Again, it's all—you can't have one consistent level for every council. You've got to look at the risks and the individual catchment before you can make that consideration. Thanks for the

Input. Appreciate it.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett, your motion.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll move the rescission motion. Second. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Second.

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

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. There's no need to leave the issue about the freeboard until later. This rescission motion is an appeal to this chamber to act in accordance with best practice, to act in accordance with legal advice, with advice from multiple studies, to implement a control which every other council has. All our neighbouring councils, the Northern Rivers Council, it's standard. It's always, for some reason, been resisted in this council, and I don't really know why, because I would have thought that everybody's ultimate desire is to have a safer community. So this is an appeal to overturn the freeboard. It was deferred on the basis that it would be part of the land use planning that's being done in conjunction with the disaster adaptation plan.

So the guidelines for that were released after that decision was taken in July, and it's quite clear from those that the freeboard isn't a part of what will be being looked at. And the understanding, of course, of freeboard is that it just goes attached to your flood planning level. So if the flood planning level changes, we would have a freeboard already in existence. It's something that is part of that. It's a shame that we seem, with flooding in this council, to be always waiting and waiting and waiting. We're always waiting for another study or another report. Whereas we, as councillors, have an obligation to implement anything to our planning controls which can make it safer and reduce the risk.

We just heard Mr Mitchell speak about the insurance council, the insurance industry. They do not use the flood planning level for determining insurance premiums, despite what's been said often in here, and I've got another motion about that later. But it's about safety and about acting in accordance with what experts are telling us. So if we introduce a mechanism like this, it allows the buildings that are being built to cope with anything that is out of the ordinary. And we all know the changes in flood behaviour are quite extreme. We're seeing things happen, and if anyone's been listening. To the inquest into the deaths in the Eugowra floods, you will be hearing just exactly how important it is to be doing the maximum to keep the community safe in which we live.

I don't want to ever see our council in a coroner's court because of something. We just simply have to do what experts are telling us and act in accordance with what best practice is. And there's so many. I have got so many documents and things here that are all telling us the same thing, include the freeboard to cater for those uncertainties that can occur during flooding. We, I just don't know why we're not listening to the experts. It's a best practice tool. Everyone else has it. We have some resistance to it. Don't understand that. I just, I have so much to say, and I know that I'm going to run out of time, so I'm trying to scramble to see what I can say in the time. We've seen just the differences of these unprecedented flood events.

So we saw a one in 500 flood in Taree. Now the freeboard, having a freeboard may not stop- Housing getting damaged in a big flood like that. But at least we will know we've taken every step open to us to make it as safe as possible. If we haven't, then we're going to potentially have problems with liability because we haven't acted in accordance with expert advice, and we've seen what the legal advice says on that front. We also saw massive floods in Taree, in Texas. The one in Texas was horrific. We saw that happening when they did not adhere to, you know, what expert flood advice was. So a freeboard won't necessarily, in and of itself, save lives. But what we'll be doing is we can be making a safer floodplain for the existing people who are in there now and for the people who are going to build in there in the future.

And it doesn't mean there's no development there or that people can't do things. It's just that what we will require people to do will be done as safely as possible and give them a bit of breathing space for when any uncertainties come that come with flooding. And in the last floods we've even seen here the really intense rainfall, which can make things rise so quickly. We've seen the river running a different way to what it normally does. And I knew I'd go out of time. I should have practiced five minutes. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I just want to pick up on something that you said in a question to Mr Mitchell. The exact piece of information regarding river heights and the impact of climate change was, from my memory, one course of bricks every three years. And just so that people are clear, it's a rise in flood height, not a rise in the river height. The rise in the river height is obviously Much more variable throughout the seasons. I think it's, I think the thing that we have to really keep in mind is that no other LGA in New South Wales, in fact no other LGA in Australia, has our level of flood risk. The national emergency management agency's land use guidelines that were released in December last year state that the flood planning level should be selected based on flood level plus freeboard.

It should take into account flood behaviour, risk to life and property, economic and financial factors, social, cultural and ecological factors, and it should consider the frequency and consequences and the severity of flooding. Freeboard allows for uncertainty, wave threat, local A-flux, all the things that we know are particularly complicated with our section of the Hawkesbury-Nepean, primarily due to the multiple tributaries and the bathtub effect that occurs due to the pinch point at Sackville.

The land use guidelines state that a 1% flood planning level is only acceptable if it's also accompanied by a suite of other measures such as building controls which can reduce property losses and adequate evacuation procedures.

We

Don't have either. And I remind councillors of the presentation that we received from the state government about evacuations. And for those not present at the briefing, we were told no matter how we model evacuation, we cannot get everyone out in a large flood. We can only change who drowns first. We can only change who drowns first. These are the decisions that we are called upon to deal with in this chamber. Ignoring uncertainty is not best practice. Duty of care obligations require us to deal with best practice recommendations from experts. The new liability legislation in the EP&A Act amendments in 2023 state that new liability requires us to have acted in good faith and substantially in accordance with the principles contained in the floodplain manual.

We must substantially comply to give ourselves the best possible statutory protection from civil liability. There are a variety of relevant principles laid out in that manual, and I refer you specifically to principles 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10. Understand flood behaviour and constraints. Understand flood risk and how it may change. Understand variability and uncertainty. Manage flood risk effectively, and continually improve the management of flood risk. We haven't done this. We have instead hoped that the state government might do something, might raise the dam wall, might bring in a DAP, might fix evacuation routes. We have not acted in good faith, and we are therefore not protected from legal liability.

What's worse is the community that we have been elected to represent aren't protected either.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

I'm supporting this rescission motion, and I won't go over the points I made when we first were— Trying to determine this item in July . Well , what I want to say is that because we have so much evidence to say that having a freeboard, irrespective of whether it's attached to a one in 100 or a one in 200, is that it doesn't— there is so much evidence to suggest we need one. I want the people in this chamber who don't think it's a good idea to have this freeboard to give very precise and referenced evidence why they would vote against this. I just want— I want to hear that because I can't find anything that suggests it's not a good idea. There's just nothing out there. There's no uncertainty.

I mean, there's nothing out there to suggest. So, so we're very clear that this is not being used as a bit of political argy-bargy. I want to hear the reasons people do not want freeboard attached to this. I agree with everything that Councillor Lyons-Buckett and Councillor Wheeler have said on this. This is our responsibility. The buck stops with us. Now, I throw it over to my colleagues who don't think this is a good idea. Please tell me why.

Thank you, Councillor.

We have a different opinion, Councillor, and I'll try and explain why. There's 767 properties that are affected by Lifton by half a metre. There's 21 properties undeveloped. 21. So whatever we think we're going to save, and it's... we're talking about building matters, so , and that's what, we're not talking about evacuation or anything else. These properties are already there. There's 21 that aren't built. So we can put building restrictions on them in relation to the type of building they are, the height, all that sort of stuff.

So money-wise, we can make a difference to whoever decides to develop that property. When it comes to evacuation , it's a different story. Those properties are already there. And the argument's the same that I spoke of in relation to lifting the floodplain level up. The evacuation of those people are already there. We lift it up, it's going to make no difference. If we're told to evacuate, if we're not told at nine metres, Councillor Wheeler's right, you won't get out.

Luckily, over more recent years, the Weather Bureau has got a much better handle on forecast, and we're going to have to rely on that quite a bit.

In relation to insurance,

I've been involved for nearly 50 years in relation to flooding in the city. I've been involved in early SESs. I've been involved in most of the studies. I've sat on floodplain committees nearly every year that I've been on this council, which is 20 years. I do know a little bit about flooding. And the professional advice that's been given to us and presented by the government. There's a bloke called Flanagan, and it was posted how we were going to have quite a catastrophe. Now they don't talk to him.

There's different people with different opinions. And in relation to insurance, the insurance company used to support the raising of Warragamba Dam. What we have now is the insurance company that, as an obligation to their shareholders, not the people they insure, their shareholders. If you ask people that sell insurance rather than the insurance company, you'll get a different view to the Insurance Council of Australia. And I've spoke to them at length over many years. I've heard them change their mind. I don't know why they changed their mind and the like. And in relation to information they're given, where do you think they get it from? It's from councils, from governments. When they say they do their own studies, they certainly do, and they do it off our back and government's back. Whatever information we go out there, they use it, and if they don't, they're fools.

You're right, Councillor.

Sorry, it's a hay fever, not an infectious illness.

So, if there was a

Situation that, and like I said, I've argued flooding for many years, and I guess that with... With insurance , I can tell you what the practical side is because I get phone calls every week about what the insurance companies are doing around the world today. And there's only about three major insurance companies; all the rest are subsidiaries. But people at 17 metres in our city now are finding it hard to get insurance because we've been chucking around this for a while. The state government, they want to lift it even higher than what we do. So, councillors, I know some of you are passionate about it. I've been around a long time, and I'm yet to be convinced. And I've sat alongside people like Wayne Mitchell in the past, and I don't discredit one minute of the comments he made. I see it from a different point of view, and I'm prepared to stick by that view.

Any other councillors?

Councillor Wines-Bucket. Right of reply.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm sorry other councillors didn't take up Councillor Kotlash's offer because I do think it's important if people oppose this that the community knows why. I mean, maybe everyone's supporting it. I don't know. Nobody else has spoken. But to oppose it and not give reasons is not very suitable in this situation, in my opinion. And I think Councillor Kotlash's call—I respect that you have an opinion, Mr Mayor. I disagree with it wholeheartedly. But — I think that, well , let's just see if we can get it through and deal with the substantive motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillors

The motion before you is on page 161, and it's a rescission motion on the top of the page. Those in favour of the rescission?

Councillor Weir, Councillor Buckett, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Kotlash. Those against?

Councillor McMahon, Councillor Djuric, Councillor Creek, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Reardon, Councillor Sheather. The motion is lost.

Councillors, the next item we have is 10.3.3.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Do we have a mover,

Councillor? I'll move that way, Mr Mayor. Thank you, Councillor

Wheeler. Councillor Kotlash.

I'll speak to it, if you'd like, Mr Mayor, while we wait for Councillor Lyons-Buckett to recover.

Thank you, Councillor

I think this is a really useful document. It's very much a snapshot in time. There's a lot of information in here about areas that we need to focus on. So, particularly around access to affordable and sustainable housing, I would add access to diverse housing. We have a lot of four-bedroom , three-four-bedroom houses on relatively large blocks. We have a paucity of smaller, accessible housing that suits both retirees and people starting out and people with smaller families. The access to both affordable and sustainable housing is linked. Unsustainable housing is never affordable, and it's particularly long-term. Housing, and I would also argue that housing one and a half hours from the CBD for people who need to work in the city and in a ring isn't ever affordable either.

You might afford the house, but you won't afford to live in the house with all the additional costs of commuting and extra long day care, the convenience food that you eat, the additional childcare, all of that stuff, the extra car, the tolls, the petrol.

One of the things that we also see in this report is the impact of neighbourhoods that are poorly planned for active transport, and that is likely to worsen with increased development west of the river. The more we sprawl, the harder it is for people to get around without one car per person. And we see that in all of our towns where, as soon as kids are old enough, they've got a car, both parents have a car. So you see, where I live in Wilberforce, which is relatively close to services, you still see one car at least per adult. And then that puts additional impacts on our roads, parking, how our neighbourhoods function.

What we've got outlined here is a great suite of policies, but these need to be funded: greening, culture, access and inclusion, net zero policies. These aren't luxuries. These are important. We also see growing wealth divide, increased rental stress, the fact that we are highly dependent on both electricity and cars, that it's hotter here, and I think that probably adds to some of our power bills. We are far more disaster prone, as we well know. And then some of our towns have less than 10% tree cover. That's a damning indictment. We have 22,000 flood-prone properties and nearly 7,500 properties at a Category 1 risk of bushfire. One of the things that's interesting, I think, in this is the idea of redundancies.

This is where you have more than one thing performing a really important function. This is how, in the natural world, things survive. This is really resilient ecosystems have, really resilient organisms have redundancy built into their system. It's how the human genetic code works. We have to make sure that we have redundancies. We don't have all our eggs in one basket, that we're not relying on, and we've got multiple areas of vulnerability where we don't have that redundancy. Our single power line, our single power point across the river is one of those vulnerabilities. These redundancies, which should run from every level of our operations, from the smallest to the most important, are the opposite of simplistic neoliberal economic thinking.

And so they're hard to fund. They're hard to push.

In the section on perception of stress, I think there's some really important things here. 78% of people here are concerned about food security. 71% are concerned about access to health, and 83% are concerned about poor physical and mental health. We really need to talk about these things. I'd really like us to have a discussion about the suggestion of a community adaptation plan, and I'd like that explored via a workshop. One of the things that isn't mentioned in this is the growing racism in this LGA that is going to be an increasing problem as we see further diversity here. We need to measure everything against these directions. I think they're more detailed, more relevant and more important than the CSP, and I'd like this document in front of us every time we're making decisions. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor.

Any further discussion?

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just a quick question. Is this policy or report, is it a mandatory document by the state government that we put this strategy together?

Could you give a background, General Manager?

Sorry, through you, Mr Mayor. No, it's not a mandatory requirement.

Could I just get the background on why we did it? And the only reason I'm asking is, if possible, to come to a briefing or a workshop, a bit of a table of the policies that we have as a council, what are mandatory in terms of state government compulsory policies that we have to have, and what is discretionary. So, and then again, why something like this was something that we decided to invest in, and was it done in-house or externally?

Through you, Mr Mayor, if I'm recalling correctly, I'm just trying to find it in the report. The resilience strategy was born out of a council resolution , I think, from back in, it was quite some time ago, 2017, something in that era, I thought. Is that

Right? Yeah , it

Was quite some time ago, born out of that. And I must say, entirely consistent with a number of councils, most councils actually, who have been preparing these resilience strategies. And over the years, over the intervening years, there's different philosophies on resilience plans, and obviously ours... Got parked somewhat for the last couple of years while we were dealing with those acute challenges of natural disasters. And so we're now in a place to start to finalise the document and move it forward.

Councillor Creed. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just a question, just to go off the Deputy Mayor's inquiry . I understand that some of these reports are either Council, the Chambers ask for them to come back, and then we also have the mandated State Government policies that we have to put in place. I'm just a little concerned because we seem to have a lot of reports coming up lately and, you know, we're talking about budgets and money and all that sort of stuff. I'm just concerned that there's a lot of money going into the reports, whether it's staff time, consultants or that sort of stuff. I just could ask that we get the Deputy Mayor suggested perhaps a workshop or a briefing just on what's left on the table and how much it's actually costing us to put all these together, the ones that are mandatory versus also the ones that we're putting up as councillors or staff. Thank you.

Yeah, thanks, Councillor. If there's a need for a briefing on it, otherwise the General Manager will notify. Yeah

I'm just concerned. We've seen other council areas doing it and we've seen it happen here in the past. We do these fantastic reports, a lot of detailed information, and we pass them at a council meeting, and then potentially they sit on the top shelf. That's all. I just want to make sure that if we're doing this and we're investing in these things, that we're actually using them. Otherwise, if we're not using them and they sit on a shelf, then we shouldn't be wasting the money on it. That's all. The General Manager answer the question there.

Through you, Mr Mayor, absolutely. I think the Council has spent a considerable effort over the last couple of years, what I would say breaking the back of the strategy gaps that this organisation had. And so we are on the tail end of that. What I'd be pleased to sort of present up to Council is what are those remnant pieces that we haven't yet finalised. I empathise and share, I guess, the strategy fatigue, perhaps of which the Chamber perhaps is experiencing, I don't know. But what we have been very, very careful to do, certainly over the last 12 to 18 months, is to make sure that all of these strategies are integrated. So you will see that the suite of documents you have before you tonight are all very carefully cross-referencing out across each other.

So the resilience plan, for example, the reconciliation action plan, they are all cross-referencing each other. So where you may have a suite of actions, they are not necessarily new or additional actions. What we are doing is bringing those into a cohesive strategic lens. Okay,

Thank you.

Councillor. Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. I'd just like to give a shout-out to the authors because you did put a couple of paragraphs about the cold. So who did that? Thank you, because the first draft we saw it was all about heat, now it's much more balanced. So just from my point,

Thank you.

No, it's not the point. It's just more people die of hypothermia than what they do with heat stress, and that's the reason why it was raised beforehand.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Apologies for my coughing. I have a hay fever thing which gives me the bubbling in my throat. Sorry, I just thought I'd explain. Well, I haven't got COVID or anything, so it'd be a good way to clear the chamber, I suppose. I'm very pleased to see this report come, and with regard to what Councillor Creed just said, this is something that is sort of necessary to embed in all aspects of our organisation. I think that our policies and our decisions all have to have this embedded within it, and I guess this is the point of getting this whole suite of strategies so that they can all be a part of when we make decisions. And I was very pleased to see such extensive community engagement on this strategy, which is really important to see.

I think Councillor Wheeler may have been discussing it when I was out of the room, but I also noted the issues around lack of public transport, which is something that I think that as a council we could really get on board and start advocating again. We have a real deficit in it, and it impacts us in several ways. It's a frequent request that I get, especially from young people, and it has been for decades. And we know the limitations it puts on people around the place, especially young people accessing employment and social events and so on. And the flip side of the lack of public transport is the high car ownership, which leads in itself to congestion and also to higher emissions. So I think as a council we do have more we could do in terms of advocating for public transport options, especially for our outlying areas.

It was good to see the New South Wales Reconstruction Authority has basically endorsed this, and that the SES gave feedback which was really valuable and strengthened the strategy overall. So the 10 priority actions are all actions that really can strengthen our community, and I hope we see those all carried out. The snapshot of the Hawkesbury, which was on page 26, I think it really showed how vulnerable we actually are, and we know we are vulnerable. It also shows how many precious things we have in this area in terms of bushland and wetlands, and what high energy users we are, but also high in taking up solar, and just how much we need actions such as the introduction of FOGO to reduce emissions because of that high content of food and organic waste going out in our red bins, in our usual bins.

So it's built around the Resilient Cities Framework, I note, and I think this is all really great about building a stronger community. But I think when we're taking decisions, we need to be asking ourselves, are we achieving the things that are in our strategies? And obviously, we are not always abiding with our strategies or with best practice or other things, but we need to learn how to do that better, how to see how our strategies and policies are integrated and how they will end up allowing us to carry out the function of building stronger communities that can show us how they can lead us with their initiatives. So in a sense, this strategy is actually supporting the community in many of the initiatives they lead us in, and I think that's a wonderful thing to have, and I'll be glad to see it adopted.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Creed. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just quickly, just to clarify, I was just talking about the fact that in previous terms, I think when I was last on with Councillor Lyons-Buckett, we saw things that reports that would come up and we'd spend all this time and effort into it, and then it ended up— Essentially sitting in the bottom drawer of a top shelf and would never be used. So it is good to see that. The staff are integrating all these reports and actually making it a part of our decision-making process. I just wanted to talk about the issue that Councillor Lyons-Buckett just raised about the public transport. I think she's correct in saying that we, as a chamber at least, could be actually working together to lobbying the state government, and I would say this, in case I get in trouble for saying this political bias, I would say this if there was a Liberal government or a Labor government, because they're responsible for public transport, and I think we, as a council, should actually be taking up that role of trying to encourage more services out here.

My issue is that the state bureaucrats will turn around and go, Oh, not enough people will use it, so therefore we cannot justify increasing public transport services, and they'll say that about other things, ambulance stations, all that sort of stuff. But I think we, as a council, need to work with the community and actually show the state government that yes, we will use it, but we actually need them to put it in place. So those sorts of things I think we can do as a council. We don't have any say, but we can definitely advocate on behalf of the community towards the state government and speak to the local state member. But otherwise this is a very good document. The amount of information in there, I mean this was something, let me just find it, Councillor Lyons-Buckett just mentioned it, but page 25, it just gives you such a good snapshot of our community and the fact that we have a higher proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Hawkesbury LGA compared to Greater Sydney.

You know, 6% of our population compared to Greater Sydney, which is only 5%, are people who need assistance due to disability. So I think that sort of information is quite good for councillors and staff when they are making their decisions around the future of the council and what we need in this area. So I think this document is extremely well put together, so thank you. Thank you, Councillor.

Any further debate?

Councillor Wheeler, right of reply.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I think a couple of things that I just want to emphasise. I want to particularly comment on the, or particularly draw note to the comments and the contributions from the New South Wales SES in reviewing this plan . There are some really excellent suggestions in here and questions around who has been considered and who gave input. And I think that's one of the things that I learnt very early after I was elected, that the question that should be asked whenever we review anything is who isn't here? Who has missed out on having a say in the discussion? And I think the contribution from the SES, where they talk about whether we have First Nations voices, whether we have aged care and disability providers, they're really useful things for us to look at when we consider who factors in these resilience spaces. Because when we design for people

Who are already resilient, we miss information. When we design for the status quo or based on what we've already done, we don't learn, we don't improve, we don't incorporate knowledge like First Nations knowledge that has been here for thousands of years and contributes to different ways of dealing. When we look at economic resilience, but we miss the scientific evidence around what makes a resilient... place . And I've referred previously to redundancy. That's not popular in economic circles, but it's fundamental when you look at biological systems. Then bringing all of those things together gives you a much more rounded and therefore a much more resilient picture. The question for us, I think, as a chamber, is what do we do with this now?

Do we stick it in the drawer? Do we tick the box and say, right, well, that's, yeah, we've cleared that? Or do we embed this into everything that we do going forward? And I think that has to be the answer to this. What I'd like to see now is a discussion of how we activate and fund this document. And I'd like that to happen before we get to the budget discussions where we're picking things out of the budget. I'd like this to be an optimistic discussion about what we might put in or what we might prioritise, rather than one of those discussions where we go, look, that's just too hard this week, or, you know, that's, we've got to fix whatever . You know, this needs to be the basis of our operations because this is about the people who live here and what makes their lives better.

Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor. The motion is on page 35, 10.3.2. Those in favour?

Those against? It's unanimous, the yes vote. It's Councillor Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Veigel, Reardon and Sheather. The motion's carried.

The next item we have is 10.3.4. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

I'll move that, Mr Mayor. I'll

Second it, thanks,

Mr Mayor

Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm happy to see this finally here and ready to go out on exhibition. It's been a long time coming, a resolution of May 2017. That is a long time. But we welcome the public feedback on this document. There's clearly a misunderstanding within the community about the objective of what a reconciliation action plan actually is, and it would be good for people to know they can read it and try and understand what the objective of it is. Just briefly, it's about how we engage with First Nations people in our community, as an organisation, how Council engages with people, and what actions we can take to better support understanding and engagement with our local Indigenous community.

So as it identifies in the plan, we have an existing good relationship, but we can all do more in terms of better understanding culture and history and incorporating that into our organisation in a positive way. Our various strategic documents promote the introduction of increased opportunities to strengthen our relationships in that way. And as it is pointed out, there are a few costs to implement the first and second years. They are minimal costs, and the staff resources will be allocated in conjunction with other work plans. It's been great, and some of these are outlined in the plan, the great works and projects that we've already done in collaboration with our local Dharug people, such as the tree planting in Macquarie Park, the various exhibitions that have been held at the gallery and in the museum, which have been totally amazing.

The recent opening of the garden at the museum was a wonderful event to attend, and it's a beautiful space for people to go and reflect in and utilise. And all of these things add so much to our cultural fabric. We're very lucky to have such a generous local Dharug community willing to share their knowledge, stories and experiences with us. Many of those recollections, I imagine, are quite traumatic for them to recall. And so I'm extremely grateful as an individual, and I think we should be as an organisation, for their generosity towards us. Through the RAP, we can look at what opportunities may arise for future collaborations or to incorporate some specific local Indigenous aspect or knowledge, to enrich an event or to gain knowledge about the land on which we live.

Our First Peoples have such incredible knowledge and connection to the lands where we live, and there's so many areas where we could utilise that and make use of the knowledge that they share, and I hope we'll see that increase over time. The plan itself gives a timeline by which we can move to strengthen the relationship the council's already built, and I hope that this will be a positive plan, that we will see the actions in there being implemented. And I'm just very grateful that Reconciliation Australia finally decided to give us a tick to proceed to this level. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Creed. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Sorry, just through you to the staff. I'm just trying to find it, a couple of questions. On page 16, action 2 and the deliverable, it says deliver one internal NRW. What's NRW?

I can't remember if we

Sorry Oh,

National Reconciliation Week. Okay, no worries. And then, sorry, just, I'm just trying to find the other bit.

Sorry, maybe someone can help me. I'm just trying to find the bit about employment and contracting and that. Oh, sorry, is it Pillar 3 or is it Pillar 2, opportunities, is it? So I just wanted to clarify

The action one, and I think it's the second deliverable, review and update procurement practices to remove barriers to procuring goods and services from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander businesses. So I just want to confirm, do we have current barriers in place in this council?

I mean, I...

Through you, Mr. Mayor, as I understand it, there are no current barriers. However, this action in itself invites us to ensure that there are no barriers, and if so, review and update.

Okay, because I mean, you know, normal workplace thing, it's illegal to have any barriers. So I just found that wording a bit odd, that's all. The other thing I just wanted to, I think it's , sorry, I'm just trying to find it. I did mark it, but now I can't see where I marked it. Just with employment,

I just want to make sure that we're not , I don't know how to put the word, dividing so like a block sticking for certain groups or anything like that, because some people have raised it with me. And for me personally, like as an openly gay man, like I would not want And a box ticking thing for me or people of my community. So I just want to make sure that we're not going down that path because that's all, regardless of whether it's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, straight versus gay. I don't want any of that. I want to make sure that this is about inclusivity and equality across the board and making sure that we treat everybody, regardless of their race, sexuality, gender, equally. That's all. I know it's an internal document, so I'm just asking those questions. Through you

Mr Mayor, as I understand it, there'd be legislative protections in relation to those forms of discrimination, from what of the better description. Okay

No worries. Thank you. That's all I wanted to know.

Any further debate? Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I agree with Councillor Lyons-Buckett that this is a very long time coming, and I'm very pleased to see that we're at this point. I want to thank the Darug and Darkinjung community members for their patience and commitment to this process. Didgerigorat, this has been a really long run. I want to highlight Aunty Edna Watson's words and artwork on page three. It shows so powerfully the meeting of two men, Governor Phillip and Yarramundi, one with power and weapons and one with a deep connection to the land, and a connection that's still maintained in a direct line through Aunty Edna. In fact, the descendants of Yarramundi are in this room tonight. The challenge that faced them still faces us now. They are Auntie Edna's words,

And without recognition, there can be no respect. That's what this RAP aims to do. It aims to recognise where we have come from as a place . It's our turn for recognition and truth telling, and to ensure that Council conducts our dealings with respect, respect for what has come before us. We have here the remnants of the early colony that are all around us, and we're proud of this history. But we also have the remnants of first contact all around us, and we have to be truthful about the impacts of that. And those impacts are devastating for members of the First Nations community: life expectancy gap of more than eight years, increased low birth weight and preterm babies, increased developmental delays, greater educational disadvantage, under-representation in tertiary education, underemployment, crowded housing, incarceration at 15 times the non-Indigenous rate, and I could go on and on.

These are not the fault of First Nations people. These are the impacts of colonisation, and it behoves all of us to take responsibility for that and to do something. About making that better. Councillor Creed has raised a couple of things in here, and I note that publicly people have raised concerns that this document will be giving basically greater advantage to First Nations people. What we know about equality, and we know this about equality for everybody, it

Sometimes requires targeted actions. That doesn't mean that some people get more than other people. It doesn't mean that some people are advantaged over other people. What it means is that their disadvantage is lessened, and that's where this document comes in from a councillor perspective.

In the gallery, please, I'd like to hear what Councillor Wheeler is saying. Sorry

Councillor, I didn't hear any of that.

Thank you.

Carry on, Councillor.

So when we look at deliverables like advertised job vacancies to effectively reach Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander stakeholders, that's targeted advertising at those stakeholders so that they know that there's a job that they might be ideally suited to. That's not—they still have to meet all the employment criteria. They still have to tick all the boxes that everybody else ticks. It's just that we're reaching out that little bit better to access those people, and that's good for us as well as being good for them, because we get diversity and redundancy in our systems, like we talked about in the resilience plan. That's how we achieve this.

We’ve got First Nations history all around us, and the ongoing and reviving art and language and culture happening all around us. Together, we can all share and be proud of the history of this place, around this river held by the land that we all love. This RAP is an act of generosity and hope, and we need to make it a reality. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else?

Councillor

Creed. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Just to clarify, I think Councillor Willer, for her questions, my questions that were raised were questions that have been raised to me. I actually don’t have an issue with this document. I think it’s fine. It’s an internal document. My issues, when I was talking about the fact that we need to make sure everybody has equal opportunity, and it wasn’t about the fact that some groups are more disadvantaged than others. I wouldn’t say that I’m, because I’m a gay person, that I’m more disadvantaged, but I’ve had my own issues. So I do understand what the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are going through. So I think it’s a good document, and I don’t think we should be too scared of it. It’s just going out for public exhibition anyway, and if there’s no submissions, it’ll be adopted from what I saw in the recommendations. So thanks. Councillor Veigel.

Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. I welcome the document too. I know the last time we debated some of those issues, I think Melissa Stubbings was in the— and she made a pithy address. And I know Erin quite well. I know there was an open invitation: if you don’t know, then come and ask us. So you kind of beat me to the punch tonight, but I was thinking of you both like yesterday. Since I'm newly retired, I've got a bit more time at my, so I will be coming down and getting perspective because I need to learn more. I'd have to say to you, since—

Excuse me a moment, the phone's going off behind me. Are we okay now? Yeah. Okay. Many years ago when I was going out with somebody, she was doing social work, she asked me to help her do an essay about, I suppose, Aboriginal community and what the land meant to them. I get that the land means a lot to you. I know you're one with them, but it's been a few years since I've had some of those discussions anyway, so if it's all right with you, I'll make a telephone call and I'll find you. If I'm allowed to pay the coffee without having to put a pecuniary interest in, I will. But, thank you. Okay, Tom. Thank you, Councillor.

Deputy Mayor . Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just, it's not really a point of order for anyone or anything in particular. I just wanted to put on the record I feel a little bit uncomfortable with our so-called local media just positioning themselves next to our staff who now can't work on their confidential documents because I'm watching the so-called local media consistently look at his work, and I think that's an invasion of our staff's privacy, and the fact that the seats were seized as soon as our other staff moved up there without the courtesy of allowing them to come back to their seats, and also not respecting the protocol of this chamber by consistently talking and having their mobile phone on. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Yeah,

Thank you. The invite come from Councillor Creed. Thank you. Is there an issue with our staff doing anything that's

Yes

The staff are entitled to perform their duties confidentially

Mr Mayor. Could I ask you to move back to the wall, please

Is that? Yep. As soon as our staff leave, the table will be available

Councillors, I've got concerns about the document, but most of you have known me a long time. You know my views. I stood on a ticket about collaboration and cooperation , and about fairness across the board to everybody . And I would stand that ground for anybody . This morning, the General Manager and I had a discussion about procurement,

And on page 23, one of the pillars, three opportunities, one of the actions is to review and update procurement practice to remove barriers to procure goods and services from Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander businesses and the like. And when I read that, it frustrated me a bit because we're here to serve the public across the board. And in the main, I think we do—well, we try and do a good job.

But if we're going to update and review procedures, I would hope that we do it for everybody.

And I've got heaps of other stuff in the document that's similar, and I'm going to spend a bit of time with the staff before this comes back to Council, because the last thing that I want to do is create the very thing that that document is trying to achieve

In saying that, there's only three areas in the Hawkesbury, I think, that I'm aware of where we recognise our Aboriginal community at all. One's at Sackville. I grew up there, climbing amongst the rocks and the trees, and the very tree that grows over the rock alongside the monument, the Seer . The other one was Aunty Edna put a rock in Governor Phillip Park. I was part of that too. And the other one is at Barranjo Creek at Pitt Town, and I did the concrete around that.

So I don't speak tonight with hostility or anything else. It's about collaboration and understanding. The

Aboriginal community that I've been involved with for over 50 years in this community, I can't remember ever remember even a nil word said. And to have a document that puts in place a particular direction rather than an attitude, and there's people in our community that do have different views, and we need to be mindful of that, because the very thing we're trying to achieve is a reconciliation amongst an important part of our community, and not to do that well. And I know the work that's put in by our staff. But when it was originally proposed, there was a councillor involved in that. When it was ramped up again after COVID, that didn't happen. And I'm not suggesting for one second, because I know the staff involved, that they didn't work hard at that.

But again, we represent the community here. And I feel that it's important that one of us sitting around here should have been part of that. So, councillors, I'm just saying that I want a balance for our community. I want a fair arrangement with everyone. And I'm sure that I'll have discussion with our community and our staff about the document before it comes back to council again.

Councillor

Oh, sorry. Was it you ? I think I got a bit. .. Councillor

Did you speak earlier? No. Sorry. Sorry

No, I did not, and I have a witness.

Sorry.

Sorry. I'll creep away

From..

With due respect, Mr Mayor, what I'm hearing you say is that you have particular personal views of how this document, why this document, why we have this document, and how we use this document. I don't think it is appropriate. For you to go and discuss with staff how your personal views might shape this. You are the head of our council

And I respect that. I don't want you to go and negotiate changes because you have those views and you've been around a long time and you think that those views are reflective of the council. So that's just where that landed with me

Councillor, just to clarify, the discussion that I would have with staff was not to influence the outcome of any changes, but to understand exactly what the intent was with some of the attitudes that was in the document

That's the same thing. The reason we have, well, in my take on this, is that we need a mechanism, we need a plan, we need a—and I wouldn't call this an internal document. I want this to be a document for everybody in the Hawkesbury— that is a recognition, is council recognising that we have a certain section of our community that have, well, starting off with disposition is the thing, I guess, and we have to, as a, in my opinion, a sophisticated society, we have to recognise that when we have levers to pull— That enable people who don't, or might not have an opportunity, or might think they don't have an opportunity. I want to break those barriers, to smithereens. I want them to—I want to be able to do at least that, if I have those levers to pull.

It's not about—I think you're getting confused about a level playing field. It isn't a level playing field. We had Councillor Wheeler—I was going to say rattle off, you did rattle them off. There's just so many things that aren't fair and aren't a level playing field. And I want us as a council, I want this document to be

An expression of our— generosity, because that sounds

Patronising

But our ability to see that if we can give people a break, we will do it. And, you know, it's the same—it's just something that I would expect we'd embrace. And it just seems to me that you're saying that, oh, you know, it's people—this is divisive, and people in the community want a level playing field. Well, sorry, I don't think that. I think council has a big role to play. And personally , I don't claim to know how best to do this, but I will say , I double the amount of things that we can do if we recognise them. Let's not— Let's not go down this path of, you know, level playing fields. It's just , it's not genuine . Sorry. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Any further debate

Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you

Thank you, Mr Mayor. And I think when we heard Councillor Veigel speak tonight, that was the very essence of it. It's about respect and preparedness to understand more, to do what each of us and everybody within the organisation can do to reach out and see what better strengthening of the relationship between us and our First Nations people can be. It's about mutual respect. And Mr Mayor, I agree with Councillor Kotlash. I do not, I find your comments quite troubling, to be quite honest, because at the very core of this there must be respect. We can't make statements about that take away the fact of the systemic disadvantage that these people have suffered. It is not, we are not all equal. That is not the case in this country.

And so we can't make statements that deprive our obligation to work towards repairing the damage that has been done in the past. And this is a way that that can be done in such a positive way, in a collaborative way . I think your fears are totally unfounded. I would imagine any procurement policy review would encompass all areas of procurement. It would not be specifically done for one individual group in any way. It would just be when that is reviewed, that would be a consideration of it . I think it's a community document. I don't see it just as internal either. I see it as something that all of our community can, you know, hopefully get into and really support. I mean, there's nothing I enjoy more in my councillor role than being able to go to many of these events where this, you know, the spirit of reconciliation is shared, where we get to learn about things from our Dharug and darkinjung cultures.

It's a wonderful experience, and we have many more than three places where we acknowledge that culture and many more places where we meet and are generously provided with information about those areas. So I think, you know, I think this is good. I hope when this goes out to the community that people will give us comments that are not disrespectful. That would be very hurtful to our people. And, you know, I hope you can find through your conversations a way that you better understand what the actual objective of this document is. So thank you.

Thanks for that, Councillor . The motions on page 45 .

Those in favour?

Around the table, it's Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Djuric, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Creed, Councillor Veigel, Councillor Regan. Those against? Councillor Sheather. Thank you, councillors. The next item is—

The next item is code of meeting practice.

Councillor Buckett.

Yes, Mr Mayor, hello.

I'll

Second it

Mr Mayor. Yeah, I'll move That's all right. Yeah, I'm just getting to it.

Thank you, Mr Mayor, and I'd like to thank Patricia for sending us through that information this afternoon, which seems to confirm that we could actually stand and use the microphones, which was one of the issues raised in the briefing about, you know, about how we may have a cost to comply with these various provisions that are put before us. I do have to say, reading through the code of meeting practice, it's like taking a bit of a step back in time. There's some quite archaic measures in there that I think are a bit out of step with 2025. You know, the fact that it suggests that Council would set a dress code and the making of it to be mandatory to stand when the Mayor walks into the room, I think they are a little outdated .

But nevertheless, I do also think that shifting power away, determining what's on the agenda to the General Manager is not necessarily a good thing for either the elected body or the General Manager, because positions of General Manager, you know, to have to make decisions that perhaps they're not comfortable with. I don't have any opposition to the public forum or to publicly engaging as much as possible. I'm concerned about how that will work. I'm not sure, you know, I guess we'll have to see how that works. It's going to be difficult for people in this area who may have a long commute to be here by six if they wish to speak. Even that additional half hour, starting at 6.30, can be meaningful for people, whether they can get here or not.

The clause 3.4.1 is very unclear around — that must be around the briefings, of course; I haven't written what it is. Is that what it's about? — about once the agenda is published. I just don't really — I still don't get it. I think it's a highly ambiguous clause. It's not drafted with any clarity or precision to really let us understand what exactly that means. So if there's a briefing, so for example, if it was about some of our projects or something, is it saying we can not speak about it after our agenda is published, or does it mean that because we know it's upcoming, we still can't have a briefing? And if we have a briefing, does that have to be an open briefing? Can I have some clarity if anyone knows?

Sure can, Councillor.

I'll take that, and I will allow the Acting Director of Corporate Services to jump in and add information as she sees fit. So the interpretation taken by staff and by other staff and other councils is that the wording provided in the mandatory clause is explicit, and that briefing sessions must not be held on business listed on the agenda. So as it stands at the moment, Councillors will know that you are briefed on a small handful of matters the week prior, on the Tuesday prior to the Council meeting. The agenda is subsequently published after that. So as best we see, there is no change required for that substantive alteration. The one area where there may be alteration to current standard practice is where Council wants to, or where Council to defer something out of a Council meeting then to a briefing.

That would then be the scope that would likely fall into something that we would then need to make that public effectively

Thank you. Appreciate that. Another thing is the requirement to provide grounds if not following staff recommendation on a planning matter. That also requires some clarification. Not that we have many planning matters. I mean, it would only relate really to a, you know, an actual planning proposal. Yeah, I've got a few issues around that, but how will we get a briefing on that if—but now you've just clarified that, so I guess we could have that done previously. However, the local planning panel will still have a function where behind closed doors they're considering it, but getting information in. So I think there's a bit of a contradiction around that provision. It's rushed. I don't like these rushed timeframes the government gives us.

Nothing to do with us, but we've got to have it in by the end of the year, and there's a lot of work to do that. And essentially we have to adopt the mandatory codes anyway. And so I guess the public feedback, I don't know, are they just going to vent about what they don't like or is there any flexibility whatsoever? There's very little from what I see, but I know it's a mandatory step of the process to put it out to public exhibition.

I'm pleased to see clause 13.1 subsection F has gone away. It's crossed out, which is good. And there's—we need some clause 14.1.8 requires further clarification as well. Is that referring merely to making a decision public, or is it that post—I actually read it as if post-decision, information that has been kept confidential may be released. That's correct.

I think we generally agree with that interpretation. What I might do is pass through to the acting director of corporate services. This actually roughly aligns with other legal obligations that Council has in any case, but I'll get the acting director to talk that through.

Thank you. Yes, thank you through you, Mr Mayor. That is correct. So following a decision of Council meeting public, the information is reviewed and can be made public in consultation if the information is no longer confidential.

No longer confidential, but potentially be put out to the public with redactions and things in it. Is that, or is it merely that the confidentiality around anything that's considered commercial in confidence, for example, will no, not ever be public?

Through you, Mr Mayor, if that information that was initially considered commercial in confidence is no longer considered commercial in confidence because a decision has been made, then that would be reviewed and made public as see fit.

Okay. Thank, thank you very, very much for that. I just had one last thing, and that was about the, you know, I do highly respect the role of Mayor, but I do think this standing up is just, I just, it's not anything against you, Mr Mayor, or against any Mayor. Having been a Mayor, I wouldn't want anyone to be standing up for me anyway, but it's just, it's sort of comparable by the Minister to the courts, and we know in the court the reason we stand for a judge is around the impartiality, of course, and around him upholding a specific law, whereas, no offence, but a Mayor is another councillor. They're one of the group. They're not somebody who is an arbiter or somebody upholding a specific, you know, legal system. But no offence, it's mandatory. I shall stand. If I can, thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Creed. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Yeah, I think they got the—I think, Uncle Ron, the Minister for Local Government got the standing for the Mayor from State Parliament and Federal Parliament where they stand for the Speaker, but it's a little bit different for a council chamber because the meeting doesn't actually start until the Mayor's already in the chair and some of us walk in, and it's just a little bit strange. I do have, just on what you were just stating with Patricia—sorry, I can never say your last name. Is it okay if I address through Mr Mayor, Patricia? The bit about the commercial in confidence, once it's been voted on in confidential, the information that's released, is there— given that some of it may have been commercial in confidence, would some of it be redacted?

Like, you wouldn't—given that it was commercial in confidence and we had to go into confidential, you wouldn't just release— Everything ? Or— sorry, I just want to get clarification on

What could be released. You don't have to worry about the staff surname, Councillor.

Sorry,

I know, but the question is—

Isn't it in here that you have to address them as Mr and Mrs and— Yeah, no, just— God, I'm going to offend someone by calling them

The Acting Director of Corporate Services is.

Acting Director of Corporate Services, thank you. That'll do. What I'm suggesting, Councillor, come to me and I'll pass it on. Yeah, sorry. Yeah, so can I just get clarification on that, what can

Be — Sorry. So if I may take that, Councillor. So what will happen is that an assessment needs to be made. So just because we've made a decision, for example, on a tender or a letting of something, that doesn't necessarily mean that that information is then open for release, okay? So we will have to go through a robust process around that. That may in fact involve consulting with the party who has provided us that information. In commercial terms, one reason for maintaining confidentiality is it may compromise the position of the person who gave us the information. So it's not necessarily Council's commercial position, but it may compromise the commercial position of the person who has given it to us.

So we will need to go through a process. That, hand on heart, we haven't worked out what that routine process looks like. So this may involve a process either at the end of each Council meeting. It may involve a six-monthly process whereby we go through all of the confidential reports that have been determined over a defined period of time and release those en bloc, for example. We will need to work through that, but rest assured it's not something that is not done without a sort of a judicious eye over it.

Thank you. And just briefly, and I apologise, I might have been out of the chamber when Councillor Lyons-Buckett, I think, might have brought it up about the briefing sessions. I understand from many other council areas across New South Wales, the OLG has been giving very conflicting information to their council staff and what is actually required with regards to the briefing sessions. Because my question to, through you, Mr Mayor, to the General Manager, if a councillor was to come up and ask the General Manager of the day, and not something to do with the item of the business paper, is, given what I've sort of read in here, is it then obligated for the General Manager to then turn around and publicly state that she was asked, or he or she was asked, these questions before the meeting?

Because technically, according to this, this is a pre-briefing information just by asking you a question before the meeting. And from what I've gotten from other colleagues across New South Wales, there is conflicting information coming from OLG and the government on what this actually means. So, to me, can I just say the acting corporate director has done a wonderful job

On this. Thanks, Councillor. Asking a question is not the same as being briefed, or— but I'll pass it on.

I think you're both correct. I think the information that most councils are sort of working their way through those hypothetical scenarios, Councillor. What I would say, if there is, for example, I think we have been operating under the principle if there is a piece of information that is distributed to councillors in between when the business paper is published and when the council meeting is conducted, that that should then form— our early thinking is that that should, for example, if we gave you an email or something like that, that should form the basis of a supplementary report that is published on council's website and is clear and transparently available. So that is the principle. The question is, where do we draw the line on that?

So I get a lot of telephone calls ahead of council meetings and those sorts of things, making questions and enquiries. Would I call that a briefing? No, not necessarily. So we will have to test that. I don't know if the acting director corporate's got anything. No, that's our position. Okay,

Thank you. So, look. Some of this is quite good in the new meeting code. I think I agree some of it's a bit archaic, and I think Uncle Ron has tried to pretend that we're all state parliaments with some of these things that he wants to put as mandatory conducts in for council meetings, which, let's face it, I think is a bit of a far-fetched sort of scenario. I've never had an issue with the standing and talking because I actually do think, personally, I think it's a bit more respect towards the community and also other councillors, but that's my own personal opinion. I do think this has been quite rushed, given the fact that by the minister and the OLG, given the fact that there are a number of councils, and I mean a number of councils across New South Wales, that do not have clear answers to quite a few of these questions.

It's some of them we've brought up tonight, and, you know, I mean the briefing ones for starters, the forum at the beginning and then potentially pretty much no speakers during the meeting. I don't know how you can say, Oh, we're going to do a public forum at the beginning because we want to, you know, open it and make it transparent to the community, but then at the same time we're going to shut off any speakers in the meeting. Anyway, I just think that this has been very rushed by the government and by the minister, Uncle Ron, and I'll support through putting it through, but I still reserve that right that I still think it's a very rushed process. But I do thank the acting director of corporate services for all the extremely hard work you have done on this document.

It is not easy, and I take my hat off to you, so thank you

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I welcome these changes because for the thirteen and a half years I was a councillor on the Hills Council, we did all these things. We had the forums at the end of the meeting. We stood for the mayor, which I think is a mark of respect. We stood up when we spoke, which was a chance to engage with people and kept us bright and alert, which was really good. So I welcome these things.

Thank you, Councillor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just a couple of questions. I suspect this is a work in progress and I'll make amendments to this after a year of practicing and what works and what doesn't work. But I've kind of answered my own question, so I don't want an answer. I hope it is workable and I can do it. But I'm just interested about the $2,100 on Section 660 if you expel somebody. Who's going to put their hand up and fine them, and does that go to Office of State Revenue to go and get the money from them if you do fine them $2,100?

Actually, that's a good question. Who does it go to?

Police, yeah. Yeah. It's not us. So you can take it on notice if you like.

Through you, Mr Mayor, I don't think council's— it's a question we had. I don't actually think council's the regulator of it, so it becomes a matter for police, I would believe. Councillor. Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I think

It's

Worth spelling out some of the big changes for the public, and probably the biggest one is that there'll be no more speakers on individual items. And that's something that this council has taken really seriously, that we worked hard through the previous changes to the code of conduct under the previous Liberal state government, that we worked really hard to maintain that, when many other councils used it as an excuse to dump it and have a much more impersonal forum that many councillors didn't even attend on some councils, or that were open to discuss, you know, whatever you liked.

I think this is a real shame, and it's, if there's one thing that I could change in this document, it would be that. I think the, I don't like the 6 p.m. start. When I worked at Westmead, which isn't very far away, you know, when you consider how far people travel to work in the Hawkesbury, I was never back by 6 o'clock. When I knocked off at Westmead at five, when I worked in the city, I was never back till half past seven. So a 6 p.m. start means that people can't engage with this really important level of democracy that we keep banging on, that the minister keeps banging on about being the closest level of government to the people. And I think that is a big loss. I would like to see us trial a shift.

Let's try the 6 p.m. start for three months. If we start to get complaints, I would like to push us back to 6:30. I think the most retrograde step about this, though, is that it depersonalises the representation from members of the public and removes them from the decision-making part. So if they have their spiel between 6 and 7, and we don't make the decision about their particular thing until 8:30, 9 o'clock, that's firstly a long wait to hear the decision about the thing that you care about, if there's been four or five items that people have discussed in that public forum. But it's also a long way, it's a long time for us to hold the information that has come from those people that then translates into our decision.

And I guess my habit of compulsive note-taking might come in handy.

I'm pleased that we as a council have retained the ability for members of the public to attend online, and I think the loss of that for councillors is unreasonable. I think people do have spontaneous things that come up: illness, car breaks down, carers' responsibilities, the fact that you have to give advance notice and Predict an emergency is, I think, is unreasonable, and I don't know that it meets with the minister's stated aims of improving democracy. Regarding briefings, I think we're in grave danger of obeying the letter but not the spirit of this clause. The minister has been very clear under questioning that he means that briefings should not be private. He means that briefings should be held in front of the public, and that's actually quite easily done.

We could come into this chamber. The staff could come into the chamber. We could have presentations. We have all the IT facilities. We could convene a meeting, move into committee of the whole, have a briefing, not make any decisions, and hold that information over until the next week. I think the drafting of this legislation is ambiguous. This has been called to the minister's attention, and I expect that this will be corrected, because there are many and varied interpretations running across New South Wales at the moment.

I think some of the stuff that's said in briefings would be quite enlightening for some voters. I think people would be shocked at the thoughts and values of some of the people that they voted for. I'm not a fan of standing to address meetings. I think it's really ableist. It allows for greater performing. I don't think that standing up at any point encourages or engenders respect. I think that's frankly archaic. Having come from an institution where we're used to saluting as frequently as a mark of disrespect as we did of respect, I think we're going to end up in exactly the same spot. It's worth noting that it now will be an offence if you don't leave the meeting when instructed, and that you can get a $2,600 fine if the police turn up and have to carry you off.

I do agree that there's too much power given to the mayor and the general manager, and I think there's a real potential to politicise both the general manager and the staff. I don't think that's great for democracy. I don't think that's great for the staff, and I don't think that's great for the input of councillors. Just very quickly, because I know I've hit the timing, the councillor conduct bill was introduced into the Legislative Council just before dinner tonight, so I'm sure we'll get that shortly. And the Office of Local Government is holding a webinar for councillors on Thursday morning at 9 a.m., if people have questions for that. Thanks.

Yeah, thanks for the information, Councillor. Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm going to be really brief because I think everybody's covered everything. The changes to whether a councillor can attend via audiovisual link to a meeting , the reasons given if you're in ill health, so one would have thought if you're, you know, if you're not at death's door, you'll be all right . So I found that a bit, you know, if you're not up to par, it's all right, you can still do it. But anyway, I know there's times where, you know, you might have a broken leg but you still can think. But we have used the old section of this part of the code. If you go away for work or you're, you know, you're somewhere and you just can't come to the meeting, but you still read all the stuff and you can still attend. So is that— Sorry, I'm being really long-winded. Has that— are those things that's said in whatever point 20 or whatever, are they the only

Criteria? Prevented from attending the meeting in person because of ill health or other medical reasons, or because of unforeseen caring responsibilities. So if you have a flat tyre, you have a crash, you, you know— well, I don't suppose you'd want to be sitting in your car if you had a crash at a council meeting, but you never know how diverted you are. Is that really what they think?

General Manager.

Is that it ?

I'm not sure on the question ultimately. Well, what I would say is— what I would say is that the minister has been very clear and very firm, almost fixed, on his views around a councillor's remote attendance, because there have been instances of council laws in other councils who live 600, 700, 800 kilometres away from their LGA and have not attended council meetings in person for extended periods of time, and that is the situation that the minister, I think, has a particular concern with, and hence they have definitely firmed up that requirement around remote attendance due to ill health or caring responsibilities only.

If I can ask another question,

Mr Mayor. The whole— the nature of being a councillor is most of us need to work. We're not— I mean, I think if it was a full-time job, I mean, that's fair enough, you could spend... A lot of time in the car if that was your full-time job. But the fact that the nature of being a councillor is part-time, I find that really—I mean, that's not a question, it's a comment—I find that a little hard to fathom. And if you did, I mean, I live, you know, 40 minutes away, but if you were in a council in remote New South Wales or somewhere, I would have thought that it was, you know , quite acceptable that you didn't do that sort of ridiculous smiles to be able to represent your community. And your community would probably be as remote and would understand that.

So, not sure, but thanks for letting us know that that was the reason . Yeah, not happy with that one. We'll see how that pans out. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Sorry, I've just got a question. Sorry. Just in regards to the caring, is there a definition of what caring is or what you're caring for?

Because— No, but like, no, genuinely. So I don't have children, obviously. Yeah , I have a lot of animals. You know, if something happened to one of my animals that are rescued, or the horse or sheep or something, is that classed as definition of caring, if something's happened and I have to wait for a vet or— I don't think— No, and

Ultimately that's a matter for the council. So the policy hasn't defined— Yes, that's correct. Yeah. Yeah , certainly under, for example, under our staff, we've got definitions of water caring and caring responsibility is, but in the context of this policy, it's ultimately a matter for council as to whether it wishes to allow the attendance.

Council Wheeler. So

One of the things that is missing from this clause, I guess, if we, in the past, we've had a council meeting online because we were in flood and half of us couldn't get across the river, so we would be prohibited from doing that in this instance unless we were all caring for something on our side of the river. Is that correct ?

Yeah, that would be covered elsewhere by the emergency provision. Yeah.

Any further debate? Councillor [unclear].

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I think it's shown with the questions that have been raised that it's going to be a bit of trial and error. Many interpretations of several of the provisions. It seems like it will give us, or not us, but the staff, quite a bit more work to do, at least initially. And I think that's unfortunate, that that is really due to the ambiguity in how this has been drafted as a document, which is really unfortunate. And I think that also, I did notice when Local Government New South Wales put in a submission initially to this, they had actually said about the fact that so many councils have specific local needs that need to be addressed. That seems to have been ignored. But I think that that's something we should really push for because I do think we have quite a few circumstances—well

Many councils would have circumstances—

Which would really require them. And I get that they're trying to overcome people who just don't attend or do things like that. But also around the people coming in to speak, that has been a really valuable part. I'm sure all the councillors find it valuable to hear just before we're deciding from people in the public. And I mean, it's an ever-evolving thing. I remember when I first started coming here, of course, you could call out from the gallery and ask a question, but those days of such open democracy have gone. So we'll be interested to see what the community make of it and see what submissions we get back. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor. The motion's on page 51, Code of Meeting Practice.

Those in favour? It's unanimous. Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Flygell, Regan and Sheather. Those against? It's carried. The next item, councillors, is item 10.4.4. Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler.

The next item, Councillors, is item 10.4.4. Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Wheeler, did you wish to move something there? Thanks,

Mr Mayor. I've got some questions. I'll move it for discussion, but I've got some questions. I'll second it.

Thank you.

Councillor Wheeler seconded, Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Yeah, you did. So I just want to clarify, we're looking at a likely saving per customer if transferred to Sydney Water of $616 per annum, and then running a sewerage infrastructure charge for five to ten years. So the costs would be between $557 per annum and $313 per annum, depending on whether we run that out over five or ten years.

This whole report is predicated on the idea that we're giving the sewer away. And I think we need to be really mindful when we talk about the sale of the sewer, we're not selling anything. We're giving it to Sydney Water. What happens if we don't? What happens if the deal falls through at either end? What happens with the loan? How do we recover that money?

Thank you.

Through you, Mr Mayor. So... Councillor Wheeler, so if Hawkesbury Council does not proceed with the transaction to divest the Windsor Sewerage Scheme to Sydney Water, customers of the Windsor Sewerage Scheme would be charged a sewerage charge that appears on their annual rates, and those moneys would be applied to all the operations of the Windsor Sewerage Scheme, including the repayment and interest on the current sewer loan.

Sorry, that means they'll pay that current fee plus this additional fee? Is that the

Proposal? No . So this sewerage infrastructure charge is designed for once we have agreed to sell the business to Sydney Water Corporation, we would be levying this charge to customers of the Windsor Sewerage Scheme once we know that we have a binding agreement with Sydney Water Corporation, and this would be used to fund the interest and principal repayment of the sewer loan that is left with Hawkesbury City Council because the assets of the Windsor Sewerage Scheme are being transferred to Sydney Water Corporation, and the ability to levy a charge on the customers of the Windsor Sewerage Scheme will also transfer to Sydney Water Corporation. The provisions of the deal we have with Sydney Water Corporation is that they take the assets, the liabilities are left with Hawkesbury Council.

The principal liability is obviously the sewer loan. We are also, we retain the McGraths Hill Sewage Treatment Plant, and that is obviously subject to finalisation, but that is the indicative deal as it stands.

Sorry , my question relates to what happens if the deal falls through. So either at our end or at Sydney Water's end, where does—how do we recover this money? Do we recover this in the same way that we have built up the reserves with by, or do we, or will we levy a charge to refinance this in addition to the sewerage charge that people are already paying?

Through you, Mr Mayor, it's kind of either way. Customers of the Windsor Sewerage Scheme will be funding the repayment of the sewer loan, including the interest. How we've done that previously is via the sewerage charge, but either the sewerage charge would be reduced because there's a sewerage infrastructure charge, or there'd be no sewerage infrastructure charge and therefore the sewer bill would be inflated by effectively however long we determine to repay that sewer loan by those amounts in there.

So effectively we will have to add, we will have to charge more for sewer.

Sorry, no.

If I can perhaps—sorry, Jones. It effectively remains status quo. So at the moment, the sewer charge factors in its pricing accommodates the fact that we have to pay back the principal and interest of the loan, and that would continue. So this effectively is no change under that circumstance, Councillor.

And so what would the— so we're looking at potentially 10 year, if we push this out as far as possible, we're looking at a 10 year recovery time. What sort of recovery time would we be looking at if we retained the sewer? For the loan.

We haven't looked at the retain scenario. So what Council has done previously is we have financed that sewer loan very short term. That's why, as you can see, it matures, the current loan from the Commonwealth Bank matures in December. It's always been the assumption that a deal with Sydney Water Corporation is coming soon, and that's why that has been financed on a short-term basis. If the deal with Sydney Water Corporation were to waterfall over, in your words, we would do the analysis on what we think an appropriate time frame for that repayment is.

So are we locking this in prematurely without knowing what's happening with the Sydney Water deal? Is there a risk involved there?

Council dealt with the Sydney Water proposal in June. This Council did determine to move forward with the deal with Sydney Water, subject to a few certain conditions precedent. We understand Sydney Water has dealt with the conditions precedent on their side. This is the sole condition precedent for Hawkesbury City Council to deal with the funding of the sewer loan. To the extent that this body resolved to deal with it in this way proposed, there'd be no conditions precedent outstanding. The deal would only be subject to negotiation and signing of appropriate sale documentation, which, in my experience, I would rate very highly likely to be resolved, and any other customary terms and conditions.

So assuming that Council resolve to endorse this, I actually would rate as very high the ability to have the sale conclude, which is also why when we get to a future item, you'll see how we are accounting for the sewerage business because of the application of the accounting standard, because we are relatively certain that a deal is likely in this case.

Thank you. So does that mean that that condition around ring fencing has been satisfied from Sydney Water?

Through you, Mr Mayor, yes, the IPART determination has determined that in the event that the transaction occurs, that current customers of the Windsor sewerage scheme would move over to Sydney Water on the basis of a postage stamp pricing

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor. And we've obviously got to renew the sewer loan. It's a debt that requires renewal, so we've got to do that. I don't know that what Mr Dalton has just conveyed to us was very clear in the business paper, that the sewer divestment was proceeding, you know, was as close to proceeding. Anyway, there's still, I don't see any timeframe, or I don't know a timeframe. So when I read it, just reading it from the perspective of that aside, given that wasn't mentioned in there, I was a little concerned that paying down the loan by basically using up all the sewer reserves is the best move. It completely depletes our reserves to a point where we don't have, you know, we wouldn't have any sort of resource for if we had an issue.

Maybe now it's all changed that apparently it's all imminent, but that wasn't apparent in making this decision. So I'm just telling you how I read it. You know, if we had a major mishap requiring repair, or if by any chance it doesn't go ahead, we would have depleted those reserves that we did have in that sewer reserve. I think consultation with the sewer users is obvious and essential. I've spoken to some people, and they think they're going to be getting a big reduction immediately. That does not appear to be the case. I'm concerned with the use of the very large figures referred to as financial benefits. I understand that's over a long time thing , but I think the message it's sending the community, when there's a special rate variation on the table , and I understand that from a financial perspective it could be viewed that some people are getting a saving that's going to compensate for the rate variation that's coming.

But I think that using those large figures, which to the average reader would come across as being large financial benefits into our coffers, is perhaps not telling the whole story, because then people are going to say about the rate rise, why are you raising the rates when you're getting all this money in? It's about the optics of what people see from a community perspective, when they don't have the benefit of the briefings that we may have, when they don't have the entire picture, which I have to say is not all there. These sort of things I find a little bit problematic because it's not really overly apparent how it will manifest this benefit to people. But I guess that may be part of getting out to the community and telling them about it.

I think what people essentially want to know is when exactly will they get a benefit? What will it be? You know, some people have asked me why they only have to pay for the loan, for example, and so on. But at this point, the way I read it and what I'm voting on and committed to is we have a loan to renew and we must service it, and I totally support doing that, and we must do that. And we have to consult with these customers about the projective plans. I just hope that the true story is there, and I hope that we get an official update shortly on just what the exact status is of those negotiations. I wasn't aware of some of the things that were said here tonight, so I would appreciate if we were updated on that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. I'd just like to start to clarify the comments that Councillor made in relation to the drainage to the sewer reserves. While it's written on page— Yeah. Yeah

Through you, Mr. Mayor, just clarifying. So yes, the current balance of the loan is $29 million. This paper proposes to repay the sewer loan to $20 million at the refinancing in December. We have $7.3 million in the current sewer loan reserve, but we also have another $4.7 and $3 million in different sewer reserves. So there will still be reserves left in the sewer loan. We are proposing to use— we're proposing to leave, you know, I'm trying to do the maths in my head—$7 million of sewer reserve across various categories remaining post the refinancing.

What would be the purpose of those reserves with no asset to spend them on?

Through you, Mr. Mayor. So the refinancing date is at the end of December. The earliest probable transaction for the transfer of the sewer scheme to Sydney Water would be July. So we would have those six months, and in addition, as the Chief Financial Officer has alluded to, Council retains ownership of the McGrath's Hill sewage treatment plant, and that requires funding post transaction date in order to rehabilitate that site for whatever the Council of the day determines it's used to be.

Just a further question. When we discussed those implications last time, we were looking at putting $4 million aside for rehabilitation, and we're suggesting now there could be up as much as seven in the reserves Through you, Mr. Mayor,

The reserves will be in excess of what we need to put aside for the rehabilitation of McGraths Hill sewerage treatment plant. And we've taken on board Council comments at the briefing, and we've reached out to Western Sydney University, and so we have a senior lecturer in their ecology and science department who we plan on working with in relation to the wetlands component of the McGraths Hill site.

Thank you.

Councillor Creed. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Can I just get clarification through you? I think the Director of Infrastructure said it, that the agreement with the current customers, I think you called it postage stamp rates , essentially. Given that IPART has just approved three weeks ago for Sydney Water to increase their rates 11.8 percent... year, including inflation for the next five years. What, and that's a tempered of the original proposal by Sydney Water, what was the guarantee that they've given us? Is it the five years? Is it, like, when do those rates go to the normal Sydney Water? Like, is it just for a year? Is it for two years? Because I'm just worried because of that particular IPART approval of the 11.8% plus inflation each year for the next five years, that these figures that we have in the business paper, are they updated to reflect that?

Are they? That's—I'm just trying to understand the figures given that, and then we've got this, and how long our clause is for.

Through you, Mr Mayor, so the customers would transfer to the rate as determined by IPART in their determination of three weeks ago on the transfer of the business. Thereafter, they would, or their rate would move along with all other customers, as it's outlined in the determination. What I would say is that, in the sake of relativities, firstly, we didn't have the IPART determination when we did this modelling. However, from our own sewer charge that we've done over the 10 years, we have anticipated annual movements of not a dissimilar size , and that is on the basis of, or without the benefit of a whole lot of updated infrastructure condition modelling that would have had an inflationary impact on that 10-year cost if we had retained the sewerage scheme.

So what I'm trying to say is that if customers were to, or if the business were to stay with Council, we would reasonably anticipate that our prices that we would charge customers would increase at a rate very, very similar to that being charged by Sydney Water. It is just that we would have a starting point double that of Sydney Water.

So, I'm just trying to do the maths in my head. So we've got the $616 annual saving, the 11.8% plus whatever inflation is, say 2%, that's 13.8%, on top of what they would normally pay. I'm just trying to work out the numbers, and I— because I thought there was going to be a special period of keeping the price lower for those customers when we— and again, I agree with Councillor, we're not selling our asset, we're transferring the asset, essentially. So I'm just— because, like, people are asking me, so I need to be able to have the evidence to back it up and say, well, these are the figures, because I wasn't on council when this all happened, so I'm trying to understand the figures given that we're now— now we have to deal with this, and I do understand it was only through weeks ago.

But, I mean, can you take it on notice if that's possible, just to come back with some figures? Councillor,

Just to clarify, the $616 that we're speaking of is annual saving on the basis that there's a saving of $557 annually, while the saving is $59 in the difference of it. How long's that $616 before there's likely to be an increase?

Through you, Mr Mayor, the numbers will change every year relative to what they would have been in both Sydney Water's situation, but also we change our pricing for sewer each year in response to the events that have occurred during the year, changes to the legislative environment, the regulatory environment. So the $616 saving is anticipated... The anticipated saving for next financial year, what that saving would be in year two is entirely hypothetical. But it is a significant saving. And the advice that we've provided previously in both reports and briefings is that the annual charge, if the scheme were to be retained by Council, would likely increase at a rate, we think by year 10, something in the order of between three and four times the Sydney Water rate, which is substantially more than the double that it currently is. So

Sorry, just so I can clarify. So the Sydney Water rate over the five years is

Probably about 56, 57 per cent, not including the inflation part. So the 10 year, you're looking at 115, I'd say, from Sydney Water. You're saying that it'd be three to four times that, so over 200 per cent we would increase it by year 10.

As I said, those numbers weren't reflective of the determination made three weeks ago. They were made on the determination, and I would have to take this on notice that it was something like a five to seven per cent increase annually. No,

Thank you. All right, thank you. Councillor

Yeah, thanks, Mr. Mayor. Look, this does impact me because I'm in the... Okay, so I just did some maths on it anyway before this meeting started. Are you asking... Okay, the refinancing is a no-brainer. Okay, let's talk about the... The five year, seven year and 10 year, are you asking us to determine this today, give you some direction about which stormwater plant we should be going to, five, seven and 10?

I'm happy to take that, Mr Mayor. So what we are asking you to do is to adopt in principle the sewer infrastructure charge, okay, that concept, but that endorse that we go out and we consult with the customers of the Windsor Sewerage Scheme

On the time period at which that sewer infrastructure charge exists, so either the five-, seven-, ten-year option

Okay? Well, that's all right. Let's look at the raw numbers which is in front of us, because you can come back and do another model if you have to. This is what I worked out. If you went with the five-year plan, it's a 59 annually as when presented. That's a 1.27% of those pays. If you go to the seven-year, it's a 4.3. If you go to a ten, it's a 6.53% saving. Now, I know the first year is the biggest percentage increase. It'll probably decline thereafter. So it's not anything significant , dare I say. My own personal thing is I don't think water treatment anymore is a core council responsibility. And considering the infrastructure is getting old, and I think, through you, Mr Mayor, if the Director of Infrastructure Services could just clarify it, the significant upgrades coming to the filtration on the South Windsor, dare I say, because of some environmental upgrades you need to do, and this is always changing, which is a really high cost burden on the community, especially who's paying for water rates at the moment.

And it comes down to economy of scale. If Sydney Water can do this much better, and which they can, I'd be quite happy to go back and put the services of council back into something in which we can make a bigger impact for the community, or migrate, and that might well be roads and other stuff that we always talk about. So is my interpretation right with the asset renewal, the pumps and filtration?

Through you, Mr Mayor, that's right. The most significant driver of capital uplift over the next ten years, if we were to retain the scheme, is through compliance with the Hawkesbury-Nepean Nutrient Offset Framework. We know what stage one looks like. That would result in a cost to our customers of anywhere between, I think it was seven and eleven million dollars sometime in the next five years, in the earlier part of those five years, to comply with the EPA's guidelines. Stage two is coming. We don't know what that looks like, and we don't know what the cost associated with stage two would be.

And I suspect the concrete tanks, you're respecting them anyway, and I think they'd be getting… You might have to go and reline them too. All right. No, thank you for that. Thank you, Councillor.

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you very much, Mr Mayor. Firstly, a question. That instalment plan on page 67, is the intention to write to the customer and they pick a five or seven or a 10-year plan? Is that how that works? They choose what's best for them?

Through you, Mr Mayor, the intention would be to write to all customers of the Windsor Sewerage Scheme, outlining the options and seeking feedback. For administrative purposes, we would prefer a single timeline, but we would be canvassing opinions on what the preferences are. So we're outlining the different scenarios and then just getting feedback on what their collective preference is.

Just so I know, so we're voting tonight to do that, if that's how we choose, and then the ultimate decision is based on customer feedback, majority rules kind of situation. Correct. Potentially situation. Okay, excellent. Thank you. I think it's important. Obviously, I'm someone who firmly believes in divesting the sewer scheme. I think that that is essential. As someone else touched on in this room tonight, it is not our core business. And when we are out there saying to the community that we have a potential rate rise to maintain our assets, I think it's important when they say, and the first question to me that I'm getting from everyone, well, what are you doing to cut back on other things?

I know this is a separate pool of funds. I've been here long enough to know that, but at the same time, we need to cut off the things that aren't our core business, and this is one of those things. So I am hoping that we are able to seal that deal with… Sydney Water. However, I'm just putting on the record again my fundamental disappointment that the taking of our assets does not come with the taking of the liability. And that was what we had, even when I was the mayor, that was the condition of this is what we were going to fight for. And I know it's not anyone's fault here in this chamber, but it is disappointing that it's kind of the option Sydney Water have presented to us. Well, the only way we'll take this off your hands and this problem is not with the liability.

And I think people, the public especially, who's getting fed misinformation by pretend local media outlets, and let's be honest about that. It is important to put on the record that the reason we have to not have these kinds of things on our books anymore is because of the potential damage happening again, as happened to Rising Main C. If that happened again, there is no way this council would be able to fund another loan to that level. And it goes back to what is the absolute root cause of why we're sitting in here in this room tonight debating this, and that is the fact that both Coalition and Labor, let's blame both of them because they were both in government at certain times during these flooding periods.

When they established the rules of the DFRA, state and federal, they did not include this as part of something that they would pay for when it comes to flood damage recovery. And that's why we're here. It is no fault of our staff. Let me make that very clear to those taking notes. It is no fault of the staff of this council. It is no fault of the elected body of this council. It is flood damage that has now been proven through an independent report that we had through someone who came and looked at the situation. And said that the staff did the best that they could do in the circumstances to ensure there was no environmental catastrophe, and that our, the people, the 8,154 customers in this scheme could still flush their toilets.

That's about as simple as it is. And that independent investigation is the evidence that we needed to know that this body did whatever it could in those circumstances. And that's why I want the blame to consistently lie with state and federal governments who did not put this as part of the disaster recovery funding guidelines. That's where the blame lies. And had this been part of that, because again, it's been proven through that independent inquiry that this is flood damage, the damage to Rising Main C was flood related. This should have been covered, and quite frankly, we should not be having this debate tonight. So I think it is really vital to lay blame where blame should be put, and that is with the state and federal governments and the fact that they let our community down and the community of the Northern Rivers, who are in a similar position, by not including damage to this kind of infrastructure as part of their funding guidelines.

And we now have to make really tough decisions in a cost of living crisis that potentially will hurt families. And I know that if I was someone who did not keep up with council business, which let's be honest is ninety percent of the community because they have jobs, lives, families, please don't comment. In that regard, it's going to be very hard to explain to them when they get a letter like this in the mail, Hey, this is what's happening, when they don't have that background knowledge that we are lucky to have because we've been elected to do this. So I understand there'll be confusion in the community. I understand there'll be questions, but I think it's really vital that we, as an elected body, go back to that root cause of why we're even having this discussion, and that's a letdown by the other levels of government who wouldn't look after our infrastructure during that period of successive flooding.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Mr Mayor. Question. Yeah, just one. Through you, have I got a conflict of interest voting up on this, considering I'm a ratepayer and I pay fees? I don't believe so. Well, just

No, okay, I'm just making sure because you never know. Okay, thank you. Is that been— so through you, is that okay to my colleagues here on Council? Is that okay with that?

Just be— just check. Considering

We are talking about the loan refinancing, it's a little bit different about accepting the sale of the actual system.

If we're looking at the Code of Conduct, I can find

If you can just give me one moment, Council, I'm happy to find the clause. 99.9% sure you don't have the conflict. I've just got to find that relevant clause. I hate to

Go to jail.

We don't need another..

Councillor Kotlash.

Yeah, just a quick question about getting back to the actual item of business, which is not about whether it's a good idea if we— Can

You pull your microphone down a little bit, please? Sorry

Which is not about whether we have divested to Sydney Water. We've made that decision. But I actually have to say that I agree with the Deputy Mayor about the disappointment she felt about the state and federal government not coming to the party with this, because it was clearly flood damage, and their reasoning was something to the effect that it was an infrastructure that had the capacity, or had the capacity to pay. So we were leveraging payments, which I thought was pretty silly. But anyway, so having said that, getting back to the letter that's going to be sent to our people in this scheme,

It's going to be much more— it's going to be cheaper if everybody opts for the five years instead of the 10 years. So

If we don't have one, if we don't determine, and I don't understand that we've got a process in determining whether it's five, seven or 10 years, are we going to sort of give them more information about if you pay it sooner, you know, this is— I mean, I know you've got aggregate payment here, but can we expand that a bit so people, you know, can make that choice with a bit more information?

I'm sure the staff would do that, Councillor.

Just clarify, with the, say, five-year period, the $616 is calculated on today's rate, and the saving is $575.

So the difference is $59. So the next bill that they get, if it's in line with this, will be $59 cheaper than the one they got, say, last year.

Yeah, yeah, no, no, I get that concept. I get that. I'm just saying that when we present them with these options for , you know, in the future, I mean, I think this is a no-brainer. Everybody's going to be better off. We're labouring it a bit, but I was just trying to figure out how we're actually going to communicate, and that's something that I think is important, that we give people a clearer picture than this table. Yeah.

As I think has been brought out through tonight's discussion, this is an extremely tricky exercise that we've got at hand, and we will absolutely do our best to distil that. In terms of, we can paint it back over five years and that will be cheaper, but you won't realise as significant a saving over the short term. There'll be some messaging there that we need to do absolutely, Councillor, and we would take your point on that.

I can come back to— And with respect to Councillor Veigel's question, the Code of Conduct is that you don't have to disclose a pecuniary interest. For the following purposes, be your interest as a ratepayer or a person liable to pay a charge.

Thank you. Councillors, since the briefing we had some time ago, which we spoke about all this and the staff presented this to us tonight, a fourth letter had been written both to the minister and the department to seek an interview, a discussion with them about it, and it was declined until Sydney Water determines one way or the other. Sorry.

If

I could just offer one piece of commentary, and it may be regardless of Council's ultimate decision on the divestment, but it probably represents a neat little advocacy piece to the next ALGA conference, is around the inclusion of sewer and water assets as essential public assets. The fact that they're not is the ludicrous point that we're dealing with here. So that would be one avenue regardless of your avenue, perhaps.

Council agreed. Thank you. I just wanted to ask, given the fact that we know why the government, both levels, didn't choose not to assist Council with the sewerage scheme, given that it was a natural disaster because they classed it as a business and profit-making, yet just up the road on South Creek, they've spent millions of dollars redoing that bridge and all that sort of stuff. Did we sort of bring that up to them as part of the— like, you've gone and done this, but it's exactly the same flood that's affected this. I just, I don't understand how they can turn around and actually get away with not claiming that this is part of natural disaster .

I'll try and clarify for you. We weren't the only one that had the problem. Parks had a similar problem with the washout after the overflow of Wyangle. Both their water supply and our sewerage is a charged item. It's a business of council and didn't qualify for the government loans at the time. Is that about the size of it, General Manager?

That's correct. And in the case of Northern Rivers, and I think more recently Yagara, the government established entirely separate grant pool funds for that purpose. I do know that the Northern Rivers fund was grossly inadequate and that they are still advocating and having to push for funding to rebuild the sewer and water infrastructure in and around Lismore.

Sorry, Mr Mayor, I've just got a question. Can I just clarify that the ultimate decision about the divestment will come back to council? You just said it would. I'm hearing — I'm trying to establish when the formalisation of anything around this is actually going to be presented and in what format.

General Manager.

So the way we see it, councillors, is one more decision point. So we're going out to consult with the community and we will bring that component back. As far as we see, that is the last step in this process. Council had already indicated through byway resolution that it wished to proceed with this. I can't recall the exact words on the resolution, but it was subject to a satisfactory resolution of the conditions precedent. We haven't yet satisfactorily resolved the conditions precedent because we haven't yet determined the final charge here.

Thank you. That's where I was going to, that all the conditions precedent would be in a single report that still has to come back here to Council. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Any further debate? Councillor Wheeler, right of reply.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I'm not feeling fantastic about this, I have to say . I feel very much like our hand is being forced here with the entire process. I think it's very clear from the questions that Councillors have asked tonight that we are not.

We need to be better taken on this process in order for us to understand exactly what's going on, what is required from us, and what the community is being signed up for.

I don't know who's involved in the decision making to this point, and I don't know who's on the information chain, but there are a number of us around the table where it is very clear we are not. If you want us to back you in this decision, if you want us to go out to the people that we represent and ask them to pay additional sums of money like this for a $20 million loan, you need to take us better on this journey, because we don't understand a lot of what's being said. We're having to ask a lot of questions just so that we can catch up to what's happening.

I'm still not comfortable with giving away an asset. I acknowledge that we have incurred this liability through good faith actions to deal with a sewer break during a natural disaster, and that that's how this money was incurred. This was unavoidable.

Cost that was incurred by Council. But I want to also be clear that, at the end of the day, Council isn't repaying this loan. The people on the sewage scheme are . Our ratepayers are repaying this loan , and we need to be as transparent and as consultative as possible as we go along this process. Because

Unfortunately, this is going to come at them at exactly the same time as a rate rise comes at them, and that's going to be very difficult to negotiate. I just want to put on record around the actions of the previous state government. In 2022, the state government gave in excess of $3 billion to flood recovery, and that included sewer and wastewater treatment repairs for eight councils. We were not one of them.

There's a real issue for the Hawkesbury with both fire and flood, where for some reason we get hit by these disasters at exactly the same time, or very shortly before another council gets hit with something as big or a bit more spectacular than what we face. And somehow through either media attention or advocacy or having an MP in the in crowd or however this stuff works, we get nothing, and other LGAs get loads. We need to get on top of this because we can't continue like this. It happened in the fires. We had five months of fire. And then the Shoalhaven had a bigger fire, and our fire was forgotten. We had the same with the flooding. We've had repeated cumulative impacts of flooding, but the Northern Rivers had a bigger one, and so they got the big pot and we got the big debt.

And we really have to get on the front foot, advocacy-wise, in order to turn this around. I'm not sure what the answer to that is, but we can't just keep passing this on to our ratepayers.

I'm concerned that we are loading up the bills on the parts of the community that are least able to pay, increasing costs. I'm sure they'll be grateful to have smaller water bills, but they're about to go up as well.

I want to see a change to the language that's used here. I want us to stop talking about selling the sewer system. We are not selling the sewer system. We are transferring an asset that we have valued at $160 million to Sydney Water, and our language needs to reflect that. We may be doing that to save our customers money and to save us ongoing liability, but we have to be very clear about what we're doing. What I am pleased to see is that we are retaining McGraths Hill and looking at how we rehabilitate that site for future use, and I think that's really crucial for the wetlands that are on that site.

Thank you, Councillor. Put the motion that's on page 65. Those in favour?

It's unanimous. Those against? It's carried. Councillors Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Veigel, Regan and Sheather. The motion is carried.

Councillors, we're up the item 10.4.6, unaudited financial statements for the year ending 30th of June 2025. Councillor Wheeler, you called this up.

She did. I'll move it, Mr Mayor.

The mover is...

Councillor Lyons-Buckett, did you move that, did you say?

Sorry, yes, I did. And

Councillor Wheeler, you second?

Sure

Thank you.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

She called it up because she's got questions. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I did have a couple of questions, but I'm assuming that we would normally have a briefing around this. Will we be having a briefing around these accounts, or —

Councillor, if I'll let you know just what the setup is with it.

Thank you.

Through you, Mr Mayor. So the purpose of the paper coming to this meeting is for the step where the accounts are referred to audit. So these are the unaudited accounts. And so, yes, the process after this is that we will have a briefing where we go through the accounts, and once the accounts have been audited, the audit office will attend one of the meetings in November, and they will present their report to Council, and we will discuss it there. But this is for the process of referring the accounts formally to audit as required by legislation.

Thank you. I did assume that's what it was, but I just thought there was—I thought in the past we had seen them before this, but that's okay. I had a quick look through them. I did just have one question, and that was just around the increase in wages and salaries, and I can't find it, so I can't tell you how much it was, but I think it was about six million dollars or something like that. I just wanted to know, was that down to just the wage increase that council staff received, or was it—have we increased FTE?

There was an increase in staff, Councillor. I did see that. I'm not sure what page it's on, but— It's on page

27. Accounts.

I'm sorry, I did read through it, but my head was becoming like a large Scrabble board.

Thank you.

Through you, Mr Mayor, and I'll let the Chief Financial Officer jump in as needed. In terms—to answer your question, so yeah, on page 27, the employee benefits and on-costs, so the salaries and wages, the lift between 2024 and 2025, the difference there is from 28.4 million in 2024 to 29.7. So there will be a number of factors driving that increase. Yes, there will be the award increase for staff. There will be the fact that we are operating at effectively record low vacancy levels at the moment with our employees. We would have, throughout the 2023-2024 financial year, we were still in that process of recouping and filling a number of vacancies for staff. So there will be that, and all increases in FTE are always presented through quarterly budget reviews, and I wouldn't imagine that that's a significant driver in any of that.

Later down on that table, you'll see the big substantial increase there is in our workers' compensation insurance, which we have spoken with Councillors about previously.

Thank you.

Any further questions? Councillor Wheeler. Thanks

Mr Mayor. There's a bit of talk , let's call it, going around on social media regarding Council's financial position, and I think this has largely been prompted by the SRV discussions. And I think this document has been then probably looked at far more than it would normally be. You know, normally I think these documents, they're lengthy, they're full of numbers, and they normally just drift on through, apart from, you know, some take-home messages or, you know, instances where people have — and we've seen this before — where people have looked at things like, you know, a deficit at the end of, or close to the end of, a financial year and proclaimed that Council is broke and that, you know, it's all a bit henny-penny, the sky is falling in. But I think this time it's a bit more sensitive because of the SRV.

One of the allegations is that Council has a cash flow risk. Is this — I think I know the answer to this question, but I'd like this response to be public — is Council running with a cash flow risk?

Thanks, Councillor. Through you, Mr Mayor. So Council this year has emphasised our ongoing concern with the Audit Office. The specifics of Hawkesbury Council in the last couple of years, as we discussed in the open forum with ratepayers this morning, we have had a number of— Issues with floods, etc. And so the way that the disaster recovery funding works is Council foots the recovery and pays for the recovery of that and pays for the investment in the infrastructure to repair those roads and bridges, etc. And then we seek a reimbursement of those costs. You know, we tally together all our receipts and we submit that to the relevant authority and we claim that back. And so what that leads to is that we have a relatively significant receivable from the Disaster Recovery Authority, where we have expended monies in advance and we are seeking to recoup those.

So as at 30 June, we've got a receivable from the DRFA of 12 million dollars. And so we note that as part of our cash flow, like that's a significant receivable. That puts what we'd call timing pressure on our cash flows. But do we think we have a cash flow issue fundamentally? No. But we will look and we'll work through with Council during the course of this financial year, reviewing our internal allocations just to make sure that those are appropriate in the light of, you know, our ongoing obligations.

Thank you. That's helpful. I think one of the things that is problematic when people look at Council's finances is a lack of understanding of firstly how local government accounting works. It's a very odd little beast. And so people who are used to straight business accounting often look at local government accounting. And this, I think, you know, this—I'm probably— those who started with me in 2016 are probably more aware of this because we had a councillor who was an accountant and who really was miffed by how local government accounting worked and saw all sorts of bogus practices where there were none. But I think it's very difficult to explain to the public how local government accounting actually works and why it's not the, you know, impending disaster that it occasionally looks.

The other thing I think that's worth noting in a council the size of Hawkesbury... When we have grant funding particularly, and when that funding cycle is not consistent with the reporting cycle, we can look like we are under financial pressures that don't actually exist. And I think again, we see this, and that's certainly something that we've explained to our fellow councils on the Hawkesbury River County Council. They're much bigger councils. They're not used to seeing the impact of those grants coming in and out to the same extent that we do, because their revenue base is so much greater than ours. I think some of the confusion about this round of financial statements and some of the talk in public, and that's why I'm labouring this at this point, is that these financial statements all account for the divestment of the sewer and the transfer of $166 million of our asset to Sydney Water.

And that makes us look like we've lost $166 million effectively, which makes our bottom line position look worse than it probably is.

I guess it might have been helpful to have an idea of what this looks like without the sale, because it looks like we're carrying a large loss that isn't necessarily reflective of what's going on.

There's some interesting stuff in here around decreased user fees and charges, and I think we'll probably need to anticipate that being an ongoing issue, particularly as the cost of living bites. And in our projections, we'll probably need to wind those back. I'd like to refer people to page 16 of the short list of services that council provides. When we think that council just does roads, rates and rubbish, and we don't do any of those very well either, it is useful to look at all the other stuff that council puts on using rates money. The final thing I want to finish on is the comment in here that Council cannot provide the level of service it does at the shelter, library, gallery and museum without its volunteers.

And I think it really behoves us to acknowledge these people who give so generously of their time. You know, and I want people to think about that statement. We've just passed a cultural plan that says culture is not a luxury. And yet we are running these fantastic facilities that enhance our community, that build community, that build our resilience. And we couldn't do it without our volunteers. So thank you so much to the people who give their time. Thank you.

Well said, Councillor. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you. Just a quick question, and it may have been asked by another councillor, but we've all got our strengths. I say that all the time. I'm not an accountant. So can I just, because I'm signing this document—

I'm with you.

You're with me there, Mr Mayor. Can I just double check where it says on page 78, I just want to know the accounting reason for this. Okay.

So we're talking about $152.8 million impairment charge against the sewer business, which has been accounted for as a discontinued operation given the proposed Sydney Water transaction, and given the previous item, I want to just get some clarity here. So this is just, this figure, this $152.8 million is just an accounting thing. And I want that really clear. It's just an accounting thing. It's nothing anyone's done. It's just some silly person who said this is how local government has to keep their books. Not you, someone in state government, who I love criticising.

Through you, Mr Mayor. So, Council has worked with the Audit Office on the accounting treatment for the sewerage business as it pertains to the presentation in our 30 June 2025 accounts. So there's an Australian accounting standard, so AASB 5, that deals with discontinued operations. And so we've worked to interpret the facts of what we've done in relation to the sewer business through the lens of that accounting standard. And so the appropriate treatment under the accounting standard is to treat it as a discontinued operation. And so the discontinued operation requires us to value those assets, so the assets that we're selling, not McGraths Hill because we retained that. So value the assets that we're, sorry, transacting at their realisable value.

Now, for most businesses where they're transacting it, there is a sale price. But because the facts of the deal with the proposed deal with Sydney Water, the proposed transaction price is zero. And so what we're doing is we're required to impair the value of those assets. So it's just a book, you know, transaction. It's an accounting number. It's not a cash loss. Yes. Yes, and Council, we're also aware of, the finance team also reads social media for their sins, and we can see that people have put it through and looked at it that way. But yes, no, this is purely an accounting treatment. There's no financial loss attributable to this. As you can see, if I turn to page, sorry, if you bear with me, of the actual accounts.

On page 94 of 107 of the attachment, if you looked at the balance sheet, which is called, in accounting terminology, the statement of financial position, if you looked at the statement of financial position for the sewerage business, we had actually revalued a lot of the sewer assets up. So the book value as at last year was $171 million. Included in that was a revaluation surplus of $116 million. So we had revalued those assets up because that's accounting rules. You have to look at the replacement value. We are now writing—we're impairing those assets, which is, in layman's terms, we're writing them off. We're impairing them to what we can realise them for, which is the transaction with Sydney Water.

So the assets that are being transferred to Sydney Water have been valued in the accounts as at 30 June at zero. And so that impairment, we work through that through the financial system, and these are the implications of that. But no, there is no direct cash loss. Okay

So even though there's a value to them, and Councillor Wheeler was saying around the $160-something million—yeah— even though there's a value to them, we have to value them at zero, but then the books show that they're a negative. I'm never going to understand this I've got—I want to understand it to sign off on it. That's very important to me. But I'm just trying to understand how that works. I'm happy to take this offline before I sign. I don't want to waste the Chamber's time.

No, we can do that.

Just so I know what I'm doing. I get what you're saying. It's literally magic numbers and formulas, and you've got no choice because there's rules and all that.

Yes, we can take that offline and go through it. Yeah, thank you. But I just wanted

To get, for the public who might be reading this, this is nothing the council has done. This is purely accounting practices and standards. Yeah,

Exactly. To confirm, this is complying with the accounting rules,

And

We're required to present it. Perfect.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. You weren't the only one with questions, Councillor. I spent three-quarters of an hour with him today. Any further debate?

Councillor Lyons-Buckett, right of reply.

Not necessary.

Thank you, Councillor.

The motion 10.4.6. Those in favour?

It's unanimous. Those against? It's carried. Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Cree, Reigan, Reardon and Sheather.

Okay, the next item is 10.5.3 Western City Infrastructure Grant Program.

Moved by Deputy Mayor.

That was Councillor Veigel.

Is it my turn to speak? Sorry. Before I, before we enter debate, I would like to move the recommendation, however, where the council has endorsed option 1A, I would like to have as part of the recommendation

3A and 3B. Now let me just understand the difference. Is the Aboriginal acknowledgement in each one depending on the location of the sign? Yep. So I'd like to have 3A and 3B, but on legs. So you know how 4A and 4 have, calling them legs, that's what I wrote here, poles, they're high, they're elevated. No , no, totem means the vertical.

It's drawing number

4 on the back. So it's option 3A and 3B, understanding the difference between the location and the wording underneath, but elevated, as in 4A and 4. And however, I would like to ask the staff for their opinion on whether there's going to be certain locations where the vertical may be required over the horizontal, and I don't know what they are, and I'm not going to put you on the spot. But I'm happy, I would like to have a mix. This is really confusing, the recommendation. 3A and 3B elevated, with the potential for vertical in terms of 1A and 1B, if required, depending on the size of the area of location. Does that make sense?

Yeah. Okay. So point 2 will read: endorse option 3A and 3B, however make them elevated, so on legs like 4 and 4A. However, where space does not permit the horizontal sign, to have the vertical sign in line with

1A and 1B.

Does that make sense to everybody? Essentially I'm saying yes to the navy blue, no to the tan, mostly horizontal elevated, vertical if required.

And who was my seconder? Oh, whoever, happy with that? Councillor Veigel.

To that, Mr Mayor? Yes Thank you, Mr Mayor. I hope that everybody understands that. The essential part that I'm making is that I really like the navy blue background with the white writing. I think that that stands out a lot, and I thank the staff for putting that one forward. It's just very striking. My concern with the tan— Colour is getting dirty again like they are now. So I would be concerned that that could be the potential for that to happen. So I really was going for that. I think the elevated horizontal signs really stand out. I think they need to be elevated because if they were on the ground, such as options 2A and 2B, I just don't think they're going to stand out to the cars driving past.

So I really want to make sure that they are as vibrant and stand out as possible so that people know that they're entering our beautiful LGA. I did also want to talk about a couple of questions. Those — the signs that I've just recommended are replacing the blue and white signs, not the Macquarie Towns signs. Are the Macquarie Towns signs staying in place, please?

Through you, Mr Mayor, I'd have to take that on notice. I can't recall.

Okay, that's fine. I think that if they are going to be removed, just let us know, and we will make a decision in that regard, because they do have obviously importance in our community for those Macquarie Towns. Also, I just wanted to put on notice the current signs needing cleaning. I'll just wait for the director. That's okay.

What have I done?

No, there's going to be discretion for the staff depending on the location. I think that everyone understands that.

Just clarifying your motion, Councillor.

I'm trying to be flexible. I'm trying.

That's all clarified? Yeah.

Clear as mud, Councillor.

Endorse 3A and 3B, elevated pole sign

Yeah. Yeah. What ? Sorry , five metres. No, no, vertical . Vertical in line. Yeah, that should say vertical. I had to think then.

No, option 3A, I was just discussing with the staff, Councillors, options 3A and 3B, because they are ground mounted, they are on a sandstone plinth. So obviously, when we turn them into pole signs, that sandstone plinth won't exist

Anymore. No, exactly. I'm just, I'm going for the Navy. That's what I'm trying to say. We've got

You. Eekly, you could go option 4A with the colours inverted. Yeah.

Did you want me to say that instead?

I think we get it.

You understand. Okay. I'm glad you get it. So those Macquarie Town signs I've put on notice to come back with, and my other question was the current signs needing cleaning. I know a couple of councillors have raised that before. There is posts on social media that a couple of locals are undertaking that task themselves on the 1st of November. I wanted to know whether the council had an issue with them touching our assets. I don't know if that's a problem, but apparently they're going to clean them, and I mean we can't really knock back free service, but I'm very concerned about the legality, public liability, injury , safety. Do you want to take that on notice as well, Director?

The primary issue is that we're not the only roads authority. So those signs, particularly the town entry signs, are located generally on state roads, for which Transport for New South Wales is also a roads authority. And technically they would be undertaking works which they cannot do without the consent of the roads authority under the Roads Act.

It'd be much easier for us to do it, Councillor.

Yes, if we can undertake those tasks within design, I don't know whether it's .. . it just needs to come off. So there can be

Through you, Mr Mayor, there have been a number of attempts made to clean these signs in the past. What the teams, from the basis of the information I've been told, is that the grime is either under the reflective surface or, as they go to clean, because of the age of the signs, the sign face is coming off with it. Now, given the proximity of where we're at in terms of replacing them, the advice that I've provided to our staff is that if there's a risk of any of those two things occurring, not to touch them.

Thank you. I will take your advice. How long then, in a perfect world, would these signs be made and put up in the community, replacing the current ones?

Through you, Mr Mayor, I'd have to take that on notice. The redesign won't take very long, given the modification or the amendment tonight, and I don't have the program at hand in my head.

That's all right. It'll come back as questions. Thank you. I think, Mr Mayor, we may need to just have a chat with the individuals who may want to clean those signs about the legalities around land ownership and injury involved in touching assets, because if they damage those signs and therefore they're eligible, that could be an issue. So, correct , personal injury. I do practice that. So I did just want to point out that I have been a huge advocate for these entry signs to be replaced in our LGA, and I do welcome the funding through, still call it Western Invest, WSIG funding for this purpose. I've always found it quite interesting that when we've put things on social media about updating our signage, it hasn't been met with positivity from our community.

And I will always find that interesting because I think people say to the council, We want you to do things to improve the look of our area. We're like, Hey, here, we're doing something. This signage is going to look amazing, and it's, you know, spend it on roads, which again goes back to how some people, a lot of people, don't understand the way that we can only use certain funding for certain purposes. So let me just put on the record, this funding is locked in for these purposes. We can't change it to fill in a pothole. It is locked in for signage. It is going to look amazing. Our signs are well and truly due for an update, both our gateway signage, and I did want to reiterate that there are 11 locations who will get new signage as well.

That's Bligh Park, North Richmond, Kurrajong, Kurmond — I'm looking at the time — Bilpin, St Albans, Glossodia, Wilberforce, Pitt Town, Clarendon and Colo. So they are going to have new signage as well. And I hope we can get an answer back on the record about the timing of that, because I would like to put that out to the community when they can expect those signs to be replaced. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor, your questions leads to another area. The signs we're talking about, entry signs, the ones that we're talking about cleaning are location signs, the five Mcquarie towns. And yeah, those are the five Mcquarie Towns signs that are the problem.

Through you, Mr Mayor, both have been raised with us in the past. The question about the volunteers cleaning, I think relates to the town entry signs.

But we've experienced problems with both signs when we've gone to clean them.

We might have a talk about that later.

Councillor Creed. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I just wanted to clarify, given — so we've got the 3A and the 3B. So we've got traditional country Ngurra of the Darug people and Darkinjung peoples, and then on the other side we've got traditional country of the Darug peoples. So when we put these up, there's specific areas that 3A will go to, and then— okay, I just want to make sure that we don't stuff that up. That's all. Cool. Thank you.

God bless.

Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I looked at this quite carefully. It's been a long time coming, and I don't think anybody would think that we don't need, you know, more encouraging signage at our entry points. Just to confirm, of course, the town entry signs will say the town name, won't they?

Sorry, the

Town entry signs will say the town name. Only , will there be any other information on those such as the elevation or the population, for example?

Through you, Mr Mayor, the nature of the town entry signs has already been settled under the Wayfinding Strategy, which was adopted by Council a couple of years ago. The exact date escapes me, and I can't recall what information was on those signs.

Okay. I can't recall it either, but I do prefer the option that Councillor McMahon has put forward rather than the recommended option. However, I still, I don't know, I've still got a bit of an issue with it all, and I know I'm not going to say no to it because I think it needs to proceed, but I just feel that in some respect we're missing an opportunity where we could have really stamped our identity on these signs. Like, I know when we initially discussed it, which was, what, probably four or five years ago, you know, my suggestion was that we have some sort of graphic that showed what is in our township, so some sort of photographic image or something like that. And I understand there's expense involved, but I just think that given the aim of the project is to strengthen the identity of the city, improve visibility for visitors, and provide a distinctive and culturally respectful arrival experience, that we could have just gone a little bit further and put something that was really unique for an area that's so rich in history and, you know, there's so many experiences to do here.

I know for many years there was a sign at Bilpin — it wasn't the official sign; it's probably still there, may not be there lately — that says Bilpin, land of the mountain apple, for example. It's still there, yeah. And, you know, I think that I appreciate that we've got this grant, that we can do that. I don't know what's happening to the suburbs like Freeman's Reach or Colo Heights or things that aren't getting one. Like, are they just getting a stick one, like a bare town? Are they getting anything, or do they remain unidentified?

Through you, Mr Mayor, I'd have to take that on notice. Okay,

Thank you. The other thing I noticed, I couldn't see an approval for the Currijong sign. Is there an issue with that? I ask that because I know in the past there was a proposal from the Currijong Community Forum to do their own sign, and the issue was around approval in the location on the corner near the traffic lights that the RMS, as they were there, did not want to allow a sign to go there. So I note on the list there's approvals for everywhere else. There's not one for the old sign of Road Currijong, and I wondered, was that an issue brewing?

That's the list for the LGA entry signs you're referring to.

Oh yes. Is it not getting one there?

I'm fairly certain that the LGA entry signs are reserved for the entry points to the LGA, so it would be at Bilpin. Oh, so you've only got

Approval for those.

I suspect, yes.

Okay. All right, thank you. Yeah, I mean, ultimately I would prefer to see less signs done at this point, but enhanced signs. But I think I've left the run too late on that. One thing I did just want to clarify then. So, for example, if a community themselves wants to fund and design an entry sign, something specific, perhaps with a local flavour or something like that, what is Council's current position on enabling or allowing that to occur? So if, for example, Currijong wants a sign on the corner, which they do, what impediments might be raised against that aside from perhaps if it's on RMS land? What about if it's on Council land?

Through you, Mr Mayor, so there's a couple of issues there. Firstly, it would have to be, unless Council resolve to modify or do away with its strategy, it would have to be in accordance with the strategy. And then secondly, it would have to be of a suitable construction, a suitable location, considering all the usual things around sight lines, pedestrian desire lines, offsets to pedestrian paths of travel, et cetera, et cetera. And then we would engage with and, if all of those things were suitable and it didn't present any other concerns in terms of duplication or anything in that respect, then I'd imagine that we would enter into some sort of agreement with that community group. But in short, it would begin with a discussion with the community group about what they want to achieve, where, and we would work with them to try and make that happen.

So it's not an outright no. Thank you. That's correct. Pretty close.

Councilor Ryan. Yeah, thanks very much. I just saw there that, well, I looked at this fairly well, about the sandstone base. What are the dimensions of that sandstone base that would go on this? Because, you know, the posts up and down, yeah, look, they look all right and we've got them existing, but can you give us a bit of an idea of the size of the sandstone blocks going under? Will they go right across the full length of that sign? And because as far as I'm concerned, that'll give it a bit more of a local feel rather than—

Through you, Mr Mayor, with the amendment, the sandstone would fall away from the horizontal sign. It would only be retained on the— Post the totem signs where the horizontal sign is not suitable due to road safety concerns.

What size would those signs be, Box, please?

A 650 base.

So they would be 650 mil high and 235 mil wide. Right.

Look, I still have... I've grown up in the Hawkesbury. I know we've got a sign in Pitt Town there that's got Macquarie's face on it, because one of Macquarie towns, it's red and blue. Then we've got the golden green one, and most of our buildings, I notice they sort of carry in with the green and gold colours. I think we're just moving away from our colours so often, and we're a historical town. We should be sort of looking at that more. I know I'm a bit late in the scene with this. This is my first look at this sort of thing. But we're a historical town. We're always trying to sell our history. And I put this to the Pitt Town Progress Association last night and showed them. I thought I'm going to get some more input from the people who voted for me, and some of the comments were a bit rough, to say the least.

Basically going on that historical side of it. And so realistically , I'd really like to see something done, even the Hawkesbury sign with the river and the sky and the blue, that's different to what's on our computer screen here today. So, I'm not real impressed with them actually, to tell you the truth. Thanks very much. General Manager.

Thank you through you, Mr Mayor. What I would say is, in reference to those town and village signs, so what you've got before you tonight, Councillors, is the LGA entry signs. Those town and village signs, the best reference you've got is the one in Richmond that's got the sandstone plinth. So the adopted signage strategy had both a heritage and a non-heritage version of that within it, and the one at Richmond is the best one. That's the one that can be replicated.

Mr Mayor, can I just clarify whether the motion, I thought Councillor McMahon wanted a navy sign.

Isn't four navy, or is four up? Okay. Okay. All right. Sorry, I was looking at the—

Sorry, Mr Mayor. Question.

Councillor Ryan, you finished?

Oh.

Yeah

Not really. I just had a quick look at the sign from Richmond. Why is it upside down, the Richmond? Like, it looks like we're walking through a library reading books sort of thing. Why haven't we got that with Pitt? Say, like Richmond, start with the R-I-C-H-M-O-N-D. We've got people that turn their heads like a fox terrier pup, they'll read it.

Well, screw, they turn their heads. And I don't want to do that while I'm driving along the road.

No, I'm certainly referencing the horizontal signs in the signage strategy, Council, not the vertical ones.

Yep.

Sorry, Mr Mayor, I just had a question around the time frame. Given that this is a WISIC project, is this, are we in urgent need to decide this tonight?

Through you, Mr Mayor, my recollection is that we've already had to make an extension once, and furthermore, the manufacturer, I understand, is holding materials too. So yes, there is a level of urgency to resolve this.

That's okay. I was just checking.

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. Look, I have to agree with Councillor Ryan that I don't love these. They look like an email trailer. They don't look like a sign. But I think if we put them in context, in that they're the entryway signs to the LGA, rather, so they're— you know, pass them as you come in and as you go out— and that's, it's just a marking, I think, rather than the town signs, which I think are much more evocative of any sort of sense of place. I think that's what these signs lack, is a sense of place. I think it's very difficult when you've only got a few words like Welcome to the Hawkesbury, and I think that there's a real —

There's a balance between visibility and, particularly when you're driving quickly. Many of our entryways are 80 kilometre an hour zones, and also at night. There's a balance between visibility and things that look lovely and evocative. And I say that having travelled through the Central West over Christmas, where they have some really beautiful town entry signs that are made out of rusted steel and they're blacksmith made. And I couldn't read half of them. You know, I looked at the map to see where I was. And so I think that's the balance, I guess. I think the navy is far better in terms of reading. My favourite bit of the navy is the sandstone at the bottom, which we've just binned. But the navy certainly is, I think, is much easier to read.

I'm concerned that it will fade, but it certainly has better definition and visibility. I don't know that you're going to see what's on the Dunn colour as well. And I do think elevating is a good idea. I'd love to see these in garden beds, if possible, and for those garden beds to be maintained, because I think there is the potential then to have some sense of place, particularly if we use native species around those signs so that the sign becomes the standalone information piece and the sense of place is created around that sign. I think we could probably have the best of both worlds. That should also cut down then on some of the maintenance of that area, because well mulched garden beds that are heavily planted can be easier to maintain than having a guy out with a whipper snipper around the base of a blue sign that isn't going to stay blue for very long if that maintenance is done.

And again, it's another thing against the sandstone. You can't whipper snip up against sandstone. It gets progressively smaller. Will there be a cost saving if we get rid of the sandstone?

Through you, Mr Mayor, I'd have to take that on notice. It would depend whether those materials have already, or what materials have already been purchased.

Which, as what shall we do with all our lovely sandstone?

I'll take that on notice.

Thank you.

Councillor Lyons-Buck has probably got an idea there. Yeah

And just regarding the vertical signs, I think, yeah, to Councillor Ryan's point, they are difficult to read when you have to turn your head on the side. We can probably, you know, that's—they're nice, they fit into the space and all of that, but they're not very legible. So if we could, I don't know, I know it's a stylised thing and that's the current fashion trend, but I think we should prioritise legibility over— it's a limited claim to beauty. Thanks.

Yeah, thanks, Councillors. I support the motion. On the long weekend, I went up through Singleton, Maitland, five other local government areas. They've all got totem poles up there, and I didn't see one that I didn't feel like running into, really. They look terrible. You couldn't read them; you had to stand on your head. I should have taken Councillor Ryan with me to do some interpretation. They were poorly—well, they were well done, but I think when you come into a town, we're still a fairly rural town. Most of our signs are going to be in a rural area, and when they're up on the side of the road, you can read them at a distance. And that's what we want. We don't want someone driving into our town, trying to read a sign and finish up in the ditch. And I agree with the colours as well; they'll stand out.

Councillor?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I can't help myself. I always get annoyed when I read a sign that says, Thank you for visiting the Hawkesbury, or Thank you for visiting something. I think, how can a sign thank you for... I'd much rather they said, You are now leaving the Hawkesbury. There you go. That's my two cents' worth . Just thought I'd throw that in the mix. Thank you.

Mr Mayor, could I

Just ask a couple of questions? Question Question, sorry. The position of these signs—some of the signs aren't in grand spots. Like the one that says, I'm thinking of the one on King Road, Wilberforce, that says, Thank you for visiting Wilberforce, and two-thirds of Wilberforce are yet to be traversed at that point. Can we make sure that these are at the actual end points before we say to people, Off you pop then? You know, it just seems a bit silly. I'm not visiting, and I'm still there. So what position are we putting these in, and could we have a look before that's set in stone? And the other question is, can we get some information—I'm happy to take this on notice—about the money that's allocated for heritage info signs.

Is that in the previous section of the wayfinding? Can someone remind me of that? And if we are doing anything about allocation of heritage signage, the Macquarie towns, for example, signs, they're quite old now. The Wilberforce one has been repaired and set back up and recovered and had a number of things done to it over the years, some of which is probably best not discussed in a public forum. And so they really are getting quite worn. The Richmond sign has quite a lot of good information, and if it ties in with what's happening in the visitor information centre, then that's helpful.

We'll take that on board, Councillor. Not aware of it. In relation to the location of the entry signs, most of our entry signs are similar to most other local government areas in that actually in the adjoining council area. When you get a welcome sign, usually coming into a local government area in advance of the boundary. Anyway, I'm sure the staff will deal with that appropriately.

Otherwise they'd have to be next to each other, because as we leave one, we're in another.

Yeah. Okay.

But

If they're not in

Our area, how do we

Maintain them?

They haven't been maintained. That's part of the problem.

Just a question, please. In line with what Councillor Willer said about the garden beds, is that something we could consider? I'm conscious of cost, but if we're saving cost on the sandstone part, and then I'm also worried about maintenance in terms of weeds or what have you. So I just wanted your view — I was going to say director — on that idea, cost- and maintenance-wise. Thank you.

With the benefit of a few minutes' thought,

There would be a cost to install the garden beds. Generally the biggest issue is establishment, watering, particularly if we hit a dry spell, and then sustaining those during dry spells. The maintenance crews aren't set up for horticultural-type activities on those further reaching areas. They're set up with out-front slashers, whipper snippers and so forth. The inclusion of garden beds, woods, in all likelihood come at some cost. When we say some cost, there would be somewhere that would have to do with a little bit less, and I couldn't at this point in time say to what extent that would be. No,

Thank you. I think we just have been speaking about this for so long, let's just get it done.

You have a right of reply, Councillor.

That was my right of reply. Thank you .

The motion is on the screen in front of you, Councillors. That is the motion. Those in favour?

Against? It's carried. It was unanimous. Councillors Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Veigel, Regan, Reid and Sheather. The motion's carried.

The next item is 11.1.1, Floodplain Management Committee. Can

I move a motion, please, Mr. Mayor?

Yes, Councillor Kotlash. Thank you.

I send a motion to the staff this afternoon, if I can just have that up. It includes the first point one, which is the recommendation in the business paper, that we receive and note these minutes. My — my motivation for the next point is that I've noticed that we, when we receive these items, a lot of the time we're receiving and noting minutes from a meeting, and in this particular one, that had three items that were received and noted, doesn't have enough information. And frankly, it's kind of— I was sort of looking, looking, you know, through it thinking, this isn't— this isn't really good enough for this sort of— this is a very important topic. And to have things like — and this is not a criticism of the— this is just how this is being rolled out, and I just don't think it's serving our purposes.

The received, the minutes from the last floodplain committee was on the 20th of August. There was a presentation on governance and induction. There was floodplain risk management project updates. I could go to the hub and look up what the business papers for that meeting were, but I don't know what the committee talked about, and it doesn't really give us any information about what they thought, whether there was any advice. So I've put together point two, and it's really not controversial or anything. I just would like to have a briefing session, or whatever we're going to call them, to revisit the terms of reference, because I think we need to make it more efficient. It's not efficient for us to receive a note, minutes that are three items of receiving and noting.

That's kind of getting very close to yes, Minister sort of stuff. And I think we need to also be mindful of the outcomes that we want. Now, I've said that the topics could include in our briefing that we might revisit the objectives, because some of the objectives have already kind of happened, and for the terms of reference, there's some that I think we really need to revisit.

The other thing is how we ask the committee for advice. So what that process is, and it's not really captured in our terms

Of reference— Councillor, before you go on, you're moving what's on the screen.

Oh yes, sorry. I'll second it, Mr Mayor. Thank you. Sorry, Mr Mayor.

You're right

So I'd really like to be able to ask, you know, the committee to look at a specific thing and have them look at it, and to actually have that documented about what was actually— how they deliberated, who they asked, who else in the community they consulted, because that's one of the things that is said in the terms of reference, is that that's what those committee members will do. The frequency of the meetings, I think this problem that I'm pointing out about the receiver note is we're probably having meetings that aren't necessarily warranted . It could have maybe been carried over. I want to know how the ideas from the committee members that isn't necessarily advice gets addressed. Like if a committee member has a really good idea , and I think one of them, I think from just coming off the top of my head, was that the emergency building at St Albans gets flooded.

Can we move it? Now that's an idea from a committee member. That's a perfectly reasonable thing for us to ask , but there isn't any mechanism. It just gets shoved in the minutes, and we don't have—so I want to actually say, I don't know whether we can do that or not, but that's not the point. The point is, how do we capture those ideas? And the other thing that sort of flummoxed me a bit, and I think we really do need to revisit it, is the very last point in the terms of reference. It says every briefing that the committee receives should also be subject to a briefing to the council, along with the Floodplain Management Committee's feedback on the matter. So, do they get briefed first, presumably from some external agency, then they, what, they say that was a good briefing, that's not relevant to council?

I mean, I don't know what sort of advice they're giving us. But then we have to be briefed as well. I really think we need to revisit that. That's all I want to say. I'd really like to strengthen that, especially after tonight's deliberations with the rescission motion. That's it. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you, Councillor. Before we go on, I'd just clarify a couple of things that you spoke of. The briefing was in relation to the presentation from our council staff in relation to the responsibility of the committee, as put by the staff. And so the recommendation in that case was that it be received.

Could I just get you to say that again? I didn't actually hear you. I didn't hear you. Could you just say that again?

Yeah, I can. With the item 3.1.1, the Floodplain Committee received the governance induction presentation by the council's governance section. That was the council officer, and she's with us tonight. And it was in relation to the responsibilities of the committee and how they should deal with it. And so that was received. There was nothing to pass on from that. In relation to the next item, the committee board , sorry, there was discussion by the staff in relation to the risk management projects, the floodplain risk management projects. So that was information to the committee in relation to matters that they've been dealing with. And so there was nothing to move on from there. In relation to the next item, in respect to the indemnity, the information that was provided tonight in a notice of motion was indicated to the staff, indicated to the committee, and it was received in that regard.

In general business, and that's matters, as you spoke of, and this is in the minutes in our business paper, there was a matter raised by Mr Conolly in relation to a depression on the far end, on the eastern end of the Jim Anderson Bridge, that's nearly half a metre lower on the bridge itself, which is 17.3, which makes an evacuation access from Windsor at 17.3, reduced it to just over 16.5 metres. That's been investigated by the SES and being dealt with. Otherwise, that was classified as the evacuation route at 17 metres, which is not. So the committee and members of the committee are diligent in their work in relation to the other matter about the information—sorry, the... Fire station, that's in one of Council's programs, come up in relation to the flood report that come to Council some months ago in relation to the McDonald, Colo and Webbs Creek study.

And it was put there in a position that if there is land available, that could happen. But within the report it said that Council doesn't have land within the close vicinity of where it is, and so at this stage it's where it is. So I hope that clarifies some of the information you're after.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

It does, but that's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that the

Process of how the committee gives advice, like the staff—

You've spoken, Councillor. If you've got a question—

Yeah, but I think you've misunderstood what I meant . Do you mind if I clarify what I meant?

You can clarify, Councillor.

How did the— okay.

If the information about the Jim Anderson Bridge was for the SES, then that isn't— I mean, it's good that it came up—but that isn't advice to Council. This floodplain committee is to be able to advise us on the decisions that we make. That's, I suppose that's all very well, but that we start to—and I've seen this happen a lot—

We're losing the clarification, Councillor. Yeah

Okay. I , um, I still think that we need to clarify the process, not the outcome, as you were explaining.

Thank you. Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I did have similar sort of questions around. I did attend the floodplain committee online, so I watched it unfold and saw that. I'm happy to go to a briefing to discuss those sort of items. The other thing I would like that committee—my issue was that the committee was not capturing various information that was said within there, that the minutes don't capture that. But also that there's no running update on things that were going to be done, such as around gauges and things like that, which we really need to just at some point— I guess that might be disaster and emergency management meeting—but I know at times we've raised questions about whether gauges were in working order.

It's very important they are. How do we know that? We get asked about these things, which is why I'm raising them. I noticed when I was watching, so for example, and I think this probably goes to what Councillor Kotlash was saying, there was a topic around the inconsistencies in the flood planning level, but there was no recommendation or resolution, which is fine. The committee may choose not to, but that isn't captured so much in the minutes of what that was about, so nobody else knows because this is a committee that isn't recorded. So all we've got for anyone who can't attend is what's written here. So, you know, we know there's an inconsistency in the planning things. We've got a one in 100 here and we've got a one in 200 there, but nothing's moving forward on that from the committee's point of view, even though there was a discussion around that.

The committee received the relation to the legal advice. There were some very clear comments made by agency representatives. The lady from the Department of Water and Climate Change, I think she's from, had said something sort of reinforcing that advice, and that isn't captured or translated into this chamber for everyone else to understand what was said there. And I think that would have been very beneficial had people heard that. We should be taking notice of all these things. So I do share some concerns. I think that we need a vehicle of capturing the ideas, as it said. We need a forum that captures the post-flood experience effectively enough to translate it into actions. I know that the committee has a brief to, you know, to go out and administer the various flood studies, and that's been done and that's good.

But there are some gaps. You know, we do have to capture this stuff if we're to progress our way forward. Again, I had a question around the rest of the floodplain committee meeting seem to have been cancelled for the rest of the year. So how will we hear about that SES update? If there's a section of the evacuation route that's under the 1 in 100, I mean, to me, that's obviously it's the SES's problem ultimately, but we should know that, I think. And who fixes it? Whose responsibility is that road? I'm assuming it's a state road. So all of this sort of stuff just sort of half gets put out there, and there's not a holistic look at what we actually need to look at. I mean, there's been another conversation about the Warragamba Dam wall raising.

I mean, that's a dead duck. I don't know why, you know, why is a committee taking time to discuss that? There's been no request from Council for a committee to discuss that. So I'm happy to look at it further. It's got potential. We know that nowadays there's so much more around flooding, and we've You know, for many people who hadn't seen flooding here before, they've now seen it. So it's got a different perspective within the community of people's level of concern and engagement, of people's ideas, and of people's lived experience, of people who will now perhaps engage more with us about these things that may not have before. So I'm happy to look over all of that sort of thing.

Can I ask a question, Mr Mayor?

Can I ask a question?

Absolutely, Councillor.

Thank you. In the terms of reference in the Floodplain Committee, it says that one of the objectives is to facilitate broader community consultation and participation in floodplain risk management initiatives through informing and liaising with member community groups. What's the mechanism that you use in the committee that documents and tells us

How that works?

In relation to the studies that have been done, the committee sent out letters to all the residents. That happened in Redbank. There was, I think, 2,000 letters sent out there, eight replies. Colo, Webbs Creek and St Albans, they were sent out in all those locations to residents with 44 replies. So

Sorry, Mr Mayor, that's not what I asked. That's what council staff are doing. What are the members of the community, members of the committee, how are they... Getting us that information that Councillor Lyons-Buckett just described about those in the community, that's their role, that's what their objectives are. And I just don't, I want to know what that mechanism is. How do we know , how do we capture when these committee members consult with their communities?

Yep. That was a discussion by one of the members at the last meeting, actually, that it was the representative from the Colo, and how she was concerned on just how that she represents the community that she reported to. And there isn't a set mechanism, I guess. When there's a flood, they certainly communicate. When there's not, you know, it's more over a barbecue, I think. But there's another representative from the Progress Association of Pitt Town. They've got more of a stable base for that sort of communication. And most of them, so some of them involved with fire brigades and stuff like that, to get to the general community, and that's why the letters were sent out so that it was more direct. And we got copies of all those letters, and indeed they report to council in relation to those reports.

Any further?

Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I think it's probably useful to have a discussion about

How we capture the information. I can remember being on the floodplain committee in the 2016-2021 term where I I feel like we had much more descriptive minutes about discussions that took place. I know that that's an impost on the staff, but the purpose of these meetings is to capture information from people who are not us. You know, that's the whole reason that we have them. There are a couple of — because I'm on both committees, I can readily compare the Heritage Committee and the Floodplain Committee. So the Heritage Committee writes very lengthy and descriptive recommendations to Council. That's the nature of the people on that committee, I think,

And the matters that they're discussing probably as well. But it's also a recorded committee. So if you want to know what the Heritage Committee has said about something, if you want to know what they think that Council should do about something, you can read the recommendation and you can watch that meeting. We don't have the advantage of either in the floodplain committee, and I think what we're most missing, I don't think we've had any briefings that would fit into that call for briefings to be had by the committee and also to council, not in this term at any rate. I think there was one on the previous term. But what we are missing is the advice that comes from agencies, which is often evidence-based advice, can be quite difficult to translate into a recommendation and actually requires the whole committee to agree on that advice before it is then passed in a recommendation to council, which means that that information may never drift down to the people who are charged with making the decision.

And that, I think, is the most problematic aspect. So that's really what I'd like to discuss, how to capture the information that comes from agencies who are not people that would bail us up in the shops, like some of the local members of the heritage—sorry, of the floodplain committee will ring us up or talk to us at Coles or whatever, or hunt us down and make sure we know. Someone from the Department of Energy, Climate Change, Water and all the things, whatever that department's called, is unlikely to contact us because they think they've had their say, and they think that they've had their say in a forum where that information is going to come to us, and that isn't happening. So I think Councillor Kotlash's way forward has potential.

It behoves us, I guess, to work out how that then comes into practice. Thanks.

Any further debate?

Councillor Kotlash, right of reply.

Not necessary, thank you, Mr Mayor.

The motions on the screen in front of you, Councillors. Those in favour?

That's unanimous. Those against? It's carried. Councillors Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Durack, McMahon, Kotlash, Creed, Feigl, Reardon and Sheather. The motion's carried.

The next item is 12.1.2, emergency levy. It's a notice of motion. Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Ryan. Yeah, I'll move it. Councillor Ryan.

Second, Mr Mayor.

And Councillor Wheeler.

Councillor.

I'll now put the microphone on. Remember, you may remember we attended a meeting with Susan Templeman, the Assistant Treasurer from State, Mr Milo and Andrew Hall from the Insurance Council of New South Wales at the library in Windsor here. I got some real concerns there, and it made me go and have a look at this emergency service levy. It came in in 2017, as I've said there, and it was about $100 then, and our insurance policies since then have really skyrocketed. And I want to ask these questions of our government to see exactly where our funds are going, how much they have, how much we've got in the Hawkesbury, and hold them to the commitment they made in 2023 that they would go back and have a look at it.

I've got my insurance policy here from my own home. I'm paying $713.36 for that levy, and then I'm paying, on top of that... $601 GST, and then stamp duty of $595. We've been just taxed out of it. And if you read down further, we have some of the highest—we have the highest rate in this nation of people not insuring their houses, which is their biggest asset they own. And so I'm going to ask here , we pay the highest rates in Australia with places like Lismore, so our people are paying the most, or we're having the most people who can't afford to pay insurance on their biggest asset. So I'm getting some push from the grassroots to say it's about time our council stood up to us, stood up for us, and started taking this to the government to say reduce these levies because basically people can't afford it.

If you—I look back and one of the greatest things that is making inflation move forward, or one of them, is insurance policies. And for the people here that own a house, we know how insurance has gone up. Mine's $7,000 a year. That's what I'm paying to insure a house, which is incredible. And I'm at over 25 metres, so I'm just wondering what people who are lower would be paying. So it's one way that we could get some considerable amount of relief for our members of our community. So I just ask everyone if you could just have a look at that and ask that you move this motion for me, that we send this into council, into state government. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor,

Well, you're practicing there, are you? Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Whilst I appreciate that people are being hit by large insurance costs , I've got to say that our role as council is to advocate to the state government, or to any government, or advocate to anybody who will listen, on behalf of our residents. But the reason—I'm not going to support this because the reason is the state government have already said that charging the emergency service levy via insurance is unfair and they're going to change it. They've made that commitment. Now, the process, I know to everybody seems very slow, but that change—and so, one, we've started with the commitment that it's unfair. People who have insurance shouldn't be towing the line. It should be broader-based levy.

So, in order to do that and to change how it is charged, because it's charged by insurance companies and, believe it or not, brokers as well, so it's very complicated the way it's set up. What they've had to do is go out to consultation and look at how they remove it from insurance premiums, how they introduce it as a property-based levy, not an insurance-based levy. There's different models in how that they can do that. It has to be equitable . So there's so many— oh, the consultation process is just really rigorous, because we also have to make sure that people who are less able to pay, like pensioners and lower income people, aren't disadvantaged. It has to be— the funding has to be stable and long term.

I mean, there are so many things that need to be done, and I'm actually really quite proud of the progress that's being made on this. It went out to consultation, and there's been all sorts of what I consider to be absolutely necessary rigor in changing this. It's not as easy as you would think to change how people pay for this levy. It has to be, as I said, broader based. The consultation, my understanding of the consultation is that it wrapped up in August , maybe. Then the Treasurer and the committee who's overseeing how this is going to morph out, they're deliberating, and they will come up with what they think is the best way forward, and then that will go out to consultation again. So we're looking at implementation in around 2026, and I think that because it's such a complex sort of legislative change, and it also, as I said, we have to bring the community along with us, and it has to be fair, so we have to think about all of the who needs to pay this.

I think that the advocacy is sort of almost not warranted. The government is doing what we need them to do.

I think we have to partition the emergency services levy, partition that from the rises in insurance payments. I mean, there's all sorts of reasons why your insurance goes up. But for this particular thing, I think the government's on track. I think it's a great commitment. It should have been done ages ago, and hats off to the state government for doing this. I just think we need to be patient. I'm not sure what we would do with having a figure of what the emergency services levy collected across, you know, since 2017 will do. I'm not sure what we would do with that information. I think we just have to be prepared and a bit patient and let this process unfold, and hopefully it will be fair and we will actually get our fair share of the emergency services funding. So, yeah , I'm not going to support it. I don't think it's—

Thank you, Councillor.

One last thing. I think we need to keep our powder dry, and the advocacy is already done on this one. Thank you.

Councillor Vogel. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll be supporting the motion. I thank Councillor Ryan for putting it. I believe it's about 2.— well, my research and what I've been told is about $2.8 billion of those services have been accumulated each year the state government. The question is, what are they doing with it? Which I don't know. A lot of that money that's been brought in this community could come back to flood mitigation, dare I say. And a lot of those people around this chamber, Mr Mayor, as you well know, there's some exciting things happening out, which has been funded by others within the community that may get a solution to all our problems, okay? Now, if I was going to take— well, something's been done in Macquarie's Route, well, good on you, but we're also elected to go and bring the tolls down on the Western Sydney Roadways and do nothing about it.

And the rebates have come off now, so again, the people of the west are paying the tolls. So, look, I've got no problem putting this out. Let them get the response from Council and come back and say, well, what are you doing about 2.8 billion? And maybe we might get our fair share of it back into the Hawkesbury, because they all recognise, and we all recognise it here, it is an area of a high flood-prone based on the Sackville Gorge. If they've got the money to go and improve infrastructure in this damn state, they tend to waste it in a lot of other areas that I don't agree with. So, thank you, Councillor Ryan. I'll be supporting it.

Thank you, Councillor.

Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm very happy to support this notice of motion. I think these are fundamental questions that the state government needs to answer. I have just remembered, I think when I was the mayor, I did something about this, and I cannot, for the life of me, Councillor Ryan, remember what it was. It was years ago. But I do want to ask, do we have a figure off the top of our heads about what we paid last year as our contribution? I know it's 11.7%, is it? What did that equate to in a dollar figure? Happy to take it on notice if you're not aware.

I haven't got a clue, but

Yeah, thank you. I know it's a lot of money, and when you add the contribution that we have to make as a council on top of the other contribution that people are making with their insurance policies, the model isn't working. And I think that these questions to the state government, as I said before, exceptionally fair, and we deserve an answer in that regard. There needs to be a better model for funding these essential emergency services. And everyone knows I'm in the local RFS. It's not a declaration I need to make in this circumstance because we're talking about the emergency services levy, not RFS. However, the point is, the government's collecting this money in an incorrect way, which I fundamentally believe is an incorrect way, when something like the RFS is based on volunteers.

So what are you doing with the money you've got? Why do we have this model that is unfair to the people and the formula that's unfair to the way we have to pay it? And when you look at the paid staff of the RFS, they don't get paid overtime properly. They can be on call-outs for, I don't know what the money is, I don't know, it's like $50 a day, and they have to be on duty or on call for absolutely nominal money. They're dealing with trauma, as are the other emergency services involved as well, and the SES are also, you know, based on a volunteer service. They're dealing with trauma, and they're not getting paid properly. So not only are the staff not getting paid properly, but the fact that the government can't work out what it's doing with its money when most of these people are volunteers, that needs to be acknowledged in the collection of these levies.

So I thank Councillor Ryan for bringing this to the chamber. I will be supporting it. These questions need to be answered. I note Councillor Kotlash's remarks about the state government undertaking their election commitment. I think it's been too slow. The coalition got this wrong under Perrottet when they were trying to do it. He couldn't even get it right. I don't know who's going to get it right, but the current formula is so, so wrong. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll be supporting this motion, and I don't see any issue with it. I think it registers with the state government our interest, the level of interest in this community about this issue, which is quite an ongoing issue. It's encouraging to hear if there are moves to rectify it. But for most of the motion, it is centring on where has the money gone. And I think that everyone, what people want to know, and I mean, I think again, the state government, and of all, you know, Liberal and Labor, you know, they have done what they do so often, which is shift the onus of collection of money to another sector. So it's either they shift it to us, and we've got to collect it, and we're the big bad people.

In this case, they've shifted it to the insurance companies, and they have to collect it, and it's also part of why people complain about their insurance premiums, because it does lift it up. As Peter said on his insurance, you know, nearly $800 or something. So I think that we want to know when our volunteers go out to do this valuable work that they've got the equipment they need, that they've got, that our fire brigades, for example, have all the assets they need, that that money, if people understood where that money was going, they might not feel so hurt by having to pay quite so much of it, when we do already pay, I believe we pay a little over what we have to pay here anyway towards the emergency services.

So I think it's a good motion. I think one of its main values has, you know, getting it on the agenda. Really, ideally, I would like to see governments keeping us up. I know they've got a lot to do, but, you know, keeping us up to date when they know what a huge issue. This is in the community. I wasn't at the meeting that the federal member held, which addressed issues like this. It was for impacted residents, I believe, and communities. But I think that the issues raised about this are very valid, and I look forward to hearing the responses. It is a complex issue, obviously, to collect a levy of this nature. But we need to see, you know, a better way of collecting it, and then we need to see transparency in where it's being spent and how effectively it's being spent, and ensuring that what our community is putting into it is coming back into this community, unlike the waste levy, which doesn't come back here in any shape or form to do with how much we give.

Thanks, Councillor. The information is available to the question the Deputy Mayor asked. Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So council's total quarterly contribution is $398,000, comprising of individual contribution components of $ 289,500 for the New South Wales Rural Fire Service, a little over $52,000 for the quarter for the SES, and $56 ,837 for the Fire and Rescue. So total for the quarter is $398,000. So

Times four. Yeah, times—I know that much of accounting. So, plus the—and I don't want you to look it up, it's fine—but plus the amount we also then allocate for our local assets in terms of the stations and the trucks, which I know there's a report that's come out to try and for the state government to take a little bit of that back. But again, that's a whole big drama about do we just give them our asset and land or do they take it? Anyway, that's not the notice of motion. But I think it's important to see that we pay more than the emergency services levy for our local emergency services, and I think that's something we need to acknowledge. And again, going back to the fact that most of that is volunteer hours. Thank you.

Thanks for that clarification, Deputy Mayor.

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I think a lot of the ground has been covered. I do support the notice of motion. New South Wales has almost double the rate of underinsurance compared with other states. The New South Wales government collects $1.33 billion of emergency services levy and $1.64 billion of stamp duty from insurance premiums. The burden is higher in higher risk communities because these are percentage fees. So we are the only state to fund emergency services by taxing insurance, and it makes up between 15% to 18% of every insurance premium. And then there's another 11% — that's the government's own figures — that's another 11.7% that councils are charged in emergency services levies.

So in areas like the Hawkesbury, our ratepayers, or our residents, pay six times. They pay higher premiums, they pay an increased emergency services levy and an increased stamp duty because they're sliding scales, because they're percentages which make them sliding payments from a higher base . They pay the personal impacts of floods and fires, including loss of work and property damage. They pay the council costs of the RFS and the SES via rates. And then, as Councillor McMahon has stated, they volunteer to provide their own emergency services anyway. And then they turn up on a Saturday to run a barbecue so that they can fund all the things that this doesn't pay for. How many times? This isn't a double dip or a triple dip.

This is six or seven times we're paying for the services that keep our community safe. It's great that the state government is onto this, but meanwhile, New South Wales has doubled the rate of underinsurance, and the emergency services levy and stamp duty charged on insurance premiums is one of the direct causes of this. When you can't get insurance, you can't get a mortgage. When you can't afford insurance and you have a house with a mortgage, you are effectively in default, and it's illegal. You're in breach of your contract. The current system isn't equitable because those at greater risk pay disproportionately more. It's not stable because people are opting out of insurance because they simply can't afford it, and it's not fit for purpose.

If they're reviewing this, they should have the information that Councillor Ryan is asking for at their fingertips, I would imagine. We can't petition the ESL off because it's a percentage fee. It rises with increasing insurance premiums. What I think is useful about this notice of motion is that during a review is the very best time for advocacy to a state government. If they're focused on this, if they're making plans, then let's get in their face and talk about just how much this impacts the people who live here.

Thank you, Councillor. Any further debate? Thanks for the motion, Councillor. Right of reply. Yeah,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I started this motion off because I know a few people who said to me they just can't afford insurance, and they're living in their biggest asset, something they've worked all their life, and if they lose that, they'll be homeless. They have no insurance, and that's it. They're finished up in the Hawkesbury, and they're our people.

So, listening in that meeting, they said that we spend 79% of all the money raised on reconstruction and rehabilitation after floods and fires, and we only spend 3% on mitigation. Well, isn't it time we started turning that around too, so that we can really start helping these people? And by lowering this levy, we're going to really look after our people. If, when it came in, I can't remember who brought it in, if it was just $100 and then went up with GST, we would have been happy. But to put it with a percentage that has risen probably quicker and higher than they expected, it is really hurting people. I'm not real happy about it on mine when I'm paying $7,000 to insure my house a year, and most of that is, where's our GST?

We get 34% of it in New South Wales, the rest of it probably goes south to some other bumbling, incompetent state, for want of a better word. Well, they're pretty serious about this, aren't they? And so I really think we have to stick it to this government and tell them we've had enough, and give us this information. We'll put it out to our community and let them know it's about time you started moving forward with this. So thank you very much, and I thank the councillors who are going to support this motion. Thank you, Councillor

The motion's on page 169. Those in favour?

It's Councillors Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Durack, McMahon, Creed, Vital, Reardon and Sheather. Those against? Councillor Kotlash. The motion's carried.

Councillors, the next item is 12.1.3. It's Planning Systems Reform Bill by Councillor Wheeler. We've got six or seven minutes. Would someone like to move that we deal with the next three items?

Councillor Djuric.

Do we have a seconder?

Councillor Reardon.

Extension, the motion is the extension to finish the next three items. Those in favour?

Against?

We'll go with those in favour.

We've got Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Djuric, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Sheather. Those against?

Councillor Creed, Councillor Veigel and Councillor Ryan. The motion is carried. Councillor Wheeler

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'll move the motion in the business paper. Seconded, Mr Mayor. Thanks. I'm sorry that this has come so late in the meeting, but it is really important. This legislation is up for debate in State Parliament this week. The second reading speech was last week. This is quite a rushed process with very little consultation, and so for Council to affect how this legislation is dealt with, it needs to be dealt with tonight. And if we're going to take a motion to Local Government New South Wales, then that also needs to be dealt with tonight. This bill, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Planning Systems Reform Bill 2025, seeks to reorient the planning system to basically promote development.

It removes the focus on community, public interest and environment and intends, in the words of the minister, to provide a one-stop shop for developers. What's particularly concerning in this LGA is the diminishment of bushfire and environmental risk considerations in the EP&A Act. So it takes the risk assessment away from the RFS and moves it into the Department of Planning. There's a clear conflict of interest in this and a loss of expertise, particularly, and there's particular concerns around the loss of fire mapping expertise in this shift. It introduces as well a targeted development assessment, which expressly forbids consideration of environmental impacts and public interest. So if you imagine that happening with some of the controversial developments that we've had in this LGA, the Currajong Heights development, for example, that's really— to just wipe environmental impacts and public interest out of consideration of a development is really devastating.

It also undermines the ICAC recommendations that safeguard against corruption. So the minister had told Parliament that ICAC had helped shape these reforms, but ICAC has stated that it hasn't been asked to review or comment on this bill. Troublingly here, it removes cumulative impacts and allows large-scale developments to therefore then be carved up so that their cumulative impacts aren't considered. That's potentially deadly on our floodplain, where cumulative impacts of increased development could lead to increased runoff, flash flooding, or fill into the floodplain. That capacity to look at cumulative impacts would be removed. It places extraordinary power in the hands of the Minister for Planning and the Planning Secretary to wave through major development, and in fact it gives the Planning Secretary power to determine really what New South Wales looks like into the future.

It forces councils to deal with minor, what's termed minor non-compliance issues, within 10 days. So instead of the deemed refusal process that we find difficult to deal with now because of resource constraints, we would be moving to a deemed approval process within 10 days of that coming to council. This is not appropriate in an area with major fire, flood, biodiversity, environmental and heritage constraints. And no consideration of councils' resourcing capacity to deal with this 10-day turnaround has been made by the government at this point. It removes regional planning panels, but local planning panels, which rob communities of democratic determination of local developments, will stay, and the minister will have more say in how panels are constituted, including across LGAs.

So we could end up with a local planning panel that isn't actually local, that would cover us and the Blue Mountains, for example, or us and the Hills, or would deal with particular developments across those areas. There's been no consultation with councils, who will bear the brunt of increased costs and community outrage. And unfortunately, it has been welcomed by the Local Government New South Wales President, contrary to Local Government New South Wales policy, and with no consultation with the Local Government New South Wales board, apparently because it'll be cheaper in the Land and Environment Court, mostly because everything will just be deemed approved in ten days and waved through.

So having called for councils to be involved in fine tuning, it seems like there's little hope for that unless this bill goes to an inquiry. And I think that if we can get the weight of public opinion through to members of both the upper and lower house that we want this bill at least stalled long enough for consultation amongst councils and preferably sent to an inquiry where the people impacted by this bill can have a say and so that there can be some consideration, then we might at least end up with something that is fit for purpose. But in its current form, it most definitely is not.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor, did you second that? I heard the voice, but I didn't. I did. Thank you.

Shall I speak? Thank you. I'm also concerned about the lack of consultation. It is true we don't have as many decisions being made around planning as we once did, but of course we have to set the strategic direction and much of that has to tie in with this. Since I've been a councillor, there's been many different iterations of so-called planning reforms, but I've never seen one rushed through this fast and with no consultation whatsoever with the council. So it's quite disappointing. My concern is that yes, we need housing, but it seems to be becoming an excuse for all sorts of changes being proposed, and mostly without any real consideration for the long-term future, and not all specific to housing at all, as these reforms extend to other forms of development.

So when we're looking at development, it's got to be viable, sustainable and aligned with long-term goals. The myth about councils holding up housing was busted earlier this year when local government New South Wales publicly rejected the claims that councils are responsible for the delay in housing delivery. The state government's falling short of its housing target, but that's not the fault of the councils. It's not our fault at all. In 2024, in Western Sydney alone, there were 75,000 dwelling approvals, which are as yet unbuilt. So now we see the introduction of these so-called reforms masquerading as a solution for housing and reduction of red tape in getting approvals. We know, really, in reality, there's issues around availability of skilled tradespeople, around the cost of building materials, potential supply chain hurdles to overcome, availability of infrastructure in areas, electricity, sewer, water and internet access.

Aspects around financing and investment have impacted the capacity of people to develop as well. Much of the focus of the current government around housing has been around low and mid-rise housing projects around transport routes. This bill aims to make the system quicker and simpler to navigate, but what use is it doing that if there remains so many impediments to actually see housing constructed? It doesn't make any difference. You just have more approvals and more unbuilt houses. If in certain areas, however, the speeding up means eliminating environmental assessments, and that applies to all development, not just housing, then this could have really significant long-term impacts, especially in an area like this.

We also know that cutting red tape doesn't always deliver results. Look at the major issues which have emerged around poorly constructed apartment blocks with cracking and structural damage, leaving owners with massive repair costs. It's not too fast when much of a building has to be replaced and repaired. You've defeated the purpose of rushing it through on some specific pathways. And these apartments were approved through compliant development pathways using private certifiers hired by developers to sign off on them. I believe government has aimed to improve instance like that continuing, but any rushed planning amendments done under the guise of speeding things up does not necessarily equate to positive outcomes.

I think the thing that frustrates me most when I see these supposed reforms to planning is that never , I've never seen it, I've studied it, but I've never seen it, where we actually stop and look at how it is best to plan in this country for the conditions we have, for the topographical and other restraints that we have. And there's always this really rushed effect going with it to get things in really quickly, to do this, to do that, different pathways all the time, different modes of assessment, etc. And yet when you look at overseas examples and you look at planning in countries that focus mainly on the balance they can get of the outcomes between, you know, the legal and regulatory frameworks and public interest, etc., I don't know.

I look at places like Germany, for example, which has such a mix of really good development, or if you're looking at high density development at Singapore and places like that, I just think that at some point in Australia, and I've heard this delivered in conferences of people who are critical of how Australian planning is done, is that we need to take a breath from this continual rolling juggernaut of just changing it so it's faster and actually look at what we're actually building to see what we're going to have in the future.

Thank you, Councillor. Any further discussion? Councillor Creed.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll keep this brief given the time. I'll be supporting this notice of motion, I think. It always concerns me when planning or any sort of reform goes through, especially when it deals with a particular sector and the sector hasn't even been spoken to or warned that it was coming up. I won't go over everything that my colleagues have already spoken about, but this just comes down to the fact that, again, this is just the state government once again dwindling away the authority of locally elected councillors when it comes to representing the people that vote for them on issues that matter to them. Centralising never works, and I've always said that. We need locals that understand what happens locally, whether it's the environment, whether it's certain types of planning.

And again, I'm just so frustrating because when people ask me, Oh, can't you do this? You're one of the councillors, and I have to sit there and explain to them that we no longer have the authority when it comes to approving DAs. We no longer have authority to do so many things because consecutive governments have continually dwindled away local government responsibilities and authority. So I'm more than happy to support this for Councillor Wheeler, and I look forward to hopefully debating this at the Local Government New South Wales conference in November. So I'll be right there behind you, Councillor Wheeler. Thank you, Councillor. Yeah,

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. This won't be the last one that comes up with the amount of housing that the government's directed that's going to happen in such a short time. There's got to be some changes made or they're not going to build them. So it's a bit of an argument that you're going to have, I'm guessing, in relation to this. But thanks for your motion. Any other debate? Right of reply.

Thanks, Mr Mayor, and I thank Councillor Creed and Councillor Lyons-Buckett for their support. I think we have to be really, really clear. This is about removing red tape. It's not about building houses. It's being sold as a way of increasing housing supply, and all it's doing is gutting environmental and community and public interest protections. I mean, for to have a government stand up and say that they will remove environmental—it's called the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. How can you remove the environmental protections from the assessment process? That's just a staggering piece of hubris, based on the erroneous idea that by giving everybody a tick in the box, we'll all of a sudden get a whole lot of fantastic houses.

It doesn't stack up against there are other strategies for more sustainable, climate-ready development that makes houses that people are better able to live in, are better able to afford the power bills for. None of that fits in with this. And it's not just—this bill doesn't just apply to housing. It applies to all sorts of development: caravan parks, large tourist parks, mining, all sorts of stuff. Power lines, power transmission lines, everything is covered by this. This is putting a chainsaw through the environmental regulations that apply to New South Wales and putting a whole lot of power into two people's hands. And that, I think, is something we should be very, very concerned about. They may be the nicest and least corrupt and most fabulous people in the world.

But they're not going to stay in those jobs forever. The potential for corruption here is really staggering. None of this meets with the ICAC recommendations handed down. This won't increase building . This won't fix the housing supply crisis. We know that that isn't due to council approvals. It hasn't been due to council approvals for years, and we have the data that proves that. This is just the stripping away of local community protections to remove public amenity from the housing process means that we will have communities who no longer recognise the places that they live in. And that is a real tragedy. So I hope other councillors can support this.

Thank you, Councillor. The motion is 12.1.3. Those in favour?

Those in favour are Councillors Wheeler, Lyons-Buckett, Ryan, Djuric, McMahon, Creed, Veigel, Reardon and Sheather. Those against? Councillor Kotlash. The motion is carried.

The next item is 12.1.4, Insurance Council of Australia.

Councillor, seconder?

Councillor

Wheeler

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'll speak to that. It's a reasonably straightforward motion, and I kept it separate from Councillor Ryan's motion about the emergency services levy to not blur the two different sort of aspects of what we're talking about here. This is really just putting out a request to the Insurance Council of Australia to come and address in a public forum, if they will, about how the insurance premiums are set in vulnerable areas, specifically around flooding and potentially fire. I don't know that I've put that there. I think this would be a really important thing to have on the record because it does get tossed around a lot, you know, to be used as an excuse of why we can't raise the flood level, for example, because the insurance will go up and be unaffordable.

I think there's a really good paper that anyone could read, if they wished, by the Geneva Association from 2020. That's an international think tank, non-politically aligned for the global insurance industry, and it's called Flood Risk Management in Australia, and it identifies the limitations on councils to have the resources and expertise in all areas related to flood planning, which is why we're guided and instructed by other levels of government and external expert studies, such as the flood study, to provide us with information. So in this paper, it was identified back then, and that's before we had all these sort of major events, that flood insurance affordability is a concern. But after investigation, it was found that the pricing reflected the high underlying risk.

So there's a correlation between those two things, which is what we're saying. So when we talk about introducing tools to reduce the risk, that's why we do it, because a reduction in risk means a reduction in how much you're going to pay for insurance. Fancy that. The risk is what lies at the heart of how premiums are set. So I would like everyone to hear somebody say that. I know it's been said in various small private forums, but it would be good if we could hear that, and then people could perhaps ask questions about anything that wasn't straightforward in how the insurance premium is set. The insurance industry, I know some people will say it's they're just acting for shareholders, but they're not.

They've got a job to do. They've got obligations. They are regulated. There are various things they can and can't do. They're a strong advocate for improvements in land use planning and risk reduction programs. They may want the risk reduced in areas because that will cost them less, but we want the risk reduced because it will save lives. So they go hand in hand. The two things are, you know, it's in everyone's best interest to reduce risk of being flood impacted to a minimum regarding of what the flooding source is. So if they would agree to attend, I've asked for a report to enable this to occur because we don't normally just ask people to come and address us, but it would be great if they could, and we can establish in a public setting those questions that are sometimes potentially lead to misinformation out in the public domain, and we could have that clarified once and for all.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor. Any discussion?

Councillor Wheeler.

Look, I don't have very much to add. I just want to speak in support of this. People are quite confused because there has been incorrect information put out publicly, and particularly when that's put out on social media, it stays there. People can find it, people can repeat it, people can share it, and they consequently don't understand how their insurance premiums are calculated. It would be enormously helpful, I think, for the Insurance Council to provide information both to councillors, some of whom have promulgated this incorrect information, and also to members of the public so that they know exactly what's going on and can make better informed decisions. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor

Councillor Creed. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Just to clarify, the Insurance Council is a lobby group that is paid for and funded by 90% of the insurance companies across the country. So to say they're not there to do the bidding of their shareholders, which in this case is the insurance companies, I think is not correct. It'd be the same if we put up a notice of motion asking, say, the UDIA to come to Council and give us a briefing and say that, you know, they're there to represent not their shareholders, which is essentially developers. So I just wanted to clarify that. Yep.

Thanks, Councillor. Councillor Ryan. Yeah, Mr Mayor, yourself and I listened to a similar speech from Mr Andrew Hall, and I found that quite enlightening, similar to what Councillor Lyons-Buckett is requesting. It did fill in a lot of the gaps that people were really guessing at and making up in the community. And I think it's a tremendous idea so that we can really get a good base to build their knowledge on and our knowledge on so that we're all moving forward at the same level. Because just at present, people are accusing insurance companies, they're accusing Council because we're not doing flood levels correctly and all this sort of stuff. And I think it'd be a good way of putting out the correct information to everyone there and starting it from there. Thanks very much.

Thank you.

Any further debate?

Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Look, I'd be happy to have the UDIA come. I was reading a report of theirs about response to the flood-prone land package where, in fact, they recommend having a free board. So let's get them along too, and let's speak to them, because they say that land use planning is one of the, you know, they wholly support that to get better built houses. So, you know, we can have the whole shebang come. But the point is that the insurance council in here is referred to regarding flooding from all sorts of aspects. They were very in favour when they supported the dam, and then there was no problem with them being a lobby group. Everybody was, you know, talking about them. I think they, you know, they obviously do represent the insurance industry, but we need to have it clarified.

The point in question is how are the insurance premiums formulated, what information is used, and that needs to be something in the public forum. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

The item is 12.1.4. Those in favour?

Are we in favour, councillors?

No . Okay.

Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Lyons-Buckett, Councillor Ryan, Councillor Djuric, Councillor McMahon, Councillor Kotlash, and Councillor Reardon, Councillor Sheather. Those against. The motion is carried.

General Manager, you need to respond in relation to the confidential items.

Yes, through you, Mr Mayor. Earlier this evening, Council resolved in open Council — it didn't go into confidential session and resolved two matters. In respect of item 15.3.1, proposed sale of closed road, part of High Street, McGraths Hill, the adjoining number 1 Pitt Town Road, McGraths Hill. Council resolved that: Council, one, approve the sale of lot 1 in Deposited Plan 1312701, being the closed road area of part of High Street, McGraths Hill, adjoining the Australian Hotel, 1 Pitt Town Road, McGraths Hill, comprising an area of 425.5 square metres, as shown in Attachment 1 to this report, to Hyde Park House Property Pty Ltd. as trustee for the Hyde Park Property Unit Trust, the amount detailed in the report.

Two, authority be given for the contract and any other documentation in association with the matter to be executed under the seal of Council. Three, details of Council's resolution be conveyed to Hyde Park House Property Pty Ltd. as trustee for the Hyde Park Property Unit Trust with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of its resolution until such time as appropriate documentation to put such resolution into effect has been executed. That resolution was carried unanimously, noting that Councillor Zamprogno is absent. In respect of item 15.3.2, licence agreement to Hawkesbury Nepean Radio Broadcasting Association Incorporated for part of 142 Warks Hill Road, Kurrajong Heights, Council resolved that, one— Council proceed to publicly exhibit the proposed licence agreement with Hawkesbury Nepean Radio Broadcasting Association Incorporated for part of 142 Warks Hill Road, Kurrajong Heights, part of Warks Hill Communication Tower, as outlined in the report in accordance with sections 47 and 47A of the Local Government Act 1993.

Two, at the expiration of the public exhibition period outlined in part 1 above, the following action be taken: A, should any submissions be received in regard to the proposed licence agreement to Hawkesbury Nepean Radio Broadcasting Association Incorporated, a further report should be submitted to Council; or B, should no submissions be received, one, Council enter into a new licence agreement with Hawkesbury Nepean Radio Broadcasting Association Incorporated for part of Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 1007671, 142 Warks Hill Road, Kurrajong Heights, part of Warks Hill Communication Tower, as outlined in the report. Two, authority be given for the licence agreement and any documentation in association with the matter to be executed under the seal of Council; and three, details of Council's resolution be conveyed to the licensee together with the advice that Council is not and will not be bound by the terms of the resolution until such time as appropriate legal documentation to put such a resolution into effect has been granted and executed by all parties.

Again, that was carried unanimously, the councillors then progno absent. All vote.

Thank you, General Manager. That concludes the business tonight, councillors. Good night.