St George letters: Respect should be a two-way street

Early in the meeting, the Councillors debated whether they should accept a pay rise for themselves. Emotions started to flow, whether a pay increase was the appropriate way to go, when the general community was straining under the increased costs of living. The vote was 8-7 in favour, the councillor annual fee and the mayoral additional fee, were accepted as set out by the NSW Local Government Remuneration Tribunal. The financial cost to the Council's Budget will be in excess of $542,000 per annum including superannuation contributions.

Later in the meeting, a hardship case from the community, involving a 41 year-old man with a disability, who is gainfully employed a few hours each week, and whose parents are trying to assist him in his life. In order to convert a double garage into a granny flat, to comply with NDIS requirements and with building compliance in Georges River Council, under Section 7.11 contribution of just over $7,000 was required. Back in October 2022, the Councillors considered the request to waiver/defer the contribution but accepted the advice from Council to allow the parents to enter into a repayment plan for hardship.

In the meantime, the cost of the renovation has grown. The parents requested that the payment plan be wavered because it was proving to be beyond their financial capacity. At this stage of the meeting and the evening, the debate degraded to an exchange referring, very much to whether the Council's budget would be impacted by the failure to collect this $7,000 contribution.

Emotions were flowing back and forth, all happening in a public meeting. The parents were seated along with other ratepayers in the Public Gallery. The strain on the Councillors faces, the words being uttered by some Councillors were heart-breaking. As the debate continued, the dismay, the disgust, the disillusionment grew of how the debate was treating the family.

At some point, there was a suggestion that perhaps the Councillors would forego the Annual Councillors Fee increase for the family. The family were horrified that they could be seen as being charity recipients. The Council's planning staff had put forward a suggestion that the criteria for Section 7.11 be amended, in the next year's planning review, and so the contribution could be waivered. Certain Councillors refused to consider this proposal. The payment plan had to be adhered to, almost as though the Council's budget was broke. The vote was 8-7 in favour.

Is this how the Councillors show respect? In the debate it was said that by increasing the Councillor's and Mayoral allowances that would show respect. Is this decision liked to bring that respect?

Bayside Council needs to find a balance between the active and passive recreational needs of its sporting fields for the community which isn't the case at the moment.

Even within sporting groups there is an imbalance clearly evident with Basketball, Cricket, Hockey and AFL facilities clearly lacking within the LGA.

There is only one AFL field in the whole of the LGA. This means AFL players have to leave the area and go and play elsewhere due to the lack of facilities.

This lack of facilities has been further compounded by the installation of the eight synthetic turf soccer fields that have removed other sports facilities, principally cricket fields, practise nets and netball courts at Arncliffe Park, Gardiner Park and James McCarthy and has meant that the Nepalese Cricket Association are unable to play their games within the LGA and instead hold their games next door in Inner West Council. Complicating this even further, in the case of Illenden Sports Centre, what was once community land is now fenced off and locked up.

The inability for residents and community members to be able to enjoy or undertake passive recreation activities due to Council's focus on sporting groups needs must be addressed.

For Bayside Council to not have a guiding policy, strategy or even a report that details the recreational and sporting needs of the whole LGA is bewildering.

It beggars belief that Council have failed to undertake a policy such as this to ensure that the substantial funds are being utilised with the needs of the whole community in mind. Other Councils have this reporting, but sadly not Bayside.

Council must prohibit subletting, hire manipulations and the other activities that are occurring. Council must act and any Clubs or user groups who have or are breaching their hire agreements with Council need to have the agreement torn up and another Club given this opportunity.

Garnett Brownbill

Send your letters to leaderletters@theleader.com.au