Council Meetings Held August 6 + 13 2024: Report in Lieu of 'from the chamber' updates
From the Council Chamber - Meetings held August 6 and 13: Council in Caretaker period
The 2021-2024 Council has finished for Councillors who held a seat for a ward. All seats are now vacant. Councillors eligible to stand for positions in the next Council are currently out and about informing residents of their approach to community and locals being included, represented and heard in local government.
Councils are now in the caretaker period. The caretaker period is the period of four weeks preceding the date of the 2024 NSW Local Government elections, which is from Friday, 16 August to Friday, 13 September 2024 (inclusive).
Although Cr. Korzy is re-standing for Pittwater, it is inappropriate for the news service to run her usual 'From the Chamber' updates on council meeting decisions during this period as penned by her. As such PON staff will undertake the post-Meeting update in this instance.
The 2024 NSW Local Government elections will be held on Saturday, 14 September 2024.
August 6, 2024 Council Meeting
This Meeting was held to clear Items not addressed in the July 30 Meeting.
ATTENDANCE
Councillors
Sue Heins (Mayor)
Candy Bingham
Sarah Grattan
Kristyn Glanville – left the meeting at 10:12pm
David Walton
Michael Regan (remote) – left the meeting at 7:12pm
Jose Menano-Pires (remote) – joined the meeting at 6:07pm
Stuart Sprott (remote) – left the meeting at 6:34pm
Ruth Robins
Vincent De Luca OAM
Karina Page
Michael Gencher
Bianca Crvelin
Miranda Korzy
OUTCOME OF PUBLIC EXHIBITION - DISPLAY OF BANNERS AND PROMOTIONS ON COUNCIL FACILITIES POLICY
It was RESOLVED
That Council:
1. Adopt the revised draft Display of Banners and Promotions on Council Facilities Policy (Attachment 2).
2. Revoke the:
a. Banners on Public Land Policy - No 163 (former Pittwater)
b. Display of Banners within Council controlled properties and reserves – B10 (former Manly).
VOTING FOR: Unanimous
OUTCOME OF PUBLIC EXHIBITION - MY PLACE: MANLY (MANLY PLACE PLAN)
It was RESOLVED via Cr Bingham / Cr Grattan
That Council:
1. Adopt My Place: Manly to replace the Manly 2015 Masterplan incorporating the following changes and additions:
a. That local consultants be advised of any procurement process for ongoing stages of the Plan, where practical.
b. That the concept drawings, submitted by Manly Business Chamber/McGregor Coxall, be considered in future planning for the area. c. Continue to consult with the Manly Business Chamber, Councillors and other stakeholders as the Plan develops.
d. Prioritise the Movement & Place Plan, including the ‘Area of Influence’ identified in the Plan, for consideration in the 25/26 Budget.
e. Consider the role of Darley Road as an ancillary gateway and key intersection.
f. That all signage be reflective of the historic and cultural significance of Manly, and be unique to the area.
g. Acknowledge the importance of an outdoor performance space for Manly, however reconsider the proposed location (outlined on page 79) and further examine its purpose (general activation, major events, community use) and factors necessary for success.
h. That all replacement paving be consistent with the ‘Beach’ theme adopted in the Public Space & Design Guidelines 2040.
i. Update the Plan to include proposed active transport connections outlined in the 2020 Northern Beaches Bike and Walk Plans including in Belgrave Street, connecting to the Wharf, Raglan and Darley Streets.
j. Council work with the NSW Government and relevant stakeholders to identify relevant governance and grant opportunities to support the delivery of the Place Plan, including the consideration of initiatives such as the Community Improvement District Program.
2. Allow, upon Council resolution for changes to the Plan, should new ideas present themselves. This includes, but is not limited to, new civic precinct solutions addressing future needs of Manly Library and the Whistler Street Carpark.
3. Write to submitters thanking them for their contribution and advise of Council’s decision.
VOTING
FOR: Cr Bingham, Cr Grattan, Cr Glanville, Cr Walton, Cr Regan, Cr Menano-Pires, Cr Robins, Cr De Luca, Cr Page, Cr Gencher, Cr Crvelin, Cr Korzy and Cr Heins
AGAINST: Nil
ABSENT: Cr Sprott
CARRIED
NORTHERN BEACHES SURFING HERITAGE INTERPRETATION PLAN NOTE
Council RESOLVED via Cr Glanville / Cr Walton
That the Chief Executive Officer prepare a report on the options for developing a heritage interpretation plan relating to surfing history on the Northern Beaches, including engagement with relevant stakeholders and opportunities to:
1. Update the Freshwater Surfing ‘Walk of Fame’.
2. Update/expand the surfing heritage walk map to reflect the existing and proposed surfing heritage recognition projects.
3. Update/modernise the signage at existing recognition sites on the Northern Beaches.
4. Find ways to celebrate local female surfing stories and pioneers.
5. Identify any other suitable opportunities.
VOTING
FOR: Cr Bingham, Cr Grattan, Cr Glanville, Cr Walton, Cr Menano-Pires, Cr Robins, Cr De Luca, Cr Page, Cr Gencher, Cr Crvelin, Cr Korzy and Cr Heins
AGAINST: Nil
ABSENT: Cr Regan and Cr Sprott
CARRIED
URGENT FRESHWATER VILLAGE SAFETY, TRAFFIC, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONAL ISSUES
A Motion tabled by Cr. Walton and supported by Cr. Glanville.
It was RESOLVED via Cr Walton / Cr Glanville
That Council:
1. In collaboration with Manly Chamber of Commerce sub committee, Friends of Freshwater and other interested parties investigate opportunities to address maintenance, cleansing, community board, bubblers, bins, lighting, signage, pedestrian safety and active transport.
2. Investigate the following for inclusion in a future capital expenditure plan: a. landscaping b. updating public amenities c. accessible pathways.
3. Investigate options for funding Freshwater Village improvement works.
4. Bring a report back to Council within 3-6 months.
VOTING
FOR: Cr Bingham, Cr Grattan, Cr Glanville, Cr Walton, Cr Menano-Pires, Cr Robins, Cr De Luca, Cr Page, Cr Gencher, Cr Crvelin, Cr Korzy and Cr Heins
AGAINST: Nil
ABSENT: Cr Regan and Cr Sprott
CARRIED
TOWARDS NET ZERO
A Motion tabled by Cr. Korzy and supported by Cr. Glanville.
It was RESOLVED via Cr Korzy / Cr Glanville
That Council:
1. Staff provide a report to Councillors within 4 months outlining a proposal for inclusion in the new harmonised Development Control Plan (DCP) for all new development (residential and non-residential) across the Northern Beaches local government area (LGA) to be all-electric, based on the successful Lane Cove Council approach.
2. Staff identify other LGAs committed to climate action, reducing carbon emissions, and prepare a report on how Northern Beaches Council could collaborate with these councils to achieve NSW and Federal Government commitments to Net Zero in BASIX and National Construction Code provisions.
3. Write to all Local, State and Federal Members of Parliament, asking them to advocate with governments for mandating Net Zero in BASIX and the National Construction Code.
4. Write to NSW and Federal Environment, Planning and Energy Ministers, outlining the impact scientists expect climate change will have on the Northern Beaches, in terms of coastal erosion and inundation, species loss and extinction, flooding and bushfires, and ask them to commit to Net Zero provisions in BASIX and the National Construction Code.
VOTING
FOR: Cr Bingham, Cr Grattan, Cr Glanville, Cr Korzy and Cr Heins
AGAINST: Cr Walton, Cr Menano-Pires, Cr Robins, Cr De Luca, Cr Page, Cr Gencher and Cr Crvelin
ABSENT: Cr Regan and Cr Sprott
LOST
BOAT AND TRAILER PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL STREETS
This Motion was tabled by Cr. Page.
It was RESOLVED via Cr Page / Cr De Luca
That Council:
1. Staff provide a detailed report to a Council meeting within 4 months on measures to prevent boats, trailers and other large vehicles from parking in residential and industrial streets including various types of signage. The report is to include:
a. a summary of the powers currently available to Council for preventing boats, trailers and other large vehicles parking for long periods of time without movement on local roads
b. the possibility of designated parking areas for boats, trailers and other large vehicles
c. an assessment of the impact of boat, trailer and other large vehicles parking on residential and industrial streets on residents and businesses, including safety, traffic flow and amenity considerations, including the impact of reduced parking for residents.
2. Consider after the report to write to all State Members of Parliament on the Northern Beaches to lobby the State Government for legislative changes to allow Council to develop and enforce rules consistent with its residents' needs.
VOTING
FOR: Cr Bingham, Cr Grattan, Cr Glanville, Cr Walton, Cr Menano-Pires, Cr Robins, Cr De Luca, Cr Page, Cr Gencher, Cr Crvelin, Cr Korzy and Cr Heins
AGAINST: Nil
ABSENT: Cr Regan and Cr Sprott
CARRIED
VALE KAY VAN NORTON POCHE AO
RESOLVED Cr Bingham / Cr Grattan
That Council:
1. Acknowledge the significant contributions made by the late Kay Poche AO to the Northern Beaches community and the Australian community more broadly through her generous philanthropic support.
2. Send its condolences to the Poche family.
VOTING
FOR: Cr Bingham, Cr Grattan, Cr Glanville, Cr Walton, Cr Menano-Pires, Cr Robins, Cr De Luca, Cr Page, Cr Gencher, Cr Crvelin, Cr Korzy and Cr Heins
AGAINST: Nil
ABSENT: Cr Regan and Cr Sprott
CARRIED
SPORTSGROUND ALLOCATIONS AND AUDIT
Tabled Motion
It was RESOLVED per Cr Page / Cr Robins
That the Chief Executive Officer prepare a briefing to Councillors on the how sports fields on the Northern Beaches are allocated to sporting clubs and that the briefing consider the following:
1. The process for allocation to sporting clubs in summer and winter.
2. What mechanism does Council employ to ensure allocation is used?
3. What are the barriers to providing more access on our current grounds?
4. Can supply of sporting facilities meet the demands of sport?
5. How has the Sportsground Strategy adopted in 2017 and its implementation impacted on the above?
6. Explore the provision of a maintenance works schedule for all sporting organisations prior to the commencement of the season noting the effect of inclement weather.
7. Inform all sporting organisations of the mowing schedule, depending on inclement weather.
8. Explore a similar booking system to that of community centres and that before any booking is made the organisation that has majority use of the facility is consulted.
9. That council explore the provision of amenity facilities for female athletes.
10. Provide a breakdown of sports fields total usage for matches and training on weekends and weekdays by:
a. Women and girls
b. Men and boys
c. Mixed teams.
VOTING
FOR: Cr Bingham, Cr Grattan, Cr Glanville, Cr Walton, Cr Menano-Pires, Cr Robins, Cr De Luca, Cr Page, Cr Gencher, Cr Crvelin, Cr Korzy and Cr Heins
AGAINST: Nil
ABSENT: Cr Regan and Cr Sprott
CARRIED
NORTHERN BEACHES COUNCIL DISCRETIONARY FUND
Motion via Cr Menano-Pires / seconded by Cr Walton
That:
1. Council note the expenditure approved by the Mayor’s office of $2,000 for 5 residents to compete at the 2024 FIT Touch World Cup in England representing the Cook Islands, as per the Northern Beaches Council Discretionary Fund Policy, clause 5 (a) and (b)
2. The Northern Beaches Council Discretionary Fund be immediately suspended until:
a. Councillors are briefed on the current Northern Beaches Discretionary Fund Policy
b. Council conducts a full review of the Policy, including any changes that may be proposed by Councillors and/or staff
c. Following public consultation if required, Council to lift the suspension if and when, considered appropriate.
VOTING
FOR: Cr Menano-Pires
AGAINST: Cr Bingham, Cr Grattan, Cr Glanville, Cr Walton, Cr Robins, Cr De Luca, Cr Page, Cr Gencher, Cr Crvelin, Cr Korzy and Cr Heins
ABSENT: Cr Regan and Cr Sprott
LOST
MANLY WARRINGAH 12 YEARS REPRESENTATIVE NETBALL TEAM - UNDEFEATED STATE CHAMPIONS
Motion tabled by Cr. Vincent De Luca OAM - a huge supporter of this sport and local Netball clubs over many years.
It was RESOLVED via Cr De Luca / Cr Robins, That:
1. Council note with pleasure that at the recent New South Wales Junior State Netball Titles, for the first time since 2019 a Manly Warringah Netball Team won the State Championship in the 12 years Division.
2. The Team consisted of:
Coach - Gloria Berryman Manager - Edith Nathan Primary Carer - Millie Gallacher Team Members Lily Angus Sophia Cottrell Sydney Kaivelata Emma Knight Mele Manuofetoa Addison McCullough Ellie Mimmo Inga Mitchell Bo-Kiiarni Paki Amarlea Tonga
3. Council congratulate and commend the Manly Warringah Netball 12 years team on being undefeated State Champions.
VOTING
FOR: Cr Bingham, Cr Grattan, Cr Glanville, Cr Walton, Cr Menano-Pires, Cr Robins, Cr De Luca, Cr Page, Cr Gencher, Cr Crvelin, Cr Korzy and Cr Heins
AGAINST: Nil
ABSENT: Cr Regan and Cr Sprott
CARRIED
REVIEW OF TREE STEWARDSHIP AND CREATION OF TREE MANAGEMENT POLICY 192/24
This Motion, tabled by Cr. Korzy in response to the community's concern over the ever reducing tree canopy in Pittwater and across the LGA, epitomised in the destruction of two trees and at least the death of two birds through eggs in a nest being destroyed when these were cut down, with no fauna officer in place as is required by others, was finally passed at this August Council Meeting.
It was RESOLVED via Cr Korzy / Cr Glanville
That Council:
1. Undertake an internal review of its tree assessment, pruning and removal processes including:
a. Frequency of inspections of individual mature trees on public land.
b. The number of arborists on the relevant Council panel and the criteria used to assess and appoint them.
c. Standard instructions provided to arborists when undertaking tree assessments.
d. Consultation with the public regarding potential tree removals.
e. Actions taken to inform the public following identification of a high risk tree and mitigate risk.
f. Protocols for the review of tree removal and pruning decisions including the triggers for when these reviews are undertaken.
2. As part of that review, identify the funding required to:
a. Inspect and assess mature trees to safely retain them in situ for their useful life expectancy.
b. Prune, stag or completely remove unsafe mature trees across the LGA on an annual basis.
c. Maintain existing trees including ongoing watering of tubestock/saplings, fertilising, weeding around them, and mulching as foreshadowed in the Tree Canopy Plan.
3. Create a Tree Management Policy for Northern Beaches Council, consistent with the Tree Canopy Plan as resolved by Council in September 2023.
4. Within six months report to council on the outcome of the reviews in points 1. and 2. as well as the new draft Tree Management Policy.
VOTING
FOR: Cr Bingham, Cr Grattan, Cr Glanville, Cr Walton, Cr Robins, Cr De Luca, Cr Page, Cr Gencher, Cr Crvelin, Cr Korzy and Cr Heins
AGAINST: Cr Menano-Pires
ABSENT: Cr Regan and Cr Sprott
CARRIED
REPORT OF CONFIDENTIAL RESOLUTIONS
RFT 2024/015 - DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT QUEENSCLIFF PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLE BRIDGE AND ASSOCIATED FOOTPATH REALIGNMENTS 168/24
RESOLVED Cr Robins / Cr Grattan
That Council: 1. Accept the tender of Heuron Screenline Pty Limited for RFT2024/015 – Design and Construct Queenscliff Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge and Associated Footpath Realignments for the sum of $896,100 excluding GST.
2. Delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to execute all necessary documentation to give effect to this resolution and to approve contract payments up to the amount specified in the confidential evaluation report. RESOLVED BY EXCEPTION
EXEMPTION FROM TENDERING FOR PROVISION OF HOSTING, SUPPORT & MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE FOR PENALTY INFRINGEMENT SYSTEM 182/24
RESOLVED
Cr Glanville / Cr Grattan
That Council:
1. Enter into a contract with Orikan Australia Pty Ltd (previously trading as Pinforce Pty Ltd) for Penalty Infringement Management Services for a period of up to 3 years.
2. Resolve pursuant to section 55(3)(i) of the Local Government Act 1993 that a satisfactory result would not be achieved by inviting tenders for the contract referred to in 1 because of extenuating circumstances by reason of the following:
a. Orikan Australia Pty Ltd interfaces with Revenue NSW and has been providing professional and reliable services to Council since 2016.
b. The ongoing engagement of a specialist ticketing service provider is critical to the operational viability of Council ticketing services.
c. Orikan Australia Pty Ltd recently updated Council’s software management platform to a ticketless system which has been operating since March 2024 and is proving reliable and efficient. Making changes to this system now would cause significant operational delays.
d. Orikan is the only viable provider with cloud based ticketless parking that interfaces with Revenue NSW that maintains Council’s current functionality. Moving away from Revenue NSW at this time would be costly and impracticable.
e. Orikan Australia Pty Ltd’s integration with Revenue NSW creates operational efficiencies.
3. Delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution including the execution of all necessary documentation.
VOTING
FOR: Cr Bingham, Cr Grattan, Cr Glanville, Cr Walton, Cr Regan, Cr Menano-Pires, Cr Robins, Cr De Luca, Cr Page, Cr Gencher, Cr Crvelin, Cr Korzy and Cr Heins
AGAINST: Nil
ABSENT: Cr Sprott
CARRIED
July 30 2024 - RESPONSE TO MAYORAL MINUTE 7/2024 - ENGAGING WITH THE NORTHERN BEACHES ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY
This Mayoral Minute 7/2024 was to provide a means to include engaging with the Northern Beaches Aboriginal community. At the April 2024 Ordinary Council meeting, Council resolved (Resolution 103/24) as follows in respect of Mayoral Minute 7/2024:
That the Chief Executive Officer provide a report back to Council within 3 months on establishing an Aboriginal Community Advisory Group to review a range of indigenous issues including but not limited to:
1. A Reconciliation Action Plan
2. Culturally appropriate protocols /communications
3. Council projects and activities.
The report tabled provided a summary of the existing engagement mechanisms on the Northern Beaches, current practice across the NSW Local Government sector, potential options for future engagement, Reconciliation Actions Plans (RAPs) and guidance material for establishing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory/Working Groups, and a proposed way forward for Council.
Aboriginal peoples are the traditional custodians of the lands within the Northern Beaches. According to the 2021 Census, there are over 1,700 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living on the Northern Beaches.
Resolution 103/24 required that the Chief Executive Officer provide a report back to Council within 3 months on establishing an Aboriginal Community Advisory Group to review a range of indigenous issues including but not limited to: a Reconciliation Action Plan, culturally appropriate protocols /communications, and Council projects and activities.
The report stated:
• Council currently engages with local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and stakeholder groups on a project by project basis for a range of topics and Council activities.
• A Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) is a locally relevant and actionable plan that improves the local context for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples while also supporting the national reconciliation movement.
• Many councils across NSW and Australia have established either Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Groups for ongoing consultation with local First Nations peoples or Reconciliation Action Plan Working Groups/Committees for the specific purpose of developing and implementing a RAP.
• The establishment of an Advisory or Working Group should be designed and planned in a collaborative and co-designed approach with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and stakeholders.
• The coordination of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Reconciliation Action Plan Working or Advisory Group would require Council to reprioritise projects to enable the allocation of required resources.
Subsequently an AMENDMENT was moved by Cr Heins / Cr Glanville
That Council:
1. Receive a report identifying projects that can be delayed or deferred and approve the reallocation of ongoing funding and resources, including establishing an Aboriginal-identified staff position.
2. Await the results of our financials at quarter 1 and/or quarter 2 to see what funds are available and report back to a briefing on financial options.
3. Subject to funding, establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Group, in consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander stakeholders including the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council.
VOTING
FOR: Cr Bingham, Cr Grattan, Cr Glanville, Cr Regan, Cr Robins, Cr Korzy and Cr Heins
AGAINST: Cr Walton, Cr Menano-Pires, Cr Sprott, Cr De Luca, Cr Page, Cr Gencher and Cr Ryburn
There being an equal number of votes the Mayor used her casting vote for the motion which was declared CARRIED.
The next day, July 31 2024, Council Meetings webpage published a received Notice of Motion to Rescind Council's Resolution made on 30 July 2024 in respect of Item 10.2 - Response to Mayoral Minute 7/2024 - Engaging with the Northern Beaches Aboriginal Community Record Number: 2024/543745
The Notice of Rescission Form was lodged by Liberal Party councillors Karina Page, Michael Gencher and David Walton.
The former state Liberal government first put through the Lizard Rock and other aboriginal land development proposals. These lands were claimed by the MLALC, a body which excludes some of the over 1700 local aboriginal peoples on the basis of stating they are not Aboriginal, including descendants of Broken Bay elder Bungaree who have vocally opposed destroying the Lizard Rock site for profit due to this being sacred ground whose songlines should not be broken.
The MLALC has made it clear its prerogative is to claim and/or sell and develop land for projects to further support its membership.
It should be noted that people other than white male former-Europeans have as much right to be wildlife killers, habitat, environment and community destroying profiteer developers in this country as any others.
To be “Aboriginal” in Australia you need to meet three criteria, all of which must be proved by the person claiming to be Aboriginal: the person must identify as Aboriginal, the Aboriginal community must recognise the person as Aboriginal, and the person is Aboriginal by way of descent.
‘Aboriginal by way of descent’ can be difficult for some First Nations descendants due to past policies and social norms of destroying or not even making Birth Certificates for babies during eras where people were encouraged to hide their aboriginality. More on this under ‘Notes’ – below.
In the event the rescission motion was carried, the proposed alternate motion was:
That Council:
1. Note the report.
2. Adopt option 1 the status quo.
3. Staff put a process in place to work closely with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council to further the strategic outcomes of local aboriginal people.
The matter was listed for consideration on the 13 August 2024 Ordinary Council meeting agenda.
August 13 2024 Council Meeting
ATTENDANCE:
Councillors
Sue Heins (Mayor)
Georgia Ryburn (Deputy Mayor)
Candy Bingham
Sarah Grattan
Kristyn Glanville
David Walton
Michael Regan (remote)
Jose Menano-Pires
Stuart Sprott
Ruth Robins
Vincent De Luca OAM
Karina Page
Michael Gencher
Bianca Crvelin
Miranda Korzy
PUBLIC FORUM AND PUBLIC ADDRESS
PROCEDURAL MOTION - PERMISSION TO ADDRESS COUNCIL
197/24 RESOLVED Cr Glanville / Cr Bingham
That Neil Evers be granted permission to address Council in the Public Address.
VOTING FOR: Cr Bingham, Cr Grattan, Cr Glanville, Cr Robins, Cr Korzy, Cr Ryburn and Cr Heins
AGAINST: Cr Walton, Cr Regan, Cr Menano-Pires, Cr Sprott, Cr De Luca, Cr Crvelin, Cr Gencher and Cr Page
LOST
Item 15.1 Notice of Rescission No 1/2024 - Item 10.2 - Response to Mayoral Minute 7/2024 - Engaging with the Northern Beaches Aboriginal Community
• Doug Price addressed Council against this item, stating that if you are going to have an Aboriginal voice it needs to include the local Pittwater Aboriginal peoples.
• Susan Moylan-Coombs addressed Council against this item, stating the inclusion of local Aboriginal peoples in any Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Group, is of paramount importance.
The Gaimaragal Group’s founding director is Susan Moylan-Coombs. The company was established to create a new story of connection and wellbeing for all Australians. Their aim is to facilitate the voice for our Elders in the contemporary social space, empower our youth to realise their full potential, and provide two-way cultural translation to bring individuals and communities together
Susan’s ancestry is Woolwonga and Gurindji from the Northern Territory. She has extensive experience working with First Australian communities nationally and internationally, with specific expertise in community consultation, empowerment and the facilitation of voice and storytelling. Susan previously held the positions of Executive Producer ABC’s Indigenous Programs Unit and Head of Production, NITV a division of SBS.
Susan uses her expertise to work with mainstream organisations and communities in the provision of cultural competency and immersion sessions as well as social planning processes. Susan is part of the group known as the Stolen Generations and has lived experience of the trauma associated with removal, loss, dispossession and disconnection.
Susan contributes her time to a number of boards and committees;
- A Founding Board member of the PTSD Australia New Zealand (Fearless Outreach)
- Founder and current Co-Chair, Guringai Festival Committee
- Member Northern Sydney Aboriginal Women’s Health Check Committee
- Member Northern Sydney Local Health District Aboriginal Advisory Committee
- Member Guringai Local Aboriginal Education Consultative Group
- Membership of the Australian Association of Gerontology (AAG)
Local peoples voice Excluded by Liberal Rescission Motion
The rescission Motion was then passed, effectively excluding around 1600 local Aboriginal peoples in favour of the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council, of which not many are approved members.
Details are:
NOTICE OF RESCISSION NO 1/2024 - ITEM 10.2 - RESPONSE TO MAYORAL MINUTE 7/2024 - ENGAGING WITH THE NORTHERN BEACHES ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY
It was RESOLVED, via Cr Page / Cr Crvelin
That Council:
1. Note the report.
2. Adopt option 1 the status quo.
3. Staff put a process in place to work closely with the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council to further the strategic outcomes of local aboriginal people.
VOTING
FOR: Cr Bingham, Cr Walton, Cr Menano-Pires, Cr Sprott, Cr De Luca, Cr Crvelin, Cr Gencher, Cr Page and Cr Ryburn
AGAINST: Cr Grattan, Cr Glanville, Cr Regan, Cr Robins, Cr Korzy and Cr Heins
CARRIED
Two days later it was revealed Liberal Candidates already named for the 2024 Local Government Elections had excluded themselves from standing as Candidates in several Councils for the Local Government Elections for 2024, notably Campbelltown Council where koalas living in the area have been excluded from consideration in many of that now former Council's consideration of development proposals, and the Northern Beaches Council, first created through the forced amalgamation by the former Liberal government of Manly, Warringah and Pittwater Councils.
Although the omission for the next 4 years of Liberal Party members is lamented by residents, apart from Liberal Party member and multiple café owner Sandeep Singh who submitted his own forms and is on the Pittwater ballot, others have pointed out following Liberal Party state directives at a local government level will also thereby be excluded for the term of the yet to be elected new NBC. Accordingly, this provides an opportunity for a similar Motion to be introduced in the new term of an NBC Council to include local residential Aboriginal people with connections to this place in any established Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Group the new Council aspires to formalise.
Similarly, what is set to be Councillors where a majority may be women, may also raise the potential of Pittwater getting its own council back in the estimation of some.
And: Proposal to Reinstate Pittwater Council on its former boundaries: revised s215 document
Later in that same Meeting Cr. Sprott tabled the following Urgent Motion.
PROCEDURAL MOTION - 1 MOTION OF URGENCY
RESOLVED Cr Sprott / Cr Glanville
That as a matter of urgency Council considers a motion in relation to the Patyegarang Planning Proposal.
This Motion, tabled by Cr. Sprott, was to authorise the CEO to deal with the Lizard Rock/Patyegarang Planning Proposal via Council's stated and published approach should that Planning Proposal be approved while Council was in caretaker mode.
Although the Council had not, as yet, moved into its caretaker period, there was a cautionary note sounded to committing any future Council to financial undertakings prior to that Council being formed.
Voting for this to be an Urgent Motion was:
FOR: Cr Bingham, Cr Glanville, Cr Walton, Cr Sprott, Cr Crvelin, Cr Page, Cr Korzy and Cr Ryburn
AGAINST: Cr Grattan, Cr Menano-Pires, Cr Robins, Cr De Luca, Cr Gencher and Cr Heins
ABSENT: Cr Regan
CARRIED
However, this was among a number of Motions to be held over to the first Meeting of the new Council on October 15 2024. The Motion, as it was briefly placed on the screen broadcast of the August 13 Meeting reads:
Cr. Stuart Sprott was not listed among the Liberal Councillors who were going to be on the Ballot for the 2024 Local Government Elections. This was his final, at this stage, NBC Council Meeting.
The NSW Planning Department webpage 'Plans for your area Priority growth areas and precincts - Northern Beaches Aboriginal Land' continues to state:
'All feedback is being reviewed before a report is prepared for the Sydney North Strategic Planning Panel. The panel will provide a recommendation to the department on whether the proposal should be finalised and if so in what form. The Minister, or the department as the Minister’s delegate, will make the final determination for the planning proposal.'
The latest update on this proposal states this has been pushed back to 2025.
See: Lizard Rock (Patyegarang planning Proposal) Update: August 2024
Community members are of the opinion that the upgrade works long mooted by the former Liberal government to alleviate flooding on the Wakehurst Parkway to allow people north of Narrabeen to have direct access to the Northern Beaches hospital completed under that same NSW government, and now finally to go ahead under the Labor government, are to facilitate access to the site.
These works are scheduled to commence in 2025.
AVALON STREETS AS SHARED SPACES PROJECT: WILL NOW BE PERMANENT
Questions put by Cr. Gencher revealed that those asked about their opinion of this shared space were those using it, and that it would cost approximately 1.5 million to make it as it should be. A further query revealed there has been no budget set aside to return it to as it was, as was stated when the project was first mooted, but that the street furniture used is that used elsewhere across the Council LGA and that could easily be relocated/reused should a decision to dismantle the space be approved.
Subsequently an Amendment was moved by Crs. Page/Gencher -
That Council:
1. Note with concern, the outcomes of the recent report, particularly the representation of a high level of support for the project. This support appears to have been gauged without providing the community with the relevant information necessary for it to form informed decisions.
2. Acknowledge the lack of detailed funding information and the absence of comprehensive data regarding the anticipated project costs, which are crucial for a transparent and informed consultation process.
3. Request the Chief Executive Officer, through the appropriate channels, to ensure that accurate and detailed information, including data and analysis on traffic flow and improved safety measures, is made available. Further, that the community be consulted once this information is available to enable informed and meaningful participation in the decision making process.
However, this was voted down.
Greens Councillor Miranda Korzy has stated,
''I had considered moving to defer the decision on the shared space however irrespective of the council report and stats, I go through the area most days of the week and any dry morning I'm there, it's heavily used until lunchtime, especially on weekends (apart from a couple of tables and seats near the Thai restaurant). In the afternoons, school kids and parents use it and on warm evenings over summer, the tables get used by people with takeaway meals. I also note that most residents now tell me how much they like the area - and I've received perhaps two or three complaints about it (but not written) in months.
I also consulted with APA and decided instead to amend the motion so that we can move forward, giving staff a strong message that we want funding for better infrastructure and plantings in the area and calling for a review of the debacle that was it's original installation.
I noted at the meeting that the community had been told there would be enough money left over from the NSW govt grant to return the area to its former layout if the community rejected it - or for final improvements - and staff said $50K was meant to have been set aside. I believe that money - and possibly more - probably went into the three lots of work it took contractors to prevent extreme flooding in the area.
At the meeting, I also asked for details of traffic modelling for the current layout, which I had gone through with staff before it was implemented - and that was the basis of my original support for the proposal. Staff did not have it available at the meeting, but said they will provide it afterwards. However, the new layout meets the current regulations for traffic intersections, which the former arrangement didn't.
This is the amendment that I successfully moved, which became the motion:
That Council:
1. Note the engagement report and community feedback.
2. Give high priority to seeking grant funding to enable upgrading of the seating, other infrastructure and plantings in the Avalon Shared Space to a high quality.
3. Subject to grant funding, carry out a design study for completion of the project to a high quality, and in keeping with the character of Avalon Beach, then place this on public exhibition within 12 months.
4. Review the implementation of the Avalon Streets as Shared Spaces Project, with particular reference to: design and execution of traffic, parking, pedestrian, and stormwater elements; timelines; communication with the community; and budgeting.
VOTING FOR: Cr Bingham, Cr Grattan, Cr Glanville, Cr Regan, Cr Sprott, Cr Robins, Cr Korzy and Cr Heins
AGAINST: Cr Walton, Cr Menano-Pires, Cr De Luca, Cr Crvelin, Cr Gencher and Cr Page
ABSENT: Cr Ryburn
CARRIED
While on matters pertaining to the the Avalon Beach Village: Johnsons' Spotted Gum Lane
Council received a request to name the unnamed lane opposite the Avalon Beach Village Church off Bellevue to help locals and visitors identify the area and improve wayfinding.
The unnamed laneway provides access to the driveway of the residential property at 47 Bellevue Avenue, to Chakana Day Spa at the rear of 45A Avalon Parade, and is used by businesses at 47-55 Avalon Parade as a loading zone.
Between 23 February and 24 March 2024 Council exhibited a proposal to name the laneway 'Spotted Gum Lane', and received 86 responses.
Many of the respondents requested an alternate name, ''Johnson Lane'', to recognise this popular local family’s contribution to the area over decades and generations. Johnson Bros Mitre 10 Avalon also backs onto the laneway. However, the Geographical Names Board (GNB) Place Naming Policy does not permit using a business name that is still in use.
However, the lane is likely to remain known by locals as ‘Johnson’s’ and celebrated for the Spotted Gums that line, in places still, the Bellevue Avenue to Elouera and Coolawin roads right up into Angophora Reserve.
Interestingly, 'Wickham Lane' and 'Sanders Lane', also named for known local legends who also contributed much to Avalon Beach, and one of whom worked in the first ever Avalon shop and then built that shop which still stands on the corner of Avalon Parade and Old Barrenjoey Road, run near the laneway.
55 Avalon Parade just after completion (Note Johnsons' delivery truck at front and CBC Bank in Corner Shop).
Shop Front, 55 Avalon Parade.
Similarly at Collaroy several of the received 245 responses requested an alternate name, ''Wicks Lane'', to recognise Wicks Surf Shop Collaroy which has been part of Collaroy history since the Spring of 1975, rather than the ‘Hibiscus Lane’ proposed. However, the Geographical Names Board’s (GNB) Place Naming Policy once again applied.
'‘Commercial and business names shall not be used for geographical names, particularly where the name can be construed to be promoting a business.’' - See Geographical Names Board of NSW Policy Place Naming (PDF)
Collaroy Beach in the 1970's was an incredible time; a huge range of live music, the beach was a hub of groups, friends, and parties, and the surfing a way of life for young and older.
Wicks Surf Shop states the building they are in is over 100 years old;
''Wicks Surf shop first opened its doors on September 9, 1975. Anthony “Wicka” Hardwick first started the shop focusing on retailing surfboards, having had grass roots in the industry, surfing for Geoff McCoy and working at his factory in Brookvale in the early 1970’s. His slogan was very appropriate, “Surfers with the surfer in mind.”
In 1976 Wicka took on good friend Steve “Slackey” Ross as an employee and later on as a business partner. Steve has been working at the shop to this day and has 40 years surf retail experience. Peter “Spud” Thomson, worked with Steve when he was a grommet and is the current owner of the store. Spud has 36 years surf retail experience under his belt.''
Pittwater Road Collaroy beach, circa 1939 – NBC held postcard
Council states a Naming Proposal of ‘Fig Tree Lane’, Seaforth (for Laneway from Kempbridge Avenue) attracted 44 responses and was supported by 75% respondents, while a Naming Proposal for ‘Syncarpia Court’, Newport (currently known as Walworth Court) shows the majority of the 49 responses did not support the proposed change, citing difficulty pronouncing 'Syncarpia', and the burden placed on residents to update their address details. The Turpentine tree Syncarpia Glomulifera is endemic to the area and a large Turpentine tree is located midway down this lane.
These 3 new names and rejected name for Walworth Court at Newport were all passed at this final Council Meeting for this Councillor cohort.
THE OUTDOOR DINING AND FOOTPATH MERCHANDISE GUIDE 202/24
This Motion was tabled by Cr. Michael Gencher
Council RESOLVED Cr Gencher / Cr Page
That:
1. Noting the established and longstanding outdoor dining hours operation at 2KF Café in Mona Vale, the authorised outdoor dining hours of operation be set at 4.40 am to 6.00 pm daily for a 12 month trial period.
2. Unless otherwise specified in a development consent, or the premises is within a residential zone, the hours of operation for all other premises offering outdoor dining shall be expanded to 7.00 am to 10.00 pm daily for a 12 month trial period.
3. Council receives a report no later than September 2025 setting out the outcomes of the trial, including but not limited to the number of premises known to have participated in the extended outdoor dining hours trial, any known amenity impacts, any complaints received, and whether Council should permanently amend the Outdoor Dining and Footpath Merchandise Guide in any way.
4. Despite the above, should Council receive significant and substantiated complaints about the impact of extended trial outdoor operating hours, authorised Council officers may suspend extended operating hours for the duration of the trial.
VOTING FOR: Unanimous
CARRIED
YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH FACILITIES AND SERVICES ON THE NORTHERN BEACHES
This was a Motion tabled by Cr. Vincent De Luca OAM, who has worked advocating for measures to address youth mental health issues in this area for decades.
It was RESOLVED, per Cr De Luca / Cr Page
That Council:
1. Note that on 23 June 2022, then Minister for Health, The Hon Brad Hazzard MP announced “$11.4 million to boost Northern Beaches youth mental health services” and that “Children and young people in the Northern Beaches will benefit from significantly enhanced mental health services with a $11.4 million investment under the 2022-23 NSW Budget … the funding will be used to expand hospital and community services, including establishing acute paediatric specialist mental health beds at Northern Beaches Hospital and supporting local community mental health and drug and alcohol treatment services” and particularly:
“The $11.4 million for child and youth mental health services in the Northern Beaches includes:
• $7.5 million to establish four dedicated acute paediatric specialist mental health beds at Northern Beaches Hospital, which will provide for the establishment and operation of the beds.
• $1.4 million to employ additional staff, including senior multi-disciplinary clinicians, to support Northern Beaches Child Youth Mental Health Service in the Brookvale Community Health Centre.
• $1.1 million to recruit additional staff, including peer workers and clinicians, to support and operate the Northern Beaches Youth Response Team service out of Mona Vale Community Health Centre seven days a week.
• $1 million to develop a new youth drug and alcohol community treatment service in Northern Sydney Local Health District, including employing senior medical, nursing and allied health clinicians to operate the service.
• $365,000 to provide a full-time child and youth psychiatrist at Northern Beaches Hospital.”
2. Note that on Thursday 22 February 2024 NSW Minister for Homelessness, Mental Health and Youth, The Hon Rose Jackson MLC announced “that the previously announced commitment to four mental health beds at Northern Beaches Hospital was ‘not feasible’”.
3. Note that on 22 February 2024, the Federal Member for Mackellar Dr Sophie Scamps MP was publicly quoted as previously stating, “At a time when we have a youth mental health crisis on the Northern Beaches, it’s simply not good enough that the management at the Northern Beaches Hospital haven’t even committed to a timeline for these beds” and she reiterated on 22 February 2024 “it is disappointing that more than two years after the former NSW Government announced funding for a four-bed youth mental health unit, the Northern Beaches Hospital management has refused to provide the services.”
4. Notes that on 28 February 2024 in the NSW Legislative Council’s Budget Estimates Committee Inquiry into Health, in the transcript on pages 74 and 75, The Hon Natasha Maclaren Jones MLC, asked the following questions of NSW Health Official, Ms Deb Willcox:
“The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES: In relation to mental health, the Minister recently announced $7.5 million, I think it was, for mental health support for young people on the northern beaches. Previously it was budgeted for $11.4 million. What's happening to the $4.5 million that had been originally marked for adolescent mental health in that area?
DEB WILLCOX: The Northern Beaches Hospital has four beds available for admission for young people who require admission, but we have enhanced significantly our community-based mental health services at Brookvale in their child and adolescent mental health service there.
The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES: Those four beds are currently interim beds. Will they become permanent?
DEB WILLCOX: No, they're permanent.
The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES: They're permanent?
DEB WILLCOX: Yes, they are permanent. The initial announcement looked for a capital solution to create a pod. That wasn't possible just within the designs of the hospital itself, but they have allocated four available beds for young people who may require admission. Any young person that is extremely unwell and would require beyond a couple of days, they would probably be transferred to the Brolga unit, which is the child and adolescent mental health unit at Hornsby.”
5. Note that on 11 April 2024 in the Sydney Morning Herald, “Maternity, mental health staff cut as unrest swirls at Northern Beaches Hospital” and it was revealed
“Northern Beaches Hospital is cutting staff from its mental health and maternity units” …
“The changes to staffing levels come two months after the state government abandoned plans to invest $7.5 million in mental health services at the hospital, saying the previous government had promised the funding without guaranteeing the hospital could deliver the promised youth mental health beds.”
6. Note the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists concerns:
“Access to child and adolescent psychiatrist care remains a persistent problem in Australia and New Zealand. There is a shortage of child and adolescent psychiatrists as well as a shortage of child and adolescent psychiatry training posts. Coverage is particularly poor in rural and remote areas” and “9 in 10 psychiatrists say workforce shortages are risking patient care in Australia” … “Australia has a critical and chronic shortage of psychiatrists. Not only are there not enough, but they are also unevenly distributed across the country” said Dr Moore.
7. Note that while Council acknowledges the reallocation of $6.9 million of funds into the Brookvale Safe Haven, the Perrottet Government’s $28.5 million pledge to Lifeline while in Government and The Hon Rose Jackson’s announcement last year that Lifeline will receive $8.2 million over 5 years to expand its text and webchat services in NSW, that Council’s main aim is for the State Government to return funds for youth mental health beds at Northern Beaches Hospital because existing facilities are inappropriate for the safety of youth and if at capacity, young people must travel to Hornsby or Westmead.
8. Write to the Premier, Leader of the Opposition, Minister for Health, Minister for Mental Health and respective Shadow Minister’s and Party Spokespersons:
a. regarding allegations about the management practices at the Northern Beaches Hospital
b. condemns the decision of the NSW Government to abandon previous promised funding for four permanent children/adolescent mental health beds at Northern Beaches Hospital and calls on the NSW Government to urgently return funding for these beds.
c. condemns the staffing cuts to the maternity and mental health units at Northern Beaches and calls on the NSW Government to urgently intervene and ensure those positions are reinstated
d. calls on the NSW Government to respond to the continuing need on the Northern Beaches for investment in youth mental health, particularly:
i. provision of dedicated and separate youth mental health inpatient beds
ii. need for a non-clinical step-up / step-down facility for youth suffering from mental health issues
iii. improved communication and case management for families and young people navigating the complexity of mental health services.
e. calls for a Legislative Council inquiry into the efficacy and management of the Northern Beaches Hospital and explore mechanisms to return the Hospital back into public hands.
8. Write to the Federal Minister for Education, The Hon Jason Clare MP, the Federal Minister for Health, The Hon Mark Butler MP, Federal Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, The Hon Emma McBride MP and respective Shadow Ministers, and calling on the Federal Government to:
a. introduce incentives for people to study psychiatry, psychology, counselling and mental health services by way of reducing University and TAFE fees and HECS debt relief
b. introduce rental support for those that graduate in these disciplines and practice in these public health areas
c. explore ways to expand the number of child and adolescent psychiatry training posts d. promote training and posts for child and adolescent academic careers.
VOTING FOR: Cr Bingham, Cr Glanville, Cr Walton, Cr Menano-Pires, Cr Sprott, Cr Robins, Cr De Luca, Cr Crvelin, Cr Gencher, Cr Page, Cr Korzy, Cr Ryburn and Cr Heins
AGAINST: Nil
ABSENT: Cr Grattan and Cr Regan
CARRIED
See:
Mental health Unit gap in our LGA still unmet: Calls for a return of Manly's east wing - February 2024
Traffic Calming measures at Morgan Road, Belrose and Oxford Falls Road, Oxford Falls to protect wildlife will not occur
THIS WAS A RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF MOTION NO 18/2023 - TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES OXFORD FALLS 214/24
It was RESOLVED via Cr Heins / Cr Ryburn: That Council note the findings of the report.
RESOLVED BY EXCEPTION
PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide recommendations for traffic calming measures, following post-construction traffic monitoring at Morgan Road, Belrose and Oxford Falls Road, Oxford Falls.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WAS:
• The Morgan Road bridge was replaced between August 2023 and December 2023 with the adjoining pedestrian bridge completed in March 2024.
• In response to the Notice of Motion No 18/2023 - Traffic Calming Measures Oxford Falls, staff undertook pre and post construction traffic surveys to determine if the new bridge construction led to an increase in traffic volumes and speeds in the area.
• Traffic data collected 200m west of the bridge location pre construction and post construction indicates that the average daily traffic volume and average traffic speed remained relatively static at this location.
• Further investigation was undertaken to understand how the route was used with 6 survey points installed between Forest Way and Wakehurst Parkway in late February 2024 to align with locations where previous data had been collected.
• This data demonstrates that further action would be beneficial to reinforce the posted speed limit of 50km/h on both Morgan Road and Oxford Falls Road West, noting that speeds have dropped from 67km/h to 58km/h in Morgan Road between 2019 and 2024.
RECOMMENDATION That Council note the findings of the report.
Council’s Background report states:
The request for traffic calming to be installed has been considered and, whilst this would address the broader issues of traffic speeds, the additional street lighting that would need to be installed to meet the safety requirements for traffic calming devices may have a negative impact on the amenity of the rural area as well as the impact on nocturnal wildlife. The Transport Network Team reviewed the data and the potential options including speed humps, chicanes and other traffic calming measures to address the higher than posted speed limit driver behaviour.
These options are seen as medium-term options and will be included for further consideration in Council’s future traffic facility program. As a short-term option to assist in traffic calming, staff will be adding this location to the rotation of Council’s road safety message trailers for speed limit reinforcement. Should this prove beneficial, it may be followed with installation of enhanced digital signage in key locations along the route, noting this provides only a limited additional benefit as it can lead to driver complacency if not relevant to the road environment.
The community feedback received over the past few years anecdotally indicates an increase in wildlife being impacted by the vehicles travelling along the route. Staff note that this data may exist, however Council does not keep this information as a part of the broader traffic and transport data set used to evaluate traffic projects.
The provision of the portable message trailers is a program provided to enhance road safety outcomes on local roads and is included in the operational budget. Permanent digital signage is currently unfunded but will be reviewed in line with other priorities within Council’s New Traffic Facilities program. Any mid to long term infrastructure solutions are not currently in the Long Term Financial Plan. Grant funding options will be explored should these become a future priority.
And: Ringtail Posse 10: November 2023 - The Stop Wildlife Roadkill Group: You Can Help By Using The Wildlife Incident Mapping Website - November 2023
NOTICE OF MOTION NO 24/2024 - CATS AND DOGS
This item was listed on the agenda but not dealt with at the 25 June 2024 and 30 July Council meeting.
COUNCILLOR SPROTT SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING MOTION:
That Council write to the NSW Minister for Local Government calling for amendments to the Companion Animals Act 1998 ensuring that responsibilities for the control of cats are the same as the current control responsibilities for dogs.
BACKGROUND FROM COUNCILLOR SPROTT:
We know feral cats pose a massive threat to wildlife. Across Australia, feral cats collectively kill more than 3 billion animals annually. Cats have significantly contributed to 34 mammal extinctions in Australia since 1788 and are a major factor in the decline of at least 123 other threatened native species. Pet cats also cause substantial harm. New analysis, which compiles results from 66 different studies, assesses the impact of Australia’s pet cat population on the country’s wildlife. The findings are staggering: on average, each roaming pet cat kills 186 reptiles, birds, and mammals per year, most of them native to Australia. This amounts to 4,440 to 8,100 animals per square kilometre annually in areas inhabited by pet cats. To protect wildlife, pet owners should keep their cats indoors. In Australia, 1.1 million pet cats are kept inside 24 hours a day by responsible owners. However, 2.7 million pet cats, or 71% of the total, are allowed to roam and hunt. Moreover, a radio tracking study in Adelaide found that 39% of cats, believed by their owners to be inside at night, were actually sneaking out for nocturnal adventures.
COUNCIL REPORT
The purpose of this report is to provide the information requested in Council’s resolution in respect of Notice of Motion No 12/2024 – Responsible Dog and Cat Ownership.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Resolution 088/24 required the Chief Executive Officer to, among other things, provide a report on activities undertaken by Council to encourage responsible dog and cat ownership, and options to increase responsible dog and cat ownership. The Companion Animals Act 1998 (the Act) outlines the obligations on dog and cat owners to responsibly manage their pets to minimise safety, amenity and environmental impacts. Council has powers to enforce the Act in connection with the failure to effectively control companion animals (dogs and cats).
A number of educational and training activities are being undertaken by Council staff in partnership with local vets, NSW RSPCA and animal behaviour experts to improve awareness, confidence and etiquette in the use of public spaces to exercise dogs. • Additional targeted training and information sessions are planned in hot spot areas, incentivised with free training sessions and complimentary giveaways and promotional material.
The Office of Local Government (OLG) is currently reviewing the allocation and utilisation of the NSW Companion Animals Fund. Council staff have advocated on behalf of Council to the OLG, identifying opportunities to improve the statutory framework around the management of dogs and cats.
The Office of Local Government (OLG) is currently undertaking a range of reviews and inquiries into animal welfare and management, including consideration of the appropriate application of the Companion Animals Fund.
As part of this exercise, in April 2024 the OLG undertook a survey across councils in NSW, which gave Council staff an opportunity to advocate on behalf of Council on key aspects of concern and opportunities for improvement within the current statutory framework, including potential opportunities to incentivise or mandate behavioural training.
The following matters were identified opportunities to strengthen the current statutory framework around the management of companion animals:
1. implementing a requirement for mandatory behavioural training of dogs/puppies at time of registration or within 6 months of purchase for example, with accompanying penalties for failure to do so
2. reviewing the statutory provisions for the management of cats, particularly management of nuisance/roaming cats and strengthening this area, as local councils often have challenges with responding to community concerns regarding destructive behaviours of roaming cats, particularly towards wildlife
3. reviewing the penalty amounts, particularly for dog attacks, and for penalty amounts to be based on the severity of incidents
4. introducing a mechanism to ban persons from owning a dog in serious circumstances 5. incentivising desexing dogs and cats older than 6 months of age.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report outlining Council’s administration of the Companion Animals Act 1998.
It was RESOLVED via Cr Sprott / Cr Crvelin:
That Council note the report outlining Council’s administration of the Companion Animals Act 1998
VOTING
FOR: Cr Bingham, Cr Grattan, Cr Glanville, Cr Walton, Cr Menano-Pires, Cr Sprott, Cr Robins, Cr De Luca, Cr Crvelin, Cr Gencher, Cr Page, Cr Korzy and Cr Ryburn
AGAINST: Cr Heins
ABSENT: Cr Regan
CARRIED
CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS – CLOSED SESSION
That:
Council accepts the tender of Coastwide Civil Pty Limited for RFT 2024/072 - Stuart and Ramsay Street Road End Seawall Works for the sum of $1,563,729.55 excluding GST. 2. Authority be delegated to the Chief Executive Officer to execute all necessary documentation to give effect to this resolution and to approve contract payments up to the amount specified in the confidential evaluation report.
Ramsay Street - public road end
Stuart Street - public road end. Artist impressions of proposed works at Collaroy Beach. Images: NBC
In accordance with section 178(1)(b) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021, decline to accept any of the tenders received for Restricted RFT2023/139 – Dee Why Gross Beach Pollutant Trap (GPT). In accordance with section 178(3)(e) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021, enter into negotiations with Optimal Stormwater Pty Ltd with a view to entering into a contract in relation to the subject matter of the tender. Delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to enter into negotiations with Optimal Stormwater Pty Ltd, and subject to the Chief Executive Officer being satisfied with the outcome of those negotiations, enter into a contract with Optimal Stormwater Pty Ltd in relation to the subject matter of the tender and to execute all necessary documentation to give effect to this resolution.
In accordance with clause 19.3 of the Code of Meeting Practice the meeting concluded at 11.31 pm
The following items were deferred to the ordinary Council meeting of 15 October 2024 in accordance with clause 19.4(a) of the Code of Meeting Practice:
14.1 Notice of Motion No 24/2024 - Cats and Dogs
14.2 Notice of Motion No 25/2024 - Truck Exhaust Brake Restrictions at Frenchs Forest
14.4 Notice of Motion No 29/2024 - Urban Greening of the Northern Beaches
14.5 Notice of Motion No 34/2024 - Smart Street Tree Management
14.7 Notice of Motion No 37/2024 - Northern Beaches Indoor Sports Centre (NBISC)
Matter of Urgency – Patyegarang Planning Proposal
Notes: The three-part definition
Extract sourced from: https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/essentially-yours-the-protection-of-human-genetic-information-in-australia-alrc-report-96/36-kinship-and-identity/legal-definitions-of-aboriginality/
In the early 1980s, the Commonwealth Department of Aboriginal Affairs proposed a new three-part definition of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person.
An Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander is a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he [or she] lives.[16]
Federal government departments adopted the definition as their ‘working definition’ for determining eligibility to certain services and benefits. The definition continues to be applied administratively in relation to programs such as Abstudy funding for tertiary students.
In The Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws, the ALRC emphasised the benefits of a flexible definition of Aboriginality:
Experience under Commonwealth and States legislation suggests that it is not necessary to spell out a detailed definition of who is an Aborigine, and that there are distinct advantages in leaving the application of the definition to be worked out, so far as is necessary, on a case by case basis.[17]
Only a small number of judicial decisions in Australia have considered this issue.[18] In Commonwealth v Tasmania, the High Court considered the definition of an ‘Aborigine’ for the purpose of s 51(xxvi) of the Constitution, in relation to laws with respect to ‘the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws’. Deane J applied the three-part test, stating:
By ‘Australian Aboriginal’ I mean, in accordance with what I understand to be the conventional meaning of that term, a person of Aboriginal descent, albeit mixed, who identifies himself as such and who is recognised by the Aboriginal community as Aboriginal.[19]
Brennan J supported this approach in his leading judgment in Mabo v Queensland (No 2), in relation to native title:
Membership of the Indigenous people depends on biological descent from the Indigenous people and on mutual recognition of a particular person’s membership by that person and by the elders or other persons enjoying traditional authority among those people.[20]
As noted above, the Commonwealth has enacted a number of statutes for the purpose of providing certain rights and privileges for the exclusive benefit of Indigenous Australians. Due to the broad terms in which these statutes define an Aboriginal person, it has been necessary for the courts to interpret these definitions.
In Attorney-General (Cth) v Queensland, the Federal Court considered the meaning of the word ‘Aboriginal’ in relation to the Letters Patent authorising the Royal Commission to inquire into the deaths in custody of ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’. The Queensland government argued that the Royal Commission could not inquire into the death of a 17-year-old boy in custody because he was not Aboriginal. While the boy had some Aboriginal descent, he had not identified as an Aborigine and had not been recognised as such by the Aboriginal community.[21]
The Federal Court held that Aboriginal descent was, by itself, sufficient proof of Aboriginality for these particular purposes. French J commented that the three-part definition should not be seen as representing the contemporary content of the word ‘Aboriginal’, irrespective of context or purpose. The better view was that Aboriginal descent alone is a sufficient criterion for classification as Aboriginal for the purposes there in question.[22]
Spender J commented that once it is established that a person is ‘non-trivially’ of Aboriginal descent, then that person is Aboriginal within the ordinary meaning of that word. Neither self-identification nor community recognition is necessary, and the presence of either factor, or even both, is not sufficient to satisfy the definition of an ‘Aboriginal’ person.[23] Spender and Jenkinson JJ both commented that where Aboriginal descent is uncertain, or where the extent of Aboriginal descent might be considered insignificant, self-recognition or recognition by other Aboriginal persons may have an evidentiary value in resolving the question.[24]
In Gibbs v Capewell, the Federal Court discussed the meaning of the statutory definition of an Aboriginal person in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989 (Cth) (ATSIC Act).[25] The Act defines an Aboriginal person as ‘a member of an Aboriginal race of Australia’. Drummond J concluded that Parliament’s intention was ‘to refer to the group of persons in the modern Australian population who are descended from the inhabitants of Australia immediately prior to European settlement’.[26] For the purposes of the ATSIC Act, an Aboriginal person must be a biological descendant of one of those inhabitants. His Honour stated:
Since the Act itself makes it clear that proof of descent from the pre-European settlement inhabitants of Australia is essential before a person can come within the expression ‘Aboriginal person’ in the Act, I reject the suggestion … that a person without any Aboriginal genes but who has identified with an Aboriginal community and who is recognised by that community as one of them can be an ‘Aboriginal person’ for the purposes of this particular Act. It follows that adoption by Aboriginals of a person without any Aboriginal descent and the raising of that person as an Aboriginal … will not, because of the statutory requirement for descent, bring that person within the description ‘Aboriginal person’.[27]
Drummond J commented that Deane J’s three-part test should not be regarded as containing an exhaustive description of the meaning in ordinary speech of the term ‘Aboriginal’. His Honour held that a person must have some degree of Aboriginal descent to satisfy the definition of an ‘Aboriginal person’. A small degree of Aboriginal descent coupled with genuine self-identification or with communal recognition may be sufficient for eligibility; alternatively, a substantial degree of descent may by itself be sufficient.[28] Drummond J recognised the probative value of communal recognition as evidence of Aboriginal descent.
Aboriginal communal recognition will always be important, when it exists, as indicating the appropriateness of describing the person in question as an ‘Aboriginal person’. Proof of communal recognition as an Aboriginal may, given the difficulties of proof of Aboriginal descent flowing from, among other things, the lack of written family records, be the best evidence available of proof of Aboriginal descent. While it may not be necessary to enable a person to claim the status of an ‘Aboriginal person’ for the purposes of the Act in a particular case, such recognition may, if it exists, also provide evidence confirmatory of the genuineness of that person’s identification as an Aboriginal.[29]
In Shaw v Wolf, the Federal Court again considered the meaning of an ‘Aboriginal person’ for the purposes of the ATSIC Act. Merkel J held that if a person has no Aboriginal descent then he or she cannot be an Aboriginal person for the purposes of the Act. However, evidence about the process by which self-identification and communal identification occurs can be probative of descent.[30] Merkel J referred to the lack of documentary records and to the reticence of some families of Aboriginal descent to publicly acknowledge that fact due to actual or perceived racism from the rest of the community.
In these circumstances Aboriginal identification often became a matter, at best, of personal or family, rather than public, record. Given the history of the dispossession and disadvantage of the Aboriginal people of Australia, a concealed but nevertheless passed on family oral ‘history’ of descent may in some instances be the only evidence available to establish Aboriginal descent. Accordingly oral histories and evidence as to the process leading to self-identification may, in a particular case, be sufficient evidence not only of descent but also of Aboriginal identity.[31]
Merkel J noted that his decision involved the interpretation of a statutory definition only, and did not purport to be a comprehensive definition of Aboriginality. His Honour commented that:
Aboriginality as such is not capable of any single or satisfactory definition … The present case offers a good example of the difficulties thrown up by issues of Aboriginal identification. That some descent may be an essential legal criterion required by the definition in the Act is to be accepted. However in truth, the notion of ‘some’ descent is a technical rather than a real criterion for identity, which after all in this day and age, is accepted as a social, rather than a genetic, construct. The solution to such problems is a matter for the legislature rather than the courts.[32]
In his concluding observations in Shaw v Wolf, Merkel J made the point that since this issue involves an important aspect of Aboriginal self-determination, it is best left for bodies with Aboriginal representation:
It is unfortunate that the determination of a person’s Aboriginal identity, a highly personal matter, has been left by a parliament that is not representative of Aboriginal people to be determined by a court which is also not representative of Aboriginal people. Whilst many would say that this is an inevitable incident of political and legal life in Australia, I do not accept that that must always be necessarily so. It is to be hoped that one day if questions such as those that have arisen in the present case are again required to be determined that that determination might be made by independently constituted bodies or tribunals which are representative of Aboriginal people.[33]
In summary, the Commonwealth government appears to apply the three-part test of Aboriginal descent, self-identification and community recognition for determining eligibility for certain programs and benefits. The courts, in interpreting statutory definitions in federal legislation, have emphasised the importance of descent in establishing Aboriginal identity, but have recognised that self-identification and community recognition may be relevant to establishing descent, and hence Aboriginal identity, for the purposes of specific legislation.
International approaches
Dr William Jonas, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, noted that Indigenous peoples have resisted attempts internationally to prescribe an exhaustive definition of ‘Indigenous’.[34]
The United Nations Working Group on the Rights of Indigenous Populations has considered the definition of Indigenous peoples, communities and nations but has never adopted a formal definition. In the Working Group’s first session, indigenous participants argued against attempts to formulate a definition, in the absence of more broadly representative indigenous participation.[35] In its second session, the Working Group considered a definition developed by Martinez Cobo, the Special Rapporteur to the United Nations’ Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities:
Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them … They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop, and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems.[36]
The importance of self-identification has also been recognised in Article 1.2 of International Labour Organization Convention 169, concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries:
Self-identification as indigenous or tribal shall be regarded as a fundamental criterion for determining the groups to which the provisions of this Convention apply.[37]
Dr Larissa Behrendt, Professor of Law and Indigenous Studies at the University of Technology Sydney, has commented:
If we’re going to talk about treaties and recognition of rights, the question of who’s in and who’s out is going to be the most important issue facing indigenous Australians. If that isn’t resolved, you run the risk of having the parameters stretched to the ludicrous point where someone can say: ‘Seven generations ago there was an Aboriginal person in my family, therefore I am Aboriginal’.[38]
Concerns about the application of existing law
A number of submissions commented on the appropriateness, or otherwise, of the existing legal definition of Aboriginality.[39] The Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department commented:
The question of whether genetic testing and information should be used to establish Aboriginal identity is an important issue given that it may determine eligibility to Indigenous-specific entitlements. Any departure from the current three-pronged test to determine whether someone is an Aboriginal or a Torres Strait Islander based on descent, self-identification and community recognition requires careful consideration.[40]
The Inquiry was told in some consultations that the three-part definition works well enough in most circumstances. However, a number of concerns were expressed about the test. In some cases, the courts have interpreted ‘descent’ in terms of biological descent when interpreting the meaning of an Aboriginal person.[41] This tends to undermine the role of social descent within Aboriginal communities whose traditional laws and customs might provide for adoption or other social forms of inclusion into a family or community. The emphasis on biological descent has led to some anxiety that genetic testing might increasingly be used (or even required) as a means of proving a person’s kinship relationship with another Aboriginal person.
Several submissions emphasised the difference between Western and Aboriginal definitions of kinship.[42] The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner commented that:
While Aboriginal people may generally be direct descendants of the original inhabitants of a particular part of Australia, indigenous customary law does not rely on linear proof of descent in the Judeo-Christian genealogical form of ‘Seth begat Enosh begat Kenan’ in order to prove membership of the group. … A person may have been adopted into a kinship group where there is no direct or suitable offspring to carry out ceremonial obligations. … Genetic science should have no part to play in determining whether or not a person should be eligible for benefits. If the element of descent is to remain in Australian law as a test of Aboriginality, it should be interpreted in accordance with Indigenous cultural protocols.[43]
Professor Larissa Behrendt also expressed concern about the tendency of the courts to distort the three-part test by focussing unduly on descent, however defined. Professor Behrendt noted that self-identification has been recognised as the international standard for establishing indigenous identity, and she emphasised that, in talking about elections and treaties, indigenous people need to talk among themselves about Aboriginality and what makes their Indigenous identity.[44]
In its submission to the Inquiry, AIATSIS supported the existing definition, commenting that it should be emphasised in legal determinations, but it stressed the need for judicial flexibility to ensure Indigenous peoples were not disadvantaged.
The legal imperative of utilising the three pronged approach to Indigenous identity should be emphasised in legal determinations. There should also be a strengthening of the three pronged test to allow judges to make this test a legal standard. AIATSIS stresses the need for judicial discretion so that Indigenous people [a]re not further disadvantaged in legal proceedings.[45]
The difficulties surrounding elements of the three-part test are illustrated by the controversy that arose in 2002 over eligibility to vote in the election for ATSIC councillors representing Tasmania. The ATSIC Act provides that a person is entitled to vote in a Regional Council ward election if he or she is an Aboriginal person or a Torres Strait Islander.[46]
Some Tasmanian people who identify as Aboriginal, and are acknowledged as such by the relevant Aboriginal community, nevertheless may have difficulty obtaining documentary evidence of their Aboriginal descent. This is due to inadequate colonial record keeping, past policies of removal and other consequences of the historical discrimination against Aboriginal people. These persons assert that self-identification and community acceptance should be sufficient evidence of their Aboriginality for legal purposes. On the other hand, it has been argued that requiring proof of descent is one way to protect against fraudulent or inappropriate claims of Aboriginality by non-Indigenous persons for personal or financial reasons.[47]
These concerns led ATSIC to trial an Indigenous Electoral Roll for the purpose of the Tasmanian Regional Aboriginal Council Elections.[48] Individuals could object to an applicant being included on the roll on the basis that he or she was not of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent. Where an objection was made, the applicant was required to provide documentary evidence addressing his or her Aboriginal ancestry, self-identification and community acceptance. To prove ancestry, the person generally was required to provide a verifiable family tree, or archival or historical documentation that linked the person to a traditional family or person.[49] The Inquiry understands that several applicants sought genetic testing to produce evidence supporting their claims of Aboriginal descent.[50]
References
[9] See Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, National Report (1991), Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra [11.12.5].
[10] Australian Law Reform Commission, The Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws, Report 31 (1986), Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra [88]–[95].
[11] Ibid [89].
[12] For example, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989 (Cth).
[13] For example, Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) s 3(1).
[14]Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s 3(1); Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 (Cth) s 4; Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Act 1989 (Cth) s 3; Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 253; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989 (Cth) s 4(1).
[15] J Gardiner-Garden, The Definition of Aboriginality: Research Note 18, 2000–01 (2000) Parliament of Australia, 2.
[16] Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Report on a Review of the Administration of the Working Definition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (1981), Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, cited in J Gardiner-Garden, The Definition of Aboriginality: Research Note 18, 2000–01 (2000) Parliament of Australia, 2.
[17] Australian Law Reform Commission, The Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws, Report 31 (1986), Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra [95].
[18] See Attorney-General (Cth) v Queensland (1990) 94 ALR 515; Gibbs v Capewell (1995) 128 ALR 577; Shaw v Wolf (1998) 163 ALR 205. See also In the Matter of the Aboriginal Lands Act 1995 and In the Matter of Marianne Watson (No 2) (Unreported, Supreme Court of Tasmania, Cox CJ, 27 August 2001). The following analysis draws on a discussion in an unpublished paper: L de Plevitz and L Croft, Proving Aboriginality: Legal and Genetic Constructs of Aboriginal Descent (2002) unpublished.
[19]Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1, 274 (Deane J).
[20]Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1, 70 (Brennan J).
[21]Attorney-General (Cth) v Queensland (1990) 94 ALR 515.
[22] Ibid, 538–539 (French J).
[23] Ibid, 523–524 (Spender J).
[24] Ibid, 516–517.
[25] See Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989 (Cth) s 4(1).
[26]Gibbs v Capewell (1995) 128 ALR 577, 580.
[27] Ibid, 580.
[28] Ibid, 583–584.
[29] Ibid, 585.
[30]Shaw v Wolf (1998) 163 ALR 205, 211–212.
[31] Ibid, 213.
[32] Ibid, 268.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner — Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Submission G160, 13 May 2002.
[35] R Bartlett, A Brown and G Nettheim, ‘Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders’ in Garth Nettheim (ed), The Laws of Australia: Aborigines (1992) Law Book Company Limited, Sydney, vol 1.7 [48].
[36] M Cobo, Study of the Problem Against Indigenous Populations, vol 5, Conclusions, Proposals and Recommendations, UN Doc E/CN 4/Sub 2/1986/7 Add, 4 [379], [381]: cited in Ibid, [48]. In addition, Cobo defines an Indigenous person as ‘One who belongs to these Indigenous populations through self-identification as Indigenous (group consciousness) and is recognised and accepted by these populations as one of its members (acceptance by the group)’: cited in S Pritchard, ‘Working Group on Indigenous Populations: Mandate, Standard-Setting Activities and Future Perspectives’ in S Pritchard (ed), Indigenous Peoples, the United Nations and Human Rights (1998) Federation Press, Sydney, 43.
[37]Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, opened for signature 27 June 1989, 1650 UNTS 383, (entered into force on 5 September 1991). The Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department noted in its submission that this Convention has been ratified only by a minority of states, and Australia is not one of them: Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department, Submission G228, 12 December 2002.
[38] R Guilliatt, ‘A Whiter Shade of Black?’, The Good Weekend (The Sydney Morning Herald), 15 June 2002, 18, 21.
[39] See L de Plevitz and L Croft, Submission G115, 13 March 2002; Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Submission G286, 16 December 2002; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner — Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Submission G160, 13 May 2002; Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW, Submission G157, 1 May 2002.
[40] Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department, Submission G228, 12 December 2002.
[41] For example, Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1, 70 (Brennan J). In relation to the ATSIC Act, see Gibbs v Capewell (1995) 128 ALR 577; Shaw v Wolf (1998) 163 ALR 205.
[42] Centre for Genetics Education, Submission G232, 18 December 2002; NSW Health Department, Submission G303, 13 January 2003; Department of Human Services South Australia, Submission G288, 23 December 2002; Law Society of New South Wales, Submission G285, 18 December 2002; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner — Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Submission G160, 13 May 2002.
[43] Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner — Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Submission G160, 13 May 2002.
[44] L Behrendt, Consultation, Sydney, 3 December 2002.
[45] Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Submission G286, 16 December 2002.
[46]Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989 (Cth) s 101. In addition, either the person’s name must be on the Commonwealth Electoral Roll and the person’s place of residence (as shown on the roll) must be within the ward concerned, or the person must be entitled to vote pursuant to rules made under the Act.
[47] See R Guilliatt, ‘A Whiter Shade of Black?’, The Good Weekend (The Sydney Morning Herald), 15 June 2002, 18.
[48] See ATSIC’s website: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, ATSIC Regional Council Elections 2002, <www.atsic.gov.au/Events/Elections_2002/Tasmania/default.asp>, 22 July 2002.
[49] See ATSIC’s website: Ibid.
[50] See Aboriginal DNA Testing Stopped After Complaints’, Mercury (Hobart), 3 September 2002; S Sayer, ‘Aboriginal Centre Slams DNA’, Mercury (Hobart), 4 September 2002.