COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                       Moved: Clr Macnaught               Seconded: Clr Harle

That Council:

1.   Approve the Draft Plan of Management for the purpose of placing it on public exhibition, including a public hearing regarding the proposed categorisation of community land, in accordance with the provisions of Section 38 of the Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act) for a minimum period of 42 days from the date of public notice.

2.   Delegates authority to the Chief Executive Officer (or delegate) to make any necessary minor amendments to the Draft Plan of Management, prior to exhibition.

3.   Acknowledges that Council will receive a further report following the public exhibition period that will outline the public comments received in relation to the Draft Plan of Management.

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Councillors voted unanimously for this item.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                       Moved: Clr Macnaught               Seconded: Clr Harle

That Council:

1.   Acknowledges Dr Dudley’s significant contributions on Council’s ARIC since her appointment in 2022.

2.   Having considered the feedback and questionnaire data outcomes, Council considers Dr Dudley eligible for reappointment to ARIC.

3.   Approves the extension of Dr Sheridan Dudley’s appointment as an Independent

Member of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee for a further three year term, expiring in September 2028.

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Councillors voted unanimously for this item.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1.    Appoints Councillors as representatives to the following Committees for the period to September 2026, or appoint Councillors where there are exceptions to any of the Committees:

a)   Aboriginal Consultative Committee

b)   Audit Risk and Improvement Committee

c)   Community & Safety Prevention Committee

d)   Environment Advisory Committee

e)   Intermodal Precinct Committee

f)    Liverpool Built and Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee

g)   Liverpool Powerhouse Board

h)   Liverpool Sports Committee

i)    Tourism & CBD Committee

j)    Youth Council

2.    Determines whether a “non-voting” Councillor member be included on the Audit, Risk, and Improvement Committee (ARIC) membership;

3.    If Council chooses to include a Councillor representative on the ARIC, nominate a Councillor representative as a “non-voting member”;

4.    Endorses the current practice of all Councillors being members of the Civic Advisory Committee and Governance Committee; and

5.    Appoints Councillors as representatives to the following community committees and affiliated bodies and notifies them of their representatives for the period to September 2026, or appoint Councillors where there are exceptions:

a)   Georges River Combined Councils Committee 

b)   Macarthur Bushfire Management Committee

c)   NSW Public Libraries Association (NSW PLA)

d)   Sydney Western City Planning Panel

e)   South West Sydney Academy of Sport (SWSAS)

f)    Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC).

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                       Moved: Clr Macnaught               Seconded: Clr Harle

That:

1.    Councillors remain on the committees and affiliated bodies of which they are currently members for the next 12-month period.

Note: Clr Monaghan does not wish to accept nominations for any of the committees listed in Point 1 of the recommendation, except where membership is compulsory.

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Councillors voted unanimously for this item.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                       Moved: Clr Macnaught               Seconded: Clr Harte

That Council:

1.   Endorses the recommended changes to the Liverpool Youth Council Charter; and

2.   Delegates authority to the CEO to endorse minor changes as required periodically and on review of Councils General Legal Council.

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Councillors voted unanimously for this item.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                       Moved: Clr Harle                 Seconded: Clr Ammoun

That Council:

1.       Revoke the 2022 Language Aide Policy and instead rely on the NAATI accredited third-party translation services where applicable and required.

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Councillors voted unanimously for this item.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                       Moved: Clr Harte                 Seconded: Clr Harle

That Council:

1.   Endorse the temporary suspension of the AFZ within Macquarie Mall, for Primavera Latin American Festival operating hours of 5pm – 10pm on the weekend of 17-19 October in order to facilitate a pop-up bar at the event; and

2.   Note that the AFZ will be suspended within a demarcated area, allowing Police to continue to enforce the AFZ outside this area.

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Councillors voted unanimously for this item.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                       Moved: Clr Macnaught                 Seconded: Clr Adjei

That Council:

1.    Notes the OLG Council Circular 2025 Model Meeting Code issued 29 August 2025;

2.    Notes the OLG has advised a new Model Meeting Code must be adopted by 31 December 2025 that incorporates the mandatory provisions;

3.    Notes that, following endorsement, the draft Code will be placed on public exhibition, per section 361 of the Local Government Act 1993, to achieve the December deadline, while concurrently commencing and conducting consultation with Councillors; and

4.    Notes, a report and draft policy will come back to Council following consultation for final endorsement prior to the 31 December deadline.

On being put to the meeting the motion (moved by Clr Macnaught) was declared CARRIED and the Foreshadow motioned (moved by Clr Monaghan) therefore lapsed.

Division called (for the motion moved by Clr Macnaught)

Vote for:              Clr Adjei, Clr Macnaught, Clr Dr Green, Clr Harle, Clr Harte, Clr Ammoun------------------------  and Mayor Mannoun.

Vote against:      Clr Karnib, Clr Ibrahim, Clr Ristevski and Clr Monaghan.

Foreshadowed Motion:            Moved:   Clr Monaghan             Seconded: Clr Karnib

That Council:

1.    Notes the OLG Council Circular 2025 Model Meeting Code issued 29 August 2025;

2.    Notes the OLG has advised a new Model Meeting Code must be adopted by 31 December 2025 that incorporates the mandatory provisions;

3.    Notes that, following endorsement, the draft Code will be placed on public exhibition, per section 361 of the Local Government Act 1993, to achieve the December deadline, while concurrently commencing and conducting consultation with Councillors;

4.    Amend the draft Code of Meeting Practice to opt for Clause 15.16 instead of Clause 15.15; and

5.    Notes, a report and draft policy will come back to Council following consultation for final endorsement prior to the 31 December deadline.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                       Moved: Clr Dr Green                   Seconded: Clr Harte

That Council:

1.       Endorses the funding recommendation of $4,900 (GST exclusive) under the Community Grant Program for the following project:

2.       Endorses the funding recommendation of $10,000 (GST exclusive) under the Matching Grants Program for the following project:

3.       Endorses the funding recommendation of $15,000 (GST exclusive) under the Community Sponsorship for the following projects:

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Councillors voted unanimously for this item.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                       Moved: Clr Dr Green                   Seconded: Clr Macnaught

That Council:

1.      Receives and notes this report;

2.      Endorses the amended Draft Child Safe Policy;

3.      Directs the CEO to place the amended Policy on public exhibition for a period of 28 days; and

4.    If no significant feedback is received, direct the CEO to adopt the amended Policy on behalf of Council.

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Councillors voted unanimously for this item.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                       Moved: Clr Macnaught                   Seconded: Clr Harle

That Council:

1.    Receives and notes this report; and

2.    Advocate to the Federal Government for consideration of parity in the pensioner rebate allowance.

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Councillors voted unanimously for this item.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                       Moved: Clr Harle                     Seconded: Clr Harte

That Council:

1.   Receives and notes this report.

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Councillors voted unanimously for this item.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                       Moved: Clr Macnaught                     Seconded: Clr Harle

That Council:

1.    Adopt the Draft Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy, noting the correction on page 16, Point 4.16.2 (d), to align the reimbursement claim period to six months.

On being put to the meeting the motion (moved by Clr Macnaught) was declared CARRIED and the Foreshadow motioned (moved by Clr Ristevski) therefore lapsed.

Division called (for the motion moved by Clr Macnaught)

Vote for:              Clr Harle, Clr Harte, Clr Ammoun, Clr Dr Green, Clr Macnaught, Clr Adjei -------------------------and Mayor Mannoun.

Vote against:      Clr Ristevski, Clr Karnib, Clr Ibrahim and Clr Monaghan.

Foreshadowed Motion:            Moved:  Clr Ristevski         Seconded: Clr Monaghan

1.    Adopt the Draft Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy, noting the correction on page 16, Point 4.16.2 (d), to align the reimbursement claim period to six months; and

2.    Include that all Councillors in possession of a Council vehicle are required to maintain a logbook.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                       Moved: Clr Dr Green                    Seconded: Clr Macnaught

That Council:

1.    Receives and notes the Minutes of the Liverpool Powerhouse Board Meeting held on 12 August 2025; and

2.    Endorse the recommendations in the Minutes.

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Councillors voted unanimously for this item.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                       Moved: Clr Harle                    Seconded: Clr Harte

That Council:

1.   Receives and notes the Minutes of the Environment Advisory Committee Meeting  held on 2 June 2025.

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Councillors voted unanimously for this item.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                       Moved: Clr Macnaught                    Seconded: Clr Dr Green 

That Council:

1.    Receives and notes the Minutes of the Governance Committee Meeting held on 17 September 2025; and

2.    Endorse the recommendations in the Minutes.

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Councillors voted unanimously for this item.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                       Moved: Clr Macnaught                    Seconded: Clr Harte

That Council:

1.    Resolves, for the purposes of the tendering requirements under s.55(3)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993 that a satisfactory result would not be achieved by inviting tenders to undertake decommissioning of the temporary raingarden within Lots 421 & 422 DP 1147511, Sunday Circuit, Edmondson Park and construction of Raingarden Basin D1 within Lot 180 DP 1147508, Sunday Circuit, Edmondson Park because of the following extenuating circumstances:

·    The costs to construct Raingarden Basin D1 are estimated to be well in excess of what is allocated in the Liverpool Contributions Plan 2008 – Edmondson Park.

·    There is currently no timeframe for Council to construct Raingarden Basin D1 which is delaying release of land for residential development. The construction of Raingarden Basin D1 by the Proponents will provide certainty at a reduced cost and risk to Council.

·    The offer by the Proponents to construct Raingarden Basin D1 on Council Land represents the most cost-efficient and timely way for Council to provide the infrastructure.

2.    Endorses the Chief Executive Officer (or their delegate) to enter into direct negotiations with the Proponents for the provision of the infrastructure.

3.    Approves entering into a contract with the Proponents for the construction of Raingarden Basin D1 on Council Land on the terms outlined in this report.

4.    Authorises the CEO or delegate to execute all documents necessary to give effect to this resolution.

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Councillors voted unanimously for this item.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                       Moved: Clr Harle                    Seconded: Clr Harte

That this item be deferred to a subsequent Council meeting.

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Councillors voted unanimously for this item.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                       Moved: Clr Dr Green                  Seconded: Clr Ammoun

That Council:

1.    In relation to 80-82 Lucas Avenue, Moorebank:

a)   note the inspection report by Fire and Rescue NSW, as shown in Attachment 2,

b)   exercise its powers to issue a Fire Safety Order to address the identified fire safety deficiencies at 80-82 Lucas Avenue, Moorebank.

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Councillors voted unanimously for this item.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                       Moved: Clr Macnaught                  Seconded: Clr Adjei

That Council:

1.   Purchase Lot 20 DP 1238828, Air League Avenue, Leppington for the price and terms as outlined in this report. 

2.   Upon settlement classifies Lot 20 DP 1238828 as “Community Land” to allow for open space.

3.   Keeps confidential this report pursuant to the provisions of Section 10A(2)(c) of the      Local Government Act 1993 as this information would, if disclosed confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business;

4.   Authorises the CEO or delegate to execute all documents necessary to give effect to these resolutions; and

5.    As soon as the land is reclassified, it is to be made available to be used as public space.

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Councillors voted unanimously for this item.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                       Moved: Clr Macnaught                  Seconded: Clr Harte 

That Council:

1.   Approves the acquisition and/or dedication of Pt of Lot 1125 in DP 2475 & Pt of Lot 2 in DP 1257931 being land identified for part of Contributions Item CR17 and C16 for the terms as outlined in this report. 

2.    Resolves to classify Pt of Lot 1125 in DP 2475 & Pt of Lot 2 in DP 1257931, as “Operational” land in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993;

3.    Dedicates Pt of Lot 1125 in DP 2475 & Pt of Lot 2 in DP 1257931 (being Collector Road CR17 & CR16) as Public Road pursuant to Section 10 of the Roads Act 1993 if required;

4.    Authorises the CEO or his delegated officer to execute any document, under Power of Attorney, necessary to give effect to this decision;

5.    Keeps confidential this report pursuant to the provisions of Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993 as this information would, if disclosed confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Councillors voted unanimously for this item.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                       Moved: Clr Harle                  Seconded: Clr Dr Green  

That Council:

1.    Purchase Lot 1 in Plan of Acquisition DP 1308569, 140 Fifth Avenue, Austral for the price and terms as outlined in this report;

2.    Upon settlement classifies Lot 1 DP 1308569 as “Operational Land” to allow dedication as public road;

3.    Upon acquisition, dedicates Lot 1 DP 1308569 as Public Road pursuant to Section 10 of the Roads Act 1993 and a Request document lodged at Land Registry Services to formally dedicate on the title of the land;

4.    Keeps confidential this report pursuant to the provisions of Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1993 as this information would, if disclosed confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; and

5.    Authorises the CEO or delegate to execute all documents necessary to give effect to these resolutions

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Councillors voted unanimously for this item.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                       Moved: Clr Ristevski                  Seconded: Clr Monaghan   

That this item be deferred for further community consultation.

On being put to the meeting the motion (moved by Clr Ristevski) was declared CARRIED and the Foreshadowed motion (moved by Clr Macnaught) therefore lapsed.

Foreshadowed Motion:            Moved:  Clr Macnaught          Seconded: Clr Dr Green  

That Council:

1.   Receives and notes this report;

2.   Recognises and acknowledges the position adopted by Gandangara Local Aboriginal Land Council, in respect to the naming of the Badgerys Creek as Cabrogal; and

3.   Supports continued dialogue between Geographical Names Board and Gandangara Local Aboriginal Land Council to identify a name in an appropriate first nations dialect for further consideration by Council.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                       Moved: Clr Macnaught                  Seconded: Clr Ammoun    

That Council:

1.    Accept the Tender from Crystal Productions Australia for Tender ST3341 – Events & Key Venues Audio Visual and Production Services for an initial Three (3) Year contract term with the option of extending One (1) Year on a Schedule of Rates.

2.   Makes public its decision regarding tender ST3341 – Events & Key Venues Audio Visual and Production Services.

3.   Authorises the Chief Executive Officer or delegate to execute all documents necessary to give effect to this resolution.

4.   Keeps confidential the details supplied in this report containing information on the submissions received, pursuant to the provisions of Section 10A(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993 as it contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed, prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it.

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Please address the following:

1.    Local Government Conference (Canberra, June 2025)

a) How much did it cost Liverpool City ratepayers in total (including conference

registration, accommodation, travel, and associated costs) for the Mayor to RSVP to

the Local Government Conference held in Canberra in June 2025 but ultimately not

attend?

b) Has the Mayor returned any or all of the associated funds to Council?

c) If the funds have not been returned, what powers does Council have to compel

reimbursement?

d) Is the Mayor’s failure to attend despite confirming his participation, and not refunding

the expenditure, a potential breach of the Councillor Code of Conduct?

2.    Child Protection Foundation Event (Date 23 May 2025)

a) How much did it cost Liverpool City ratepayers for Councillor Harte to RSVP to the

Child Protection Foundation event and subsequently fail to attend?

b) Has Councillor Harte returned any funds associated with this non-attendance?

c) If not, can Council compel the return of those funds?

d) Given that the Councillor’s name was publicly mentioned as being in attendance

during the event and no formal apology has been issued to the organisers, does this

constitute a breach of the Councillor Code of Conduct or misrepresentation of the

Council?

3.    Liverpool Business Awards (Warwick Farm, Date 27 May 2025)

a) What was the total cost incurred by Liverpool City ratepayers in relation to Councillor

Green RSVPing to the Liverpool Business Awards at Warwick Farm and not

attending?

b) Has Councillor Green refunded any of the associated expenses?

c) If the expenses have not been reimbursed, is there a process by which Council can

recover these funds?

d) Given that her name was read out at the event as an attendee and she failed to

appear or offer a public explanation or apology, does this constitute a breach of the

Councillor Code of Conduct?

Rationale:

Public trust in Council is fundamental. These questions seek transparency regarding the use

of public funds and accountability in cases where Councillors or the Mayor commit to attend

public events but fail to do so without explanation or restitution. This also raises concerns

about adherence to ethical obligations under the NSW Local Government (Model Code of

Conduct) 2020, particularly clauses related to misuse of Council resources, honesty and

integrity (3.1, 3.2, and 6.2), and conduct that could bring the Council into disrepute.

Response (provided by Community and Lifestyle)

1.    Local Government Conference (Canberra, June 2025)

a) How much did it cost Liverpool City ratepayers in total (including conference

registration, accommodation, travel, and associated costs) for the Mayor to RSVP to the

Local Government Conference held in Canberra in June 2025 but ultimately not attend?

The total costs were $2215.00.

a)    Has the Mayor returned any or all of the associated funds to Council?

Council’s current Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy does not include any provision for the

recovery of costs related to non-attendance. Clause 4.9 of the Draft Civic Expenses and

Facilities Policy, which is scheduled for consideration at the Council meeting on 23 September 2025, introduces provisions for non-attendance, apologies, and repayment. However, these cannot be applied retrospectively. Accordingly, no funds have been repaid.

b)    If the funds have not been returned, what powers does Council have to compel

reimbursement?

Council’s current Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy makes no provision to recover costs of

non-attendance. 4.9 of the Draft Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy being reported to the

Council of 23 September 2025 meeting does include a section on non-attendance, apology

and repayment, however even if it is adopted, it cannot be applied retrospectively.

c)    Is the Mayor’s failure to attend despite confirming his participation, and not refunding

the expenditure, a potential breach of the Councillor Code of Conduct?

A QWN is not the appropriate forum to raise or infer a breach of the Code of Conduct. Any

such complaints should be referred directly to the CEO, in line with the appropriate processes. While notification of the absence was received late, the organisers were informed promptly once it was confirmed.

2.    Child Protection Foundation Event (Date 23 May 2025)

a) How much did it cost Liverpool City ratepayers for Councillor Harte to RSVP to the

Child Protection Foundation event and subsequently fail to attend?

The ticket cost was $150.00.

b)    Has Councillor Harte returned any funds associated with this non-attendance?

Council’s current Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy does not include any provision for the

recovery of costs related to non-attendance. Clause 4.9 of the Draft Civic Expenses and

Facilities Policy, which is scheduled for consideration at the Council meeting on 23 September 2025, introduces provisions for non-attendance, apologies, and repayment. However, these cannot be applied retrospectively. Accordingly, no funds have been repaid.

c)    If not, can Council compel the return of those funds?

Council’s current Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy makes no provision to recover costs of

non-attendance. 4.9 of the Draft Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy being reported to the

Council of 23 September 2025 meeting does include a section on non-attendance, apology

and repayment, however even if it is adopted, it cannot be applied retrospectively.

d)    Given that the Councillor’s name was publicly mentioned as being in attendance

during the event and no formal apology has been issued to the organisers, does this

constitute a breach of the Councillor Code of Conduct or misrepresentation of the

Council?

A QWN is not the appropriate forum to raise or infer a breach of the Code of Conduct. Any

such complaints should be referred directly to the CEO, in line with the appropriate processes.

3.    Liverpool Business Awards (Warwick Farm, Date 27 May 2025)

a)    What was the total cost incurred by Liverpool City ratepayers in relation to Councillor

Green RSVPing to the Liverpool Business Awards at Warwick Farm and not

attending?

No additional costs were incurred, as Council holds a sponsorship that includes a corporate table.

b)    Has Councillor Green refunded any of the associated expenses?

Council’s current Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy does not include any provision for the

recovery of costs related to non-attendance. Clause 4.9 of the Draft Civic Expenses and

Facilities Policy, which is scheduled for consideration at the Council meeting on 23 September 2025, introduces provisions for non-attendance, apologies, and repayment. However, these cannot be applied retrospectively. Accordingly, no funds have been repaid.

c)    If the expenses have not been reimbursed, is there a process by which Council can

recover these funds?

Council’s current Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy makes no provision to recover costs of

non-attendance. 4.9 of the Draft Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy being reported to the

Council of 23 September 2025 meeting does include a section on non-attendance, apology

and repayment, however even if it is adopted, it cannot be applied retrospectively.

d)    Given that her name was read out at the event as an attendee and she failed to

appear or offer a public explanation or apology, does this constitute a breach of the

Councillor Code of Conduct?

A QWN is not the appropriate forum to raise or infer a breach of the Code of Conduct. Any

such complaints should be referred directly to the CEO, in line with the appropriate processes. It is noted that Councillor Dr Green was listed as a tentative RSVP

Please address the following:

1.    Does the office of the Mayor currently have a distress button installed?

2.    What has been the total cost to ratepayers for the installation of this device, and what are the ongoing maintenance or servicing costs attached to it?

3.    What is the stated purpose of the distress button being installed in the Mayor’s office? Specifically, is it intended for protection against constituents visiting Council, or for some other purpose?

Response (provided by Operations)

1.    Yes, a distress button is installed in the Mayor’s office.

2.    The duress button was part of the initial build of the facility. As such, the exact cost attributed to the installation of the duress button in the Mayor’s office is not itemised separately from the overall construction or setup costs. There is a recurring monitoring cost of $55 per month, however this is associated with monitoring a total of 36 buttons across the Liverpool Civic Place building.

3.    There is no specific intent documented for the installation of the duress button in the Mayor’s office. Typically, duress buttons in such settings could be for emergency situations, however without explicit intent stated, the specific application or target protection scenario is not confirmed.

Please address the following:

Fuel Expenses

1.    Can Council confirm whether the Mayor’s fuel expenses are funded by Liverpool City Council and therefore borne by ratepayers, pursuant to Section 335 of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) which governs the functions of the General Manager and the allocation of Council resources?

Audit Provisions & Accountability

2.    Given the Mayor has publicly admitted that he does not maintain a vehicle logbook, what audit and compliance provisions are in place to ensure that fuel purchased at the expense of Council is used exclusively for the designated Mayoral vehicle and not for any other private vehicle?

Best Practice & Ministerial Recommendation

3.    The Minister for Local Government has issued guidance that all Mayors should maintain a logbook for their use of Council vehicles. In light of this:

a)    Does Council consider it best practice for the Mayor not to maintain such a logbook?

b)    If Council does consider this to be acceptable, what justification is provided for this departure from ministerial best practice recommendations, particularly given Section 23A of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) requires councils to “consider” the guidelines issued by the Department when exercising their functions?.

Response (provided by Operations)

1.    The Mayor’s fuel expenses are funded by Liverpool City Council. Extracts of the relevant sections of the Fleet Management Policy and Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy are extracted below.

Fleet Management Policy

5.2 Allocation Criteria

5.2.2 Group 3 (Mayoral Vehicle)

The Mayor is provided with a vehicle subject to the provisions of the Civic Expenses

and Facilities Policy.

5.13 Private Use of Leaseback Vehicles

5.13.2 Subject to compliance with mileage allocations, Council employees are

entitled to full private use, and Council is responsible for all costs – registration,

insurance, maintenance, fuel or any other expenditure approved by Council, subject

to Fair Wear and Tear guidelines and mileage allocations being met.

Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy

4.4 Support to Mayor

4.4.2 Council will provide to the Mayor at its cost:

a) A dedicated vehicle of a type deemed suitable to the position of Mayor of

Liverpool, which will be equivalent to the range of vehicles to which Council directors are entitled under Council’s Fleet Management Policy:

i. The vehicle provided for the Mayor is for use on official duties and functions

of the Office of Mayor and for private use in accordance with Council’s Fleet

Management Policy;

ii. Council shall meet the fortnightly cost of cleaning (wash and vacuum) the

Mayoral vehicle;

iii. Council shall supply and meet the usage costs associated with an electronic

tag in the Mayoral vehicle;

2.    Council’s Manager Operational Support receives a report as part of a quarterly planning meeting from Council’s leaseback provider. One report identifies fuel exceptions which include incorrect odometer readings, exceeding tank capacity, invalid odometer readings and nil fuel card usage. Any anomalies identified in this report would are addressed as per Council’s Fleet Management Policy.

3.    a. Maintaining an accurate vehicle logbook is recognised as best practice as it

strengthens accountability, supports financial compliance, and informs effective asset

management.

Council’s Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy, adopted by resolution, provides for the allocation of a dedicated vehicle to the Mayor and explicitly authorises its private use. In addition, Council’s Fleet Management Policy does not impose an obligation on the Mayor to maintain a logbook.

Under the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986, the Mayor is not considered an

employee of Council but rather an elected official under the Local Government Act 1993. Mayoral allowances are paid as fees for service, not as salary or wages. Accordingly, fringe benefits tax (FBT) generally applies only in circumstances where an employer– employee relationship exists. Benefits provided to the Mayor in his capacity as an elected official are typically exempt from FBT because:

·      he is not an employee; and

·      the benefits may qualify as a work-related item exemption.

However, where Council by resolution authorises the private use of a benefit outside

official duties, the Australian Taxation Office may treat the Mayor as an office holder for FBT purposes. This could give rise to an FBT liability, which is the position under the current Civic Expenses and Facilities Policy.

In this context, it is considered prudent and in Council’s interest for the Mayor to maintain a log of all business-related vehicle use, as this may assist in substantiating business travel and reducing Council’s FBT liability.

b. Not applicable.

Please address the following:

1.    Was community consultation conducted in relation to the change of name of the

Liverpool Library?

2.    If so, was the community consultation period advertised for 28 days, consistent with

other community consultation periods undertaken by Council?

      3. If community consultation was not conducted:

a. What was the reason for not undertaking consultation?

b. Who within Council made the decision to proceed without community

consultation?

Response (provided Community and Lifestyle - Library and Museum Services)

Background

Liverpool City Library has been dual-named Yellamundie, rather than renamed. Signage reflects both names, with “Liverpool City Library” displayed prominently at the top and the dual name Yellamundie in smaller font underneath. The building is commonly referred to by both names.

Yellamundie is the Dharug word for “Storyteller.” Community feedback has been

overwhelmingly positive, with many residents welcoming the recognition of local Aboriginal culture through the dual naming of the library.

Dual naming aligns with the NSW Government’s dual naming policy, in place since 2001, which seeks to celebrate shared history and strengthen Aboriginal culture and identity.

The Development Application for Liverpool Civic Place included two conditions of consent related to signage and naming: the creation of a Signage Strategy and a detailed design package. The Signage Strategy, endorsed by the then CEO in 2022, mandates the inclusion of dual signage across Liverpool Civic Place.

Condition 6 of DA836/2020 required the Applicant Built Development Group (BDG) to

develop a wayfinding strategy, to be endorsed by the Manager of City Design and Public Domain. While the Signage Strategy required the inclusion of Aboriginal dual names and specified the locations and extent of naming, the selection of specific Aboriginal dual names was determined during consultation for the detailed design fit-out stage.

1.    Was community consultation conducted in relation to the change of name of the Liverpool Library?

Extensive community consultation with Liverpool’s First Nations community was undertaken to select the dual names for use across the Civic Place precinct.

Key elements of this consultation included:

a. On 14 February 2023, the Manager City Design and Public Domain and Council’s Community Development Worker – First Nations organised a publicly advertised First Nations Dual Naming Workshop. Of the 17 attendees, five were Council or Built representatives, with the remainder being local Aboriginal community members.

b. Following the workshop, dual names were proposed by Built’s consultant, Strategic Spaces, reflecting the two dominant Aboriginal languages in the LGA (Dharawal and Dharug). These proposals were presented to the Council’s Aboriginal Consultative Committee on 1 June 2023.

c. The Committee supported the overall strategy but recommended that all names be translated into Dharug, as the building is located on Dharug land. Three words and the six Seasons, originally in Dharawal, were therefore translated to Dharug.

d. It was further recommended by the Committee and the Community Development Worker – First Nations that the team seek final endorsement from local Elders, facilitated by respected senior community member Emma Eldridge.

e. Emma Eldridge then worked with the Elders and the signage consultant to develop a range of translations approved by the Elders in June 2023. These were incorporated into the Site-Wide Signage Strategy.

f. The library’s original dual name, Yurangai – meaning “Black Duck” – was found not to be associated with this area of Liverpool. The name was changed to Yellamundie – meaning “Storyteller” – during this consultation process.

g. Following this process, the final Signage Strategy was approved by the Manager of City Design and Public Domain, in accordance with the DA requirements, and was also presented to and endorsed by the Civic Place Project Control Group in September 2023.

2.    If so, was the community consultation period advertised for 28 days, consistent with other community consultation periods undertaken by Council?

The community consultation process for selecting the dual name of Liverpool Library did not follow the standard 28-day advertised consultation period. This approach reflected the highly targeted nature of the consultation. Initial workshops were publicly advertised and promoted through community networks to reach the intended audience, with multiple opportunities provided over several months for engagement with the targeted community.

3.    If community consultation was not conducted:

a. What was the reason for not undertaking consultation?

b. Who within Council made the decision to proceed without community consultation?

Consultation and approval processes for the Civic Place project were guided by the Development Application (DA) consent requirements. All decisions were overseen by a Project Control Group comprising ELT members, internal subject matter experts, and external project management consultants.

Please address the following:

1.    By month, since January 2022, the number of industrial matters referred to the Industrial Relations Commission?

2.    By month, since January 2022, the number of former employees who received a payout before IRC hearings commenced?

3.    The quantum of payouts since January 2022 from matters that were referred to the Industrial Relations Commission?

Response (provided by Corporate Services)

1.    By month, since January 2022, the number of industrial matters referred to the Industrial Relations Commission?

·         2022 – data missing as poor records kept by previous HR departmental team

·         2023 – One matter listed November 2023

·         2024 – see table below

·         2025 – Nil

2.    By month, since January 2022, the number of former employees who received a payout before IRC hearings commenced? •

·         2022 – data missing as poor records kept by previous HR departmental team

·         2023 – 6

·         2024 – 2

·         2025 – Nil

3.    The quantum of payouts since January 2022 from matters that were referred to the Industrial Relations Commission?

·         2022 – data missing as poor records kept by previous HR departmental team

·         2023 – $151K (1 ex-staff)

·         2024 – $121K (3 ex-staff)

·         2025 – Nil (excludes matter relating to ex-CEO John Ajaka)

Please address the following:

1.    Can Council please advise by month, the number of Union grievances received since January 2025?

Response (provided by Corporate Services)

Please address the following:

1.    Since January 2022, has there been any reported instances where Councillors have accessed areas within Council buildings that they are not permitted to?

2.    If yes, what remedial action was undertaken?

Response (provided by Corporate Services)

An audit of Councillor access has been undertaken in the physical access control system. This review uncovered 2 misconfigurations in the access levels provided to Councillors. One was access to a former Councillor area at Moore St that has since been converted into a staff work area and the second was access to a staff area misconfigured during the initial set up of Civic Place. Both sets of access were removed once identified.

Further to this, access history reports were run for the identified areas to determine if these areas had been accessed by Councillors at times that access should not have been permitted. This report identified one instance of a Councillor entering these areas.

Please address the following:

1.    Can Council advise whether the recommendations in the WorkLogic Report & Norman Turkington Report into the Depot have been implemented?

Response (provided by Corporate Services)

1.    Can Council advise whether the recommendations in the WorkLogic Report & Norman Turkington Report into the Depot have been implemented?

WorkLogic Report February 2021

The WorkLogic investigation was managed by the Internal Ombudsman office. There were some recommendations which came from this report. To assist with the implementation of the recommendations, Mr Norm Turkington was then engaged.

Please address the following:

Council has endorsed to develop a Koala Management Plan to ensure better protect and improve the habitat of Koala colonies of the Liverpool Local Government, including the essential corridors koalas use in locating feed trees.

1.    What is the status of the current preparatory work and progress, including the completed steps in the early processes of establishing of the Koala Management Plan?

2.    Has Council investigated the funding options available contained in the NSW Koala Strategy including funds that support the initial scoping and also funds for bush regeneration to improve feed trees and corridors.

Response (provided by Operations)

1.    Council has contacted various specialist consultants that can undertake the Koala Management Plan and is considering funding sources for this work. Potential for using the Environment Levy is being investigated as part of the review of the levy currently taking place.

2.    Council received funding under the NSW Koala Strategy to purchase a variable message sign (VMS) trailer which is currently in use on Heathcote Road, and Vehicle Activated Signs that were recently installed on Cambridge Avenue. No further funding has been made available to Council under the NSW Koala Strategy.

Please address the following:

1.    When was it decided to expand Civic Place, what business case or adopted council plans were used to inform the decision (before it was resolved by council to do so)? Can you please provide copies of them.

2.    When the scope was changed significantly increasing the size of the works and total value, what part of the local government act was used to justify not going back out to an open market process? Please provide the section of the act.

3.    How was an assessment conducted to demonstrate that fair value was achieved without going back out to open market?

4.    What was the original contract/PDA value from the open market process vs the amended contract/PDA?

Response (provided by Operations)

1.    A search of the project files uncovered the attached (confidential) relevant business case.

2.    Council resolution of 29 October 2018 states “Confirms the engagement of Built Holdings Pty Ltd to progress the project in accordance with the proposed project scope, subject to the provisions of Section 55(3) of the Local Government Act 1993”.

3.    The Council report of 29 October 2018 addresses this question.

4.    A response to this question will be provided in the 29 October 2025 Council Agenda.

Background

1.   Promotion of National Identity and Pride

·    The Australian National Flag is one of the most important unifying symbols of our nation. Its daily presence in civic spaces reminds residents and visitors alike of our shared history, identity, and values.

·    Displaying the national flag in visible commercial locations would strengthen civic pride and community cohesion.

2.   Community Visibility

·    Major commercial establishments such as shopping centres and large hardware warehouses (“Bunnings-type” developments) attract high volumes of visitors and are natural sites for flag display, further embedding national identity in daily life.

3.   Consistency Across Developments

·    At present, inclusion of flagpoles in new developments is inconsistent and left to the discretion of developers. By making flagpoles a mandatory requirement at the DA stage, councils can ensure uniformity and respect for our national symbols across the built environment.

4.   Precedent in Other Sectors

·    Schools: All Australian schools are required under federal guidelines to display the Australian National Flag during school hours, with the Commonwealth Government even providing free flags to educational institutions.

·    Government Buildings: The Commonwealth Flag Network and the NSW Government require the Australian flag to be flown at all official government buildings, including local, state, and federal offices, as well as courthouses and police stations.

·    Civic Events: The display of the national flag is already mandated at ANZAC Day, Australia Day, and other official commemorations, reinforcing its role as a civic unifier.

·    This motion seeks to extend this existing precedent into the planning system for public and commercial developments, ensuring consistency with long-established protocols.

5.   Limitation to the National Flag Only

·    To avoid unnecessary controversy and to maintain a uniform standard, this proposal relates solely to the Australian National Flag.

Recommendation

That Council endorse this motion and advocate to the NSW Government for legislative or regulatory reform to mandate the inclusion of flagpoles displaying the Australian National Flag in Development Applications for:

·    Major commercial establishments (shopping centres, hardware warehouses, and other large retail developments).

NOTICE OF MOTION (submitted by Clr Ristevski)

That Council:

1.       Write to the NSW Government, and to the NSW Local Government Association, requesting that Development Applications (DA’s) for major commercial establishments (including shopping centres, hardware warehouses, and similar large-scale retail premises) be required to include provision for a flagpole displaying the Australian National Flag.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                     Moved:  Clr Ristevski                   Seconded:

That the Notice of Motion be adopted.

There was no seconder for this motion and therefore this item lapsed.

Background

Council has recently been made aware of external communications circulating in the community which:

1.    Claim that a drug injection room will be located at the CT Lewis Centre in Liverpool – a statement that is untrue.

2.    Include video content shared on social media repeating the same false claims, filmed on CT Lewis Centre grounds without authorisation.

3.   Promote a misleading and baseless narrative that has caused unnecessary fear, confusion, and reputational harm to Liverpool Council and the local community.

Such actions are unacceptable as they undermine the integrity of government communications, mislead residents, and place unnecessary strain on Council resources when we are required to counter misinformation with facts.

Liverpool Council has a duty to its ratepayers to set the record straight and ensure that residents receive accurate information about decisions and services that affect their community.

NOTICE OF MOTION (submitted by Clr Ristevski)

That Council:

1.   Formally note that the claim of a drug injection room being established at the CT Lewis Centre is not supported by Council;

2.   Express concern over the unauthorised filming and distribution of misleading material on Council-owned property;

3.   Acknowledge that misleading correspondence has been circulated to residents across the community at taxpayer expense;

4.   Direct the CEO to immediately issue a corrective letter to all affected residents, making clear that:

·    No drug injection room is being proposed, considered, or planned for the CT Lewis Centre or anywhere in the Liverpool LGA.

·    The claims made in the correspondence and social media video are false and misleading.

·    Liverpool Council strongly rejects the spreading of misinformation that undermines trust in local institutions;

5.    Publish a public statement on Liverpool City Council’s official website and Facebook page correcting the record and reassuring residents;

6.    Investigate and pursue any potential breaches of law or regulation regarding the unauthorised use of Council-owned property and the dissemination of false and misleading information to the public; and

7.   Write to the NSW Premier and relevant Ministers highlighting this matter as an example of irresponsible and misleading public communication and request an assurance that future taxpayer-funded communications provided to residents are accurate and fact-checked.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                       Moved: Clr Ristevski                  Seconded: Clr Monaghan   

That Council:

1.   Formally note that the claim of a drug injection room being established at the CT Lewis Centre is not supported by Council.

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Councillors voted unanimously for this item.

Background

Liverpool has always been a military town. Generations of young men and women from our city have worn the uniform and defended our country, from Gallipoli and the Western Front, through Kokoda, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet today, our memorials are scattered, neglected, and in some cases hidden away in storage. It is a pathetic mishmash, unworthy of their sacrifice.

This motion is about restoring pride, unity, and respect. It is about giving Liverpool a world-class War Memorial Precinct that future generations can look to with reverence. If tiny country towns can build memorials that inspire, then surely the proud City of Liverpool can do better.

Let us put Liverpool FIRST – by honouring those who gave us the freedom to stand here today.

NOTICE OF MOTION (submitted by Clr Ristevski)

That Liverpool City Council:

1.    Acknowledge that Liverpool, a proud military town with one of the deepest Anzac traditions in Australia, currently has a scattered and disjointed presentation of its war memorials. Unlike even the smallest country towns across our nation, Liverpool lacks a unified, dignified, and commanding War Memorial worthy of the sacrifices made by our servicemen and women.

2.    Direct the CEO to prepare a report on creating a Central Liverpool War Memorial Precinct, where the Boer War Memorial, the Edmondson Clock, the WWI Honour Boards, the lost memorial plaques, the WWI trophy gun, and the RSL Honour Boards currently in storage are brought together in one solemn, permanent, and grand location.

3.    Investigate opportunities for funding this precinct through:

·    Federal and State Government veteran and heritage grants.

·    Public donations and sponsorship from the private sector.

·    Council contributions, with a focus on reallocating wasteful spending to projects that honour our heroes.

4.    Engage with veterans’ groups, RSLs, and community organisations to design a memorial that is bigger, better, and more inspiring than anything in Western Sydney – a place where schoolchildren, families, and future generations can truly understand the price of our freedom.

5.    Incorporate into the design:

·    A Remembrance Cross or central monument of national significance.

·    Proper lighting, flagpoles, and ceremonial space for Anzac Day and Remembrance Day services.

·    A digital roll of honour where residents can look up relatives who served in all wars and conflicts.

·    A dedicated space for the Edmondson legacy, recognising Australia’s first Victoria Cross recipient from WWII, Sergeant John Hurst Edmondson, born right here in Liverpool.

6.    Launch a community campaign, “Liverpool Remembers,” to rally residents, schools, and local groups to contribute ideas, raise funds, and make Liverpool’s memorial precinct something we can all be proud of.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                     Moved:  Clr Ristevski                   Seconded:

That the Notice of Motion be adopted.

There was no seconder for this motion and therefore this item lapsed.

Background

The Liverpool community is deeply saddened by the sudden passing of Mr. Andy Snook, a dedicated community member and animal welfare advocate.

Andy was widely recognised for his tireless efforts in pet rescue, reuniting lost animals with their families, and providing support to the community at all hours. His work brought comfort and relief to countless Liverpool residents and saved hundreds of animals.

In 2022, Liverpool City Council honoured Andy with the Order of Liverpool Award, acknowledging his outstanding service to our city. Andy’s legacy is one of compassion, dedication, and community spirit that Liverpool should continue to celebrate.

NOTICE OF MOTION (submitted by Clr Ristevski)

That Council:

1.    Formally acknowledges and records in the Council minutes the extraordinary contribution of Mr. Andy Snook to the Liverpool community.

2.    Writes a letter of condolence to Andy’s family on behalf of the Councillors, recognising his service to Liverpool.

3.    Undertakes a permanent and substantial tribute to honour Andy’s legacy, such as one or more of the following:

·    Establishing the “Andy Snook Animal Welfare Award”, presented annually at the Order of Liverpool Awards to recognise outstanding community service in animal welfare.

·    Naming a Council facility, park, or animal-related service after Andy Snook (e.g. “The Andy Snook Animal Care Facility” or “The Andy Snook Dog Park”).

·    Planting a commemorative tree or garden in Andy’s honour in a public reserve, with a plaque acknowledging his contribution.

·    Creating an annual “Lost Pets Awareness Week” in Liverpool in his name, promoting responsible pet ownership and community care for animals.

·    Partnering with local animal welfare groups to establish a small grant or sponsorship fund in Andy’s name, supporting local pet rescue and rehoming initiatives.

4.    Ensures that Council communicates this tribute widely to the Liverpool community through its social media, newsletters, and website, emphasising Andy’s legacy as a champion for animals and community spirit.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                            Moved:                              Seconded:

Clr Ristevski withdrew this item, as a similar motion was dealt with earlier in the meeting through a Mayoral Minute, which incorporated points of this motion.

Background

Recent public hearings into Liverpool City Council governance have highlighted concerns about the transparency and management of the Council’s official Facebook page. Evidence has shown:

·    Decisions about the inclusion or exclusion of councillors in official posts have not always reflected fairness or equal recognition of elected representatives.

·    Uncertainty exists over who ultimately controls Council’s communications, creating confusion and the risk of politicisation of what should remain a neutral platform.

·    When councillors attend events, functions, or delegations in an official capacity, recognition of their role and contribution is not consistently communicated to the community.

The Council’s Facebook page is a public asset, funded by ratepayers, and it must operate in a way that reflects transparency, fairness, and the collective representation of the elected body, rather than the discretion of any one officeholder.

Councillors are elected by the people to represent them, and the community has a right to be informed of their participation in official Council activities.

Rationale

This motion aligns with the NSW Local Government Act 1993, which requires:

·    Councillors to represent the interests of the community as a whole (s.232).

·    Councils to act fairly, responsibly, and without political bias in the exercise of their functions (s.8A).

It is the duty of all councillors to ensure transparency, accountability, and fairness in how Council communicates with its residents.

This motion seeks to restore trust, guarantee fair representation of all councillors, and prevent the politicisation of a platform that should serve to inform and unite the Liverpool community.

NOTICE OF MOTION (submitted by Clr Ristevski)

That Council:

1.   Acknowledge the findings of the public inquiry hearings which highlighted uncertainty and inconsistency in how the Liverpool City Council Facebook page is managed, particularly regarding councillors’ representation;

2.   Direct the Chief Executive Officer to prepare a clear and transparent policy that ensures:

a)   Councillors attending official events on behalf of Council are recognised and reported on through the Council’s Facebook page.

b)   Representation of Council at official functions, delegations, and community events is acknowledged in a fair and non-partisan manner.

c)   Staff are not placed in a position where they are directed into political interference, including altering photographs, excluding councillors, or withholding information from the community; and

3.    Ensure that where councillors attend official functions or delegations in their capacity as elected representatives, their role is acknowledged and given appropriate recognition on Council’s Facebook page.

COUNCIL DECISION

Motion:                       Moved: Clr Ristevski                  Seconded: Clr Monaghan   

That Council:

1.   Direct the Chief Executive Officer to prepare a clear and transparent policy that ensures:

a)   Councillors attending official events on behalf of Council are recognised and reported on through the Council’s Facebook page.

b)   Representation of Council at official functions, delegations, and community events is acknowledged in a fair and non-partisan manner.

c)   Staff are not placed in a position where they are directed into political interference, including altering photographs, excluding councillors, or withholding information from the community; and

2.    Ensure that where councillors attend official functions or delegations in their capacity as elected representatives, their role is acknowledged and given appropriate recognition on Council’s Facebook page.

On being put to the meeting the motion was declared CARRIED.

Division called (for the motion moved by Clr Ristevski)

Vote for:              Mayor Mannoun, Clr Ammoun, Clr Ibrahim, Clr Karnib, Clr Harle,

------------------------Clr Ristevski and Clr Monaghan.

Vote against:      Clr Macnaught and Clr Adjei.

Note: Clr Dr Green and Clr Harte were not in the Chambers at the time of voting.

During discussion, Mayor Mannoun advised that he no longer declared a conflict of interest in NOM 02, following the amendment to the recommendation.

During discussion, Clr Dr Green declared a non-pecuniary, significant interest in this item and left the Chambers for the duration of the item.

Clr Dr Green left the Chambers left the Chambers at 8:20pm in accordance with the Declarations of Interest.

Clr Harte left the Chambers at 8:23pm in accordance with the Declarations of Interest.