26 October 2011

 

Dear Councillor,

In pursuance of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Regulations thereunder, notice is hereby given that a POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING of Penrith City Council is to be held in the Passadena Room, Civic Centre, 601 High Street, Penrith on Monday 31 October 2011 at 7:30PM.

Attention is directed to the statement accompanying this notice of the business proposed to be transacted at the meeting.

Yours faithfully

 

Alan Stoneham

General Manager

 

BUSINESS

 

1.           LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of absence has been granted to:

Councillor Mark Davies - 10 October 2011 to 8 November 2011 inclusive.

 

2.           APOLOGIES

 

3.           CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 26 September 2011.

 

4.           DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Pecuniary Interest (The Act requires Councillors who declare a pecuniary interest in an item to leave the meeting during discussion of that item)

Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest – Significant and Less than Significant (The Code of Conduct requires Councillors who declare a significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest in an item to leave the meeting during discussion of that item)

 

5.           ADDRESSING THE MEETING

 

6.           MAYORAL MINUTES

 

7.           NOTICES OF MOTION TO RESCIND A RESOLUTION

 

8.           NOTICES OF MOTION

 

9.           DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

10.         REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

 

11.         URGENT BUSINESS

 

12.         CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS


POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING

 

Monday 31 October 2011

 

table of contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

meeting calendar

 

 

confirmation of minutes

 

 

DELIVERY program reports

 


B&WHORIZ

2011 MEETING CALENDAR

January 2011 - December 2011

(adopted by Council on 29 November 2010, amended by Council on 28 February 2011, revised March 2011)

 

 

 

TIME

JAN

FEB

MAR

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUG

SEPT

OCT

NOV

DEC

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

7.30pm

 

7

 

11v

2

 

 

15#@

5ü

10

7

12

(7.00pm)

 

28#@

21

 

30#*

27

18

 

19^

(7.00pm)

 

21#

 

Policy Review Committee

7.30pm

 

 

14

4

9

6

4

1

 

 

14

5

31

21

 

 

 

 

 

22

26

31

 

 

Operational Plan Public Forum

 

6.00pm

 

 

 

 

Wed

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 v

Meeting at which the Draft Operational Plan for 2011-2012 is adopted for exhibition

 *

Meeting at which the Operational Plan for 2011-2012 is adopted

 #

Meetings at which the Operational Plan quarterly reviews are presented

 @

Delivery Program progress reports

 ^

Election of Mayor/Deputy Mayor

 ü

Meeting at which the 2010-2011 Annual Statements are presented

 

Meeting at which any comments on the 2010-2011 Annual Statements are presented

-           Extraordinary Meetings are held as required.

-           Members of the public are invited to observe meetings of the Council (Ordinary and Policy Review Committee).

Should you wish to address Council, please contact the Senior Governance Officer, Glenn Schuil.

 



UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

 OF THE POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF PENRITH CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE PASSADENA ROOM, PENRITH

ON MONDAY 26 SEPTEMBER 2011 AT 7:30PM

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor Councillor Greg Davies, Deputy Mayor Councillor Jackie Greenow, Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Kevin Crameri OAM, Mark Davies, Ross Fowler OAM, Ben Goldfinch, Prue Guillaume (arrived at 7:32pm), Marko Malkoc, Karen McKeown, Kath Presdee and John Thain.

 

 

APOLOGIES

PRC52  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor John Thain that apologies be received from Councillors Kaylene Allison, Robert Ardill and Tanya Davies.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 22 August 2011

PRC53  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Kath Presdee that the minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 22 August 2011 be confirmed.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM declared a Non Pecuniary Conflict of  Interest – Less than Significant  in Item 4 – Wentworth Community Housing and Project 40 as he is the Auditor of the organisation. Councillor Fowler OAM stated that he would remain in the room for discussion of the item, however, he will not take part in any voting.

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A Leading City

 

1        Draft Policy on the Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors                                                                                                     

PRC54  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kath Presdee seconded Councillor John Thain

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Draft Policy on the Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors be received

2.     Council advertise for 28 days a public notice of its intention to adopt the amended Policy on the Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors.

 

 

 

2        Insurance Bonds                                                                                                                

PRC55  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kath Presdee seconded Councillor John Thain

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Insurance Bonds be received

2.     Council authorise the interpretation and acceptance of Insurance Bonds, approved by APRA, from Financial Institutions with a Standard & Poors local long term credit rating of A+ (with a Positive or Stable Outlook) or greater to the limit of $1.5m as a suitable bank guarantee or an appropriate form of Surety for outstanding works and associated maintenance periods for works completed in accordance with Council’s current Development Contribution Plans and Voluntary Planning Agreements.

 

 

3        Summary of Investments & Banking for the period of 1 August  to 31 August 2011 

PRC56  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kath Presdee seconded Councillor John Thain

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Summary of Investments & Banking for the period of 1 August  to 31 August 2011 be received

2.     The Certificate of the Responsible Accounting Officer and Summaries of Investments and Performance for the period 1 August 2011 to 31 August 2011 be noted and accepted.

3.     The graphical investment analysis as at 31 August 2011 be noted.

 

 

A City of Opportunities

 

4        Wentworth Community Housing and Project 40

Councillor John Thain introduced the report and invited Nick Sabel, Executive Officer and Stephanie Brennan, Community Services Manager from Wentworth Community Housing to give a presentation.         

PRC57  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc

That the information contained in the report on Wentworth Community Housing and Project 40 be received.

 

Councillor John Thain left the meeting and returned to the meeting, the time being 7:58pm.

 

 

 

 

5        Penrith Business Alliance (PBA) Limited 2011-2012 Business Plan

Group Manager Leadership, Ruth Goldsmith introduced the report and invited Paul Brennan, Chairman from Penrith Business Alliance Limited to give a presentation.                                  

PRC58  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith Business Alliance (PBA) Limited 2011-2012 Business Plan be received

2.     Council agree to the PBA Business Plan for 2011-2012, and provide funding through two separate six-monthly payments of $271,313 in accordance with the provisions of the Deed of Agreement

3.     Council support the Penrith Business Alliance in seeking ‘State significant’ status for the Penrith Health and Education Precinct.

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM left the meeting and returned to the meeting, the time being 8:47pm.

 

6        Penrith City Children's Services Cooperative Ltd

Children’s Services Manager, Janet Keegan introduced the report and invited Max Friend, Chairperson from Penrith City Children’s Services Cooperative Ltd to give a presentation.      

PRC59  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith City Children's Services Cooperative Ltd be received.

2.     Council agree to underwrite the operation of Penrith City Children’s Services Cooperative Ltd until the presentation to Council of the Penrith City Children’s Services Cooperative Ltd Annual Report for 2011/12.

 

Procedural Motion

PRC60  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that Item 9 – Penrith and St Marys Centres Associations – Annual Business Plans for 2011 – 12 be dealt with first before Items 7 and 8.

 

 

 

 

 


A Vibrant City

 

9        Penrith and St Marys Centres Associations - Annual Business Plans for 2011-12

Group Manager People and Places, Roger Nethercote introduced the report and invited Gladys Reed, CEO from Penrith City Centre Association to give a presentation.

Councillor Kath Presdee left the meeting, the time being 9:04pm.

 

Councillor Kath Presdee returned to the meeting, the time being 9:08pm.

         

PRC61  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith and St Marys Centres Associations - Annual Business Plans for 2011-12 be received

2.     Funding for the Penrith City Centre Association be endorsed in the amount of $313,509 and be paid in instalments at the beginning of each quarter

3.     Funding for the St Marys Town Centre Association be endorsed for the amount of $121,029 being the first 2 quarterly instalments for the 2011-12 financial year

4.     The St Marys Town Centre Association be invited to provide a presentation to Council on its 2010-11 achievements and Business Plan 2011-12.

 

 

A City of Opportunities

 

7        Child Friendly City Strategy                                                                                            

PRC62  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Kath Presdee

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Child Friendly City Strategy be received.

2.     Council endorse placing the Child Friendly City Strategy on public exhibition for six weeks for public comment.

 

 


A Liveable City

 

8        Penrith Valley Cemeteries Management Policy                                                              

PRC63  RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on the draft Penrith Valley Penrith Valley Cemeteries Management Policy be received.

2.     The draft Penrith Valley Cemeteries Management Policy be adopted.

 

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 9:15pm.

    



DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

 

A Leading City

 

1        Delivery Program 2009-2013 - Outcomes of the 2 Year Review

 

2        Reporting under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1994

 

A City of Opportunities

 

3        Penrith Whitewater Stadium - Annual Report and Board of Directors

   

A Vibrant City

 

4        St Marys Town Centre Association - Annual Business Plan for 2011-12

 

5        Transportation of restricted solid waste to SITA landfill facility

 

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Leading City

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

1        Delivery Program 2009-2013 - Outcomes of the 2 Year Review

 

2        Reporting under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1994

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                     31 October 2011

A Leading City

 

 

1

Delivery Program 2009-2013 - Outcomes of the 2 Year Review   

 

Compiled by:               Tanya Jackson, Strategic Planning Coordinator

Allegra Zakis, Strategic Planning Coordinator

Wendy  Connell, Planner (Engagement)

Authorised by:            Ruth Goldsmith, Group Manager - Leadership   

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

A Council that manages its finances, services and assets effectively (4)

Strategic Response

Deliver services for the City and its communities, and maintain our long term financial sustainability (4.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

A two year review of the Delivery Program has been undertaken to assess how the organisation is progressing at the halfway point and address any areas of concern.  Thirty two (32) of the 42 priorities have been identified as being substantially complete, on track, or not likely to present a challenge to deliver by June 2013.  Ten priorities have been identified as either being a challenge or potential challenge to complete over the next two years.

Background

The key document that now guides Council’s activities is the four-year Delivery Program.  It provides a four-year work program for all of Council’s operations which details the activities and tasks to be delivered through each of Council’s 21 programs.  The General Manager must report Council’s progress on the Delivery Program (principal activities, planned timeframes and budgets) every six months.  There have now been four (in a series of eight) Delivery Program Progress Reports.

 

As we are half way through the term of the current Delivery Program, it is timely to assess how we are progressing and address any challenges that may affect delivery of the expected outcomes.  This information will be used in Council’s Strategic Plan ‘end of term’ report which will be presented in August 2012.

Two Year Review process and outcomes

The focus of the two year review has been on the agreed Delivery Program priorities, to detail our progress and identify any challenges to achieving those priorities.  A table which outlines the outcomes we expect to deliver by June 2012 and June 2013, and comments on the status of each Delivery Program priority will be provided to Councillors as a separate enclosure.  This information was drawn from:

-    previous Delivery Program 6 monthly Progress Reports

-    the Mid-Term Review process conducted in September 2010

-    the Delivery Program Two Year Review workshop held on 15 September 2011.


In summary, 10 of the 42 priorities have been identified as either being a challenge or potential challenge to complete over the next two years.  Comments on the challenges facing those priorities and how they are being addressed are provided below.

 

Delivery Program Priorities

Issue and Way Forward

Planning and Advocacy
City Planning

P3      Progress the development of Penrith LEP 2012 and DCP 2012 (task)

The detailed analysis and work needed to progress the Planning Proposal for Penrith LEP 2012 has been delayed, pending resolution of a number of other significant and site-specific LEP amendments, including Panthers, the ‘housekeeping’ LEP, the ‘Knoll’ and the Heritage LEP.  Given these delays, the options for progressing and exhibiting draft Penrith LEP 2012 are currently being reviewed, and will be discussed further with Council.

Corporate Finance
Financial Services

P4      Lobby government for financial assistance to redress the current backlog and provide funding for key regional projects (task)

This priority related to the immediate infrastructure backlog that was relevant at the time, which will be addressed by the ‘Funding Our Future’ special rate variation (SRV) over the next ten years.

Continued lobbying is still required for funding for key regional projects and Regional City infrastructure.  The general long term sustainability of local government remains an advocacy focus, particularly the issues around s94 capping and the state infrastructure levy.

Libraries
Libraries

P12   Implement the preferred Library service delivery model (task)

Implementation of the preferred Library service delivery model may need additional funding depending on the preferred model which is selected.

The preferred model must consider not just start up costs, but also recurring costs of staff and resourcing, and the resources required to maintain current service levels which must be a priority.  Options must also be considered for other ways to provide library services to a broader range of customers, such as eBooks and internet services. 

Options for the Library service delivery models will be presented to Council at a Briefing Session in November 2011.  The outcomes of the Briefing will determine if this priority remains a challenge.

Planning and Advocacy
City Planning

P13   Complete the Urban Study and Urban Strategy, to provide a diversity of housing including retirement lifestyle opportunities (task)

The draft Urban Strategy, which includes actions encouraging housing diversity, was endorsed for exhibition by Council in November 2010.  The timing for exhibition and adoption of the Urban Strategy relies on the agreed process for Penrith LEP 2012, as the documents should be exhibited concurrently.

Planning and Advocacy
Regional
Planning & Advocacy

P14   Develop and implement a program of advocacy that targets the delivery of key infrastructure and regional employment growth (service activity)

An advocacy program has been developed and endorsed by Council which identifies themes and priorities for our lobbying activities.  Lobbying in accordance with this program is ongoing, and does not in itself present a challenge. 

Achieving the outcomes of the Advocacy Program, however, is considered to remain a challenge as success relies on other spheres of government, the private sector, and funding availability.

Strategic Planning
Strategic Planning

P16   Prepare and implement a Community Engagement Strategy that ensures regular discussion with our communities and stakeholders about their needs and aspirations for the City (task)

Preparation and exhibition of the ‘Community Engagement Strategy 2012’ is not a challenge.

A regular and continuing program of community engagement, however, will introduce opportunities for different activities and forums, and potentially a more extensive use of technology.  Depending on the agreed program, additional funding or staff resources could be required and this may present a challenge.

Major Infrastructure Projects and Design
Design & Project Management

P28   Investigate a new decked carpark in the Penrith City Centre (task)

 

Traffic, Parking and Drainage
Traffic Management, Parking & Road Safety

P29   Develop and progressively implement Access and Parking Plans for the Penrith City Centre and St Marys Town Centre (task)

The primary objective is to manage and optimise our existing parking and delivery more parking over time as the City grows. The Penrith City Centre Parking Strategy has been adopted by Council and is now being implemented in accordance with the Action Plan.  Detailed audits of all of Council’s existing public (on-street and off-street) parking spaces is being undertaken, with a review to optimising the utilisation of these spaces and determine a balanced approach between short stay and long stay parking.  The development of these plans and proposals to amended parking regimes will be discussed in depth with the key stakeholders.

The implementation of the decked carparking in the Penrith City Centre is identified as a medium-term (5-10 years) action in the Parking Strategy, and is dependent on securing funding.  Experience from the commuter carpark project has confirmed the cost to be in the order of $25M or $25,000 per space of a 1000 space decked carpark.  Further details will be reported to Council as investigations progress. 

The transport modelling for the Penrith City Centre has experienced unexpected delays but can now be finalised.  The transport modelling for the St Marys Town Centre has been deferred until strategic land use planning scenarios, that are critically required to underpin the detailed transport modelling, can be finalised. 

Roads, Footpaths and Buildings
Civil Construction & Maintenance

P30   Implement Council’s Shared Path and Cycleway Network (task)

Funding obtained as part of the SRV has significantly addressed the shortfall of available funding for shared pathways, with two years of funding at a 3:1 ratio from the RTA secured following the release of the State budget in September 2011  A challenge remains, however, in securing similar funding in the longer term. 

The Shared Path Strategy is scheduled to be reported to Council in November 2011 and placed on public exhibition in the new year.  The Strategy will continue to be implemented, with the extent of delivery each year dependent on additional external funding opportunities such as the RTA.

Community Facilities
Neighbourhood Facilities Management

P37   Implement prioritised actions from the review of the Neighbourhood Facility Management Services (task)

The review of the Neighbourhood Facility Management Services has been completed and actions are being implemented.  A potential challenge exists in relation to the ability of volunteer management committees to comply with the requirements of the new operational and management procedural manuals, which may then require additional council resources to manage these facilities. 

An advisory role for volunteer committees, in lieu of full management responsibilities, is to be trialled, with council staff needing to take over the management role.

A framework for the prioritisation of upgrades to neighbourhood facilities within the Building Asset Renewal Program is required to ensure that contemporary standards are achieved to meet community expectations and needs.

 

It is significant to note that a number of priorities that would otherwise present a ‘challenge’ have now been addressed through Special Rate Variation funding.  In some cases, these priority programs will be delivered over a longer timeframe (e.g. 12-15 years instead of 10 years) as Council did not receive the full extent of funding sought in its SRV application.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Delivery Program 2009-2013 - Outcomes of the 2 Year Review be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                     31 October 2011

A Leading City

 

 

2

Reporting under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1994   

 

Compiled by:               Matthew Bullivant, Senior Legal Officer

Authorised by:            Stephen Britten, Group Manager - Legal & Governance   

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

A Council that behaves responsibly and ethically (5)

Strategic Response

Champion accountability and transparency, and responsible and ethical behaviour (5.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

The NSW Parliament recently passed changes to the Protected Disclosures Act 1994. The legislative changes recognise the value and importance of contributions of public officials (defined in the Act to include Councillors, staff and contractors who provide services to or on behalf of Council) to enhance administrative and management practices and strongly supports disclosures being made by staff which disclose:

 

• corrupt conduct;

• maladministration;

• serious and substantial waste of public money;

• government information contravention;

• local government pecuniary interest contravention; and

• other wrong doing.

 

The changes to the Protected Disclosures Act 1994 strengthen the protection measures to persons from reprisals that might otherwise be inflicted on them because of those disclosures and to ensure those disclosures are properly investigated and dealt with.

 

The changes to the Protected Disclosures Act 1994 requires public authorities to develop a policy for receiving, assessing and dealing with protected disclosures. Accordingly, the attached draft policy on the ‘Public Interest Disclosure Act 1994 internal reporting system’ has been developed in keeping with the model policy drafted by the NSW Ombudsman’s Office. The report recommends that the draft policy on Public Interest Disclosure Act 1994 internal reporting system be adopted.


Background

The Protected Disclosures Act 1994 was designed to encourage and facilitate the disclosure of corrupt conduct, maladministration and serious and substantial waste in the public sector by enhancing and augmenting established procedures for making disclosures concerning such matters.

 

The purpose of the Protected Disclosures Act 1994 was also to protect persons from reprisals that might otherwise be inflicted on them because of those disclosures and to ensure those disclosures are properly investigated and dealt with.

 

The NSW Parliament recently passed changes to the Protected Disclosures Act 1994. The legislative changes recognise the value and importance of contributions of public officials (defined in the Act to include Councillors, staff and contractors who provide services to or on behalf of Council) to enhance administrative and management practices and strongly supports disclosures being made by staff which disclose:

 

• corrupt conduct;

• maladministration;

• serious and substantial waste of public money;

• government information contravention;

• local government pecuniary interest contravention; and

• other wrong doing.

 

One of the changes included renaming the Protected Disclosures Act 1994 to the Public Interest Disclosures Act 1994 (“PID Act”).

 

Under the PID Act all public sector agencies in NSW, including local councils, are required to have policies and procedures in place for receiving, assessing and dealing with protected disclosures.

 

Council's existing policy for reporting disclosures was first adopted by Council in 1996. This policy related to the provisions of the then Protected Disclosures Act 1994. As a result of the recent changes to the PID Act that policy has been redrafted to reflect the changes to the PID Act. It has also been drafted in accordance with the proposed model policy for local councils developed by the NSW Ombudsman.

 

Changes to the PID Act

A summary of the changes in the Act that affect Council are provided below:

 

From 3 March 2011:

As indicated earlier in the report, the name of the Act was amended to the Public lnterest Disclosures Act 1994. Protected disclosures are now able to be made internally about a failure to properly fulfil functions under the Government lnformation (Public Access) Act 2009, as well as to the lnformation Commissioner.

 

From 1 July 2011:

1.       Public authorities have to develop a policy and procedures for receiving, assessing and dealing with protected disclosures.

 

2.       The threshold test for protection has changed. A disclosure is protected by the Act if it is  information that the person making it honestly believes, on reasonable grounds, shows or tends  to show  one of the types of conduct that disclosures can be made about (such as corrupt conduct).

 

3.       As well as councillors and employees, individuals who are engaged as contractors, consultants or volunteers are now included in the new definition of a ‘public official ' who can make a protected disclosure or be the subject of one.

 

4.       New provisions relating to retribution have come into effect. This means that:

 

•        lf a person takes detrimental action against someone for making a protected disclosure, this will not only be a criminal offence but also constitute misconduct that justifies the taking of disciplinary action. This also applies to a situation where a person takes retribution against a person whom they mistakenly believe made the protected disclosure.

 

•        Any person who takes detrimental action is liable in damages for any loss suffered by a person who made the protected disclosure.

•        An investigating authority, or public authority with the consent of the Attorney-General, may apply to the Supreme Court for an injunction to prevent detrimental action being carried out.

 

•        lf a person is convicted of the offence of detrimental action, the maximum penalty has doubled to $11,000 or two years gaol.

 

5.       Public authorities must refer to the Director of Public Prosecutions evidence of detrimental action taken in reprisal for a disclosure.

 

6.       A public authority can no longer decline to investigate a protected disclosure solely on the grounds that it was made frivolously or vexatiously.

 

7.       The NSW Ombudsman’s new oversight role includes the establishment of a public interest disclosures unit that will initially focus on assisting public authorities to implement the changes. In the future the NSW Ombudsman may audit, monitor or investigate the way protected disclosures are handled. They will have the power to require public authorities to provide information.

 

From 1 January 2012:

Public authorities are required to prepare an annual report on their compliance with the PID Act. A copy of this report will need to be provided to the NSW Ombudsman. The information to be collected and the form in which it needs to be reported will be outlined in a  regulation, which is in the process of being developed, and is expected to be gazetted by 1 January 2012. Public authorities will be assisted by guidance material and advice from the NSW Ombudsman.

 

Other important changes

Other important changes to the PID Act include:

 

•        All agency PID Act policies need to state that a person who makes a public interest disclosure will receive the agency's PID Act policy and an acknowledgement of the receipt of their disclosure within 45 days of making it.

 

•        All agencies need to refer any evidence of detrimental action to the Police or the ICAC (not the Director of Public Prosecutions as previously required).

 

•        Public interest disclosures about councils can now be made externally to the Division of Local Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet.

 

•        The Information Commissioner is included on the Public Interest Disclosures Steering Committee.

 

•        Pecuniary Interest contraventions are now covered by the PID Act.

 

Internal Reporting Policy

As indicated earlier in this report Council’s first internal reporting policy was adopted in 1996. The main objective of the previous internal reporting policy is to encourage the reporting of wrongdoing by all public officials including contractors and volunteers, and to protect persons from reprisals that might otherwise be inflicted on them because of those disclosures.

 

A key policy aim of the revised policy is to improve the control of fraud risk and corruption prevention within Council's governance systems through better reporting systems and a formal Council commitment to the support of everyone who acts in the public interest in reporting wrongdoing.


The revised policy utilises the policy template provided by the NSW Ombudsman’s Office. It has been customised to be consistent with recent amendments to the PID Act. A copy of the revised policy is attached for consideration.

Under the policy staff are encouraged to report general wrongdoing to their supervisors. However for the report to be a public interest disclosure under the PID Act a disclosure by staff, Councillors or contractors needs to be made to either the General Manager or the Disclosures Coordinator, being the Group Manager ~ Legal and Governance. If the public interest disclosure relates to the General Manager, then the report needs to be made to the Mayor.

If the General Manager, Mayor or the Disclosures Coordinator receives a public interest disclosure then their role is to:

•        Decide if a report is a public interest disclosure;

 

•        Determine what needs to be done next, including referring it to other authorities;

 

•        Decide what needs to be done to correct the problem that has been identified;

 

•        Ensure that there are systems in place to support and protect staff who report wrongdoing.

 

In addition to making an internal public disclosure, a disclosure can also be made to external organisations. These authorities include:

 

•        The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) — for corrupt conduct;

 

•        The Ombudsman — for maladministration;

 

•        The Police Integrity Commission (PIC) — for police misconduct;

 

•        The PIC Inspector — for disclosures about the PIC or its staff;

 

•        The Division of Local Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet — for disclosures about local government agencies;

 

•        The ICAC Inspector — for disclosures about the ICAC or its staff; and

 

•        The Information Commissioner — for disclosures about a government information contravention.

 

Reporting Obligations

It is proposed that staff, contractors and volunteers be made aware of the new policy and the identity of the Disclosure Coordinator and Disclosure Officers. The new policy will be conveyed to staff through a communication strategy.

Following adoption of the new policy, it will be necessary to update all references to public interest disclosures under the PID Act within the Code of Conduct and other relevant policies.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Reporting under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1994 be received.

2.     The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1994 internal reporting system policy be adopted.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Draft Policy on Public Interest Disclosure Act 1994 Internal Report System

14 Pages

Attachment

   


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A City of Opportunities

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

3        Penrith Whitewater Stadium - Annual Report and Board of Directors

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                     31 October 2011

A City of Opportunities

 

 

3

Penrith Whitewater Stadium - Annual Report and Board of Directors   

 

Compiled by:               Harold Dulay, Policy & Council Support Officer

Authorised by:            Glenn Schuil, Senior Governance Officer   

 

Objective

We have access to what we need

Community Outcome

A City with equitable access to services and facilities (7)

Strategic Response

Base the provision of services and facilities on principles of social justice and equity (7.1)

       

 

Presenters:         Councillor Ross Fowler OAM Chairperson – Penrith Whitewater Stadium – Chairperson’s Annual Report

                                      Jack Hodge – Stadium Manager – Penrith Whitewater Stadium – Stadium Manager’s Report

 

Executive Summary

Each year, following the Annual General Meeting of the Company, a report is presented to the Council on the year’s activities of the Penrith Whitewater Stadium (PWS), including the financial performance.

 

The reports from both the Chairman and the Stadium Manager highlight the strong financial position of Penrith Whitewater Stadium and the success it has had achieving publicity as a national and international premier sporting facility. The venue has continued throughout the year to attract professional athletes, sporting championships and casual users, the participation rates in each activity are detailed in the report.

Annual Report

The Thirteenth Annual General Meeting of the Company was held on 22 September 2011 for the period ended 30 June 2011.

 

The Chairman of the Board and Stadium Manager will be in attendance tonight to make a short presentation which will focus on:

 

·    The Past year – highlights, financial position and issues arising; and

·    The Year ahead.

 

Following are their reports that have been extracted from the Annual Report of Penrith Whitewater Stadium Limited (PWS).

 

Chairman’s Report

 

It gives me much pleasure to present the Chairman’s Report to the thirteenth Annual General Meeting of Penrith Whitewater Stadium Limited.

The operations for the year have produced a financial result that is very pleasing. Patronage for Whitewater rafting and canoeing based activities remains healthy. Revenue for the year was $2,111,881 which is 8.3% less than $2,302,701 for 2010. The financial outcome for the year ended 30 June 2011 resulted in a surplus before depreciation, amortisation and interest of $416,965, a decrease of 1.1% when compared to the surplus achieved in 2010 of $421,755.  During the year some $62,967 was spent on capital improvements. 

 

The Stadium continues to contribute to the overall Penrith economy and to the advancement of the sport of canoe slalom both locally and internationally.

 

Penrith Whitewater Stadium continues to generate a great deal of publicity both nationally and internationally, adding to its reputation as one of the world’s premier sporting facilities. Again the venue has successfully hosted both international and local competitions and has continued to attract a significant number of athletes who see the Stadium as their preferred off-season training venue.

 

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Venue Manager, Jack Hodge and his management team (Simonetta, Jeff, Vicki and Stuart) for leading the organization throughout the year.  Penrith Whitewater staff continues to show great dedication and commitment to the business. The underlying enthusiasm and commitment of staff is fundamental to the venue’s continuing success.

 

I would also like to thank my fellow directors for their continuing commitment and input to the operations of Penrith Whitewater Stadium. This year sees the appointment of Amanda Walmsley.

 

Finally, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the coaches and members of the Australian Canoe Slalom Team on their results throughout the year, particularly the excellent results achieved by the C1W team in the recent World Cup Series. Rosalyn Lawrence won the series with two gold, a silver and a bronze. Leanne Guinea was runner up and Jessica Fox won 2 gold medals.  In addition Rosalyn also became the first ever Wildwater World Champion in C1W.

 

Stadium Manager’s Report

 

Overall participation in the activities offered by PWS decreased in 2010-11.  Rafting decreased by 16% and Canoe/Kayak by 63%.  The significant decrease in Canoe/Kayak was due to strong participation in the World Masters Games in the previous year.  Swiftwater Rescue courses increased by 67%

 

Whitewater rafting remains the most popular activity and the highest revenue earner for PWS.  Rafting participation decreased from 20,527 to 17,196.  Total revenue for rafting decreased by 15% from $1,723,702 to $1,461,578. 

 

Total PWS income decreased by 21.8% from $2,701,648 in 2009-10 to $2,111,881.  Total expenses decreased by 20.3% from $2,462,107 to $1,962,557 resulting in a decrease in operating profit from $239,542 to $149,324.  Net profit increased from $154,583 to $185,546. 

 

PWS maintained its strong support for the sport of canoeing throughout the year.  The venue hosted the Oceania Canoe Slalom Open as part of the World Series in February.  PWS facilitated over 560 hours of slalom training and competitions for Australian and International paddlers.  This included 190 hours for the Australian team as part of the Canoe Slalom National Centre of Excellence (NCE) Agreement between PWS, the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS), the New South Wales Institute of Sport (NSWIS) and Australian Canoeing.  The value of PWS’s contribution to the agreement was approximately $35,000.

 

PWS continued its support of various charitable and community organisations.  This included the donation of 250 gift certificates to the value of $22,250.

 

Thanks to all PWS staff for their assistance during the year.  Thanks also to the PWS Board of Directors for their ongoing dedication and support. The successful operation of PWS relies upon the support of the general public and a network of companies and organisations.  PWS would like to thank the general public, suppliers, venue stake holders and neighbouring organisations for their support and looks forward to working together more closely in the future to maximise the ongoing success of PWS and Penrith Lakes.

 

Board of Directors

 

The Constitution of the Company provides, in part, that:

 

1.   To provide continuity the members of the Board shall resign on a rotating basis. At the First Annual General Meeting, three (3) Directors (including one (1) Councillor) shall resign. At the Second Annual General Meeting, three (3) members shall resign (including one (1) Councillor). Thereafter, the members of the Board, except the Council Officer, shall resign after they have served on the Board for three (3) years after appointment or re-appointment to the Board.        

2.   All retiring Directors shall be eligible for re-appointment.

 

Council should note that the positions of Chairman, Deputy Chairman and Company Secretary were declared vacant. Elections were held for the vacant positions at the Thirteenth Annual General Meeting.

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM was re-appointed to the position of Chairman, Helen Brownlee OAM was re-appointed to the position of Deputy Chair and the Council’s Group Manager City Presentation, Mr David Burns was re-appointed to be the Council’s General Manager’s representative and Company Secretary on the Board.

 

It was resolved that Andrew Pearse and Councillors Kathryn Presdee, Jim Aitken OAM and Kevin Crameri OAM be re-appointed as continuing Directors of Penrith Whitewater Stadium Ltd.

 

Council should note that Amanda Walmsley was welcomed to the Board of Directors in 2010/11.

 

 

 

 

 

Business Support Accountant

 

The Penrith Whitewater Stadium Limited reported a net profit for the 2010-11 financial year of $185,546. This is an increase of $30,962 from their 2009-10 profit of $154,583 which equates to a 20% increase. No direct subsidy was provided by Council to the Company. The financial result for 2010-11 maintains the strong performances of the Company over the past few years in very difficult economic conditions.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on Penrith Whitewater Stadium - Annual Report and Board of Directors be received.

2.     Council agree to underwrite the operation of the Penrith Whitewater Stadium Limited until the presentation to Council of the Penrith Whitewater Stadium Limited Annual Report for 2011-12.

3.     Council note and support the appointment and re-appointment of the persons named in the report to the Board of Directors of Penrith Whitewater Stadium Ltd. 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report.  


 

 

A Green City

 

 

There were no reports under this Delivery Program when the Business Paper was compiled


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


 

 

A Liveable City

 

 

There were no reports under this Delivery Program when the Business Paper was compiled


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK  INTENTIONALLY


A Vibrant City

 

Item                                                                                                                                       Page

 

4        St Marys Town Centre Association - Annual Business Plan for 2011-12

 

5        Transportation of restricted solid waste to SITA landfill facility

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                     31 October 2011

A Vibrant City

 

 

4

St Marys Town Centre Association - Annual Business Plan for 2011-12   

 

Compiled by:               Terry Agar, Acting Centres Co-ordinator

Authorised by:            Roger Nethercote, Group Manager - People and Places   

 

Objective

We play an active role in our communities

Community Outcome

A City with opportunities to engage, participate and connect (23)

Strategic Response

Enhance community strengths and capacity by supporting collaborative networks and partnerships (23.1)

       

 

Presenter: Steve Perry – President St Marys Town Centre Association – Business Plan 2011-12

Executive Summary

Council considered a report on the annual reports of the Penrith and St Marys centres associations on 26 September 2011.  At that time it was noted that St Marys had not presented its annual business plan for 2011-12 and audited financial statement for 2010-11.  Council resolved to fund the St Marys Town Centre Association until 31 December 2011 and that further funding was contingent upon the submission of a satisfactory business plan and finance statement.  These documents have since been submitted and are presented for Council’s consideration and endorsement.

The report recommends that the St Marys Town Centre Association receives its full funding for the 2011-12 financial year.

Background

The St Marys Town Centre Association (SMTCA) was established in 1998 to market and promote the City Centres. The Association has operated to improve business activities and enhance the vitality of the centres thereby improving the experience of people shopping and accessing services. 

The Association had not submitted its business plan and financial statement when Council considered a report on the Penrith city centre association’s performance on 26 September 2011. Council resolved to fund the SMTCA until 31 December 2011 and that further funding was contingent upon the submission of a satisfactory business plan and finance statement.  These documents have since been submitted and are presented for Council’s consideration and endorsement. They are attached to this report.

The Association is overseen by an executive management committee made up of representatives of land owners, retailers, businesses and Council.  Normally the Association is supported by a CEO, however at present, the Association does not have a CEO as he retired in February 2011 and has not yet been replaced.  Council’s representative on the committees provides advice and information on Council’s policies and actions.

 

The Association is required to prepare an annual business plan for Council’s endorsement and report on key performance indicators.  This report reviews the St Marys Town Centre Association Business Plan 2011-12 and their achievements during 2010-11. The St Marys Town Centre Association will tonight give a short presentation on its achievements during 2010-11 and its proposals for 2011-12.

 

The City Centres Management Review is nearing finalisation with the report due shortly.  The Review will address the issue of what the objectives of a centre management entity should be and its roles and responsibilities.  The assessment of the Association’s financial statement and business plan should be treated in the context that the Review will recommend the creation of a new management regime that will address any identified shortcomings of its operation.

 

St Marys Town Centre Association Achievements 2010-11

 

The Association’s CEO, Peter Jackson-Calway, retired from the Association in February 2011.  This was followed by the retirement of the president, Bryan Spencer in May 2011.  Since that time the organisation has operated without a CEO with those duties substantially undertaken by the Acting President, Steve Perry with the assistance of an Events Manager Consultant.

 

The Associations Business Plan 2010-11 described 4 programs (Management Services, promotion & Marketing, Workshops & Seminars and Queen St Enhancement) each with a range of activities and a budget allocation. A broad range of 8 performance indicators were provided.

 

The overall budget for the year was $228,789 with the Association actually spending             $ 147,048.  Overall a surplus of $82,156.29 resulted. This reflects, in part, the absence of the employment of a full time CEO.

 

The Association has described its achievements during 2010-11 on page 5 of its Business Pan 2011-12 in the Attachment to this report.  It is acknowledged that under the circumstances of the Association not having a CEO for most of the 2010-11 year it nonetheless undertook a significant range of activities across its four major program areas.  Unfortunately, an assessment of how the association performed in relation to its performance indicators has not been provided.  In future reporting, it would be preferable for a detailed assessment of the achievement of performance indicators to be provided so that a more accurate assessment of the organisation’s performance can be reported to Council.

 

Similarly, future reporting on the budget performance for different activities should be better integrated with the Business Plan budget allocations and the end of year financial statement.  This would enable an assessment of the actual cost of an activity and whether or not it was cost effective in achieving its performance target. 

 

This issue of reporting standards and consistency is a matter that will be addressed in the Review of the management of the city centres. 


St Marys Town Centre Association Business Plan 2011-12

 

The SMTCA states that the principle objective of its Business Plan 2011-12 is:

 

“To ensure St Marys is a vibrant and prosperous retail and business community.”

 

The 2011-12 business sub-category rate allocation for the SMTCA is $242,059.

 

The Business Plan intends to deliver three programs with specific activities for the improvement of the physical environment and the fostering of business enterprise in St Marys.  Each of these programs identifies a range of proposed activities and associated performance indicators to measure their achievement and has a budget allocation.

 

The Centre Management Review’s timing and required negotiation for implementation of the recommendations suggests that it is unlikely that any new arrangements would be put in place before 1 July 2012. For these reasons, it is recommended that the funding be made available for the full period to allow the Association to fulfil its Business Plan 2011-12.

 

The Penrith and St Marys Centres Management Review will address the issue of what the objectives of a centre management entity should be and its roles and responsibilities.  The review is nearing finalisation and it will be reported to Councillors at a Council Meeting shortly.  Pending the outcome of the review, it is not proposed at this time to suggest major changes to the Association’s current Business Plan 2011-12.

 

Financial Services Manager Comment

 

The audited 2010/11 financial statements for the St Marys Town Centre Management Inc have been reviewed by Council Officers. The Association has reported an operating profit of $82,156.29 for the 2010/11 financial year and a retained profit of $124,962 at year end. This indicates that the Association is in a stable financial position.

 

 

Conclusion

 

The Review of the management regime for the Penrith and St Marys centres will lead to recommendations that ensure that contemporary, best practice, marketing, management and business stimulus initiatives are pursued.  This will place the centres in the best possible position to respond to future growth demands.

 

In the meantime, the St Marys Town Centre Associations will continue to provide management to the market and promote their centre for the remainder of this financial year.  It is envisaged that the implementation of Council’s preferred management model will be in place for the commencement of the next financial year.

 

The St Marys Town Centre Association’s Business Plan 2011-12 and financial statement for 2010-11 are considered to be satisfactory and it should be funded for this current financial year.

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.     The information contained in the report on St Marys Town Centre Association - Annual Business Plan for 2011-12 be received

2.     Funding for the St Marys Town Centre Association be endorsed in the amount of $242,059 and be paid in instalments at the beginning of each quarter

 

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

St Marys Town Centre Association Business Plan 2011-12

18 Pages

Attachment

2. View

St Marys Town Centre Association Financial Statement 2010-11

14 Pages

Attachment

  


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                     31 October 2011

A Vibrant City

 

 

5

Transportation of restricted solid waste to SITA landfill facility   

 

Compiled by:               Graham Liehr, Environmental Health Manager

Authorised by:            Craig Butler, Director  

 

Objective

We build on our strengths, value our heritage, celebrate our cultural diversity, and foster creativity

Community Outcome

A City that promotes health and wellbeing (21)

Strategic Response

Encourage the wellbeing of our communities (21.1)

       

 

Executive Summary

A Briefing to Councillors was provided on 28 June 2010 of the proposal by the State Property Authority to prepare an Environmental Assessment to support a Part 3A application under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for the remediation of 7-9 Nelson Road, Hunters Hill.  The remediation will also extend to adjoining land that has also been identified as contaminated through its past use.

 

The remediation of the site included the proposal to remove the contaminated material from the site and transport it to the SITA landfill site in Kemps Creek, within the Penrith City Local Government Area.  The SITA site is the only site in NSW licensed by the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) to accept the waste that has been classified as “Restricted Solid Waste.”

 

The contaminated properties which include numbers 7 and 9 Nelson Road, Hunters Hill and extends to some adjoining properties has been the subject of substantial media interest and raised concern to residents in Hunters Hill.

 

Councillors raised a number of issues in the briefing which have since been formally responded to by the State Property Authority (SPA). There is a range of public health and environmental issues relating to the transportation of the waste to, and its deposition on, the SITA site that remain unanswered.

 

Following a Report at Council’s Policy Review meeting 18 October 2010, Council resolved to write to Premier Keneally registering its strong opposition to the proposal and seeking the Remediation Action Plan include an alternative option for disposal of the waste. Council also resolved to seek the support from the Member for Mulgoa to make representation on Council’s behalf. 

 

Following recent media attention, verbal advice has been received from the SPA that there has been no decision on the remediation of the Hunters Hill site.  Consequently, a letter was sent to the SPA seeking confirmation of the current position. The letter also reaffirms Councils opposition to the disposal of contaminated landfill anywhere in the Penrith local government area.

Introduction

In 2010, the State Property Authority (SPA) advised Council of the proposed remediation of a property owned by NSW Health and located at 7-9 Nelson Road Hunters Hill as well as some adjoining land (“the site”).  The remediation proposed to dispose of excavated contaminated material from the site and to deposit it at the SITA landfill facility in Kemps Creek, within the Penrith City Local Government Area.

 

The SPA was formed under the State Property Authority Act 2006 and has responsibilities that include the management of properties of government agencies. 

 

The site was contaminated as a result of the processing of uranium ore for extraction of radium between 1911 and 1916. Whilst the site is currently vacant, there are residential properties on either side. 

 

The briefing in June 2010 was organised so the SPA would provide Council with an overview of its plans prior to the preparation of the Environmental Assessment documentation and provide opportunity for Council to raise concerns that Council considers should be addressed in the planning. Councillors raised a number of additional questions to the SPA during the briefing and the SPA has responded.

Background

The property at 7-9 Nelson Parade, Hunters Hill was the site of a commercial processing plant owned by the Radium Hill Company and used to extract radium from uranium ore between 1911 and 1916, when the company went bankrupt and vacated the site.

 

The radium was extracted for commercial purposes including medical applications and the manufacture of luminous watch dials. The uranium ore that was stockpiled on site occurs naturally, and was mined in South Australia.

 

The NSW Government acquired 9 Nelson Parade Hunters Hill in 1978 and 7 Nelson Parade in 1983 in the interests of public health following the discovery of radioactive contamination. Since the Government’s acquisition of 7 and 9 Nelson Parade, there have been no buildings or human occupation on the site. 11 Nelson Parade Hunters Hill was acquired by the Government in 2009 and includes a large residence.

 

The site has been the subject of a number of contamination assessment studies, which have identified the presence of contaminants (both chemical and radiological) at concentrations that would preclude the site’s redevelopment for residential purposes in its current state. The residual radioactive material remains on the site from remnants of the stockpile of ore, and discarded tailings after the radium was extracted. Testing of neighbouring private and public property has been undertaken by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and has identified some areas of elevated radiation levels (i.e. significantly above background levels).

 

The SPA, as owner of the property, recommended to the former State Government that the site be remediated reasoning that a suitably licensed landfill site is a more appropriate place for contaminated material than for the material to remain in a residential area. The SPA reasons the property has significant potential capital value, which could be put to more effective use by the government.

 

At the briefing to Council in June 2010, Council was informed by the SPA the proposed remediation plan involved the removal of radioactive contaminated material and other chemical contaminants from the site and surrounding areas to an extent where the sites can be certified as suitable for residential use by an independent site auditor. The exact amount of material to be removed from the site will not be known until the site works are under way, but has been estimated at over 5,000 tonnes.

 

The remediation work is subject to a planning process which involves a detailed description of the intended removal and disposal process, and public exhibition of the associated documents and plans.

 

The radioactive contaminated material on the site has been classified by an independent site auditor as “Restricted Solid Waste” and this classification was confirmed by the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW).  DECCW is now the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH). The classification allows the material to be deposited in a suitably licensed landfill site. The Classification only relates to the radiological properties and the chemical contamination is subject to separate waste classification.

 

The OEH has confirmed that the SITA site in Kemps Creek is the only landfill site in NSW that is licensed by the OEH to accept the Restricted Solid Waste.

 

Following a report at Council’s Policy Review meeting 18 October 2010, letters were sent to

Premier Keneally and Mr Barry O'Farrell, Leader of the Opposition & Shadow Minister for Western Sydney (Appendix 1). The letters registered Councils strong opposition to the proposal and seeking the Remediation Action Plan include an alternative option for disposal of the waste.  A letter was also sent to Diane Beamer, Member for Mulgoa (Appendix 1) requesting representations supporting Council’s position.  On 16 November 2010 Council received a response from Premier Keneally (Appendix 2) informing that the Premier had ruled out the use of the Kemps Creek facility to store the waste from Hunters Hill. The Premier also advised that she had instructed the NSW Land and Property Management Authority to examine alternative options for the storage of this waste, including transferring the waste interstate or overseas.

 

On 18 February 2011Council wrote to Premier Keneally seeking confirmation that the contract to dispose of the contaminated waste at Kemps Creek had been cancelled and seeking assurance that the proposal would not be reopened (Appendix 3).

 

On the 13 April 2011 Council wrote to Premier O'Farrell (Appendix 4) seeking confirmation that the contract to dispose of the contaminated waste at Kemps Creek had been cancelled and seeking assurance that the proposal would not be reopened.  A letter was also sent to the Member for Mulgoa, Tanya Davies (Appendix 4) requesting representations to the Premier on Council’s behalf.  On the 20 April 2011 Council received a letter from the NSW Government Premier and Cabinet advising that Council’s letter has been forwarded to the Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon Katrina Hodgkinson (Appendix 5). 

 

GHD Preliminary Environmental Assessment 2007

In 2007 GHD Pty Ltd prepared a Preliminary EA for the site which was commissioned by NSW Health.  The GHD report summarises the contamination status of the site including elevated levels of radium.  The report also indicates the site is contaminated with fill material containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) compounds, plus arsenic and lead, at concentrations well above the relevant (residential) land use criteria.

Parliamentary Enquiry

In 2008 a Parliamentary Inquiry was held into the site investigating the radiological contamination. The Inquiry made 12 recommendations to the NSW Government in its report of September 2008 which included a proposal that the contaminated areas be remediated back to the background radiation level of the Hunters Hill area. The Government responded to the Inquiry in March 2009, largely supporting the recommendations.

 

The SPA has advised Council that the justification for remediating the site by disposal at the SITA site is pursuant to the decision of the Parliamentary Inquiry.  The Parliamentary Inquiry agreed with recommendations of DECC and NSW Health that the contaminated material should be removed from Nelson Road.

 

Approval process

The Hunter’s Hill site was declared a remediation site under Division 3 of Part 3 of the

Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 on 23 August 2007. The site is therefore defined as a remediation site under SEPP 55. The proposed remediation is classified as Category 1 remediation under SEPP 55, due to the site’s location in a foreshore scenic protection area under Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan 1982.

 

Development for the purpose of remediation of land that is category 1 remediation work pursuant to Clause 8 of State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 is State Significant Development and the Minister (or as delegated to the Planning Assessment Commission) is the consent authority in accordance with Sections 89C and 89D of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

 

An Environmental Impact Statement is required to accompany an application for State Significant Development and would need to include a remediation action plan which details a lawful disposal location if contaminated or remediated material is to be removed from the site.

 

SITA Waste Management Facility

Council wrote to SITA Environmental Solutions on 21 October 2010 seeking clarification as to SITA’s position on accepting the proposal for radioactive contaminated waste to be deposited at Kemps Creek. The letter also requested advice if there is an agreement that compels the waste material from the Hunter Hill site to the SITA facility for disposal.

 

Nuclear Free Zone

At Council’s meeting of 19 June 1979 it was resolved that Penrith City Council area be declared a Nuclear Free Zone and that no nuclear waste be deposited or conveyed through the area.

The significance of Council declaring itself a Nuclear Free Zone is the important symbolic function. The declaration of Penrith should be seen by the public as Council’s resolve to prohibit the storage and transportation of nuclear waste.

Since the adoption of this position there has been the substantial increased use of nuclear medicine in the community however depositing of nuclear waste in the Penrith local government area would be understandably most likely of some concern to communities.

Current Situation

On the 17 October 2011 Hansard records the Premier, responding to a question relating to the disposing of contaminated waste informed parliament in respect to the Nelson Parade sites in Hunters Hill that “a decision will be made in the near future.”  The State Property Authority has also verbally informed they are unaware of any decision or the Government’s current view on the matter.  

 

After the State Government decides on the preferred option for remediation, a Remediation Action Plan (RAP) is required to be developed for the Part 3A Approval and will be reviewed before the Environmental Assessment (EA) is completed. The EA will be publicly exhibited as part of the approval process. 

 

A letter has been sent to the State Property Authority requesting confirmation of any communication of the State Property Authority relating to the remediation of 7-9 Nelson Parade, Hunters Hill with the current State Government and also of any decision.  The letter also requests in the event a decision is made to dispose of the contaminated waste to the SITA site:

 

·    Council be informed urgently as to the decision,

·    A copy of testing reports and the draft Remediation Action Plan be provided to Council,

·    Details on the approvals process, including timeframes for finalisation of the Remediation Action Plan and Environmental Assessment, when formal decisions are required to be taken including project approval and when public exhibition and consultation would be called,

·    Regular updates are provided to Council.

Conclusion

The site in Nelson Road Hunters Hill has been the subject of substantial concern to residents in Hunters Hill since the late 1970’s due to the identification of radioactive contamination as a result of the past use of the site.

 

The radioactive contaminated material on the site has been classified as “Restricted Solid Waste” and there remains the option to remediate the site by removal of the contaminated material and disposal to landfill.  After the State Government decides on the preferred option for remediation, a Remediation Action Plan (RAP) is required to be developed for the Part 3A Approval and will be reviewed before the Environmental Assessment is completed.   

 

Council conveyed its initial concerns into the proposal of disposing of the classified waste at the Councillor briefing on 28 June 2010 and the SPA has since responded to the additional concerns expressed by Council. The SPA advised of its desire to liaise with Council in the early planning stages of the Environmental Assessment. 

 

There are a number of matters that need to be addressed in the Environmental Assessment for the remediation.  These include health and environmental risks associated with the transportation, handling, landfill and ongoing security of the contaminated material after disposal.

 

Council has historically raised objection to inappropriate landfill proposals in the City, and has expressed concern over the perception that Penrith City should continue to receive a disproportionate share of Sydney’s waste. 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Transportation of restricted solid waste to SITA landfill facility be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1.  

Letter to Barry O'Farrell & Premier Keneally registering Council's opposition to disposal of contaminated waste into Penrith LGA and letter to Diane Beamer, MP requesting support through representation

5 Pages

Appendix

2.  

Letter from Premier Keneally ruling out Kemps Creek as option for waste disposal

3 Pages

Appendix

3.  

Letter to Premier Keneally requesting confirmation contract with SITA has been cancelled

1 Page

Appendix

4.  

Letter to Premier O'Farrell requesting confirmation contract with SITA has been cancelled and letter to Tanya Davies, MP requesting support through representation

4 Pages

Appendix

5.  

Acknowledgement Letter from Department of Premier and Cabinet confirming consideration of issues raised by Council

1 Page

Appendix

  


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                     31 October 2011

Appendix 1 - Letter to Barry O'Farrell & Premier Keneally registering Council's opposition to disposal of contaminated waste into Penrith LGA and letter to Diane Beamer, MP requesting support through representation

 

temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                     31 October 2011

Appendix 2 - Letter from Premier Keneally ruling out Kemps Creek as option for waste disposal

 

temp


temp


temp


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                     31 October 2011

Appendix 3 - Letter to Premier Keneally requesting confirmation contract with SITA has been cancelled

 

temp


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                     31 October 2011

Appendix 4 - Letter to Premier O'Farrell requesting confirmation contract with SITA has been cancelled and letter to Tanya Davies, MP requesting support through representation

 

temp


temp


temp


temp


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                     31 October 2011

Appendix 5 - Acknowledgement Letter from Department of Premier and Cabinet confirming consideration of issues raised by Council

 

temp

 


 

ATTACHMENTS   

 

 

Date of Meeting:         Monday 31 October 2011

Delivery Program:      A Leading City

Issue:                            Champion accountability and transparency, and responsible and ethical behaviour (5.1)

Report Title:                Reporting under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1994

Attachments:               Draft Policy on Public Interest Disclosure Act 1994 Internal Report System



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                              31 October 2011

Attachment 1 - Draft Policy on Public Interest Disclosure Act 1994 Internal Report System

 

Large_Council_Brand            POLICY DOCUMENT

 

POLICY NAME:

Public Interests Disclosure Act 1994 Internal reporting System

Policy No:   

Adopted by Council:

  

Minute No:  

Review:

  

File No: 

Relevant Legislation:

Public Interests Disclosure Act 1994

Responsible Department:

Legal and Governance

 

 Policy Statement:       

 

 

1.    Support for Disclosure

Council is committed to the aims and objectives of the Public Interests Disclosures Act 1994 (NSW) (the PID Act). It recognises the value and importance of contributions from Council officers and Councillors to enhance administrative and management practices. Accordingly, if a Council officer or Councillor wishes to make a disclosure under the Act, Council strongly supports such disclosures being made by way of its internal reporting system (as outlined in section 8 of this policy), or direct to the General Manager.

 

As part of this commitment, Council will take all reasonable steps to provide protection to disclosures from any detrimental action in the form of reprisals as a consequence of the disclosure.

 

 

2.    The Act

On 3 March 2011 various amendments to the Protected Disclosures Act 1994 (NSW) were proclaimed. Amongst other changes, the Protected Disclosures Act 1994 (NSW) was renamed the PID Act. The purpose of the PID Act is to ensure that a public official (i.e. an officer of the Council or a Councillor) who wishes to make a disclosure under the legislation receives protection from detrimental action in the form of reprisal, and that the matters raised in the disclosure are properly investigated.

 

The PID Act aims to encourage and facilitate the disclosure - in the public interest - of corrupt conduct, maladministration, serious and/or substantial waste in the public sector, government information contravention, local government pecuniary interest contravention and other wrong doing. This is achieved by:

 

·   Enhancing and augmenting established procedures for making disclosures concerning such matters;

 

·   Protecting persons from reprisals that might otherwise be inflicted on them because of these disclosures; and

 

·   Providing for those disclosures to be properly investigated and dealt with.

3.    What Should Be Reported?

 

You should report any wrong-doing you see within the Council. Reports about the five categories of serious wrong-doing – corrupt conduct, maladministration, serious and substantial waste of public money, government information contravention and Local Government Pecuniary Interest contravention – will be dealt with under the PID Act as protected disclosures and according to this policy. These categories of wrong-doing are defined as follows:

 

a.  Corruption

 

Corruption is defined in Sections 8 and 9 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (NSW) (the ICAC Act). The definition used in the ICAC Act is intentionally quite broad - corrupt conduct is defined to include the dishonest or partial exercise of official functions by a public official. Conduct of a person who is not a public official, when it adversely affects the impartial or honest exercise of official functions by a public official, also comes within the definition.

 

Corruption can take many forms – e.g. taking or offering bribes, public officials dishonestly using influence, blackmail, fraud, election bribery, and illegal gambling.

 

For more information about corrupt conduct, go to www.ombo.nsw.gov.au and see the NSW Ombudsman’s guidelines on what can be reported. 

 

b.  Maladministration

 

Maladministration is defined in section 11 of the PID Act as conduct that involves action or inaction of a serious nature that is:

 

·        Contrary to the law;

 

·        Unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory; and/or

 

·        Based wholly or partly on improper motives.

 

For more information about maladministration, see the NSW Ombudsman’s guidelines on what can be reported.

 

c.  Serious and Substantial Waste

 

The term 'serious and substantial waste’ is not defined in the PID Act, however the following working definition may be applied:

 

Serious and/or substantial waste refers to any uneconomical, inefficient or ineffective use of resources, authorised or unauthorised, which results in significant loss/wastage of public funds/resources. In addressing any complaint of serious and/or substantial waste regard will be had, for example, to the dollar value, the potential for savings and the public interest. Cases of serious and/or substantial waste may also fall within the concept of maladministration if it relates to any uneconomical, inefficient or ineffective use of resources which results in significant loss or wastage of public funds or resources, and is contrary to law or unreasonable.

 

For more information about serious and substantial waste, go to www.ombo.nsw.gov.au and see the NSW Ombudsman’s guidelines on what can be reported.

 

d.  Government Information Contravention

 

A government information contravention is a failure to properly fulfil functions under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA Act).

 

For example, this could include:

 

·   Destroying, concealing or altering records to prevent them from being released;

 

·   Knowingly making decisions that are contrary to the legislation; and

 

·   Directing another person to make a decision that is contrary to the legislation.

 

For more information about government information contravention, go to www.ombo.nsw.gov.au and see the NSW Ombudsman’s guidelines on what can be reported.

 

e.  Local Government Pecuniary Interest Contravention

 

A local government pecuniary interest contravention is a failure to fulfil certain functions under the Local Government Act 1993 relating to the management of pecuniary interests. These include obligations to lodge disclosure of interests returns, lodge written declarations and disclose pecuniary interests at Council and Council committee meetings.  A pecuniary interest is an interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the person.

 

For example, this could include:

 

·   A senior council staff member recommending a family member for a council contract and not declaring the relationship; and

 

·   A general manager holding an undisclosed shareholding in a company competing for a council contract.

 

For more information about local government pecuniary interest contravention, see the NSW Ombudsman’s guidelines on what can be reported.

 

f.   Other Wrong-Doing

 

Although reports about the previous five categories of conduct can attract the specific protections of the PID Act, you should report all activities or incidents that you believe are wrong.

 

For example, these could include:

 

·   Harassment or unlawful discrimination;

 

·   Reprisal action against a person who has reported wrong-doing; and

 

·   Practices that endanger the health or safety of staff or the public.

 

These types of issues should be reported to a supervisor, in accordance with the Council’s related policies.

 

·   Code of Conduct

 

·   Grievance Policy

 

·   Prevention of Harassment on Bullying Policy

 

Even if these reports are not dealt with as protected disclosures, the Council will consider each matter and make every attempt to protect the staff member making the report from any form of reprisal.

 

4.    When Will a Report Be Protected?

 

The Council will support any public officials (including staff) who report wrong-doing. For a report to be considered a protected disclosure, it has to meet all of the requirements under the PID Act.  These requirements are:

 

·     The person making the disclosure must honestly believe on reasonable grounds that the information shows or tends to show wrong-doing.

 

·     The report has to be made to one or more of the following:

 

A position nominated in this policy;

The General Manager; or

One of the investigating authorities nominated in the PID Act.

 

Reports by Staff and Councillors will not be considered to be protected disclosures if they:

 

·     Mostly question the merits of government policy, including the policy of the governing body of the council; and

 

·     Are made with the sole or substantial motive of avoiding dismissal or other disciplinary action.

 

5.    What is Not Protected

As stated above, to be protected by the PID Act, a disclosure must be made in accordance with section 4 of this policy. A disclosure is not made voluntarily for the purposes of the PID Act if it is made by a public official in the exercise of a duty imposed by or under an Act.

It is an offence to wilfully make a false or misleading statement when making a disclosure.

 

6.    How to Make a Report

 

You can report wrong-doing in writing or verbally. You are encouraged to make a report in writing as this can help to avoid any confusion or misinterpretation.

 

If a report is made verbally, the person receiving the report must make a comprehensive record of the disclosure and ask the person making the disclosure to sign that record. The person making the report, as well as the person receiving the report should keep a copy of that record.

 

If you are concerned about being seen making a report, ask to meet in a discreet location away from the workplace.

 

 

7.    Can a Report be Anonymous?

There will be some situations where you may not want to identify yourself when you make a report. Although these reports will still be dealt with by the Council, it is best if you identify yourself. This allows us to provide you with any necessary protection and support, as well as feedback about the outcome of any investigation into the allegations.

It is important to realise that an anonymous disclosure may not prevent you from being identified. If we do not know who made the report, it is very difficult for us to prevent any reprisal action.

 

8.    Confidentiality

 

The Council realises many staff will want their report to remain confidential. This can help to prevent any action being taken against you for reporting wrong-doing. We are committed to keeping your identity, and the fact you have reported wrong-doing, confidential. However there may be situations where this may not be possible or appropriate. We will discuss with you whether it is possible to keep your report confidential.

 

If confidentiality cannot be maintained, we will develop a plan to support and protect you from risks of reprisal. You will be involved in developing this plan. You will also be told if your report will be dealt with under the council’s code of conduct, as this may mean certain information will have to be tabled at a Council meeting.

 

If you report wrong-doing, you should only discuss your report with those dealing with it. This will include the Disclosures Coordinator and the General Manager. If you discuss your report more broadly, you may affect the outcome of any investigation.

 

 

9.    Who Can Receive a Report Within the Council?

 

You are encouraged to report general wrong-doing to your supervisor. However the PID Act requires that – for a report to be a public interest disclosure – it must be made to a public official in accordance with the Council’s disclosure procedures, i.e. this policy.

 

Any supervisor who receives a report that they believe may be a public interest disclosure must refer the staff member making the report to one of the positions listed below. The broader responsibilities of these positions will be outlined in the procedures and/or guidance material supporting this policy.

 

If you are a Council Officer you should make your report to the General Manager or the Disclosures Coordinator. If you are a Councillor and your report is about another Councillor, you should make it to the General Manager or the Mayor. If you are a Councillor and your report is about a staff member, you should make it to the General Manager.

 

If the complaint relates to the General Manager then your report should be made to the Mayor or the Disclosures Coordinator.  If the complaint relates to the Mayor the report should be made to the General Manager.

 

The following positions are the only staff within the Council who can receive a public interest disclosure.

 

a.  General Manager

 

You can report wrong-doing directly to the General Manager. The General Manager is responsible for:

 

·   Deciding if a report is a public interest disclosure;

 

·   Determining what needs to be done next, including referring it to other authorities; and

 

·   Deciding what needs to be done to correct the problem that has been identified. 

 

The General Manager must make sure that there are systems in place within the Council to support and protect staff who report wrong-doing.

 

The General Manager is also responsible for referring actual or suspected corrupt conduct to the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

 

b.  Mayor

 

If you are making a report about the General Manager, you should make your report to the Mayor. The Mayor is responsible for:

 

·   Deciding if a report is a public interest disclosure;

 

·   Determining what needs to be done next, including referring it to other authorities; and

 

·   Deciding what needs to be done to correct the problem that has been identified.

 

The Mayor must make sure there are systems in place in the Council to support and protect staff who report wrong-doing.

 

If the report is about the General Manager, the Mayor is also responsible for referring actual or suspected corrupt conduct to the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

 

c.  Disclosures Coordinator

 

The Disclosures Coordinator, being the Council’s Group Manager – Legal and Governance, has a central role in dealing with reports made by staff. The Disclosures Coordinator will receive them, assess them (including deciding if a report is a public interest disclosure), and refer them to the people within the Council who can deal with them appropriately.

 

d.  Disclosures Officers

 

Disclosures Officers, being supervisors, work with the Disclosures Coordinator, and are responsible for receiving, forwarding and/or dealing with reports made in accordance with this policy.

 

 

10.  Who Can Receive a Report Outside of the Council?

 

Staff are encouraged to report wrong-doing within the Council, but internal reporting is not your only option.  If you follow the guidance below, your report can still be a public interest disclosure.

 

You can choose to make your report to an investigating authority. You can do this first, or at any stage after your initial report to the Council.  If your report is about the General Manager or the Mayor, you should consider making it to an investigating authority.

 

You can also choose to make a report to a Member of Parliament (MP) or a Journalist, but only in limited circumstances.

 

 

a.  Investigating Authorities

 

The PID Act lists a number of investigating authorities in NSW that staff can report wrong-doing to and the categories of wrong-doing each authority can deal with.

 

In relation to Council, these authorities are:

 

·   The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) — for corrupt conduct;

 

·   The Ombudsman — for maladministration;

 

·   The Police Integrity Commission (PIC) — for police misconduct;

 

·   The PIC Inspector — for disclosures about the PIC or its staff;

 

·   The Division of Local Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet — for disclosures about Local Government agencies;

 

·   The ICAC Inspector — for disclosures about the ICAC or its staff; and

 

·   The Information Commissioner — for disclosures about a Government information contravention.

 

You should contact the relevant authority for advice about how to make a disclosure to them. Contact details for each investigating authority are provided at the end of this policy.

 

You should be aware that it is very likely the investigating authority will discuss the case with the Council.  We will make every effort to assist and cooperate with the investigating authority to ensure the matter is dealt with appropriately and there is a satisfactory outcome. We will also provide appropriate support and assistance to staff who report wrong-doing to an investigating authority.

 

 

b.  Members of Parliament or Journalists

 

To have the protections of the PID Act, staff reporting wrong-doing to a Member of Parliament (MP) or a Journalist must have already made substantially the same report to one of the following:

 

·   The General Manager;

 

·   A person nominated in this policy; and

 

·   An investigating authority in accordance with the PID Act.

 

Also, the Council or investigating authority that received the report must have either:

 

·   Decided not to investigate the matter;

 

·   Decided to investigate the matter, but not completed the investigation within six months of the original report;

 

·   Investigated the matter but not recommended any action as a result; and

 

·   Not told the person who made the report, within six months of the report being made, whether the matter will be investigated.

 

Most importantly, to be protected under the PID Act, if you report wrong-doing to an MP or a Journalist you will need to be able to prove that you have reasonable grounds for believing that the disclosure is substantially true and that it is in fact substantially true.

 

If you report wrong-doing to a person or an organisation that is not listed above, you will not be protected under the PID Act. This may mean you will be in breach of legal obligations or Council’s Code of Conduct – by, for example, disclosing confidential information.

 

For more information about reporting wrong-doing outside of the Council, contact the Disclosures Coordinator or the NSW Ombudsman’s Public Interest Disclosures Unit. Their contact details are provided at the end of this policy.

 

 

11.  Feedback to Staff Who Report Wrong-Doing

 

Staff who report wrong-doing will be told what is happening in response to their report.

When you make a report, you will be given:

 

·   An acknowledgement that your disclosure has been received;

 

·   The timeframe for when you will receive further updates; and

 

·   The name and contact details of the people who can tell you what is happening.

 

The PID Act requires that you are provided with an acknowledgement letter and a copy of this policy within 45 days after you have made your report. We will attempt to get this information to you within two working days from the date you make your report.

 

After a decision is made about how your report will be dealt with, you will be given:

 

·   Information about the action that will be taken in response to your report;

 

·   Likely timeframes for any investigation;

 

·     Information about the resources available within Council to handle any concerns you may have; and

 

·   Information about external agencies and services you can access for support.

 

This information will be given to you within 10 working days from the date you make your report.

During any investigation, you will be given:

 

·   Information on the ongoing nature of the investigation;

 

·   Information about the progress of the investigation and reasons for any delay; and

 

·     Advice if your identity needs to be disclosed for the purposes of investigating the matter, and an opportunity to talk about this.

 

At the end of any investigation, you will be given:

 

·     Enough information to show that adequate and appropriate action was taken and/or is proposed to be taken in response to your disclosure and any problem that was identified; and

 

·     Advice about whether you will be involved as a witness in any further matters, such as disciplinary or criminal proceedings.

 

 

12.         Protection Against Reprisals

The PID Act provides protection for people reporting wrong-doing by imposing penalties on anyone who takes detrimental action substantially in reprisal for them making the protected disclosure.

Penrith City Council will not tolerate any reprisal action against staff who report wrong-doing. The criminal penalties that can be imposed include imprisonment or fines. Detrimental action is also misconduct that justifies disciplinary action. People who take detrimental action against someone who has made a disclosure can also be required to pay damages for any loss suffered by that person.

 

Detrimental action means action causing, comprising or involving any of the following:

 

·   Injury, damage or loss;

 

·   Intimidation and/or harassment;

 

·   Discrimination, disadvantage and/or adverse treatment in relation to employment;

 

·   Dismissal from, or prejudice in, employment; and

 

·   Disciplinary proceedings.

 

 

a.  Responding to Reprisals

 

The Council will act to protect staff who report wrong-doing from reprisals.

 

When a report is received, we will ensure that a thorough risk assessment is conducted. This will identify any risks to the member of staff who reported the wrong-doing, as well as strategies to deal with those risks.

 

If you believe that detrimental action has been, or is being taken, against you or someone else who has reported wrong-doing in reprisal for making a report, you should tell your supervisor, the Disclosures Coordinator or the General Manager immediately.

 

All supervisors must report any suspicions they have that reprisal action against a staff member is occurring, or any reports that are made to them, to the Disclosures Coordinator or the General Manager.

 

If the disclosures coordinator becomes aware of reprisal action against a person who has made a disclosure, they will:

 

·     Ensure a senior and experienced member of staff, who has not been involved in dealing with the initial disclosure, will investigate the suspected reprisal;

 

·   Give the results of that investigation to the General Manager for a decision;

 

·     Give the results of that investigation to the Mayor for a decision if the allegation of reprisal action is about the General Manager;

 

·     If it has been established that reprisal action is occurring against someone who has made a disclosure, take all steps possible to stop that activity and protect the member of staff who made the disclosure; and

 

·     Take appropriate disciplinary or criminal action against anyone proven to have taken or threatened any action in reprisal for making a disclosure.

 

If you report reprisal action, you will be kept informed of the progress of any investigation and the outcome.

 

The General Manager may issue specific directions to help protect against reprisals. If the allegation of reprisal action is about the General Manager, the Mayor may issue similar directions. These may include:

 

·     Issuing warnings to those alleged to have taken reprisal action against the member of staff who made the disclosure;

 

·     Relocating the member of staff who made the disclosure or the subject officer within the current workplace;

 

·     Transferring the member of staff who made the disclosure or the staff member who is the subject of the allegation to another position for which they are qualified; and

 

·     Granting the member of staff who made the disclosure or the subject officer leave of absence during the investigation of the disclosure.

 

These directions will only be taken if the member of staff who made the disclosure agrees to it. The disclosures coordinator will make it clear to other staff that this action was taken in consultation with the staff member and with management support – and it is not a punishment.

If you have reported wrong-doing and feel that any reprisal action is not being dealt with effectively, contact the Ombudsman’s Office or the ICAC – depending on the type of wrong-doing you reported. Contact details for all these investigating authorities are included at the end of this policy.

b.  Protection Against Legal action

If you make a disclosure in accordance with the PID Act, you will not be subject to any liability and no action, claim or demand can be taken against you for making the disclosure. You will not have breached any confidentiality or secrecy obligations and you will have the defence of absolute privilege in defamation – but if you are unsure you should seek your own legal advice.

 

 

13.         Support for Those Reporting Wrong-Doing

The Council will make sure that staff who have reported wrong-doing, regardless of whether they have made a protected disclosure, are provided with access to any professional support they may need as a result of the reporting process – such as stress management, counselling services, legal and/or career advice.

We also have staff who will support those who report wrong-doing. They are responsible for initiating and coordinating support, particularly to those who are suffering any form of reprisal.

·   Refer to Council’s Employees Assistance Program.

All supervisors must notify the Disclosures Coordinator if they believe a staff member is suffering any detrimental action as a result of disclosing wrong-doing.

 

14.         Sanctions for Making False or Misleading Disclosures

It is important that all staff are aware that it is a criminal offence under the PID Act to wilfully make a false or misleading statement when reporting wrong-doing.

 

15.         Support for the Subject of a Report

The Council is committed to ensuring staff who are the subject of a report of wrong-doing are treated fairly and reasonably. If you are the subject of a report, you will be:

 

·     Treated fairly and impartially;

 

·     Told your rights and obligations under our policies and procedures;

 

·     Kept informed during any investigation;

 

·     Given the opportunity to respond to any allegation made against you; and

 

·     Told the result of any investigation.

 

In such a case the Disclosure Coordinator will report to the General Manager on the investigation findings and recommend remedial action.

 

 

16.         Review

 

This policy shall be reviewed regularly to ensure that it meets the objectives of the legislation, and facilitates the making of disclosures under the Act.

 

17.         Resources - External Investigating Authorities

 

The contact details for external investigating authorities that staff can make a protected disclosure to, or seek advice from, are listed below:


 

For Disclosures About Corrupt Conduct:

 

Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC)

Phone: (02) 8281 5999

Toll free: 1800 463 909

Tel. typewriter (TTY): 02 8281 5773

Facsimile: (02) 9264 5364

Email: icac@icac.nsw.gov.au

Web: www.icac.nsw.gov.au

Address: Level 21, 133 Castlereagh Street, Sydney NSW 2000

 

For Disclosures About Maladministration:

 

NSW Ombudsman

Phone: (02) 9286 1000

Toll free (outside Sydney Metro): 1800 451 524

Tel. typewriter (TTY): (02) 9264 8050

Facsimile: (02) 9283 2911

Email: nswombo@ombo.nsw.gov.au

Web: www.ombo.nsw.gov.au

Address: Level 24, 580 George Street, Sydney NSW 2000

 

For Disclosures About Serious and Substantial Waste Generally in the Public Sector:

 

Auditor-General of the NSW Audit Office

Phone: (02) 9275 7100

Facsimile: (02) 9275 7200

Email: mail@audit.nsw.gov.au

Web: www.audit.nsw.gov.au

Address: Level 15, 1 Margaret Street, Sydney NSW 2000

 

 

For Disclosures About Serious and Substantial Waste in Local Government:

 

Division of Local Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet

Phone: (02) 4428 4100

Tel. typewriter (TTY): 02 4428 4209

Facsimile: (02) 4428 4199

Email: dlg@dlg.nsw.gov.au

Web: www.dlg.nsw.gov.au

Address: 5 O’Keefe Avenue, Nowra  NSW  2541

 

For Disclosures About Police Misconduct:

 

Police Integrity Commission (PIC)

Phone: (02) 9321 6700

Toll free: 1800 657 079

Facsimile: (02) 9321 6799

Email: contactus@pic.nsw.gov.au

Web: www.pic.nsw.gov.au

Address: Level 3, 111 Elizabeth Street, Sydney NSW 2000


 

 

For Disclosures About Breaches of the GIPA Act:

 

Information Commissioner

Toll free: 1800 463 626

Facsimile: (02) 8114 3756

Email: oicinfo@oic.nsw.gov.au

Web: www.oic.nsw.gov.au

Address: Level 11, 1 Castlereagh Street, Sydney NSW 2000

 

 


 

ATTACHMENTS   

 

 

Date of Meeting:         Monday 31 October 2011

Delivery Program:      A Vibrant City

Issue:                            Enhance community strengths and capacity by supporting collaborative networks and partnerships (23.1)

Report Title:                St Marys Town Centre Association - Annual Business Plan for 2011-12

Attachments:               St Marys Town Centre Association Business Plan 2011-12

                                      St Marys Town Centre Association Financial Statement 2010-11



Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                     31 October 2011

Attachment 1 - St Marys Town Centre Association Business Plan 2011-12

 

temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


Policy Review Committee Meeting                                                                                     31 October 2011

Attachment 2 - St Marys Town Centre Association Financial Statement 2010-11

 

temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp