Table of Contents
You know the council’s taking you seriously when they put up a sign that reads “Reserved for Media.” Then they sit you in a tablet‑chair from Year 9 Geography. Ours have the writing boards on the left. We’re not sure if that’s an intentional comment on the Hawkesbury Gazette’s alleged political leanings, but we’ll take the dedicated space with good grace and a sense of humour. The actual press desk has been repurposed for staff, we in the fourth estate were issued the scholastic edition.
Simon's Café and the great garden‑bed stoush
First up, the great alfresco conundrum outside Simon’s Café. Harinder Singh explained, plainly and politely, that new garden beds had turned his frontage into a slalom course for prams and mobility scooters and shrunk his trade by “nearly 30%”. “Before we used to have another 18 chairs at the front… now we can’t accommodate the people anymore,” he said, adding that staff hours had already been cut; restoring seating would bring them back. Accessibility concerns were real: “Those with prams, wheelchairs and mobility scooters find it particularly difficult to navigate the outdoor space,” Singh said.
What followed was more than an hour of design theory, drainage talk, and fairness by inches. A staff note put an indicative price on altering one bed—$5,000 plus GST. One councillor argued “we stuck two gardens right in the middle of Simon’s seating area” after promising to work with stakeholders; others worried about precedent for the whole mall. The wheelchair width issue, the grade of the proposed drain cover (“If it can let cockroaches out… it’s going to catch absolutely everything,” a councillor fretted), and whether neighbours had been consulted all got an airing.
An amendment for a tighter layout failed after a muddled count and correction. The chamber then returned to the original motion—remove the southern garden bed and install a mesh grate to achieve about 35 square metres. It passed, narrowly, 6–5. For a small business with loyal locals and Sunday queues, it was a meaningful outcome. For everyone else, a reminder that urban design happens one bollard—and one vote—at a time.
Rates, equity and the return of a familiar argument
After the café, rates. A resident from Oakville spoke for many when he said his rates had leapt 266% during a past change and special rate variation, and that shifting land values now bear little resemblance to actual services received. The Notice of Motion sought a report on options for a fairer structure, including revisiting a rural‑residential subcategory and improving concessions, in time for the 2026–27 year.
The debate was philosophical and sometimes prickly. One strain was simple consistency: “We cover everything that’s not business, mining or farmland as residential. In my mind, that is a fair way,” argued one councillor, pressing the case that fairness flows from treating like with like. Others pushed the horizontal‑equity point—similar access to services should mean closer bills—and criticised the “cookie‑cutter approach” that ignores wildly different circumstances across the city. Several called out long‑stagnant pensioner rebates as part of the problem.
A rival amendment to dilute the motion’s specificity was defeated. Then, and after roughly 80 minutes, the original motion carried.
Bushfire briefing and the Gazette in the crosshairs
Late in the night the chamber took up a Notice of Motion to convene the Disaster and Emergency Committee before year’s end and invite the Hawkesbury RFS to deliver a public, on‑the‑record briefing about preparedness and hazard reduction. It should have been the least controversial business of the evening. Instead, it began with a volley aimed squarely at this masthead. The Deputy Mayor alleged the council and RFS are “under attack by the Hawkesbury Gazette,” that people are “in tears” because of “misinformation” published about bushfire preparedness, and “there’s no trust anymore”.
Let’s pause for facts. The Gazette’s reporting on fire‑readiness has quoted the RFS and council directly, identified what’s confirmed and what is pending, and corrected errors when necessary. We also published a detailed explainer responding to these exact claims, with documents and transcripts linked for readers to check for themselves. If you’ve not read it, it’s here: Sarah McMahon Fires Back! But Her Claims Don’t Stack Up (20 Oct 2025) . The best antidote to suspicion is sunlight, so we welcome the committee hearing—because primary sources beat social‑media crossfire every time.
Back in the chamber, the motion’s supporters were clear about the aim: “Let’s get the experts in… and stop the misinformation through this committee meeting,” the mover said. Others stressed practical advice for households—tanks with usable outlets, clear access for trucks, and the unglamorous work of self‑preparedness. In an outbreak of rare harmony the motion passed unanimously. Good. We’ll be there—with our left‑handed desks—to live‑report whatever the RFS presents.
Odds and ends
In between, council ticked through “items of exception,” heritage committee minutes (with the usual recusals), and finally moved into confidential for the Australia Day awards. One public exchange about whether the Mayor would speak only to groups, not individual businesses, was quickly corrected on the record. Small moments, but they matter.
About those accusations
Because the Gazette was named, it’s only fair to answer in the same public forum. We make no apology for asking detailed questions about hazard reductions, mitigation works and communication. We publish source documents when we can, flag when information is incomplete, and correct when we err. We don’t doubt the sincerity of councillors or the dedication of our volunteers—none of whom were attacked in our pages. If anything, the chamber confirmed our thesis: invite the RFS, get the authoritative facts into the open, and park the heat so we can focus on the fire risk. That’s not an “attack”; that’s journalism. Again, our response piece set out why the claims don’t stack up, and it remains online for scrutiny .
We’ll close where we began: in the student seating. The tablet desks may be left‑handed, but we’ll take them as a sign—of progress, not politics. A clear view, a seat of our own, and a chamber willing to argue hard about café chairs and rate fairness and then vote to put the experts on the record. That’s the Hawkesbury way. We’ll keep showing up, pens at the ready, whether the desk swings left, right or—ideally—far enough to fit the truth comfortably in the middle.
