A mayoral casting vote has committed Hawkesbury City Council to supporting calls for a climate compensation fund, while councillors rejected a separate package of federal demands that included a fossil fuel industry levy.
The split at the October 13 meeting produced a narrower outcome than the full notice of motion proposed by Councillor Danielle Wheeler and seconded by Councillor Peter Ryan.
Councillors voted on separate sections after a procedural motion from Councillor Amanda Kotlash.
The minutes record a six-all division on resolution 224, supporting calls for a fund submitted to the 2026 Local Government NSW conference and preparing Council cost information to assist its voting delegates.
Mayor Mary Lyons-Buckett used her casting vote to carry it.
Lyons-Buckett, Eddie Dogramaci, Shane Djuric, Ryan, Wheeler and Nathan Zamprogno voted for that section. Mike Creed, Kotlash, Sarah McMahon, Jill Reardon, Les Sheather and Paul Veigel voted against.
A subsequent section calling on the Australian Government and Parliament to take six actions was defeated five votes to seven.
It included introducing a Climate Pollution Levy on fossil fuel corporations, establishing a legislated national compensation fund, providing ongoing local-government funding and reviewing the adequacy of the 2025 National Adaptation Plan.
Those demands were voted on together. The recorded division therefore establishes rejection of the package, rather than a separate vote on each proposed measure. Zamprogno joined the seven councillors opposing that package.
General Manager Will Barton argued that adaptation and preparedness remained underfunded, with recovery assistance arriving after communities had already suffered disruption. The discussion stressed the value of preparing for disasters alongside rebuilding afterwards.
Explainer: what would a climate compensation fund do?
The proposal seeks a dedicated funding mechanism to help meet costs associated with climate impacts. Its practical operation would depend on decisions about eligibility, funding sources, administration and the expenses it would cover.
Support for the principle does not settle those details or guarantee a payment to Hawkesbury.
A Climate Pollution Levy would be a separate revenue-raising mechanism targeting fossil fuel corporations. Under the rejected package, councillors were being asked to advocate for federal action; Council was not voting to impose that levy itself.
Compensation, disaster recovery and adaptation also describe different purposes. Recovery assists communities after damage. Adaptation involves adjusting infrastructure, services and practices to reduce exposure to future climate risks.
The federal National Adaptation Plan sets a national framework. It identifies councils’ responsibilities for managing risks to their own assets and services and helping communities and businesses adapt. It also recognises roles for federal and state governments, industry and households.
For Hawkesbury, the debate is therefore about both responsibility and resources: what Council must prepare for, what it can afford, and which level of government should contribute.
The adopted resolutions commit Council to advocacy and further planning. They do not establish a levy, create a compensation scheme or allocate new disaster funding.
The immediate outcome is support for pursuing a fund through the local-government conference process, backed by information about Council’s costs, rather than endorsement of the full federal package.
