Greens, Yes!

Why do we allow the US to act like a failed state on climate change?

George Monbiot says what needs to be said (again).

See the original article online here.

The Waxman-Markey climate bill is the best we will get from America until the corruption of public life is addressed.

Whether he is seeking environmental reforms, health reforms or any other improvement in the life of the American people, Obama's real challenge is to address corruption of public life in the United States.

It would be laughable anywhere else. But, so everyone says, the Waxman-Markey bill which is likely to be passed in Congress today or tomorrow, is the best we can expect – from America.

The cuts it proposes are much lower than those being pursued in the UK or in most other developed nations. Like the UK's climate change act (pdf) the US bill calls for an 80% cut by 2050, but in this case the baseline is 2005, not 1990. Between 1990 and 2005, US carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels rose from 5.8 to 7bn tonnes.

The cut proposed by 2020 is just 17%, which means that most of the reduction will take place towards the end of the period. What this means is much greater cumulative emissions, which is the only measure that counts. Worse still, it is riddled with so many loopholes and concessions that the bill's measures might not offset the emissions from the paper it's printed on. You can judge the effectiveness of a US bill by its length: the shorter it is, the more potent it will be. This one is some 1,200 pages long, which is what happens when lobbyists have been at work.

There are mind-boggling concessions to the biofuels industry, including a promise not to investigate its wider environmental impacts. There's a provision to allow industry to use 2bn tonnes of carbon offsets a year, which include highly unstable carbon sinks like crop residues left in the soil (another concession won by the powerful farm lobby). These offsets are so generous that if all of them are used, US industry will have to make no carbon cuts at all until 2026.

Like the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS), Waxman-Markey would oblige companies to buy only a small proportion (15%) of their carbon permits. The rest will be given away. This means that a resource belonging to everyone (the right to pollute) is captured by industrial interests without public compensation. The more pollution companies have produced, the greater their free allocation will be – the polluter gets paid. It also means, if the ETS is anything to go by, that the big polluters will be able to make windfall profits by passing on the price of the permits they haven't bought to their consumers.

In one respect the bill actually waters down current legislation, by preventing the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating coal-burning power stations. If the new coal plants planned in the US are built, it's hard to see how even the feeble targets in this bill can be met, let alone any targets proposed by the science.

Even so, I would like to see the bill passed, as it at least provides a framework for future improvements. But why do we expect so little from the US? Why do we treat the world's most powerful and innovative nation as if it were a failed state, rejoicing at even the faintest suggestion of common sense?

You have only to read the comments that follow this article to find out. Thanks to the lobbying work of the coal and oil companies, and the vast army of thinktanks, PR consultants and astroturfers they have sponsored, thanks too to the domination of the airwaves by loony right shock jocks, the debate over issues like this has become so mad that any progress at all is little short of a miracle. The ranking Republican on the House energy and commerce committee is Joe Barton, the man who in 2005 launched a congressional investigation of three US scientists whose work reveals the historical pattern of climate change. Like those of many of his peers, his political career is kept on life support by the fossil fuel and electricity companies. He returns the favour by vociferously denying that manmade climate change exists.

A combination of corporate money and an unregulated corporate media keeps America in the dark ages. This bill is the best we're going to get for now because the corruption of public life in the United States has not been addressed. Whether he is seeking environmental reforms, health reforms or any other improvement in the life of the American people, this is Obama's real challenge.

Council Meeting 25 June 2009 Part 5

BULLOCK ISLAND RAIL CORRIDOR

As previously reported, I submitted on 29 May 2009 a Notice of Motion to clarify the possible future use of the “possible future transport corridor” through Wickham and to preclude future use of the corridor for major road or heavy rail development. It came to the Council meeting on 16 June 2009 and, in an appalling abuse of process, without the notification required under the Local Government Act, Cr Buman put forward a motion to support the Hunter Development Corporation’s proposal to cut the rail. Cr Tate supported Cr Buman’s abuse of process, see my previous posts here and here and here and here.

Although my rescission motion was dealing with an ordinary council item, it was placed on the agenda of this extraordinary meeting to deal with the management plan and rates and charges. Another unusual process...

Here's what happened...

ITEM-15 NOM 25/06/09 - RESCISSION MOTION - BULLOCK ISLAND RAIL CORRIDOR
PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF
PROCEDURAL MOTION
MOTION: (Councillor N Nelmes)
The Rescission Motion lay on the table and Council proceed to discuss the Lord Mayoral Minutes tabled earlier in the evening.

The procedural motion was put to the meeting and Councillor Nelmes called for a division which resulted as follows:

For the procedural motion Councillors N Nelmes, S Claydon, T Crakanthorp, M Jackson and M Osborne.
Against the procedural motion The Lord Mayor, Councillors G Boyd, A Buman, S Connell, B Cook, M King, B Luke and S Sharpe.

The procedural motion was declared defeated on the division of four votes to eight votes.

MOTION: (COUNCILLOR M OSBORNE)
Council rescind Part B of its decision of 16 June 2009 in respect of Notice of Motion Item 13 - Bullock Island Rail Corridor ie:

Pursuant to Council's unanimous motion on 2 December 2008 affirming our commitment to the revitalisation of the city centre as a key strategic priority, we now resolved:
1 That Council endorse the city revitalisation recommendations of the Hunter Development Corporation Report "Newcastle City Centre Renewal - March 2009".
2 That the General Manager bring to Council a report detailing the items contained in the Corporation's report which can be implemented by council forthwith subject to funding provision;
3 That the General Manager apply to the Major Cities Unit of the Australian Government for funding assistance to implement the recommendations of the Corporation's report;
4 That Council reaffirms its commitment to an integrated public transport system, including enhanced transport links to and from the City and the development of a modern transport interchange for future growth, and strongly advocates that the New South Wales Government endorses, plans for and funds the preferred transport options in the Corporation's report in conjunction with the outcomes of Council's Traffic and Transport Study including options for the Wickham Future Transport Corridor.

Councillor Buman drew it to Council's attention that the time was now 10.30pm.

PROCEDURAL MOTION
MOTION: (THE LORD MAYOR)
The meeting continue for the duration of this matter and no longer than 15 minutes.

The procedural motion was put to the meeting and Councillor Nelmes called for a division which resulted as follows:

For the procedural motion The Lord Mayor, Councillors G Boyd, A Buman, S Connell, B Cook, M King, B Luke and S Sharpe.
Against the procedural motion Councillors S Claydon, T Crakanthorp, N Nelmes, M Jackson and M Osborne.

The procedural motion was declared carried on the division of eight votes to five votes.

RESOLVED: (THE LORD MAYOR)
The meeting continue for the duration of this matter and no longer than 15 minutes.

Following discussion Councillor Luke moved the following procedural motion.

PROCEDURAL MOTION
MOTION: (COUNCILLOR B LUKE)
There being two speakers for and two against this matter, the motion be put.

The motion "to put the motion" was put to the meeting and a show of hands was
requested.

For the procedural motion 6
Against the procedural motion 7

The procedural motion was declared defeated on the division of six votes to seven votes.

Following further discussion and as the time had passed 10.45pm the Lord Mayor declared the meeting closed.

Note: No decision was made on the Rescission Motion.

The meeting concluded at 10.45pm.

Council Meeting 25 June 2009 Part 4

I spoke against the introduction of parking fees at Blackbutt, even if they were called Park Conservation Fees.

Here's what happened.

MOTION: (COUNCILLORS B COOK/G BOYD)
5.4.13 (Parks page 16) Adopt amendments - 5.4.13 (e) options 2a), and 2b) plus the words ‘by implementing Council’s November 2008 resolution’.

Councillor Nelmes asked the mover and seconder whether they would remove reference to the 10 small bird aviaries from Option 2a) and have the Blackbutt Working Group investigate their viability.

Councillor Cook indicated that he was not able to accept Councillor Nelmes' proposal.

AMENDMENT: (COUNCILLORS N NELMES/T CRAKANTHORP)
With regard to Option 2(a), Council retain animal enclosures and introduce Park Conservation Fees at Richley Reserve and Carnley Avenue Carparks. Lookout Road and Mahogany Drive carparks to remain free.

The Blackbutt Working Group with respect to economic development and sustainability will:
- Investigate the viability of the Blackbutt aviaries
- including the insurance money we are owed
- cost benefit analysis of removal/retention
- provide a report and recommendation to council within 3 months

Discussion then focused on the current insurance claim for the aviaries and the outcome of negotiations. The Acting Group Manager Corporate Services indicated that pending the insurance settlement a further report on the bird aviaries would be required to Council.

Several Councillors thought Council would be in a better position if it didn't adopt the recommendation to remove the aviaries at this stage.

Following discussion Councillor Luke moved a procedural motion that the matter lie on the table for three weeks.

The General Manager suggested an amendment that consideration of the aviaries be taken after the finalisation of the insurance negotiations.

Councillor Luke indicated that he would withdraw the procedural motion.

Councillor Nelmes then indicated that she would modify the amendment to remove the words remove 10 small bird aviaries only.

Councillor Cook advised that he would support removing the words from Option 2(a) in his motion.

The amendment was then put to the meeting and declared carried.

The Lord Mayor declared the motion amended.

The amended motion was put to the meeting and declared carried.

RESOLVED: (COUNCILLORS B COOK/G BOYD)
5.4.13 (Parks page 16) Adopt amendments - 5.4.13 (e) options 2a) as amended below, and 2b) plus the words ‘by implementing Council’s November 2008 resolution’. Council retain animal enclosures and introduce Park Conservation Fees at Richley Reserve and Carnley Avenue Carparks. Lookout Road and Mahogany Drive carparks to remain free.

Councillor Osborne wished his name recorded against voting for the resolution.

Council Meeting 25 June 2009 Part 3

Again, I tried to get the most compassionate rating structure adopted by Council, a structure that would have ensured that would have meant that 66% of the rates of households would not see a rate rise of more than 3.5%.

See my earlier post here.

Here's what happened at the meeting.

Councillors Luke and Cook moved that Council adopt a rates structure of 50% land value (ad valorem) with a 50% base amount for the residential category. (Note the business category has an ad valorem and minimum rating structure.)

I moved an amendment, seconded by Cr Jackson, that Council adopt rates determined by the ad valorem method with a minimum rate for the residential category rates consistent with the business rating structure and farmland rating structure.

After much debate...

Following the mover's right of reply the Lord Mayor put the amendment to the meeting and Councillor Osborne called for a division which resulted as follows:

For the amendment: Councillors S Claydon, T Crakanthorp, M Jackson, N Nelmes and M Osborne.
Against the amendment: The Lord Mayor, Councillors G Boyd, A Buman, S Connell, B Cook, M King, B Luke and S Sharpe.

The amendment was declared defeated on the division of five votes to eight votes.

Council Meeting 25 June 2009 Part 3

Community Forums

What an incredible debate! It was clear that what is meant by "Place Management Committees" is different for different people. Councillors and the public have still not been given any information of the Place Management Committees. And Council has not adopted a Place Management Strategy.

What is clear (and on the record), however, is that the existing Community Forums will continue to meet up until a time when the Place Management Committees (whatever form they take!) were established in their respective locations.

Here's what happened...

AMENDMENT: (COUNCILLORS S CLAYDON/M OSBORNE)
5.4.3 (Consultation page12) Adopt amendments - option 1 & 2 - Option 2 to read as follows:

The existing Community Forums and Residents Groups remain in place with current levels of support, pending a report from the General Manager detailing the role, structure and composition of the proposed Place Management Committees and an assessment of their costs and options for future funding.

Following brief discussion the Lord Mayor sought clarification that the existing Community Forums would continue to meet up until a time when the Place Management Committees were established in their respective locations. He was of the opinion this was implied in the motion.

The General Manager confirmed that this was how she viewed the situation.

Discussion focused on wording with regard to the continued operation of the Community Forums and the two month transition period.

The General Manager proposed that with respect to Option 2 the words during which time existing consultation mechanisms would remain in place be included.

Councillor Cook indicated that he would accept the additional words from the General Manager into the motion.

Councillor Boyd preferred such words added to Parts B or C to make a definite statement.

In light of what had been discussed the Lord Mayor asked the mover and seconder of the amendment to reconsider their position.

Following further discussion Councillor Buman moved that the motion be put.

PROCEDURAL MOTION
RESOLVED: (Councillor A Buman)The motion "to put the motion" be put to the meeting.

The amendment from Councillors Claydon and Osborne and as enunciated by the General Manager was then put to the meeting and declared carried.

Councillor Buman then moved that the vote be recommitted and requested a five minute recess to determine a form of words as anomalies appeared in what Council was attempting to resolve.

PROCEDURAL MOTION
RESOLVED: (Councillors A Buman)The vote be recommitted.

PROCEDURAL MOTION
RESOLVED: (Councillors A Buman)Council call a five minute recess.

Council reconvened at 9.51pm.

The General Manager reported that Option 2 stated Recommendations b) and c) be adopted with the following change and the following change was that Place Committees be introduced within two months and the make up of the Committees was to be determined with existing Council consultation groups.

She further stated that for clarification the words during which time existing consultation mechanisms would remain in place had been added.

The General Manager confirmed that b) and c) were intended to stay in existence while Option 2 transitional arrangements occurred.

Councillors Claydon and Osborne indicated that they would withdraw the amendment.

The Lord Mayor reconfirmed that the motion from Councillors Cook and Boyd was before the Chair.

Councillors Cook and Boyd indicated that they had accepted the proposed wording from the General Manager into the motion.

The motion was put to the meeting and declared carried.

Council Meeting 25 June 2009 Part 2

In a bizarre move at the Council meeting, Cr Boyd and other conservatives have made a Council grant to three environmental organisations conditional on being consistent with Council economic and tourism strategy but refused to include Council's environmental management plan.

MOTION: (Councillors B Cook/G Boyd)Grants and subsidies (page 10)

Hunter Valley Research Foundation – option 3

Hunter Region Botanic Gardens – new words – (option 3) Funding up to $10,000 to be provided subject to provision of a project application supported by a business plan relating to Council’s economic and tourism strategy’. Any future requests for funding to be made to Council’s Community Grants Program”.

Kooragang Wetlands – new words – (option 3) Funding of up to $80,000 to be provided subject to Kooragang Wetlands preparing a project based Memorandum of Understanding for up to 3 years consistent with Council’s economic and tourism strategy”. Any future requests for funding to be made to Council’s Community Grants Program”.

Hunter Wetlands – new words – (option 3) Funding of up to $10,000 to be provided subject to provision of a project application supported by a business plan relating to Council’s economic and tourism strategy. Any future requests for funding to be made to Council’s Community Grants Program”.

Councillor Osborne asked the mover and seconder if they would include Council's Environmental Management Plan in the conditional funding given the three organisations were environmentally based.

Councillor Cook indicated that he would accept Councillor Osborne's proposal.

Councillor Boyd indicated that he would not accept Councillor Osborne's proposal and outlined the reasons for his rejection.

AMENDMENT: (COUNCILLORS M OSBORNE/N NELMES)
Grants and subsidies (page 10)

Hunter Valley Research Foundation – option 3

Hunter Region Botanic Gardens – new words – (option 3) Funding up to $10,000 to be provided subject to provision of a project application supported by a business plan relating to Council’s Environmental Management Plan and economic and tourism strategy’. Any future requests for funding to be made to Council’s Community Grants Program”.

Kooragang Wetlands – new words – (option 3) Funding of up to $80,000 to be provided subject to Kooragang Wetlands preparing a project based Memorandum of Understanding for up to 3 years consistent with Council's Environmental Management Plan and economic and tourism strategy”. Any future requests for funding to be made to Council’s Community Grants Program”.

Hunter Wetlands – new words – (option 3) Funding of up to $10,000 to be provided subject to provision of a project application supported by a business plan relating to Council's Environmental Management Plan and economic and tourism strategy. Any future requests for funding to be made to Council’s Community Grants Program”.

The amendment was put to the meeting and Councillor Osborne called for a division which results as follows:

For the amendment: Councillors S Connell, S Claydon, Crakanthorp, M Jackson, N Nelmes and M Osborne.
Against the amendment: The Lord Mayor, Councillors G Boyd, A Buman, B Cook, M King, B Luke and S Sharpe.

The amendment was declared defeated on the division of six votes to seven votes.

The motion was then put to the meeting and declared carried.

Council meeting 25 June 2009 Part 1

The Loft

Here's what happened at the Council meeting on 25 June 2009 regarding The Loft youth venue...

PROCEDURAL MOTION RESOLVED: (Councillor M Osborne)
The Loft Youth Venue be dealt with first.

MOTION: (Councillors B Cook/G Boyd)
5.4.19 (Youth page 18) Adopt amendments - 5.4.19 Option 2, as amended to read:

Continue to use the current venue for a period of up to 2 years, pending the development of a Youth Services Strategy to determine an appropriate service delivery model for a city-wide distributed youth service that provides:
(a) maintain the current venue service
(b) develop expansion and enhancement of programs throughout the LGA through increased promotion of The Loft brand
(c) improve financial sustainability by optimising income through a range of initiatives (eg. co-tenant agreement, increase in venue and facility hire, identify membership benefits to encourage greater membership, and expand the range of successful grant applications)
(d) continued enhanced development of existing networks (eg. facilitation and co-operation with other organisations to develop and deliver programs throughout the region)
(e) contribution to inner city activation by usage of the existing site over an increased spread of hours and encouragement of intergenerational collaboration
(f) the development plan for a, b, c, d, and e to include key performance indicators with a focus on achievement of both performance and financial outcomes with milestones to be achieved and reported on to the General Manager
(g) the role of The Loft facility be added to the Community Facilities review under the Sustainability Review, and
(h) that the General Manager provide a progress report and recommendations to Council on the development of a Youth Services Strategy by April 2010.

Councillor Luke gave notice of a Foreshadowed Motion that being Option 1 and the sustainability review recommendation be adopted as exhibited.

Councillor Jackson indicated his support for the motion however asked the mover whether he would consider removing part (g) from the motion.

Councillor Cook indicated that he was not prepared to remove part (g) from the motion.

Councillor Claydon then moved an amendment that being Option 2 (page 18), ie

Pending the development of a Youth Strategy to determine and appropriate service delivery model including broader distributed Youth Services, maintain the current venue for a period of 5 years to enable:
a) Expansion and enhancement of outreach programs throughout the LGA through further promotion of "The Loft" as an identifiable brand.
b) Improved financial sustainability by optimizing income through a range of initiatives - eg via co-tenant agreement, increase venue and facility hire, identify membership benefits to encourage membership, expand range of grants pursued.
c) Continued development of existing networks eg - facilitation and co-operation with other organisations to develop and deliver programs through the region.
d) Contribution to inner city activation by usage of the existing site over an increased spread of hours and encouragement of intergenerational collaboration.

Councillor Luke questioned whether the amendment was in order.

Councillor Osborne suggested that the motion be modified and put forward as an amendment by proposing continued use of the current venue for a period of up to 5 years and the exclusion of parts (g) and (h).

Councillor Claydon advised that she accepted these changes and moved her amendment as follows:

AMENDMENT: (COUNCILLORS S CLAYDON/M OSBORNE)
5.4.19 (Youth p18) Adopt amendments - 5.4.19 Option 2, as amended to read:
Continue to use the current venue for a period of up to 5 years, pending the development of a Youth Services Strategy to determine an appropriate service delivery model for a city-wide distributed youth service that provides:
(a) maintain the current venue service
(b) develop expansion and enhancement of programs throughout the LGA through increased promotion of The Loft brand
(c) improve financial sustainability by optimising income through a range of initiatives (eg. co-tenant agreement, increase in venue and facility hire, identify membership benefits to encourage greater membership, and expand the range of successful grant applications)
(d) continued enhanced development of existing networks (eg. facilitation and co-operation with other organisations to develop and deliver programs throughout the region)
(e) contribution to inner city activation by usage of the existing site over an increased spread of hours and encouragement of intergenerational collaboration
(f) the development plan for a, b, c, d, and e to include key performance indicators with a focus on achievement of both performance and financial outcomes with milestones to be achieved and reported on to the General Manager.

Following discussion the amendment was put to the meeting and Councillor Osborne called for a division which resulted as follows:

For the amendment Councillors S Connell, S Claydon, T Crakanthorp, M Jackson, N Nelmes and M Osborne.
Against the amendment The Lord Mayor, Councillors G Boyd, A Buman, B Cook, M King, B Luke and S Sharpe.

The amendment was declared defeated on the division of six votes to seven votes.

Following the mover's right of reply the motion was put to the meeting and the Lord Mayor called for a division which resulted as follows:

For the motion The Lord Mayor, Councillors G Boyd, S Claydon, S Connell, B Cook, T Crakanthorp, N Nelmes and M Jackson.
Against the motion Councillors A Buman, M King, B Luke, M Osborne and S Sharpe.

The motion was declared carried on the division of eight votes to five votes.

The Business lobby's inside running

Summary of properties across our suburbs

Council managed parks and reserves

Saving the youth venue

The Commitment to Young People, 1997, made by Newcastle City Council was an important step in the city’s approach to our youth. The Loft was a great initiative to support this commitment.

The role of The Loft is one of youth development, by providing “diverse, meaningful and relevant arts and cultural activities” (Sustainability Review Report, p.99).

The impressive range and quality of the services offered by The Loft, and the significant benefits that accrue from them to both young people and the general community are clearly evident in the material provided in the Sustainability Review Report Appendices, and these benefits are not contested in any of the report documentation.

Did you know? The site of the current Youth Venue is the Council-owned heritage-significant former School of Arts building and the site of one of the city’s earliest libraries.

Evidence in the Sustainability Review Report documentation supports the view that a strategic review of youth services might identify an even more important role for The Loft (for example, see Sustainability Review Report Appendices, p.186 mentions that the Loft is in an excellent location to provide an identified unmet need for a welfare based drop-in service for young people).

Multiplier Effect
Material in the Sustainability Review Report Appendices states that The Loft attracted $273,000 of external funding in four years (Appendices, p.169). In this sense, The Loft’s activities provide the Newcastle community with significant added value to the investment that council makes in funding it. This multiplier effect is not acknowledged in the main Sustainability Review Report.

Lame
The surprising statement in the Sustainability Review Report that “The Loft ... does not provide welfare services or spiritual development services” appears to be a lame attempt to point to a deficiency in The Loft’s services, as some kind of argument for its closure. The statement is neither accurate nor fair.

In fact, as the material in the Sustainability Review Report Appendix confirms, The Loft does actually provide some welfare services (for example, the Project Coordinator’s brief involves working with disadvantaged and marginalised young people Sustainability Review Report Appendices, pp.168-169).

But the primary purpose of The Loft was never to provide welfare services – its role is one of youth development, by providing “diverse, meaningful and relevant arts and cultural activities” Sustainability Review Report, p.99).

Nor was The Loft ever intended to provide “spiritual development”. In fact, most other youth services in Newcastle are provided by organisations closely linked to churches, so a service that operates in a secular environment makes a significant contribution to the diversity of local youth services, and this should be perceived as a strength rather than a weakness.

The Report’s resort to this odd and irrelevant reference to The Loft’s perceived deficiency in providing services that it was never intended to provide is a reflection of both a lack of apparent appreciation in the report for the role of The Loft (despite the abundant information in the documentation that explains and exemplifies this), and an indication of the failure of the Sustainability Review Report to make any substantive case in favour of closing The Loft.

Payback Period
The Sustainability Review Report does not mention the more relevant statement in the Appendices (p.189) that “it would be prudent to provide at least 5 to 10 years of continued excellence in provision of youth services to make the capital investment [of relocating to The Loft building] worthwhile”. On this basis, a decision to close The Loft would be financially imprudent.

Back to the Future
The option recommended by the Sustainability Review Report (that is, closing The Loft and selling the venue) was specifically considered in the Service Review of The Loft undertaken in 2007. That review concluded that:

This model would create the highest level of savings for Council, however it would also ignore the identified needs of young people in the community. This would constitute a net loss to youth services in Newcastle as no other providers are likely to fill the gap in the short- to medium-term future.

...this model contradicts Council’s commitment to youth, reduces Council’s ability to implement strategies in the Community Plan, and it may also be problematic to convert the existing premises into viable commercial space.

(Sustainability Review Report Appendices, pp.195-6)

Nothing has changed to alter the validity of these arguments.

Context
At a time when unemployment and dislocation among young people is increasing there is an urgent need for the Loft to remain in its current position and to continue to provide its valuable services.

Commitment to Youth

Newcastle City Council acknowledged that young people are an integral part of the community of Newcastle in 1997...

Home

This is an amazing film...

We are living in exceptional times. Scientists tell us that we have 10 years to change the way we live, avert the depletion of natural resources and the catastrophic evolution of the Earth's climate.


The stakes are high for us and our children. Everyone should take part in the effort, and HOME has been conceived to take a message of mobilization out to every human being.

See the film here.

Tate votes against transparency

From the Newcastle Herald, Friday 19 June 09

Buman: community comments crap

From the Newcastle Herald, Thursday 18 June 2009

National Men's Health Week

I had the pleasure in speaking at the Newcastle Men's Health and Wellbeing Forum tonight.

Other speakers were:

• Mr John Roberts, Benevolent Society, Coordinator of Men's Community Development Network
• Mr Greg Millan, Australian Men's Health Forum, and local men’s health consultant (Greg's slides are shown below)
• Associate Professor Pauline Chiarelli, from the School of Health Sciences, University of Newcastle
• Mr Kim Hopkins, Men's Shed Co-ordinator, Central Coast

The key message from the Forum was that until we have a National Men's Health Policy in place, real improvement won't eventuate. The Federal Government is working on such a policy, see here.

There is a lot of action locally to improve men's health and wellbeing. Newcastle Council's current Community Plan specifically mentions Men's Health and Wellbeing (see below) and outlines some key strategies for Council.



When I enquired about Council's progress on these strategies, this is the response I received.

I refer to Councillor Osborne’s request and advise that the Community Plan 2006–2010 was adopted by Newcastle City Council on 13 December 2005. It provides a strategic overview of key trends and issues that the community (including Council) will need to address over the next five years.

One of the key target groups identified in the Community Plan were Men with a focus on the changing roles and expectations affecting the lives of men as individuals now and in future generations. Major issues impacting on men were recognised as health (both physical and emotional), parenting roles, access to services and, meaningful contribution and accomplishment outside of a work environment.

The Community Plan nominated a series of strategies aimed at supporting men in responding to these impacts and changes. The strategies aimed to impact most directly on men’s health included:

- Encouraging programs which address the emotional and physical health needs of men
- Encouraging and supporting initiatives to develop the Men’s Shed concept
- Exploring the feasibility of establishing an information delivery hub.

Over the past two years the following has been achieved in the community to support men’s health:

- Ongoing support has been provided for the Family Action Centre who have developed a Fathers Inclusive Practice Framework to address men’s needs.
- The Benevolent Society were successful in applying for Area Assistance Scheme 2006 funding for the ‘Men Accessing Resources and Services’ MARS Project. The aim of the project is to improve men’s awareness of and access to services.
- Dads in Distress were successful in applying for Community Development Support Expenditure (CDSE) Scheme 2006 funding to provide a Coordinator to establish more support groups for dads who are often suicidal. The program provides a safe place for men to vent and to develop strategies to maintain contact with their children.
- Prostate Cancer Foundation received CDSE Scheme 2006 funding for the ongoing development of local groups to support men recently diagnosed or concerned about prostate cancer and raise community awareness about the importance of regular medical check ups and latest developments in therapy and treatment.
- NCC continues to support the Aids Council of NSW (ACON) particularly in the areas of ageing and crime prevention. This includes an on-going partnership with police and ACON on the BEATS project which promotes safety for gay men and the wider community and Council support for the Aids Memorial Park in Carrington which is dedicated to people who died of Aids and their families.
- NCC has also provided $15,000 for an integrated case management model to support the Street Workers in the Islington area. This directly impacts on men’s health by promoting safe sex and improves the overall health and safety of the wider community.

These initiatives were identified in the annual Community Plan progress reports undertaken January 2006-July 2007 and July 2007-June 2008. The third progress report of the Plan and initiatives undertaken is scheduled to occur in the second half or this year.

Brent Knowles

Blatant breach of due process

From the Newcastle Herald, Wednesday 17 June 2009

Council meeting 16 June 2009

The two meetings considered a range of items, including those mentioned below.

Council endorses "cut-the-rail" recommendation

See an account below of the Shenanigans of Cr Buman and the appalling chairing of the Lord Mayor, while the conservative councillors (The Lord Mayor, Councillors G Boyd, A Buman, B Cook, M King, B Luke and S Sharpe) back cutting the Newcastle rail line (including the current secretary of the Hunter Commuter Council, Cr Boyd!).

The restoration of City Hall

Councillors heard a briefing from the Project Team, including Mr D Ballantyne (Manager, Civic Precinct – Newcastle), Mr Hari Gohil (Shreeji Consultants Structural Engineer), Mr Bruce Pettman (Principal Heritage Architect Government Architect’s Office) and Mr Russell Lloyd (Blackadder and Associates).

The Project Team will be carrying out investigative and restoration work on the north east exterior of City Hall. Once the extent of the repairs needed is scoped, the work on the full restoration of City Hall will go to tender.

It is envisaged that half of the exterior stonework will be replaced.

Outdoor Dining

Changes to the Newcastle Development Control Plan 2005, Element 4.9 - Outdoor Dining arising from my notice of motion were unanimously adopted by Council after they'd been on public exhibition.

Council secrecy

The (long-running) Code of Conduct matter was finally resolved by Council, accepting the independent reviewers recommendation:

1. Council receive and note the contents of the annexed report.
2. Council takes no action against Councillor Osborne, the subject of the complaint.
3. Council move into Confidential Session for any discussion of the report or ATTACHMENT A.

Tenders

During the debate on the awarding of Council's biennial tenders, I foreshadowed that I would move a motion to improve the transparency of Council's tendering process by requiring all tenderers to declare who their Directors and Shareholders were.

This was about improving transparency (who knows who gave political donations to whom?) and restoring public confidence in the Council.

The Lord Mayor John Tate used his casting vote to defeat the motion.

FORESHADOWED MOTION: (Councillors M Osborne/T Crakanthorp)

Tenderers be required to provide the Directors and the shareholders of their Company when they tender.

Following discussion Councillor Claydon proposed that the wording be as follows:

Tenderers be required to provide the Directors and the major or significant shareholders of their Company when they tender.

The Motion was put to the meeting and Councillor Osborne called for a division which resulted as follows:

For the Motion: Councillors S Claydon, T Crakanthorp, M Jackson, M King, N Nelmes and M Osborne.

Against the Motion: The Lord Mayor, Councillors G Boyd, A Buman, B Cook, B Luke and S Sharpe.

As the voting resulted in a tied vote the Lord Mayor exercised his casting vote and declared the Motion defeated.

Councillor Nelmes retired from the Council Chamber prior to the commencement of this item.

Hunter Councils

The Board of Hunter Councils has decided to establish Strategic Advisory Groups in the area of:

• Economic Development and Infrastructure,
• Community and Cultural Development, and
• Environment.

The roles and responsibilities of the Strategic Advisory Groups will be:
1.1 To have input to the development and implementation of strategic, regional positions that will enhance (economic development and infrastructure / cultural and community development / the environment) within the Hunter Region

1.2 To identify areas of opportunity and priority in relation to (economic development and infrastructure / cultural and community development / the environment) and to recommend to the Board appropriate responses to those areas of opportunity and priority

1.3 To provide a forum for discussion of regionally significant (economic development and infrastructure / cultural and community development /environmental) issues

1.4 To receive input from outside agencies in relation to areas of the Advisory Group’s responsibility and to determine the potential for that input to inform wider Board deliberations on those matters.

I was elected to the Hunter Councils Environment Strategic Advisory Strategic Group. Cr Scott Sharpe was elected to the Hunter Councils Cultural and Community Development Strategic Advisory Group. Cr Brad Luke was elected to the Hunter Council’s Economic Development and Infrastructure Strategic Advisory Group.

Child Care Centre leases

The staff had put up a report to jack up the rent for seven child care centre leases from a peppercorn ($1 plus GST!) to $7,725. The Liberal Cr Luke pushed for this to be adopted but luckily we got the matter deferred pending the Sustainability Review.

The child care centres are managed and operated by community management committees from facilities provided by Council for that purpose:

• Adamstown Child Care Centre, 210 Gosford Road, Adamstown
• Hamilton Child Care Centre, 207 Denison Street, Hamilton
• Elermore Vale Early Learning Centre, 129 Croudace Road, Elermore Vale
• Merindah Child Care Centre 28 Bunn Street Wallsend
• Maryland Care and Early Education Centre, 34 Boundary Road, Maryland
• Jesmond Early Education Centre, 56 Mordue Parade, Jesmond
• Glendore Child care Centre, 6 Glendore Parade, Maryland

RESOLVED: (Councillors M Jackson/M Osborne)
Council defer the renewal of leases/sub lease for seven child care centres which are proposed to be for a five year term on the basis that Children’s Services (including these centres) are scheduled to be reviewed by the Sustainability Review in July/August 2009.

Council endorses 'cut-the-rail' recommendation

Tonight, Council was the scene of an appalling process to endorse a recommendation to cut the Newcastle rail line.

Here's what happened when my Notice of Motion regarding a planning matter in Wickham came before Council...

NOM 16/06/09 - BULLOCK ISLAND RAIL CORRIDOR

Councillor Crakanthorp had declared a non pecuniary, non significant interest earlier and retired from the Council Chamber prior to the commencement of the item.

MOTION: (Councillors M Osborne/S Claydon)

Newcastle City Council initiate relevant clarifications or amendment to environmental planning instruments associated with the possible future use of the former Bullock Island rail corridor in Wickham (referred to as the "Possible Future Transport Corridor" shown on the gazetted Wickham Redevelopment Area Map (sheet WRA - 001) of the Newcastle City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2008) to ensure that:

1. 1. the instruments reflect the objective of the Wickham DCP for stronger pedestrian links between the residential area and Wickham Park
2. 2. the corridor is developed in accordance with the Wickham DCP and is retained for future pedestrian-friendly, ecologically sustainable transport (such as rail trams, light rail and cycleways) development, and
3. 3. the instruments specifically preclude future use of the corridor for major road or heavy rail development

FORESHADOWED MOTION: (Councillors A Buman)

PART A

Newcastle City Council initiate relevant clarifications or amendment to environmental planning instruments associated with the possible future use of the former Bullock Island rail corridor in Wickham (referred to as the "Possible Future Transport Corridor" shown on the gazetted Wickham Redevelopment Area Map (sheet WRA - 001) of the Newcastle City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2008) to ensure that:

1. 1. the instruments reflect the objective of the Wickham DCP for stronger pedestrian links between the residential area and Wickham Park
2. 2. the corridor is developed in accordance with the Wickham DCP and is retained for future pedestrian-friendly, ecologically sustainable transport (such as rail trams, light rail and cycleways) development, and
3. 3. the instruments specifically preclude future use of the corridor for major road or heavy rail development

PART B

Pursuant to council’s unanimous Motion on 2 December 2008 affirming our commitment to the revitalisation of the City centre as a key strategic priority, Council now resolves:

1. 1. Council endorse the City Revitalisation recommendations of the Hunter Development Corporation Report “Newcastle City Centre Renewal – March 2009”,
2. 2. The General Manager bring to Council a report detailing the items contained in the Corporation’s report which can be implemented by Council forthwith subject to funding provision;
3. 3. The General Manager apply to the Major Cities Unit of the Australian Government for funding assistance to implement the recommendations of the Corporation’s report;
4. 4. Council reaffirms its commitment to an integrated public transport system, including enhanced transport links to and from the City and the development of a modern transport interchange for future growth, and strongly advocates that the New South Wales Government endorses, plans for and fund the preferred transport options in the Corporation’s report in conjunction with the outcomes of Council’s Traffic and Transport Study including options for the Wickham Future Transport Corridor.

PROCEDURAL MOTION: (Councillor M King)
RESOLVED: (Councillor M King)
The meeting adjourn for a five minute recess.

The Council reconvened at 8.19pm.

POINT OF ORDER (Councillor Osborne)
That Part B be ruled out of order and is not relevant to the Notice of Motion.

The Lord Mayor advised that Part B addresses incorporates information which addresses Part A which addressed transport in the City so therefore he did not uphold the Point of Order.

Councillor Osborne moved dissent regarding the Lord Mayor’s ruling.

MOTION: (The Lord Mayor)
Chairman’s ruling be upheld.

The Lord Mayor called for a division which resulted as follows:

For the Motion: The Lord Mayor, Councillors G Boyd, A Buman, B Cook, B Luke and S Sharpe.
Against the Motion: Councillors S Claydon, M Jackson, M King, N Nelmes and M Osborne.

The Lord Mayor declared the Chairman’s ruling be upheld on the result of six votes to five votes.

RESOLVED: (The Lord Mayor)
Chairman’s ruling be upheld.

POINT OF ORDER (Councillor Nelmes)
Councillor Nelmes raised a point of order in relation to the Foreshadowed Motion and that Councillor Crakanthorp had declared a non pecuniary, non significant interest due to his parents-in-law owning land adjacent to the Bullock Rail Corridor but he has not such interest on Part B which would not let him vote on Part B.

Councillor Nelmes stated that the HDC report is not just about transport. It was about very positive things such as moving the University to the City and how would such a topic have anything to do with Bullock Rail Corridor.

The Lord Mayor ruled on the Point of Order and declared that he did not uphold the Point of Order.

The Motion was put to the meeting and Councillor Osborne called for a division which resulted as follows:

For the Motion: Councillors S Claydon, M Jackson, N Nelmes and M Osborne.
Against the Motion: The Lord Mayor, Councillors G Boyd, A Buman, B Cook, M King, B Luke and S Sharpe.

The Lord Mayor declared the Motion defeated on the result of four votes to seven votes.

FORESHADOWED MOTION: (Councillors A Buman)

PART A

Newcastle City Council initiate relevant clarifications or amendment to environmental planning instruments associated with the possible future use of the former Bullock Island rail corridor in Wickham (referred to as the "Possible Future Transport Corridor" shown on the gazetted Wickham Redevelopment Area Map (sheet WRA - 001) of the Newcastle City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2008) to ensure that:

1. 1. the instruments reflect the objective of the Wickham DCP for stronger pedestrian links between the residential area and Wickham Park
2. 2. the corridor is developed in accordance with the Wickham DCP and is retained for future pedestrian-friendly, ecologically sustainable transport (such as rail trams, light rail and cycleways) development, and
3. the instruments specifically preclude future use of the corridor for major road or heavy r3. ail development

PART B

Pursuant to council’s unanimous Motion on 2 December 2008 affirming our commitment to the revitalisation of the City centre as a key strategic priority, Council now resolves:

1. 1. Council endorse the City Revitalisation recommendations of the Hunter Development Corporation Report “Newcastle City Centre Renewal – March 2009”,
2. 2. The General Manager bring to Council a report detailing the items contained in the Corporation’s report which can be implemented by Council forthwith subject to funding provision;
3. 3. The General Manager apply to the Major Cities Unit of the Australian Government for funding assistance to implement the recommendations of the Corporation’s report;
4. 4. Council reaffirms its commitment to an integrated public transport system, including enhanced transport links to and from the City and the development of a modern transport interchange for future growth, and strongly advocates that the New South Wales Government endorses, plans for and fund the preferred transport options in the Corporation’s report in conjunction with the outcomes of Council’s Traffic and Transport Study including options for the Wickham Future Transport Corridor.

PROCEDURAL MOTION: (Councillor M Osborne)
The matter be dealt with in seriatim.

A show of hands was called for which resulted as follows:

For the Motion: 7
Against the Motion: 4

The Lord Mayor declared the Motion carried on the results of seven votes to four votes.

RESOLVED: (Councillor M Osborne)
The matter be dealt with in seriatim.

MOTION: (Councillors A Buman/B Luke)

PART A

Newcastle City Council initiate relevant clarifications or amendment to environmental planning instruments associated with the possible future use of the former Bullock Island rail corridor in Wickham (referred to as the "Possible Future Transport Corridor" shown on the gazetted Wickham Redevelopment Area Map (sheet WRA - 001) of the Newcastle City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2008) to ensure that:

1. 1. the instruments reflect the objective of the Wickham DCP for stronger pedestrian links between the residential area and Wickham Park
2. 2. the corridor is developed in accordance with the Wickham DCP and is retained for future pedestrian-friendly, ecologically sustainable transport (such as rail trams, light rail and cycleways) development, and
3. 3. the instruments specifically preclude future use of the corridor for major road or heavy rail development

The Motion was put to the meeting and Councillor Osborne called for a division which resulted as follows:

For the Motion: The Lord Mayor, Councillors G Boyd, A Buman, S Claydon, M Jackson, M King, B Luke, N Nelmes, M Osborne and S Sharpe.
Against the Motion: Councillor B Cook.

The Lord Mayor declared the Motion carried on the result of ten votes to one votes.

RESOLVED: (Councillors A Buman/B Luke)

PART A

Newcastle City Council initiate relevant clarifications or amendment to environmental planning instruments associated with the possible future use of the former Bullock Island rail corridor in Wickham (referred to as the "Possible Future Transport Corridor" shown on the gazetted Wickham Redevelopment Area Map (sheet WRA - 001) of the Newcastle City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2008) to ensure that:

1. 1. the instruments reflect the objective of the Wickham DCP for stronger pedestrian links between the residential area and Wickham Park
2. 2. the corridor is developed in accordance with the Wickham DCP and is retained for future pedestrian-friendly, ecologically sustainable transport (such as rail trams, light rail and cycleways) development, and
3. 3. the instruments specifically preclude future use of the corridor for major road or heavy rail development

Councillor Crakanthorp returned to the Council Chamber at this point.

MOTION: (Councillors A Buman/B Luke)

PART B

Pursuant to council’s unanimous Motion on 2 December 2008 affirming our commitment to the revitalisation of the City centre as a key strategic priority, Council now resolves:

1. 1. Council endorse the City Revitalisation recommendations of the Hunter Development Corporation Report “Newcastle City Centre Renewal – March 2009”,
2. 2. The General Manager bring to Council a report detailing the items contained in the Corporation’s report which can be implemented by Council forthwith subject to funding provision;
3. 3. The General Manager apply to the Major Cities Unit of the Australian Government for funding assistance to implement the recommendations of the Corporation’s report;
4. 4. Council reaffirms its commitment to an integrated public transport system, including enhanced transport links to and from the City and the development of a modern transport interchange for future growth, and strongly advocates that the New South Wales Government endorses, plans for and fund the preferred transport options in the Corporation’s report in conjunction with the outcomes of Council’s Traffic and Transport Study including options for the Wickham Future Transport Corridor.

PROCEDURAL MOTION: (Councillor M Jackson)
Councillor Jackson moved a motion of dissent on the Lord Mayor’s ruling that Part B be considered.

The Chairman’s ruling be upheld.

A division was called and which resulted as follows:

For the Motion: The Lord Mayor, Councillors G Boyd, A Buman, B Cook, M King, B Luke and S Sharpe.
Against the Motion: Councillors S Claydon, T Crakanthorp, M Jackson, N Nelmes and M Osborne.

The Lord Mayor declared the Motion to uphold the Chairman’s ruling was carried on the result of seven votes to five votes.

PROCEDURAL MOTION: (Councillor N Nelmes)
Part B lie on the table.

The Motion was put to the meeting and Councillor Jackson called for a division which resulted as follows:

For the Motion: Councillors S Claydon, T Crakanthorp, M Jackson, N Nelmes and M Osborne.
Against the Motion: The Lord Mayor, Councillors G Boyd, A Buman, B Cook, M King, B Luke and S Sharpe.

The Lord Mayor declared the Motion defeated on the result of five votes to seven votes.

Following the discussion Councillors S Claydon, T Crakanthorp, M Jackson, N Nelmes and M Osborne left the Council Chamber.

The Lord Mayor put the Motion to the meeting and declared it carried.

RESOLVED: (Councillors A Buman/B Luke)

PART B

Pursuant to council’s unanimous Motion on 2 December 2008 affirming our commitment to the revitalisation of the City centre as a key strategic priority, Council now resolves:

1. 1. Council endorse the City Revitalisation recommendations of the Hunter Development Corporation Report “Newcastle City Centre Renewal – March 2009”,
2. 2. The General Manager bring to Council a report detailing the items contained in the Corporation’s report which can be implemented by Council forthwith subject to funding provision;
3. 3. The General Manager apply to the Major Cities Unit of the Australian Government for funding assistance to implement the recommendations of the Corporation’s report;
4. 4. Council reaffirms its commitment to an integrated public transport system, including enhanced transport links to and from the City and the development of a modern transport interchange for future growth, and strongly advocates that the New South Wales Government endorses, plans for and fund the preferred transport options in the Corporation’s report in conjunction with the outcomes of Council’s Traffic and Transport Study including options for the Wickham Future Transport Corridor.

Following the conclusion of the Notice of Motion Councillor Buman retired from the meeting at 9pm.

Hmmm Complaint (finally) resolved

It's important that councillors don't allow themselves to be so intimidated by Code of Conduct complaints that they stop playing their role as watchdogs over poor administrative practices. Council will consider a report of a Code of Conduct complaint against me by a former Group Manager tomorrow night.

The report (shown below) recommends "no action". Case dismissed. Case closed.

It all started when I questioned anomolies (well, things left out) of Council's Annual Report, see my post from November 2007 and from March 2008.

The Department of Local Government Promoting Better Practice Review Report confirmed what I was saying, but still the administration refused to release the information. Note the memo from the "relieving General Manager" who is the "former Group Manager".

This secrecy around the expenditure of public funds was against the law.

When I questioned the sizeable expenditure of public funds on "training" overseas by two Group Managers (a few days conference in a several week holiday), I was slapped with a Code of Conduct complaint. Well, the actual complaint didn't arrive until late November 2008.

When the complaint was reviewed by an independent reviewer and reported to Council (in accordance with the procedure laid out in the Code of Conduct), Council was slapped with a letter from lawyers and the report was pulled at the last minute.

Around the same time, Council's Annual Report had missed that there was expenditure on overseas trips. Ooops how did that happen?

This kind of action is not new of course. Some interesting points are made in my earlier posts: How far behind is NSW? and Don't be SLAPPed after criticising Council Administration and More slapping than a line dancing convention.

The Group Manager in question is now "former" and the report comes to Council tomorrow night.

So long and thanks for the fish!

Breaking news

Complaint lodged with ACCC over ‘misleading’ corporate carbon claims

The Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Climate Justice Program have asked the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to investigate whether six companies have engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct when making public statements on climate change policy.

The complaint (see below) sets out 14 instances in which six corporations have made statements about the impacts of the Government’s proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS).

The complaint alleges these statements are exaggerated and contradictory when compared with the companies’ disclosures to shareholders and independent analysis.

The six companies named in the complaint are Rio Tinto, Woodside, Xstrata, Boral, Caltex and BlueScope Steel.

“We believe there is a prima facie case for investigating possible breaches of the Trade Practices Act,” said ACF executive director Don Henry.

“Some of Australia’s biggest corporate polluters appear to be presenting the worst case to government and the public, in an effort to gain excessive free permits, while presenting the best case to investors, in order to keep their share prices up.

“We are asking the ACCC to investigate whether our politicians, policymakers and the public have been deceived by the likes of Rio Tinto, Woodside and Xstrata.

Recent analysis by RiskMetrics shows corporate welfare has blown out to $16.4 billion under the most recent version of the emissions trading legislation.

“It is reprehensible for corporations to be saying one thing to politicians and the public and something completely different to their shareholders,” Mr Henry said.

“Big polluters shouldn’t get a free ride under the emissions trading scheme just because they’ve got the loudest voices.

“ACF urges business to be part of the solution to climate change, not just part of the problem.