Michael Osborne: Greens Councillor on Newcastle City Council

Newcastle Greens say more than $6 billion should go to households

2011-06-24T08:33:00.002+10:00

Newcastle Greens

MEDIA RELEASE
24 June 2011

Cr Osborne has backed the concerns of Australia’s chief scientist, Professor Chubb, that the climate debate in Australia “borders on the appalling” (SMH, 22 June 2011).

“The science backing climate change and pointing the finger at carbon pollution has been established for years”, Cr Osborne said

“It is only fair that the polluters should pay for their pollution.

“Experts such as Professor Chubb and Professor Garnaut agree that a price on pollution needs to work together with well-designed policies to bring on renewable energy, energy efficiency and clean transport.

“Around the world, pollution prices are in place in Europe, parts of the USA, India and New Zealand,” he said

Cr Osborne has called for households to get more than a half of the funds raised by a price on carbon pollution or more than $6 billion in the year 2012-13.

“I fully back calls by Greens Senator Christine Milne that households should be adequately compensated. This is particularly important for Newcastle, which according to the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, has almost 34,000 pensioners and almost 4,000 unemployed.

“These families need to be fully compensated for the effects of putting a price on carbon pollution”, Cr Osborne said.

Cr Osborne said that the Newcastle Greens will be distributing a pamphlet over the next week to give residents more information about the proposed package.

NOTES
Senator Christine Milne is leading the Greens negotiations with the Federal government.

ABS data can be found here

Professor Garnaut has estimated that with a carbon price of $26 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent would generate around $11.5 billion in potential revenue from the value of permits in 2012–13. (see Summary Report p18)

Infrastructure need upfront

2011-06-11T09:14:00.001+10:00

My opinion piece published in The Herald today...

Many Newcastle residents feel short-changed by the State Government when they approve development without investing upfront in the necessary infrastructure to mitigate the development impacts.

With the State Government continuing to approve industrial development on Kooragang Island, it was surprising a few years ago that they chose to replace the old two-lane Tourle Street Bridge with a new two-lane Bridge, when for an extra $15 million they could have constructed a four-lane bridge.

Now, the already busy Cormorant Road is getting busier and a duplication of the Tourle Street Bridge and Cormorant Road is necessary. The price tag now is likely to be in excess of $50 million.

This infrastructure not only services Kooragang Island but also residents from Stockton and Port Stephens coming to the City and Newcastle residents going to the airport.

Where is the investment to beautify this important gateway to the City?

Newcastle residents will be severely impacted by the expansion of our Port unless the State Government invests upfront in the necessary infrastructure.

Newcastle Port Corporation has developed a Concept Plan for the redevelopment of a 90-hectare portion of the former BHP site.

This proposal includes seven new wharfs to support several cargo precincts. These include a dry bulk precinct; a general purpose precinct; a major container terminal with a trade volume of 1 million containers every year; and, a bulk liquid precinct for fuels and biofuels.

The Port Corporation’s plans as they currently stand would choke our roads.

The Port Corporation predicts that a significant amount of the goods to and from the Port would be by road - this will include 800,000 containers each year, 1,010 million litres of fuel and 3.1 million tonnes of other products.

Yet the Port Corporation seems to have ignored how this road freight will move through Newcastle (other than to specify that 60% of the cargo will travel to and from Sydney).

Will the freight traffic use the F3 freeway to Beresfield and the already busy New England highway and Industrial Drive? Or the shorter route down the Link Road and through the suburbs from Wallsend to Sandgate and then to Industrial Drive?

Either way, Industrial Drive will become grid locked under the Port Corporation’s proposal.

And there is nothing to stop the freight trucks travelling down our suburban roads through ‘rat-runs’. In fact the Port Corporation has not even looked at this possibility or made any commitment to fund the necessary Local Area Traffic Management controls to stop this from happening.

Once again Newcastle is being short-changed by State Government entities pushing development without providing the necessary infrastructure upfront to mitigate the impact on local residents.

When the Federal Government released its draft National Ports Strategy last year it recognised that local residents living near our ports would be impacted by future development unless investment in infrastructure occurred upfront.

One approach highlighted was the “early identification and land-use reservation of lands for major freight corridors”.

A regional freight rail bypass between Fassifern and Hexham and a freight hub in the vicinity of Beresfield has been on the drawing books for years. It was highlighted five years ago in the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy.

But the State Government has not dedicated the route, let alone invested in the infrastructure.

Removing freights trains from our residential areas would not only improve the way freight gets to and from our Port, but improve the amenity for all residents along the line from Fassifern to Islington and provide the opportunity for faster and better passenger services as well as bringing to an end the excessive delays at the Adamstown gates.

A dedicated rail freight line direct to the former BHP site is also required.

This Mayfield Portside rail line would connect from the Kooragang spur line at Sandgate to the former BHP site and onto the Carrington rail facilities.

This would allow most imports and exports to our Port to be by rail and remove the significant impact that the Port Corporation’s current proposal would have on local residents.

Most of the freight (including all the coal to the Carrington terminal) would use this new Mayfield Portside rail line. This would significantly reduce freight movements past all our suburbs from Warabrook to Tighes Hill and improve their amenity.

Our local residents are impacted already by the operations at the Port, and they deserve better.

The Port Corporation has been sending millions of dollars each year to Sydney. Now it’s time for the State Government to invest upfront in this necessary infrastructure before any further development is approved.

Newcastle council pushes portside rail link

2011-06-08T14:47:00.000+10:00

From The Herald...

BY BEN SMEE

INDUSTRIAL Drive would be choked by traffic if a container terminal was approved at the former BHP site without new road and rail infrastructure, Newcastle councillor Michael Osborne said last night.

The council unanimously supported a notice of motion by Cr Osborne, which called for the establishment of a portside rail link from Sandgate junction to the BHP site.

The motion also called on the state government to release its masterplan for the port of Newcastle.

Cr Osborne told the council meeting that a council submission on the proposed container terminal had said that "Industrial Highway would fail" because of the extra traffic.

"We're calling for infrastructure to be put in up-front for a problem that we know is going to happen," Cr Osborne said. "What needs to happen is they need to look at the port as a whole.

"I think it's a dumb idea for this city that we have this skew towards coal when we could be doing a whole lot of other things with our port and diversifying it."

Cr Aaron Buman said many concerns about traffic were unfounded because he did not believe the proposed contained terminal would be needed for 20 to 25 years.

Cr Buman said he had never seen "propaganda" like the brochures distributed in Mayfield before the March state election, which warned of thousands of daily truck movements through the suburb.

"I'd stand on my grandmother's grave to say there would be no traffic through suburban streets of Mayfield," Cr Buman said.

Councillors also backed a push for a duplication of the Tourle Street bridge and road upgrades on Kooragang Island.

"The Tourle Street duplication needs to happen before the port on Kooragang Island develops," Cr Osborne said.

Lord mayor John Tate labelled the Tourle Street bridge "an abomination".

The motion also calls for dust monitoring in suburbs around the port.

Newcastle Port Redevelopment

2011-06-07T23:18:00.003+10:00

The following motion was adopted by Council tonight.

NOTICE OF MOTION: NEWCASTLE PORT REDEVELOPMENT
COUNCILLOR: M OSBORNE
MOTION
1. That Newcastle Council:

(i) Calls on the State Government to work with the Federal Government to build a Mayfield portside rail line from the Sandgate junction to service the former BHP site before any proposed redevelopment occurs.

(ii) Calls on the State Government to work with the Federal Government to build the Tourle St Bridge and Kooragang road network duplication to service Kooragang Island, Stockton and Newcastle Airport.

(iii) Calls on the State Government to release to the public its Master Port Plan and to expedite an Integrated Port Planning Strategy for the port that would include proper consideration of the cumulative impacts of all the proposed port redevelopment on nearby residents, strategies to reduce this impact and proper consultation with residents.

(iv) Calls on the State Government to install dust monitoring equipment to measure fine particulates in all suburbs in the Newcastle area that surround the Port and to make this monitoring data available to the Newcastle community.

2. That Newcastle Council write to all relevant State and Federal MPs to enlist their support for these proposals.

3. That Newcastle Council reiterates its support for the Newcastle freight bypass rail line to improve the efficiency of freight movements on the rail network and to improve passenger train movements in the Newcastle area. The Newcastle freight bypass rail line would stop the excessive delays at the Adamstown gates for example.

4. That Newcastle Council invites the Newcastle Port Corporation, the Port Waratah Coal Service, Buildev and the Tinkler Hunter Ports group to address Council on their proposed plans for the redevelopment of the Newcastle Port.

BACKGROUND

Newcastle Port Corporation has developed a Concept Plan for the proposed redevelopment of a 90-hectare portside portion of the former BHP Steelworks site which includes seven new wharfs to support several cargo precincts. These precincts include:

• Bulk and General Precinct capable of handling non hazardous dry bulk products including grain, briquettes, and coke cargoes.

• General Purpose Precinct a flexible facility to handle and store cargo containers, heavy machinery, Roll On Roll Off and break bulk cargo.

• Container Terminal Precinct with a trade volume of 1 million twenty foot equivalent units per annum at final development.

• Bulk Liquid Precinct used for storage, blending and distribution of high quality fuels and biofuels.

Newcastle Port Corporation is predicting a significant amount of these exports will be arriving through Newcastle to the Port by road (see Attachment 1). Newcastle Port Corporation have predicted, that when the precincts are fully developed, each year 800,000 containers, 1,010 million litres of fuel and 3.1 million tonnes of other products will be transported through Newcastle by road

A significant amount of this material (including all the containers) would be kept off the roads if the State Government invested in a rail line on the Mayfield side of the Hunter River South Arm.

Buildev is developing plans for the other 60-hectare portion of the former BHP site, known as the Intertrade Industrial Park. The proposed developments for this site have not been released yet.

This Mayfield Portside rail line would connect from the Kooragang spur line at Sandgate to the former BHP site and onto the Carrington Coal terminal rail facilities, the grain terminal and the general wharf freight lines in the area (see Attachment 2).

The exact route would need to be determined by detailed investigation but it is important to note that much of the required corridor is currently vacant.

Most of the freight (including all the coal to the Carrington terminal) would use the new Mayfield Portside rail line. This would significantly reduce freight movements (including coal) past Warabrook, Mayfield, Waratah, Georgetown, Islington and Tighes Hill and allow for the revitalisation of these suburbs.

This rail line would also provide options for Steel River businesses and other commercial operators like One Steel and Koppers.

This proposal would mesh perfectly with the proposed freight rail bypass for the Region and the proposed rail freight hub in the vicinity of Beresfield.

Council should reiterate its support for the Newcastle freight bypass rail line because it will improve passenger train movements in the Newcastle area and stop the excessive delays at the Adamstown gates for example.

ATTACHMENT 1: NEWCASTLE PORT CORPORATION’S PROPOSED OPERATIONS HIGHLIGHTING SIGNIFICANT ROAD FREIGHT MOVEMENTS

ATTACHMENT 2: POSSIBLE ROUTE OF THE MAYFIELD PORTSIDE RAIL LINE

Show us port masterplan: councillor

2011-06-07T14:45:00.001+10:00

From The Herald...

BY BEN SMEE CIVIC REPORTER

GREENS councillor Michael Osborne is calling for the release of a state government masterplan for the port of Newcastle as part of a push to establish a freight rail link to the former BHP site.

Cr Osborne has tabled a notice of motion for tonight’s Newcastle City Council meeting, calling on the state and federal governments to link the BHP site to Sandgate junction by rail before any proposed redevelopment occurs.

The contents of the masterplan, which is expected to be placed on public exhibition later this year, have been a tightly kept secret.

Cr Osborne said a comprehensive planning strategy would be needed to help guide the development of the BHP site, Steel River, the proposed terminal 4 coal-loader, and other sites.

The Newcastle Port Corporation has concept plans for a container terminal at the former BHP steelworks site, while Nathan Tinkler-backed developer Buildev has flagged an application for a coal-loader there.

Cr Osborne said the plans also required a rail link.

"Newcastle Port Corporation have predicted that when the precincts are fully developed, each year 800,000 containers, 1010million litres of fuel and 3.1million tonnes of other products will be transported through Newcastle by road," Cr Osborne said.

"They need to put in infrastructure up front."

Cr Osborne’s said the portside rail plan would mesh perfectly with a proposed freight rail bypass, and a freight hub planned at Beresfield.

His motion also calls on the state government to duplicate the Tourle Street Bridge and to monitor dust in suburbs surrounding the port.

Cr Osborne also wants to invite the Newcastle Port Corporation, Port Waratah Coal Services and Buildev to address the council about their port plans.

A spokesman for Ports Minister Duncan Gay had not responded to requests for comment about the masterplan or the rail plan by the close of business yesterday.

Change on the books for Newcastle libraries

2011-05-14T09:45:00.000+10:00

From The Herald...

BY BEN SMEE

LOCAL libraries could be closed and sold under Newcastle City Council's 10-year financial plan, which proposes spending $43 million to build three new multi-purpose libraries.

Under the council's 10-year-plan, which is on public exhibition, libraries at New Lambton, Stockton and Beresfield would be rebuilt or relocated with money raised from land rates increases.

The central Newcastle library in Laman Street would also be expanded.

But concerns have been raised that building the new multi-purpose facilities would likely lead to the closure of several of the city's smaller libraries.

The closures of Adamstown, Hamilton and Lambton libraries have been discussed internally, and a briefing document suggests the council expects to ultimately make $2 million from the sale of old library assets.

Newcastle councillor Michael Osborne described the plans as "crude and simplistic" and said he opposed the closure of any local libraries.

"It totally ignores the community that [attends] these libraries. A lot of people use Adamstown and Hamilton [libraries]."

The council emphasised yesterday that specific proposals for the city's libraries had not been finalised.

Future city director Judy Jaeger said the council wanted to build on the success of the Wallsend library, which moved to a new and larger building in 2006.

Ms Jaeger said book loans were up 166 per cent after the move.

"When you have a multi-purpose facility that has a meeting space, an exhibition space, people will use it," she said.

She said any decisions about libraries would be a matter for councillors.

Cr Osborne said the council should be looking at options such as working with the private sector or other council departments to revitalise the existing libraries.

Another Laman St development

2011-05-10T23:16:00.000+10:00

Interesting letter recently received from a Council consultant...

Not all councillors angered

2010-11-20T09:50:00.001+11:00

From The Herald...

BY MATT CARR AND TIM CONNELL

While a majority of Newcastle City councillors vented their frustrations over lord mayor John Tate yesterday, not all councillors shared their colleagues' strong views.

ALP councillor Sharon Claydon said calls for Mr Tate to step down after Ms Hyam's resignation were excessive.

"It's for the people of Newcastle to decide who their lord mayor is," she said.

"I'm absolutely not getting involved in what I regard as a contest of personalities and egos."

Cr Claydon said the community would ultimately decide whether Cr Tate should remain lord mayor.

"I'm not calling for his resignation. Have they [other councillors] thought through what that entails? It'll be up to the community to make those judgments at the right time."

Cr Tim Crakanthorp agreed with Cr Claydon.

Cr Michael Osborne agreed with other councillors' assertions that Ms Hyam was a major loss for the council, but he was not part of the call for the lord mayor to step down.

"I don't think there's any legal basis for it," he said.

"It's disappointing the lord mayor and general manager didn't have a better relationship, [but] I think there's always two sides to these sorts of stories."

Cr Nuatali Nelmes said after yesterday's councillor press conference that she was not calling for Cr Tate's resignation but had been disappointed by his tense relationship with Ms Hyam.

"I think that contributed to the general manager's resignation," she said.

She appeared to be backing away from her stance earlier in the day, when she joined six other councillors at a media conference at which a prepared statement was read, said to be on behalf of all 12 elected councillors. It said they were equally adamant that Cr Tate had to go.

Councillors Brad Luke and Shayne Connell, who were not at the conference, were unavailable last night.

Nobbys protest over gas drills

2010-10-11T09:52:00.000+11:00

From The Herald...

BY DAMON CRONSHAW

A COALITION of environment and community groups protested on Nobbys Beach yesterday against plans to drill off Newcastle for natural gas.

Members of the coalition, called Hands Off Our Coast, gave speeches on the beach before about 80 people.

The protest was part of a global day of action on climate change under the 350.org campaign, which involved 7300 demonstrations in 190 countries.

Lake Macquarie councillor Phillipa Parsons, who leads the anti-gas coalition, said governments must begin the transition towards a "clean, renewable energy economy and away from the fossil-fuel economy".

"They need to stop subsidising fossil-fuel exploration such as proposed offshore gas drilling in Newcastle and invest more in clean renewables," Cr Parsons said.

Advent Energy, which is planning the drilling, said gas was a "transition fuel"as the economy converts to renewable energy.

Advent executive director David Breeze said gas-fired power stations produced up to 70 per cent less carbon emissions than coal-fired plants to produce the same amount of energy.

"We support renewables, but it's abundantly clear that renewable energy in the form of wind or solar power is not capable of meeting power demand," Mr Breeze said.

Cr Parsons described the comments as "absolute rubbish".

"It's propaganda from mining corporations, who stand to profit from continuing the fossil-fuel industry," Cr Parsons said.

"Moving to a clean, renewable economy is doable and the barriers aren't technological, they are political."

Newcastle councillor Michael Osborne said a transition plan had been prepared for Australia to move to 100 per cent renewables in 10 years.

"It's not pie in the sky, we can do it today if there is political will," Cr Osborne said.

The plan was in a report called Beyond Zero Emissions , which the University of Melbourne helped compile.

Vote in favour of show holiday

2010-10-06T09:56:00.000+11:00

From The Herald...

BY JACQUI JONES

Novocastrians will have a day off on Friday, March 18, 2011, during the Newcastle Show.

Newcastle City councillors voted 8-4 last night in favour of the holiday.

Patriotism spurred Cr Shayne Connell’s decision.

‘‘It’s un-Australian to vote against an application for show holiday,’’ he said.

Colleague Tim Crakanthorp put an economic argument.

‘‘Many millions of dollars will be lost if this does not go ahead for local people and local businesses that get involved with the show,’’ Cr Crakanthorp said.

Cr Brad Luke was among civic leaders who argued the holiday should not go ahead.

‘‘Councillors, we talk about this each year, about being out of date and archaic,’’ he said.

‘‘One of the best attended shows in the Hunter is the Maitland Show. They don’t have a holiday for it.’’

Show organisers said the holiday provided a significant boost to attendance and economic benefits for the city.

Cr Scott Sharpe said a report to the council indicated that the day off was a problem for the business community.

The business sector said the day off was confusing for employers unsure about whether they were affected, and costly for those who granted it to employees.

Cr Michael Osborne suggested last night the council have a plebiscite at the next local government election, given annual argument in the council chamber.

The council will make an application to Industrial Relations Minister Paul Lynch to proclaim show day.

The Newcastle Show is scheduled from March 18 to 20, 2011.

Council to vote on sister act

2010-10-04T09:10:00.000+11:00

From The Herald...

BY JACQUI JONES

Newcastle will forge links with its Japanese sister city Ube in November with a $38,000 three-day civic reception.

The Australian city is hosting the visit as part of 30th anniversary celebrations.

It comes after Novocastrians travelled to Ube in April.

A Newcastle City Council report said the sister city relationship was established in 1980.

Its purpose was to increase international understanding and foster world peace through communication and personal exchanges.

Councillors are being asked to authorise $38,000 spending on the Ube delegates' visit to Newcastle from November 21 to 23.

The itinerary includes civic functions, tourist activities and visiting the Kooragang Island coal-loader.

Meetings at the University of Newcastle, Hunter Business Chamber and Hunter Medical Research Institute are scheduled.

Cr Michael Osborne said $38,000 was a lot of money at a time when budgets were tight.

The council should consider partnering with other organisations to reduce cost.

"Certainly council should put some money in but the ratepayers shouldn't be carrying the full cost of these celebrations," he said.

Cr Bob Cook, who was a delegate to Ube in April, said the idea was feasible, but the council had to ensure the amount was covered.

"The cost isn't unreasonable in the scheme of things," he said. "There's a big benefit.

"These people spend quite a lot of money while they're here."

Cr Cook said cultural, education and business links between the cities would also be forged.

Newcastle council briefed on alcohol and violence plan

2010-09-08T09:16:00.000+10:00

From The Herald...

BY JACQUI JONES

GETTING tough on crime and offering diverse activities for responsible patrons would be key to curbing Newcastle's alcohol-fuelled problems after dark, a civic investigation found.

Newcastle City Council is preparing an alcohol management strategy to deal with problems such as street violence and malicious damage.

Councillors were briefed last night on the new policy's progress.

Council place management services manager Deb Alterator said a workshop with 140 stakeholders and a survey netting 777 responses showed that the top three priorities were public safety, maximising night-time offerings and transport.

Key focus areas of the strategy would include increased law enforcement, expanding evening activities and reviewing bus, train and taxi systems.

"The purpose of our strategy being reduce alcohol-related harm and antisocial activities in the Newcastle local government area," Ms Alterator said.

Diversifying the night-time economy, reducing violence and property damage and restoring a public perception of a safe city were key goals, she said.

The council has made provision in its 2010-11 budget for some measures including $115,000 for new closed circuit television cameras, $5000 for signs in alcohol-free zones and areas and $35,000 to develop the alcohol management strategy.

Other planned actions are to develop guidelines governing liquor outlet density and trading hours, and improving lighting and pedestrian routes around the city.

Cr Michael Osborne suggested investigating the feasibility of a licensed premises levy.

"A lot of council resources will go into fixing problems that alcohol consumption is responsible for," he said.

Liveable city director Frank Cordingley said the strategy was a three- to four-year plan.

The council was focusing on things it could achieve now and would then advocate with other agencies and stakeholders for things that needed their support.

"The feeling is, get some runs on the board before we start looking at things like licensed premises levies," Mr Cordingley said.

Civic leaders counting the cost

2010-08-26T00:55:00.000+10:00

From The Herald...

BY MICHELLE HARRIS

NEWCASTLE City Council will have to rethink its parking strategy and work out how to cover any holes left in its budgets from lost income after The GPT Group dumped its city redevelopment.

Lord mayor John Tate has called an extraordinary meeting of council for tonight about the issue.

In a mayoral minute, Cr Tate has called for an urgent report on the ramifications of the developer's decision on the council, its budgets and city planning.

Cr Tate said the council had intended to co-ordinate the maintenance of Cathedral Park with the rebuilding of King Street, which was now not a possibility.

The council would need to consider the cost of repairing the park retaining wall, as well as the maintenance costs of the King Street parking station, which the council was to sell to GPT.

It would also need to look at its parking management, including spaces and metering. Cr Tate said the council should also look at whether it had any money it could put towards the Hunter Street mall.

Greens councillor Michael Osborne said the state government needed to show "real leadership" and bring the community together around its plan for light rail in the city.

Cr Osborne said the government, Hunter Minister Jodi McKay and federal MP Sharon Grierson should meet with the council and other MPs to discuss plans for the city.

"There needs to be proper engagement with the community, including stakeholder groups, in order to gain the widespread community support that we need to progress the revitalisation of Newcastle," he said.

Ms McKay said yesterday she would be pleased to attend any roundtable meeting of leaders and she urged the lord mayor to also invite the NSW opposition's Hunter spokesman Mike Gallacher "to provide his input into the future of this great city".

City figs to get the chop

2010-08-18T09:15:00.000+10:00

From The Herald...

BY JACQUI JONES

Chainsaws won out over community protest last night with civic leaders giving the go-ahead for Laman Street’s green cathedral to be cut down.

After more than a year’s consideration, most Newcastle City councillors agreed to have 14 Hills figs on the Cooks Hill boulevard removed as soon as possible.

They will be replaced next year with new Hills fig specimens, measuring about 3 metres high.

A packed public gallery held signs pleading for the council to save the trees and booed, hissed and heckled councillors who supported the figs’ removal.

Lord mayor John Tate and councillors Scott Sharpe, Bob Cook, Brad Luke, Graham Boyd, Aaron Buman and Mike King voted for all the trees to be removed and replaced.

Councillors Nuatali Nelmes, Sharon Claydon, Tim Crakanthorp, Michael Osborne and Mike Jackson voted against the proposal.

Cr Shane Connell was absent.

Council officers had advised that the trees should go because their deteriorating condition posed a public safety risk.

If the trees stayed, a gate, to be locked at 5pm, would be put up around parts of Laman Street, they said.

Councillors agreed that was not an option they could abide.

‘‘It’s absolutely intolerable and unacceptable ... the idea of caging up a civic space,’’ Cr Claydon said. ‘‘It just makes me want to weep.’’

Cr Crakanthorp suggested a staged removal, with four figs kept and others replanted.

‘‘These trees are held very dear to the community,’’ he said.

Cr Cook said this would produce an exceptionally poor result.

‘‘It will look wrong, it will be wrong,’’ he said.

He said removing the trees now and replacing them would provide a quality result.

‘‘It should be used as a symbol for what this council intends to achieve, the best for future generations,’’ Cr Cook said.

‘‘Let’s not do a quick, temporary patch-up job at our iconic location.

‘‘Let’s set a new standard that future generations will be proud of.’’

Cr Tate said it was about long-term benefit for the most prominent part of the city, near Civic Park, the library and art gallery.

Cr Nelmes disagreed.

‘‘I think we will look back on this as a council and realise we’ve made a mistake,’’ she said.

Detailed designs for Laman Street are expected to be presented to councillors by December.

Newcastle candidates grilled at forum

2010-08-16T00:53:00.000+10:00

From The Herald...

BY STEPHEN RYAN

IT was a case of Sharon versus the rest yesterday when all seven candidates for the safe Labor seat of Newcastle went under the microscope.

About 40 of Newcastle's 88,000 or so voters attended a public forum at Tighes Hill Public School to hear what the candidates had to say on issues such as climate change and Newcastle's future.

Most of the candidates said a strong challenge to Labor would result in Newcastle having a bigger voice in Canberra.

Liberal candidate Brad Luke said Newcastle was "celebrating" the 35th anniversary since a member for Newcastle was appointed to a government ministry, while Christian Democrats candidate Milton Caine said he had lived in a marginal seat and seen what benefits it could bring.

Ms Grierson defended her and her party's record, but it was obvious from the cheers and applause that most of the residents wanted action on issues such as climate change and the expansion of Newcastle's port.

One resident was outraged that the port would continue to expand, bringing with it increased rail and truck movements.

Ms Grierson said she understood the community's concerns about truck movements and the impact of coal trains travelling through the city, but said that expansion would continue, and that the Labor Party supported the increased use of rail.

Earlier at the forum when candidates were asked about rail movements and the port, Ms Grierson said it was not in the Commonwealth's jurisdiction to which Greens candidate Michael Osborne responded by saying that such a comment was a "cop out".

He said coal train carriages should be covered, there should be increased air-quality testing and there needed to be greater investment in renewable energy sources.

Socialist Alliance candidate Zane Alcorn said the Hunter's coal industry needed to be "phased out".

Pedal peril: Newcastle cyclists feel unsafe

2010-08-07T09:14:00.000+10:00

From The Herald...

BY JACQUI JONES

A SURVEY of Newcastle cyclists has found that almost half feel unsafe on city roads, with abusive and careless motorists and lack of dedicated bike lanes mostly to blame.

Off-road routes such as The Foreshore and Fernleigh Track are proving popular.

Newcastle City Council asked 784 people about their habits for the Cycling in Newcastle survey.

Councillor Michael Osborne said the feedback would help the council prepare a city cycling strategy.

Improving popular routes and creating more cycle lanes should be priorities, he said.

More than 42 per cent of survey respondents said they felt unsafe riding their bike, especially on major roads.

In the past year, 47 per cent were abused by motorists, 52 per cent were hit by opening car doors and 55 per cent had a near miss with a vehicle.

"There is currently a degree of resentment between cyclists, pedestrians and motorists," the survey report said.

Throsby Creek and the harbour foreshore, Fernleigh Track and trips between the suburbs and inner-city were popular routes.

Reasons for cycling included health and leisure, reducing one's carbon footprint, convenience and commuting.

Respondents said more dedicated lanes and off-road routes, better safety and road conditions, and increased driver awareness would encourage activity.

Daniel Chalhoub and Glenn Stojanow, of CFN cycling store, ride daily and said extra cycle lanes would not go astray, nor would education for drivers and cyclists to be aware of one another.

Projects such as Fernleigh Track were welcome, they said.

Covers for Hunter coal trains

2010-08-06T09:01:00.000+10:00

From The Herald...

BY MICHELLE HARRIS

THE noise and dust from coal trains rumbling through the region could warrant new mitigation and prevention measures such as wagon covers, Newcastle lord mayor John Tate says.

Cr Tate suggests forming a committee bringing together residents and the industry to address coal transport concerns, particularly those of residents in suburbs such as Tighes Hill.

He said port terminals had dust-suppressant measures, but ones specifically for dust were needed to ensure air-quality during windy weather.

"It seems to me that the covering of the coal wagons is not an onerous cost to the industry," he said.

Cr Tate also questioned if sound-reduction barriers were still effective given the extra size and power of trains.

At a meeting last month, the Tighes Hill Community Group heard from Australian Rail Track Corporation representatives.

The representatives reportedly told the group that an environmental-protection licence governed its operations, and it had pollution-reduction plans in place.

Greens candidate Michael Osborne said he put a motion forward this year, which councillors did not support, calling for a report on coalmine impacts on residents, including coal transport.

Cr Tate said the motion did not suggest a course of action.

Train operator Pacific National or the track corporation did not comment to the Newcastle Herald.

A Queensland Rail spokeswoman said environmental responsibilities were taken "very seriously".

A NSW Minerals Council spokesman said Australian air-quality monitoring studies "have not found the potential for impacts on human health or amenity from dust emissions from coal either inside or outside of the rail corridor".

Fate of Laman Street figs draws near

2010-07-29T09:59:00.000+10:00

From The Herald...

BY JACQUI JONES

KEEPING or cutting Laman Street's trees will be a matter of cost, but at what price is open to interpretation.

It is a question Newcastle City Council must ponder following advice that the figs are failing and should go.

The Newcastle Herald reported yesterday that 10 options were placed on the drawing board in a briefing to councillors on Tuesday night.

Capital costs ranged from $8000 to $4.9 million for everything from keeping to cutting all 14 figs.

Recurrent costs would be between $1000 and $60,000.

Life expectancy of the present trees was five to 15 years, while new trees might last more than 90 years, community planning co-ordinator Ian Rhodes said.

Cr Sharon Claydon suggested an economic analysis of the trees be considered.

A council spokeswoman said an arboriculture assessment known as the Thyer method put the value of all 14 figs at $68,586.

Cr Michael Osborne said the value was more than dollars.

Environmental factors such as stormwater benefits and habitat for endangered species should be taken into account.

The trees are already a costly consideration.

The art gallery and library report a 35 per cent decrease in visitor numbers since street access was limited because the trees posed a public safety risk.

The gallery had a $9000 decrease in income compared with the same time last year.

The council also spent $70,000 on a two-day community workshop, from which consultants developed a plan for revamping Laman Street and nearby Civic Park.

It envisaged underground building extensions, a two-storey car park, and opening former rail corridors for bikes and pedestrians.

Councillors will consider the plan and tree options next month.

Rhiannon launches Newcastle Greens candidate, Hunter to be at heart of 100% renewables shift

2010-07-26T11:01:00.001+10:00

Newcastle Greens

MEDIA RELEASE
26 July 2010

At Newcastle foreshore today, Greens NSW Senate candidate Lee Rhiannon launched Michael Osborne as the Greens candidate for Newcastle and announced that the Hunter will be the heart of the Greens NSW push to shift from coal dependence to 100% renewable energy.

Greens candidate for Newcastle Michael Osborne said: “I am excited about diving into the Greens campaign in the Federal seat of Newcastle.

“Gillard’s climate change plan is nothing more than a talk-fest that will keep NSW and the Hunter locked into coal dependence. It is a plan to stall action for two years.

“Federal Labor has failed the people of Newcastle on climate change – they have stuck their head in the sand and defended the coal industry rather than providing the leadership needed to force a shift to 100% renewable energy.

The massive proposed Mt Piper and Bayswater coal-fired power plants, which will
together potentially add 4,000 MW of coal-fired power, would still go ahead under Labor’s do-nothing plan announced last week by the Gillard government.

“The Greens’ detailed plan to shift Australia away from dirty coal to 100% renewable energy powerhouse draws on our tremendous resources of sun, wind, wave and earth. For the Hunter this means a major boost to jobs growth and the local economy.

“Federal Labor has taken its eye off the ball and the development of renewable energy is uncoordinated and directionless. The Greens’ Safe Climate (Renewable Energy Infrastructure) Bill will give Infrastructure Australia new planning tasks to map renewable energy resource area and to create renewable energy development zones with streamlined approval processes,”said Mr Osborne.

Greens Senate candidate Lee Rhiannon said: “Michael is a passionate and knowledgeable candidate, with a long-term commitment to the people of Newcastle. He has a proven track record as a councillor on Newcastle City Council for 6 years.

“I am looking forward to working with Michael on the Greens campaign to shift away from coal-dependence to 100% renewable energy. The Hunter will be the heart of this work.

“The Hunter has six coal fired power stations and has experienced a six fold increase in open cut coal mining over three decades. A recent government report confirmed that the area experiences higher rates of asthma, cancer and cardiovascular disease.

“Shifting to renewable energy would mean a healthy local environment, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and more jobs in the Hunter. Research by the Centre of Full Employment and Equity at University of Newcastle identified a net gain of between 10,000 to 15,000 new jobs if the Hunter’s coal-fired power stations were phased out and local energy needs were met by renewable energy,” Ms Rhiannon said.

Institute seen as smart for region

2010-06-26T12:44:00.002+10:00

From The Herald...

PLANS to establish an institute for energy and resources in the old BHP laboratories at Shortland were described yesterday as a significant boost to research and development in the region.

The federal government announced yesterday it would provide $30 million to Newcastle University for the $42 million project.

State Minister for the Hunter Jodi McKay said the institute would play a key role in running the recently announced, $100 million Smart Grid Smart City project in Newcastle.

"It will have the potential to make a real and substantial contribution to sustainable energy use on both a national and global scale," she said.

Hunter Business Chamber chief executive Peter Shinnick said it was huge news when combined with the new, $90 million Hunter Medical Research Institute building, which is set to open in the grounds of John Hunter Hospital in 2012.

"It's created quite an interesting hub of research and development activity in the Hunter," he said.

"That attracts industry and that attracts business to the Hunter."

Newcastle Greens councillor Michael Osborne said it was a great opportunity to be at the forefront of renewable technology research, but said carbon storage research was a "waste of time" because the process was "never going to be cost-effective".

The general manager of Corky's Carbon Consultancy in Mayfield, David Cook, used to work at the BHP laboratories and welcomed the site's addition to the university.

He said the institute would complement the commercial field and help train people to work in the private sector.

"We've got to get smarter as a country and smarter as a region," he said.

"The more research we can do in town the better."

PM Gillard's first climate challenge: Cancel brown coal export deal to Vietnam

2010-06-25T12:58:00.000+10:00

Prime Minister Gillard has been presented with an immediate challenge to show leadership on climate change, with Trade Minister Simon Crean due to formalise an agreement to export massively polluting brown coal to Vietnam in Melbourne this afternoon.

The Prime Minister must step in, cancel this deal immediately and instruct her Trade Minister to focus on export deals for renewable energy technology instead.

"You cannot be serious about climate action if you are willing to open up a whole new massively polluting export industry," said Australian Greens Deputy Leader, Senator Christine Milne.

"Prime Minister Gillard has the opportunity to stamp her climate leadership on this government and cancel the deal to export brown coal before it is signed, telling her Trade Minister to focus on export deals that will help the climate, not hurt it.

"Brown coal is the most polluting fuel we have. Pumping energy into transforming it into the equivalent of black coal will only increase pollution at home and overseas.

"We simply cannot afford to open up a whole new polluting export industry. Every tonne of this coal burned in Vietnam will come back to bite us with worse bushfires, drought, floods and more.

"One of the key climate failures of governments around Australia and the world has been to see one arm of government cancelling out the efforts of others.

"What use is working with Minister Wong to pass the bill to fix the Renewable Energy Target yesterday if Ministers Crean and Ferguson are going to more than cancel out the greenhouse benefits the next day?

"I and Senator Brown look forward to working constructively with Prime Minister Gillard and her government to get Australia moving forward on climate action."

Labor must seize new climate change opportunity, say Greens

2010-06-24T09:48:00.002+10:00

Newcastle Greens

MEDIA RELEASE
24 June 2010

Today’s change in leadership gives the federal Labor government a new opportunity to take real action on climate change before the federal election, according to the Greens federal candidate for Newcastle, Michael Osborne.

“The political rot set in for Mr Rudd at the time he turned his back on what he called the great moral challenge of his generation,” Mr Osborne said.

“The crucial early test of Ms Gillard’s leadership will be how she seizes this new opportunity to respond to the challenge of climate change.

“I know that many voters in Newcastle were disillusioned with Kevin Rudd’s failure to take real action on climate change, and will be looking to Ms Gillard to pick up the pieces, and to work with The Greens to develop an effective national scheme to limit carbon emissions.

“Today’s change in leadership gives Labor just one last chance before the federal election to do this,” Mr Osborne said.

“Before the next federal election, Ms Gillard needs to announce a clear, science-based strategy based on rigorous but achievable emission reduction targets and economic restructuring packages that will help Australia and the Hunter Valley move away coal dependence and toward a more ecologically sustainable economy.”

“Federal Labor also needs to stand firm on the proposed super-profits tax on public owned non-renewable resources, which can help ensure that the Australian community gets a fairer share from the one-off use of these public assets.

“The super-profits tax is sound policy, and should be used to provide valuable public infrastructure and funding for economic restructuring in mining-affected regional economies, such as the Hunter,” Mr Osborne said.

“The super-profits tax offers the opportunity to create jobs through an investment in a sustainable future, and Labor needs to carry through with it, and not bow yet again to the pressure of large vested interests, many of whom donate to the Labor Party,” Mr Osborne said.

Newcastle rates system to stay

2010-06-23T09:58:00.000+10:00

From The Herald...

NEWCASTLE will retain the status quo when it comes to levying rates, despite concerns about favouring the rich and burdening the poor.

The scheme will calculate residential property levies in 2010-11 using a 50 per cent base rate, with the remainder dependent on land value.

This system was introduced in 2009-10 and councillors voted 7-4 last night to retain it.

It means the average rates bill in Newcastle for the coming financial year will be $918.40, for those properties with the city's average land value of $208,598.

Newcastle City Council is applying a 2.6 per cent rates increase, in line with the state government cap.

Councillors attempted unsuccessfully last night to alter the civic system, to address what some viewed as an imbalance between rich and poor.

Cr Michael Osborne suggested basing rates entirely on land value, with a $603 minimum rate.

"Sixty-four per cent of households will be better off with an ad valorem minimum," he said.

His colleagues did not support the idea.

Cr Mike Jackson called for a scheme with 75 per cent of rates calculated on land value and a 25 per cent base amount.

"What we're neglecting councillors is marginal working families," he said of the 50-50 rates structure.

"They have mortgage stress . . . water's going up, power's going up . . . but we can't cut them a break with rates.

"Lower value properties will be paying more rates.

"They're the people who can least afford to be paying more."

Cr Brad Luke, who supported the 50-50 scheme, said other options would tax people whose land value might have gone up because they lived in a popular area.

"Simply putting such a large burden on those people I think is completely unfair," he said.

Under the 50-50 system, land valued at $1,000,000 will be levied $2660.58 in rates and a $100,000 property $679.34. With a 75-25 scheme, the $1,000,000 property would pay $3531.66 and the $100,000 lot $559.81.

Greens commit to referendum for local government

2010-06-16T12:57:00.000+10:00

The Australian Greens will move for an amendment to section 96 of the Constitution - the section which sets out that the Commonwealth may grant financial assistance to the states on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit - to add the words ‘and local government'.

Addressing the Australian Local Government Association National General Assembly today Senator Brown said that recognising local government in the Constitution is ALP policy and was a promise made by Mr. Rudd in the 2007 election campaign.

"But there's been no action," said Senator Brown.

"At the start of the next period of Government, the Greens will present a bill to the Senate for this referendum.

"Previous attempts, in 1974 and 1988, to have the status of local government recognised through a referendum failed because of the confusing nature of the questions put to the Australian voters."

Anti-rail group fixing to kill Hunter St businesses

2010-06-03T10:55:00.006+10:00

Newcastle Greens

MEDIA RELEASE
3 June 2010

Newcastle Greens today warned Newcastle businesses that the plan advocated by anti-rail lobby group Fix Our City would kill city businesses that rely on loading zones and turnover car-parking along Hunter St.

Newcastle Greens Councillor Michael Osborne said that presenters from Fix Our City who briefed Newcastle City councillors on Tuesday night confirmed that they wanted the Hunter Development Corporation’s Revitalisation Report adopted in its entirety.

“As its alternative to the rail line, the HDC plan advocates a busway along Hunter St that would eliminate loading zones and hundreds of turnover car parking spaces on which already struggling Hunter St businesses depend for their survival,” Councillor Osborne said.

“This is graphically illustrated on page 80 of the HDC report that Fix Our City is backing,” Councillor Osborne said. [see included graphics from the HDC Report]

Councillor Osborne said that he was concerned that the Fix Our City representatives who spoke to Newcastle Council on Tuesday night appeared to be unaware of this implication of the HDC report that they were supporting, despite Newcastle businesses constantly identifying the availability of car parking in the city as a major priority for them.

“They had no real answer to my question about this obvious impact on local businesses of the HDC’s proposed busway – which is surprising from a group that purports to be representing business interests in the city. Since Fix Our City agrees with the HDC’s proposed busway as the replacement for the rail line, you’d expect that they would be have examined the potential impacts of that proposal on businesses in the area of the city that most need revitalisation,” Councillor Osborne said.

“But it was evident on Tuesday night that they hadn’t even considered this potential impact.

“I’m concerned that the vested interests who have been campaigning to cut the Newcastle rail line for two decades are so obsessed with their anti-rail campaign that they haven’t stopped to consider the real implications of the HDC report for city businesses,” he said.

“Obviously, if they aren’t even aware of this aspect of the HDC report, they haven’t made the businesses along Hunter St aware of it either.

“Neither the HDC nor the Fix Our City lobby have any answer to how they would solve this problem for the already struggling businesses along Hunter St, or where the extra and replacement car parking and loading zone spaces that would be required would be found.

“Perhaps the answer is hidden on page 55 of the HDC Report, which lists parking and standing for service vehicles under “possible future uses of the rail corridor”? Councillor Osborne said.

“I’m sure Hunter St businesses wouldn’t be very impressed with that.

“This is just one of the many issues arising from the HDC’s now widely discredited anti-rail proposal.

“The Hunter Development Corporation’s cut-the-rail plan is an unsustainable, outmoded, road-based strategy that will increase the relative share of car trips into the city, increasing car-parking demand, at the same time as decreasing already scarce car-parking spaces.

“The state government has made it clear that nothing will happen without federal funding, and it’s simply unthinkable that a federal government that claims it is committed to sustainable urban development would provide public money to cut a rail line.

“As Professor Peter Newman (board member of Infrastructure Australia) told us on a recent visit to the city, to win federal infrastructure and revitalisation funding, Newcastle needs a plan based on robust evidence and research (unlike the now discredited HDC report), and capable of gaining a community consensus.

“This is what the Gold Coast did, and it’s what Newcastle could do too if the local anti-rail lobby would just drag themselves into the 21st century, stop their silly, destructive, negative, self-interested and deceptive push to cut the Newcastle rail line, and put the interests of the city first.

“If they did this, the Newcastle community could come together behind a plan for revitalising the city and for developing a 21st century public transport system based on rail.

“If they don’t, Newcastle is likely once again to miss out on federal revitalisation funding, and yet another chance will be lost on the rocks of negativity and self-interest.

“The fact is that the anti-rail campaign and their naysaying attitude to the city’s rail line has now become the greatest barrier to Newcastle’s revitalisation,” Councillor Osborne said.

HDC vision for Hunter St

2010-06-02T10:02:00.004+10:00

The HDC report wants no car parks down Hunter St...

Hunter St now

HDC's Hunter St

(from page 80 of the report)

Lord Mayor censured

2010-06-01T23:54:00.002+10:00

From tonight's council meeting...

ITEM-62 CCL 01/06/2010 - CODE OF CONDUCT SOLE REVIEWER'S REPORT ON COMPLAINT AGAINST THE LORD MAYOR COUNCILLOR TATE

Councillor Sharpe moved a procedural motion to deal with Item 64 before Item 62.

PROCEDURAL MOTION MOTION: (COUNCILLORS S SHARPE/B LUKE) That item 64 - Empire Park Bar Beach - Skate Park Facility / Bat Ball Court be brought forward subject to public interest in the gallery.

The procedural motion was put to the meeting and declared defeated.

MOTION: (COUNCILLORS T CRAKANTHORP/S SHARPE)
1 Council receives the report.

2 Council find the Lord Mayor has breached sections 7.2, 7.3, 7.13 and 7.18 of Council’s Code of Conduct in relation to his failure to adequately disclose and manage a non pecuniary conflict of interests with Almona Pty Limited and companies and persons related to Almona Pty Limited.

3 Council censure the Lord Mayor for that breach.

Councillor Crakanthorp addressed the meeting and exceeded his time limit.

Councillor Buman requested an extension of one minute to Councillor Crakanthorp's address.

PROCEDURAL MOTION
RESOLVED: (COUNCILLORS A BUMAN/S SHARPE)
Councillor Crakanthorp's address be extended for one minute.

Councillor Osborne gave notice of a foreshadowed motion, that being the recommendation from the General Manager to defer the matter to allow the Lord Mayor and his advisors to comment on the supplementary report from the Sole Reviewer.

The Lord Mayor indicated that when the vote was taken on this item he would step down from the Chair.

The Lord Mayor proceeded to read a prepared statement to the meeting. The Lord Mayor requested that the prepared statement read in his address be recorded in the minutes.

The Lord Mayor exceeded his time limit of three minutes.

Councillor Buman sought an extension of time.

PROCEDURAL MOTION
RESOLVED: (COUNCILLORS A BUMAN/S SHARPE)
The Lord Mayor be granted an extension of time.

Following further reading of the statement from the Lord Mayor, and a point of order raised by Councillor Buman, the Lord Mayor moved an extension of one minute.

PROCEDURAL MOTION
RESOLVED: (THE LORD MAYOR/COUNCILLOR N NELMES)
The Lord Mayor be granted an extension of time.

During his address, the Lord Mayor and Councillor Cook moved for a further extension of half a minute.

PROCEDURAL MOTION
MOTION: (THE LORD MAYOR/COUNCILLOR B COOK)
The Lord Mayor be granted half minute extension.

The procedural motion was put to the meeting and a show of hands was requested which resulted as follows:
For the motion: 5
Against the motion: 7

The procedural motion was declared defeated on the result of five votes to seven votes.

The Lord Mayor's statement read as follows:

"Unfortunately notwithstanding the dictates of natural justice I have not been afforded the opportunity to respond to the supplementary report of the Code of Conduct Reviewer prior to that report being provided to other Councillors.

I have also not been afforded the courtesy of a copy of the original report provided by the Code of Conduct Reviewer nor the brief provided to the Reviewer.

Given that the supplementary report of the Code of Conduct Reviewer has now issued, I am obliged to respond to that report.

The Code of Conduct Reviewer has come to the conclusion that I have breached the Code of Conduct as it applies to Newcastle City Council. For a number of reasons which are set out below I do not agree with that conclusion. The Code of Conduct Reviewer indicates that the Code of Conduct places onus on the individual to decide whether a conflict of interest exists.

The Code of Conduct Reviewer acknowledges that I disclosed to Council the fact of a donation made in the 2007 State Election Campaign by a company, which company is related to the applicant in the matter before Council.

Accordingly I complied with the Code of Conduct in making that deliberation.

The Code of Conduct Reviewer even when presented with the opportunity to do so does not provide any detail of the manner in which such disclosure is alleged to be inconsistent with the Code of Conduct or indeed unsatisfactory.

The form of disclosure is consistent with the disclosures made from time to time by other councillors (and I've got copies Councillors if you would like to read your disclosures).

The Code of Conduct Reviewer then goes on to say that I did not manage the non-pecuniary interest that I disclosed to the Council meeting.

Unfortunately once again the Code of Conduct Reviewer, having had the opportunity of preparing two reports, does not explain the manner in which I fail to manage the disclosure that I made a the relevant Council meetings.

One would expect that as the Code of Conduct Review indicates that it is for the individual to decide whether a conflict of interest exists and that in order to find that a conflict of interest does exist, and has not been properly managed, the Reviewer should clearly indicate the manner in which the disclosure is not sufficient or the manner in which any alleged conflict has not been properly managed.

As a result of this matter arising I have sought legal advice from my own advisors and from an independent Barrister. These legal advisors are to the effect that the report of the Code of Conduct Reviewer is flawed.

They have also supported in the stance in respect of this matter by an opinion from a well respected Local Government commentator. The prominent Local Government commentator, having reviewed all the material, was of the opinion that a reasonable person properly informed as required by the Code of Conduct, would be most unlikely to conclude that I would be likely to have been influenced in any way by the circumstances arising from this matter.

The prominent Local Government commentator also raises the issue that if a councillor is to be criticised for a lack of management or any perceived conflict of interest then the Reviewer should at least specify the steps that he says should be taken.

It would have been easier for me to decline to participate in the decision making process which has been the subject of the Code of Conduct report, however, as an elected Councillor there are a number of issues which have to be considered when making such decisions.

Councillors have roles and responsibilities bestowed on them by the Local Government Act. These roles and responsibilities include as a member of the Governing body of the Council to direct and control the affairs of the Council and as an elected person to represent the interests of residents and ratepayers and to provide leadership and guidance to the community.

It would be wrong for a councillor to use the Code of Conduct to avoid shouldering a burden of these roles and responsibilities. It is also wrong for any persons who may not agree with the decision that a councillor makes to endeavour to use the Code of Conduct to force a councillor out of the decision making process simply because they perceive that a councillor might not support their particular view.

My initial decision to allow the matter to be released to the public for consideration is consistent with the ideals of community consultation and allowing the community to have input into the decision making process of the Council in respect of matters which could be of significant impact upon the community. It must be concluded that persons who lodged the complaints which led to the Reviewer's review, were persons who were opposed to the development of the Maryville markets but who were not willing to allow the community as a whole to express the community's view on such development.

Once elected councillors are responsible for the whole of the community and Local Government area, not part thereof. These people sought to disenfranchise the wider community. The issue which is highlighted is that when a small number of persons are dissatisfied with a decision, that small number of persons are able to lodge complaints against a councillor.

As was indicated in the address by former Commissioner, Independent Commissioner Against Corruption, the Honourable Jerrold Cripps, he said "it unfortunately is the case that in Local Government when people do not get the outcome they want from local council, their first, not all but mostly first response, is that council must be corrupt and therefore identify the corruption reference of a conflict of interest".

Given the circumstances in which the complaints arose on 4 May 2010, the comments made by certain councillors when this matter first came before the Council and in particular that when considering the report of the Code of Conduct Reviewer certain councillors took the opportunity to raise during discussion issues which were not only not relevant to the report of the Code of Conduct Reviewer but have not formed any part of any complaint clearly indicates that the comments of his Honour Justice Cripps have strong relevance and that this whole exercise has all the hallmarks of a political witch hunt.

Indeed the comments made by certain councillors amount to pre-judgement of the sort referred to in the case McGovern versus Ku-ring-gai Council as noted by Justice Cripps in his address. Indeed I have also been accused of endeavouring to influence other councillors to support the view that I took at the Council meeting, the subject of the complaints made to Council.

I challenge any person to bring forward any evidence that I endeavoured to influence any other councillor to either exercise their vote in a particular manner or not attend at the Council meeting on the night the matter was considered." Following the mover's right of reply the Lord Mayor stepped down and requested the Deputy Lord Mayor to take the chair. The Lord Mayor requested the Deputy Lord Mayor to take the vote by division.

The Deputy Lord Mayor put the motion to the meeting and called for a division which resulted as follows:

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

The Deputy Lord Mayor declared the motion carried on the division of ten votes to two votes.

RESOLVED: (COUNCILLORS T CRAKANTHORP/S SHARPE)
1 Council receives the report.

2 Council find the Lord Mayor has breached sections 7.2, 7.3, 7.13 and 7.18 of Council’s Code of Conduct in relation to his failure to adequately disclose and manage a non pecuniary conflict of interests with Almona Pty Limited and companies and persons related to Almona Pty Limited.

3 Council censure the Lord Mayor for that breach.

Censure rejected

2010-06-01T23:05:00.010+10:00

The story so far...

Council considered the report from the Code of Conduct Reviewer tonight (an account is given below).

This follows from:

The anonymous complaint dated 19 February 2010, see here and here and here

My response to the reviewer's letter dated 6 March 2010, see here and here

On 14 March 2010, the NSW Greens State Delegates Council supported my concerns, see here

In the week leading up to Easter I receive the "draft" CoC report and send in my reply (though not a single word of the "draft" report gets changed), see here

The CoC report to comes to Council on 20 April 2010 recommending censure (not a bad turnaround given Council’s meeting cycles), with councillors deciding to lie the matter on the table until after the result of the court appeal is known, see here

District Court decision on 27 April 2010, allowing our appeal against the decision of the magistrate and quashing the decision of the magistrate fining each of us and dismissing the charge without conviction pursuant to section 10 of the crimes sentencing procedure act 1999.

The report comes back to Council on 1 June 2010, see below

From tonight's council meeting...

ITEM-61 CCL 01/06/10 - CODE OF CONDUCT SOLE REVIEWER’S REPORT ON COMPLAINT AGAINST COUNCILLOR OSBORNE

MOTION: (COUNCILLORS B COOK/B LUKE)

1 Council find Councillor Osborne has breached clauses 6.1(c) and 6.2 of Council’s Code of Conduct, in that he was arrested on 20 December and subsequently found guilty of trespass.

2 Council censure Councillor Osborne for that breach.

The Lord Mayor asked the General Manager to clarify the Court's decision in relation to Councillor Osborne's appeal.

The General Manager indicated that the outcome of the appeal was a "section 10" as circulated to Councillors by memorandum this afternoon.

The Lord Mayor further asked the General Manager to outline "section 10".

The General Manager read from the memorandum circulated to Councillors on 1 June 2010:

• that the court found Councillor Osborne guilty of the offences but directed that the relevant charges be dismissed under section10(1)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (Act); and

• the Court quashed the monetary orders.

The Lord Mayor sought further clarification as to whether a charge was recorded as the charge had been quashed by Court.

The General Manager referred Council to the wording in the memorandum dated 1 June 2010.

Councillor Osborne made reference to a letter the General Manager received after the commencement of the Economy and Civic Assets and Governance Strategic Themes Committee meeting, which started at 5.31pm on 1 June 2010, from the Environmental Defenders Office Ltd regarding the circulation of the memorandum dated 1 June 2010 and subsequent possible breach of section 13(1) of the Criminal Records Act 1991.

Councillor Osborne said the letter stated that through circulation of the aforementioned memorandum the General Manager may have aided and abetted in the commission of an offence.

Councillor Osborne stated that in his view the General Manager's memorandum dated 1 June 2010 and the Code of Conduct reviewer's report contained factual errors

Councillor Buman moved an extension of one minute.

PROCEDURAL MOTION
RESOLVED: (COUNCILLORS A BUMAN/B LUKE)
Councillor Osborne be granted one extra minute.

At the end of his address, Councillor Osborne asked the Lord Mayor if he would take the vote by division and indicated that he would leave the Chamber.

At this stage of the meeting, Councillor Osborne left the Chamber.

The motion was then put to the meeting and the Lord Mayor called for a division which resulted as follows:

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

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

Councillor Osborne returned to the Chamber at the conclusion of this item.

City’s future must come first, say Greens

2010-05-21T14:34:00.000+10:00

Newcastle Greens

MEDIA RELEASE
21 May 2010

Newcastle Greens today called on the Fix Our City group to be honest about its agenda to cut the Newcastle rail line.

“Many members of the public aren’t aware that this group is bankrolled by the same developers who have been trying to cut the Newcastle rail line for decades,” Newcastle Greens councillor Michael Osborne said.

“The group is still hiding behind its innocent sounding, but highly misleading, “Fix Our City” facade, when it is really just the same old “cut the rail” brigade.

“Members of the public who go along to the meeting that this group has called for early June may do so genuinely believing that they are supporting a campaign to revitalise the Newcastle Central Business District, without realising that the group is really just the latest front for the local anti-rail campaign.

“The vested interests behind this group have been so determined for so long to cut the city’s rail line that they are now prepared to go to any lengths to get what they want.

“Those in the community who know the forces behind the Fix Our City campaign see the irony and hypocrisy of the name, because they are the same vested interests who have refused to accept that it is absurd to remove a rail line, and to recognise that their campaign is actually preventing Newcastle from presenting a rail-based public transport project that would have a chance of winning federal revitalisation funding.

“Visiting transport expert Professor Peter Newman confirmed this week what The Greens have been saying since the start of the most recent anti-rail campaign: no campaign advocating removing a rail line has any chance of winning federal revitalisation funding, because the federal government knows that it just doesn’t stack up, economically, environmentally, socially or politically.

“It’s time for the local developers and others behind the anti-rail Fix Our City campaign to put the future of our city before their own vested interests, or accept the responsibility for Newcastle missing out on the opportunity for federal funding assistance,” Councillor Osborne said.

Councillor Osborne also called on the federal member for Newcastle, Sharon Greirson, to take a more proactive role in the rail issue.

“Ms Greirson should be making it clear to these local developers that their anti-rail campaign is undermining the city’s federal funding opportunities, and should take a leadership role in bringing the Newcastle community together to develop a revitalisation plan that could be accepted by the federal government.

“The local community and The Greens have always been willing to engage productively in any genuine effort to revitalise our ailing city,” Councillor Osborne said.

“Look how quickly the city-campus fell into place once it was clear that it had genuine support across the whole Newcastle community,” he said.

“We need an approach to Newcastle’s public transport system that can win the same kind of consensus, and we can’t afford to let narrow vested interests stand in the way of achieving this any longer.”

Council hides in the dark on coal

2010-05-21T08:37:00.000+10:00

Newcastle Greens

MEDIA RELEASE
21 May 2010

Newcastle City Council is burying its head in the sand on the potential impact of coal on the community and the role and responsibilities of local government, according to Newcastle Greens councillor Michael Osborne.

The council this week rejected Councillor Osborne’s call for a scoping report that would examine the potential impact of planned massive increases in coal transport through the Newcastle local government area.

Councillor Osborne was the only councillor to vote in favour of the motion.

“It’s a depressing indicator of just how far away from reality the current council has drifted,” Councillor Osborne said.

“My motion pointed out that the massive and unprecedented increase in coal exports planned for the port of Newcastle has direct implications for council (in terms of infrastructure maintenance, traffic management, and planning), but the other councillors demonstrated that they would rather not even know about what these impacts might be.

“It was a classic case of ‘see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil’,” he said.

“This just reinforces the unfortunate and increasing perception in the local community that this council gives a higher priority to personal in-fighting than it does to issues of real importance,” Councillor Osborne said.

“Some of the comments from councillors during the debate were extraordinary,” he said.

“One councillor (Clr Scott Sharpe) went so far as to claim that coal had no impact on the Newcastle community!

“I get a very different impression from the people I talk to in my local community, who are concerned about dust, noise and vibration impacts from coal transport and coal loading operations,” Councillor Osborne said.

“It’s time that Newcastle councillors took a reality check and started dealing with the big public policy challenges that face our community,” Councillor Osborne said.

Saving the Laman St fig trees

2010-05-17T17:55:00.000+10:00

Laman Street & Civic Precinct : Design Framework, May 2010

Dysfunctional...

2010-05-06T22:56:00.001+10:00

From today's editorial in The Herald...

Councillors losing focus
06 May, 2010 01:17 PM

NEWCASTLE City Council runs the risk of repeating the mistakes of its dysfunctional past.

Scarcely a year after this newspaper congratulated a new-look council on its seemingly down-to-business approach the city's elected panel of leaders has disintegrated, once again, into bickering and petty politics.

Just over a month ago Greens councillor Michael Osborne became the subject of a code of conduct investigation over his involvement in a community protest against the coal industry. An anonymous complaint forced the council to hire an expensive consultant to investigate the matter. The consultant recommended that Cr Osborne be censured by fellow councillors on the basis of a court conviction - since overturned - over the protest.

read more...

Lord Mayor John Tate's conduct

2010-05-05T14:31:00.000+10:00

Newcastle Greens

MEDIA RELEASE
5 May 2010

Newcastle Greens Councillor Michael Osborne today called on other Newcastle councillors to use the current deferral of the Code of Conduct report concerning Lord Mayor John Tate to come to a properly measured response to the matter.

Councillor Osborne said that he agreed with the finding of the conduct review report on the Lord Mayor that he had breached the council’s Code of Conduct, and with its recommended censure against him.

“I would have supported this outcome if the General Manager had not circulated a memo (based on legal advice) just before the council meeting, recommending that the matter be deferred pending clarification of some aspects of the conduct reviewer’s report,” Councillor Osborne said.

“As things currently stand, I don’t accept the Lord Mayor’s argument in defence of his actions, in terms of his failure to disclose relevant details of his conflicts of interests and to properly manage these conflicts, and I would urge Councillor Tate to accept the conclusions of the report and to take steps to ensure that this doesn’t happen in the future.

"It’s a serious matter, and a council censure – which is the most serious sanction a council can apply in such matters – is an appropriately weighted response in the circumstances.

“However, I think it’s also crucially important that councillors don’t turn Code of Conduct findings and sanctions into an excuse for a political lynch-mob, or as a form of political payback for perceived wrongs that have nothing to do with the conduct that is the subject of the report.

“Whilst the report’s censure recommendation is appropriate, the Labor/Buman push to strip the Lord Mayor of his delegations, and to refer the matter to the Director-General of the Division of Local Government go way beyond the conduct reviewer’s recommendations, and may end up bringing the council and the Code of Conduct processes into further disrepute.

“None of the advocates of these extra punitive measures were able to explain or justify them at last night’s council meeting.

“The current facts of the case do not fit the grounds outlined in the Local Government Act (section 440I) for referral to the Director-General to initiate suspension proceedings, and there is no apparent link between Councillor Tate’s actions in this matter and his exercise of council delegations.

“Much of Councillor Buman’s contribution to last night’s debate was based on personal gripes he has with the Lord Mayor that have nothing to do with this Code of Conduct matter.

“Basing a detrimental decision and imposing extra punitive action on the Lord Mayor on such irrelevant grounds might actually expose such a decision to the risk of legal challenge.

“All Newcastle councillors should now use the deferral period to consider this matter carefully, and come to a properly measured response that would stand up to both public and legal scrutiny,” Councillor Osborne said.

Greens will move in Senate for sensible sovereign fund to invest in our future

2010-05-03T12:53:00.000+10:00

The Greens will move in the Senate for a sensible sovereign fund from the resource tax to invest in Australia's people and environment.

The Greens are examining a raft of sidelined recommendations from the Henry Review to pursue in the Senate, including increasing income support for students and the unemployed, removing the Fringe Benefit Tax concession which currently encourages company car use, and introducing road congestion taxes to fund public transport.

"The Greens have long advocated a resource tax, and we will work in the Senate to make sure it is invested in Australia's future, not our past," said Australian Greens Acting Leader, Senator Christine Milne.

"The sensible thing to do would be to invest the revenue in training and education for jobs of the future, in income support for students and the unemployed, in building the public transport and renewable energy infrastructure we need to wean ourselves off our fossil fuel addiction.

"We will be looking in particular for increases in income support for students and the unemployed in next week's Budget.

"The government's approach would lock in a 19th century focus on digging up and exporting as much coal as we possibly can. That is no plan for the 21st century.

"I look forward to working with the government to turn this into a real plan for the future, investing in our people and our sun, wave, wind and soil."

The Greens already have legislation before the Senate to implement one of Ken Henry's recommendations - removing the incentive to drive more through the Fringe Benefits Tax concession for company cars.

"We will be raising this very sensible policy again with the government, as well as pursuing other Henry recommendations for reducing our reliance on petrol in an age of climate change and peak oil.

"This review was an opportunity to re-design our cities for people rather than cars, investing funds from a congestion tax in fast, convenient and safe public transport.

"This would also have been a perfect opportunity to remove the billions of dollars of subsidies that go to fossil fuel companies every year through fuel tax credits.

"The huge trucks that operate in open cut mines pay virtually no tax on the fuel they use to dig up more polluting fuels, while ordinary Australians pay tax on the fuel they use to get to work, to get the groceries and to take the kids to school because there are few decent alternatives.

"We need to move our tax system over to taxing bads and rewarding goods, taxing waste and pollution and investing in our people and our environment.

"That would be real reform and the Greens will pursue it in the Senate and in the community."

Greens will pursue Henry recommendations in the Senate

2010-05-02T13:04:00.000+10:00

The government's response to the Henry tax review is a missed opportunity to really transform Australia's tax system to deliver for the community and the environment now and in the future, the Greens said today.

The Greens will move in Parliament to pursue key Henry recommendations to which the Government had failed to respond, including increasing income support for students and the unemployed, removing the Fringe Benefit Tax concession that currently encourages company car use, and introducing road congestion taxes to fund public transport.

Acting Leader, Senator Christine Milne said the Government's response to the Henry Review had missed the opportunity for ‘root and branch' renewal by moving the tax burden away from labour and productivity and onto waste, inefficiency and unsustainable resource use, in favour of bigger tax breaks for big business.

"The Greens will act to ensure the community gets a better deal following from the Henry Review. In particular we will pursue Henry's recommendation that the base income rate for students and job seekers is increased," Australian Greens Acting Leader, Senator Christine Milne, said.

"How is the whole-of-government approach to climate change and peak oil served by providing billions for new coal ports and coal railways?

"This tax review was the opportunity to re-design our cities for people rather than cars and to remove the billions of dollars of subsidies to fossil fuel industries through fuel tax credits."

The Greens welcome Ken Henry's call for a serious review of the level of compensation provided to emission intensive industries if a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was passed.

"Ken Henry's support for a carbon tax also puts added pressure on the Government to negotiate with the Greens on our proposal."

Senator Milne welcomed the announcement of the Resource Super Profits Tax, but flagged improvements the Greens would seek to make on its structure.

"There is no evidence that revenue generated the Government's new Resource Super Profits Tax will be linked to an ongoing, long-term fund to provide for Australia's future."

"They have not planned for what happens when the boom busts.

"The Greens proposal for a National Resource Fund from the resource tax would establish a mechanism to put away benefits of the resource boom now for the future.

"The Greens also oppose the Government's reduction of company tax rates. A far better approach would be to take up Henry's recommendation to eventually replace payroll taxes which discourage employment with more efficient broad based taxes.

"It's is disappointing that the Henry Review did not go further in making specific announcements on tax arrangements for energy efficiency or renewable energy."

Coal impact needs investigation

2010-04-30T14:28:00.001+10:00

Newcastle Greens

MEDIA RELEASE
30 April 2010

Newcastle Greens councillor Michael Osborne today lodged a notice of motion calling for a report from council officers on the likely impact of planned massive increases in coal transport through the city of Newcastle.

“Many people in the Newcastle community are only vaguely aware of just how huge the increase in coal exports planned by the state government and the coal industry actually are, and probably haven’t yet given much thought to their potential local impact.

“Current plans will increase Newcastle’s coal export capacity from its current level of around 80 million tonnes per year, to more than 300 million tonnes, nearly quadrupling the current capacity of world’s largest coal exporting port.

“Of course, this will massively increase the already major role that Newcastle plays in global climate change, but it will also have significant localised detrimental impacts on the city, as a result of associated increases in road and rail haulage through the city to the port,” Councillor Osborne said.

“More trucks on our roads and more coal trains through our city mean potential increases in traffic accidents, waiting times at railway gates, more air and noise pollution, more vibration impacts on buildings along transport corridors, and more damage and wear on expensive public infrastructure (especially roads).”

Councillor Osborne said that the council needed to understand the range and magnitude of these impacts, because a number of them would directly affect council responsibilities, such as asset maintenance, traffic management, and planning and development decisions, along with the increased flood risks and coastal management impacts associated with coal induced climate change.

He said he expected that local concerns associated with the impact of coal transport on the general community would have a much higher profile in the coming years, and that council had a responsibility to inform the community about elevated levels of coal dust and noise, and vibration.

“I know that people in my own area (Tighes Hill) have recently been expressing their concern about the impact of coal haulage operations associated with Port Waratah, and the local community group has now approached Port Waratah Coal Services about this. As these kinds of local impacts become more and more evident, I expect the level of concern to increase accordingly,” he said.

“The current state government has shown that it is entirely in the pocket of the coal industry, and is prepared to ride roughshod over the concerns of local communities in these matters,” he said.

I’m calling on Newcastle council to show that it’s prepared to play a role on behalf of the community in this issue,” he said.

Code of Conduct report

2010-04-20T23:17:00.001+10:00

At tonight's meeting, Council considered the adverse Code of Conduct report against me.

Council decided to await the outcome of the Court appeal.

I've included the Code of Conduct Reviewer's report below.

ITEM-40 CCL 20/04/10 - CODE OF CONDUCT SOLE REVIEWER’S REPORT ON COMPLAINT AGAINST COUNCILLOR OSBORNE

MOTION: (COUNCILLORS G BOYD/N NELMES)

1 Council receives the Code of Conduct report on a complaint against Councillor Michael Osborne.

2 Council notes the reviewer's determination.

3 Council resolves pursuant to Clause 12.25 (c) of the Code of Conduct that Councillor Osborne receive counseling on distinguishing between undertaking the role of Councillor in accordance with Section 232(2) of the Local Government Act and his role as a private citizen.

Councillor Luke gave notice of a foreshadowed motion that being the Officer's recommendation.

Councillor Jackson then gave notice of a foreshadowed motion that being Parts 1 and 2 of the motion only.

During discussion it was advised that Councillor Osborne had lodged an appeal in respect of this matter.

Councillor Luke moved a procedural motion that the matter lie on the table pending the result of the appeal.

PROCEDURAL MOTION
RESOLVED: (COUNCILLORS B LUKE/T CRAKANTHORP)
The matter lie on the table until after the result of Councillor Osborne's appeal is known.

My response to CoC report

2010-04-07T16:42:00.001+10:00

In the week leading up to the Easter long weekend, the CoC reviewer emailed me a copy of the "draft" Council report, wanting comments by Easter Tuesday.

I confirmed receipt of the "draft" report and that I would be sending in a response by the end of the week after the Easter long weekend (noting that I was going away with my daughters). The CoC reviewer replied that any response would have to be with him by the end of Wednesday at the latest because he wanted to get the report to Council on Thursday morning for inclusion in the Business Papers for the next Council meeting.

Not a single word of the "draft" report changed in the end. Here is my response below.

Dear Mr Smith

I write in response to your invitation to me (in your email dated 30 March 2010) to comment on the draft report that you have prepared for Council’s consideration arising from your investigation of a Code of Conduct complaint against me regarding my participation and subsequent arrest in a public protest on 20 December 2009.

I reiterate my concern at the limited timeframe given to me to consider your draft report, given that the draft report was received in the lead up to Easter and that I had informed you that I would be going away for Easter with my family. To ask for my comments to be with you by Easter Tuesday (which was also a Council meeting day) I consider unreasonable.

I do not agree with the report’s finding that my arrest and subsequent conviction constitute breaches of Clauses 6.1 and 6.2 of Newcastle Council’s Code of Conduct, or with the report’s consequent recommendation that Council censure me for these breaches.

In summary, my response to the report (outlined in more detail below) is that:

• The argument supporting the report’s finding relies on a highly contestable question of law in interpreting Section 232(2) of the Local Government Act (the Act) and its application to Clauses 6.1 and 6.2 of Newcastle Council’s Code of Conduct (the Code).

• The report’s argument also depends on a significant misapplication of those Clauses of the Code to circumstances that are not directly related to Council functions or activities.

• Furthermore, and notwithstanding the above concerns, the report focuses on matters that are peripheral or entirely irrelevant to the complaint and the alleged breaches of the Code.

• The report ignores the public protest and civil disobedience context in which my conduct took place.

• The report’s recommended sanction (a Council censure) against me is out of all proportion to any reasonable assessment of the nature of the alleged breach.

• Given the nature of its many deficiencies, the report conveys the impression that it was constructed to support a preconceived finding that reflects the author’s apparent personal prejudice against Councillors being involved in public protest and civil disobedience, rather than a professional and dispassionate assessment of the complaint itself, and the specific alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct.

If the report’s current detrimental finding against me is allowed to stand, I will certainly be pursuing channels of complaint and appeal available to me in order to clear what I believe would be a totally unjustified smear against my name.

This submission outlines my major concerns with the report, canvassing each of the matters I have raised above in more detail, in addition to a section commenting on some important ramifications that might arise for Council from its endorsement of the report and its findings.

If the report remains in its current form, I ask that this submission be included with the report in the relevant Council business papers distributed to Councillors and to the public. If the report is changed, I ask that I be provided with a further opportunity to comment on any such changes.

1. The report’s interpretation of s.232(2) of the Local Government Act

The report’s argument and finding against me turns entirely on a legal argument that my participation in the public protest in which I was arrested was pursuant to my role as a Councillor under Section 232(2) of the Local Government Act.

The final paragraph of the report encapsulates this point in asserting that “the conclusion can be drawn that Cr Osborne was undertaking his role as a Councillor in accordance with Section 232(2) of the Act [my emphasis] by participating in the protest and then publicly commenting on the matter...”.

This legal point is fundamental to the report’s detrimental finding against me since, if the conduct reviewer’s interpretation of Section 232(2) is incorrect and my involvement in the protest was not in my capacity as a Councillor but in some other capacity (for example, as a private citizen), then it necessarily follows that Clauses 6.1 and 6.2 of the Code could not apply to that conduct, and that I could not therefore be found in breach of these two provisions of the Code.

The timidity of the report’s wording (“the conclusion can be drawn...”) betrays the legal fragility of the central proposition on this key question of law that underpins the report’s argument and finding.

The interpretation of Section 232(2) of the Act in respect to its application to the involvement of Councillors in matters that are not clearly and directly to do with Council affairs or their dealings with Council staff is highly contested.

I am advised that there is no relevant case law on the application of Section 232(2) of the Act that would support the radically expansive interpretation of that Section advanced in this conduct review report, and that a number of legal opinions by lawyers with expertise in NSW local government law have strongly disputed the kind of broad interpretation of Section 232(2) that the report adopts, and on which its argument and finding depends.

My attention has also been specifically drawn to a recent Code of Conduct investigation in Tweed Shire Council in which a panel of three conduct reviewers found that a Councillor’s involvement in a public protest and associated court action in relation to the Repco Car Rally was entirely a private matter for the Councillor, and that she was not acting in her Councillor capacity.

Within Newcastle Council itself, questions have been recently raised about the extent to which Section 232(2) of the Act might provide the legal grounds for Councillors to release information to the public, in circumstances where such information related directly to Council matters and was provided to a Councillor by Council staff.

A previous conduct reviewer (Ms Kath Roach) proposed a series of changes to the Council’s Code of Conduct that were predicated on a very restrictive interpretation of Section 232(2) that would be entirely at odds with the radically expansive interpretation on which your report and finding relies. Your radically expansive interpretation would extend the reach of Section 232(2) even to matters entirely unrelated to a Councillor’s involvement with Council functions.

It is not my intention here to argue which interpretation of Section 232(2) of the Act is correct. This is a matter for the courts. My point is rather that the application of Section 232(2) of the Act in relation to the rights and responsibilities of Councillors is a highly contested and unresolved question of law, and that a detrimental finding against a Councillor in relation to a Code of Conduct complaint should not rely on one particular interpretation of that Section that is unfavourable to the respondent, as your current draft report does.

The report is not informed by any relevant legal precedent or advice that would support the interpretation of Section 232(2) of the Act on which its argument and finding relies.

Essentially, without even so much as a reference to any relevant legal advice or case law, a (legally unqualified) conduct reviewer has presumed to rule on a significant, highly contested and unresolved question of law in finding that Section 232(2) applies to situations in which Councillors are involved in matters (in this case a public protest) that are not directly related to the Councillor’s dealings with Council or to a Council function.

Given such demonstrable doubt about a key question of law on which the finding of this Code of Conduct investigation hinges, the approach taken in this report (that is, to effectively rule on the question of law as the basis for a detrimental finding against me) raises serious questions about the quasi-judicial role of conduct reviewers generally (especially in relation to their professional competence to understand and rule on questions of law), and about the extent to which this particular conduct reviewer has considered and applied the principle of the presumption of innocence in this case.

In matters where there is legitimate doubt about whether a Council official is acting in their official capacity or not in any particular case, clearly the presumption of innocence should be applied so as to give the Council official the benefit of the doubt.

In my view, the application of the presumption of innocence should surely take precedence over a speculative and radical interpretation of a highly contested and judicially unclear Section of the Local Government Act by a legally unqualified conduct reviewer who offers no support for that interpretation by way of argument, evidence or reference to appropriate expertise or case law.

I have no recollection of the conduct reviewer indicating during our interview that the interpretation of Section 232(2) of the Act might play such a determinative role in the investigation and finding of his report. I regret that the reviewer did not raise this matter more prominently during that phase of the investigation, so I could raise and discuss with him the range of concerns to which I have referred in this submission.

Despite its reliance on this interpretation of Section 232(2) of the Act, comments in the report itself appear to concede at least the possibility that my involvement in the public protest and subsequent arrest might have been in my capacity as an individual rather than in my capacity as a Councillor.

For example, the report states – in relation to my conduct – that it does not question “the legitimacy of undertaking a protest”, and comments that “it is the right of every individual to publicly display their views...”, a comment that would have no relevance to the matter at hand except as a reference to the possibility that I might have been exercising such an individual right.

The report contains a significant number of references to an article written by me and published in The Herald on 22 December 2009 (two days after the protest), to which it appears to give significant status in the determination of the complaint.

The report also quotes extensively from Council’s Media Policy, insinuating – though not explicitly asserting or formally finding – that my handling of The Herald article breached that policy. The Herald article was the subject of considerable discussion during my Code of Conduct interview.

The Herald article was not the subject of the complaint (except in relation to the complaint’s reference to alleged comments in the article that the conduct reviewer concedes are not correct), and is not relevant to the report’s finding that “in being arrested and convicted of an unlawful act” I allegedly breached Clauses 6.1 and 6.2 of the Code.

If I breached these Clauses of the Code by virtue of “being arrested and convicted of an unlawful act” (as the report concludes), this would presumably be so whether I wrote an article for The Herald or not.

The report does not find that my writing The Herald article itself constituted a breach of the Code, or that anything in the content of the article constituted a breach of the Code. Whilst the report does assert that I erred in a number of respects in relation to this article, none of these assertions are reflected in either the complaint itself, or in any finding in the report that the article breached any provision of the Code.

The comments about The Herald article appear to reflect the desire of the reviewer to offer his opinion on matters that he personally regards as important, but that are peripheral or irrelevant to the complaint and to the associated findings of the alleged breaches of Clauses 6.1 and 6.2 of the Code.

Comments such as “given the arrest and probable conviction, at that point in time the best course of action for him would have been to not comment at all” may be well-intentioned advice, but they are not relevant to the specific complaint or to the alleged breaches.

The report’s statements that I “made no effort to draw the distinction between his role as a Councillor and that as an individual” and that “there was no attempt to dissociate the arrest at the protest and his role as a Councillor” are also similarly irrelevant. Whilst I do not accept these statements, the issue they address was not the subject of the complaint, and the report does not find that the conduct it alleges on my part breached any provision of the Code.

Similarly, the report’s lengthy reference to Council’s Media Policy appears to be responding to a non-existent complaint as to my compliance with that policy in relation to The Herald article, rather than to the complaint that initiated the investigation.

I do note, however, that these comments again implicitly concede the possibility that I might have participated in the public protest as an individual rather than as a Councillor. The report appears to be arguing here that if I had, in fact, “made an effort to draw a distinction between my role as a Councillor and that as an individual”, such an action may have made some difference to my alleged breaches of Clauses 6.1 and 6.2 of the Code. This is legal nonsense. A breach by a Council official of either of these Clauses cannot depend on whether the official him/herself draws a distinction between their official role and their individual role; the capacity in which a Council official is acting at the time of the relevant conduct must obviously be established as a legally objective fact in terms of any alleged breach of these Clauses.

Furthermore, it does seem oddly inconsistent that, on the one hand, the report finds that I was acting in my capacity as a Councillor rather than as an individual during the public protest (as the basis for finding me in breach of Clauses 6.1 and 6.2 of the Code), and then, on the other, actually criticises me for allegedly failing to clarify that I was participating in the public protest in an individual capacity, rather than in my capacity as a Councillor.

I believe that these comments – and the significance placed on The Herald article and Council’s Media Policy – reflect a general lack of rigour and focus in the report’s line of argument.

2. The expansive interpretation of Clauses 6.1 and 6.2 of the Code of Conduct

The second – and related – layer of legal argument on which the report’s detrimental finding relies is that the reference to a Council official’s “functions” in Clauses 6.1 and 6.2 of the Code of Conduct should also be interpreted so expansively as to include matters that are not even associated with a Council function.

The report’s approach to interpreting these Clauses reflects the radically expansive interpretation it applies to Section 232(2) of the Act.

Clearly, if the report allowed for the possibility of a more restrictive view of Section 232(2) (that is, one that precluded or placed limitations on its application to matters not directly related to Council affairs), it could not logically arrive at the current detrimental finding, since such a restrictive interpretation would conclusively exclude consideration of such conduct as a relevant “function” under the Act.

However, it is important to note that the converse is not true: an expansive interpretation of Section 232(2) does not necessarily lead to an expansive interpretation of Clauses 6.1 and 6.2 of the Code.

The conduct report appears to assume that if Section 232(2) of the Act is interpreted so as to include conduct outside the Council realm, it automatically follows that Clauses 6.1 and 6.2 should be so interpreted. This is a simplistic and legally dubious approach, which has again been taken without any apparent recourse to a body of appropriately qualified legal opinion or expertise.

The wording of Clauses 6.1 and 6.2 makes it clear that they apply restrictively to conduct associated with a Council official performing a “function under the Act”.

By this means, these two provisions attempt to make it clear that their appropriate application is to the professional and official spheres of a Council official’s life, when they are acting pursuant to Council functions, and not to conduct that lies outside that sphere, in the realm of the private citizen. They attempt to appropriately limit the application of the provisions, so that conduct by a Council official that is not associated with a “function under the Act” is clearly excluded from their ambit.

The particular wording of these Clauses, the examples given in the Code itself of the kind of conduct to which they are intended to apply, and the explanatory material provided by the Department of Local Government to assist Councils and Council officials to understand and apply the Code of Conduct, all suggest that these provisions were intended to apply to conduct in which Council officials are carrying out functions directly related to a Council’s legal responsibilities.

The wording of these provisions of the Code suggest that they were drafted primarily with Council staff in mind, and that a restrictive application of the Clauses might therefore be more appropriate in relation to their potential application to Councillors engaged in non-Council activities. None of the examples given in these provisions of the Code, or in any relevant explanatory or interpretive material from the Department of Local Government provide any support for an expansive interpretation of these provisions to conduct in which a Council official is engaged in non-Council matters.

Despite the centrality of such considerations to the argument and conclusions of the conduct review report, the conduct report itself provides no evidence that the conduct reviewer has considered the issue of whether Clauses 6.1 and 6.2 of the Code should be interpreted and applied restrictively or expansively.

This is of particular concern given that fact that I specifically raised this issue in my original submission. As with Section 232(2) of the Act, the conduct review report takes the most radically expansive interpretation that it is possible to take regarding the potential application of Clauses 6.1 and 6.2 of the Code to matters outside the Council sphere, without any argument, evidence, or authoritative reference in support of such an interpretation, and in the face of strong indications that it might not be prudent to do so.

Again, the reviewer’s argument and conclusions (including the detrimental finding against me of breaches of Clauses 6.1 and 6.2 of the Code) appear to rely on an unsubstantiated interpretation that is seriously open to question. Again, too, the reviewer has shown little apparent regard for the presumption of innocence that is usually applied in matters where there is considerable interpretive doubt about such matters.

3. Public protest and Civil Disobedience and issues of disrepute and improper, unethical or unlawful conduct

The final layer of the report’s argument in support of its conclusion that I breached Clauses 6.1 and 6.2 is that, in being arrested, I was carrying out my functions “in a manner ... likely to bring the Council or holders of civic office into disrepute” [Clause 6.1], and that I breached Clause 6.1(c) by acting in a way that “is improper or unethical” and Clause 6.2 by not acting “lawfully” in “carrying out my functions”.

Even if the first two central propositions of the report’s argument are accepted (that is, in relation to its radically expansive interpretations of Section 232(2) of the Act and of Clauses 6.1 and 6.2 of the Code), the allegation of a breach of Clause 6.1 should fail on the basis that there is no evidence that being arrested as part of what was clearly a civil disobedience protest is “likely to bring the Council or holders of civic office into disrepute”.

Without argument or evidence, the report simply assumes – a priori – that any illegality committed by a Councillor will necessarily have the effect of bringing Council or holders of civic office into disrepute.

This value judgement appears to be based on the conduct reviewer’s personal assumptions and preconceptions, rather than any objective evidence. Such a view might be reasonable in respect to ordinary offences, but it totally disregards the civil disobedience context in which the public protest and my arrest took place.

Here, the report completely ignores the arguments in my original submission in relation to actions that sit within a clearly defined and widely accepted tradition of civil disobedience. Apparently, the reviewer has not seen the relevance of such considerations to the question of whether conduct that breaks a law might be “likely to bring the Council or holders of civic office into disrepute”. This may reflect a general problem with selecting conduct reviewers whose backgrounds are in management rather than in politics, civil law or public affairs to investigate complaints such as this, which require an understanding of the important difference between an ordinary unlawful act and one committed as part of a civil disobedience action. This distinction appears lost on the author of the conduct review report.

No doubt some members of society do take a negative view of the use of civil disobedience as a means of protest, and do not understand the difference between civil disobedience and ordinary offences.

However, as my original submission points out, the tradition of public protest and civil disobedience and its place within the systems of law and governance of liberal democracies is long established, well documented and widely accepted, and is supported by a significant body of knowledge in the disciplines of politics, history and jurisprudence.

Prominent and widely respected figures such as Henry Thoreau, Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela were all arrested and spent time in jail after being arrested for breaking laws as part of a wider campaign of civil disobedience in support of their causes.

At the time, they were criticised by those who argued – like the conduct reviewer in this report – that their causes did not justify their actions in breaking the law. Today, they are all universally respected for the courage they displayed in doing this. More recently, Nobel Peace prize winner Al Gore called for civil disobedience in relation to the specific failure of governments to act to adequately address climate change and coal dependency.

In liberal democracies such as ours, courts have traditionally recognised the distinction between civil disobedience and ordinary offences in the way they handle these cases, and this was reflected in the lightness of the fine imposed in this particular case ($250 for an offence for which the maximum penalty is $5,500).

The many expressions of support I have received in this matter since it entered the public domain indicates that a significant number of ordinary people do see and appreciate this distinction, and would certainly not agree with the proposition that justified civil disobedience brings disrepute to those who practice it or support it, or that it constitutes improper or unethical conduct.

The report itself acknowledges that “many people would no doubt agree with Cr Osborne’s views which were portrayed through his involvement in the protest”, and then concludes, oddly, that “that in no way mitigates the consideration of the matter”.

In fact, the distinction between an ordinary offence and one committed as part of public protest and civil disobedience is almost universally regarded in the legal system as just such a mitigating factor in consideration of such matters.

The report does not explain how it can hold the seemingly illogical position that a positive public perception of my involvement in the protest is not relevant to the question of whether that involvement was likely to bring Council or Council officials into disrepute, or whether public protest and civil disobedience in itself constitutes “improper” or “unethical” conduct, as the report clearly and uncritically assumes.

4. The proposed censure sanction

Clearly, since I do not agree with the report’s finding that I breached the Code, I also do not agree with its consequent recommendation that I be censured.

Notwithstanding this, however, the severity of the report’s proposed sanction against me does appear to be out of all reasonable proportion even to the alleged breach of the Code, considering the significant mitigating contextual factors involved (especially the fact that the public protest and arrests were clearly part of a civil disobedience action).

A censure against a Councillor is the most severe sanction that a Council can impose on a Councillor for a breach of the Code of Conduct under Clause 14.8 of the Code.

Here, it is relevant that the fine imposed on me by the court was $250 for the offence of “remaining on running lines or associated part of any rail infrastructure” (under the Rail Safety (Offences) Regulation 2008), for which the maximum fine is $5,500.

The court therefore applied a sanction against me that represented less than 5% of the potential maximum sanction.

The scale of the fine was comparable with the scale of a number of parking fines, and is well inside the range of fines generally imposed for “minor offences”.

Conversely, the conduct review report recommends that Council impose the most severe sanction available to it, without any attempt to explain or justify such a recommendation.

It would be reasonable to ask whether this recommendation reflects the conduct reviewer’s personal prejudices in relation to Councillors engaging in public protest and civil disobedience, rather than any fair and reasoned assessment of the seriousness of the alleged breach.

The entire report – with its radically expansive interpretation of Section 232(2) of the Act, its uncritical application of Clauses 6.1 and 6.2 to conduct that is completely outside a Council “function under the Act”, its failure to apply the presumption of innocence where there is clearly considerable doubt about key questions of law, its consideration of matters that are peripheral or entirely irrelevant to the complaint and the alleged breaches of the Code, its failure to appreciate or consider the civil disobedience context of the conduct under investigation, and its unexplained recommendation that Council impose the most severe sanction available to it – creates the impression that it was constructed in order to justify a preconceived outcome reflecting its author’s personal views about Councillors engaging in public protest and civil disobedience, rather than a dispassionate, professional consideration of the complaint in relation to its specific allegations, and its particular legal, evidential and contextual dimensions.

This exposes the entire report to the risk of challenge on the grounds of apprehended bias.

Upholding such a finding is likely to bring both Council and the Code of Conduct itself into disrepute, to the extent that both would be seen to be supporting unreasonable attempts to prevent or constrain Councillors from engaging in public protests and civil disobedience, even where they do so in relation to issues and matters with which Council itself is not directly involved.

5. Wider implications of the report’s interpretation of Section 232(2) for Council

Council should be acutely aware of the potential wider ramifications of accepting the radically expansive interpretation of Section 232(2) of the Act adopted in this report.

If Council accepts the report’s radically expansive interpretation of Section 232(3) of the Act to mean that a Councillor is carrying out his/her official function under the Act even whilst involved in matters that are not directly concerned with Council affairs (such as a public protest action), consistency would demand that the same interpretation must be applied to Council policies other than the Code of Conduct.

This has particular and important implications, for example, for the application of Council’s Policy for the Payment of Expenses and the Provision of Facilities for Councillors.

The precedent would significantly change the scope of that Policy in terms of its coverage of activities that would previously have been considered to be undertaken by Councillors in their private capacity.

Clause 7.2 of that Policy states that it “is intended to cover most situations where a Councillor reasonably incurs expenses in discharging the functions of civic office” [my emphasis].

Under the conduct review report’s radically expansive interpretation of Section 232(2) of the Act, a Councillor’s involvement in activities such as a public protest would be considered as “discharging the functions of civic office”, and would therefore create a legal right of access for such a Councillor to the various expense and facility benefits to which the policy entitles Councillors in such circumstances.

Councillors would then be entitled to a reasonable expectation – under the terms of the Policy – that Council would reimburse travel expenses to and from public protest actions (Clause 8), and cover the costs of care (Clause 20.1), special costs (Clause 21.1), insurance expenses (Clause 22.1), and certain legal expenses (Clause 23) incurred as a result of their participation in a public protest action. It would also provide the basis for Council assistance with correspondence on such matters for Councillors (Clause 28).

The potential financial impact of this on Council is considerable, especially since it could involve Council covering costs such as those associated with Councillors defending defamation actions arising from comments they might make in good faith during public protests, or any insurance or professional indemnity costs resulting from damages claims associated with a Councillor’s involvement in such activities.

This submission does not argue that Council’s Policy for the Payment of Expenses and the Provision of Facilities for Councillors should provide such assistance to Councillors, but such a conclusion appears to flow as a necessary logical consequence of Council’s acceptance of the conduct review report’s radically expansive interpretation of Section 232(2) of the Act, and of Clauses 6.1 and 6.2 of the Code.

It is a matter of record that during my long involvement in community-based progressive social change activities, including public protests, I have never sought any assistance from Council to cover my expenses in such activities, because I do not believe that the Policy’s reference to Councillors “discharging the functions of civic office” was ever really intended or understood to apply to matters such as Councillors’ participation in public protests in which Council itself is not involved, just as I have never understood the similar references in Clauses 6.1 and 6.2 to apply to such matters.

Council’s acceptance of the conduct review report’s radically expansive interpretation of Section 232(2) of the Act, together with its uncritical acceptance that Clauses 6.1 and 6.2 apply to the activities of Council officials in matters outside Council affairs, would thus represent a significant precedent that would change the scope of Council’s Policy for the Payment of Expenses and the Provision of Facilities for Councillors in a way that could expose Council to legitimate claims for financial and legal assistance in matters that were never intended or considered in drafting the policy (just as I believe the application of Clauses 6.1 and 6.2 of the Code to such matters was never intended or considered by those who drafted them).

Yours sincerely

Councillor Michael Osborne

Premier not convinced on rail cut

2010-03-24T10:25:00.001+11:00

Newcastle Greens

MEDIA RELEASE
24 March 2010

Newcastle Greens today welcomed the NSW Premier's indication that she was not yet convinced of the need to cut the Newcastle rail line.

The Premier, Kristina Kenneally, made the comment in an interview on local ABC radio station 1233 this morning, prior to her meeting with the community-based pro-rail Save Our Rail group and the developer-backed anti-rail Fix Our City group.

"The community will be very pleased to hear that the Premier has not caved in to the powerful vested interests who have been directing vast resources to the anti-rail push, and we urge her to resolve this issue in a way that maintains and improves the current rail infrastructure and services to Newcastle station," Newcastle Greens rail spokesperson Councillor Michael Osborne said today.

"Ms Kenneally's chances of leading a Labor government to re-election next year will partly depend on the credibility she is able to muster between now and then on public transport, and on her government's ability to distance itself from the influence of developer interests.

"The Newcastle rail line issue has both of these elements, and provides an opportunity for the Premier to win back some of the public support she and the state Labor government have lost on such issues in the recent past," Clr Osborne said.

Referring to the Premier's comment during her 1233 interview that she believed there was a way of resolving the rail issue, Councillor Osborne urged her to look seriously at proposals advanced by the community to reintroduce safe, controlled pedestrian access at various points across the rail line, and to landscape the line to improve its appearance.

"These improvements can be done at a fraction of the estimated $650million cost of cutting the line," Clr Osborne said.

"Throughout this debate, the community (including The Greens) have demonstrated that the arguments advanced in favour of cutting the line are based on misinformation and dodgy figures," Clr Osborne said.

"No government that really cares about a sustainable future for our city could support cutting a rail line that would be covetted by any other city in the world, simply at the behest of vested interests.

"Any professional, objective analysis of the proposal to cut the Newcastle rail line will show that taking such a proposal to Canberra for federal revitalisation and infrastructure funding assistance would simply make Newcastle a laughing stock.

"Scarce revitalisation funding must be directed where it is really needed, and where it can do most good," Clr Osborne said. "To divert it into cutting rail infrastructure would be scandalous, and a sure sign of a government in policy and electoral free-fall.

"As Newcastle deals with the challenge of traffic congestion, peak oil and climate change, we will need our rail lines and services more than ever. The Premier should be looking at funding genuinely worthy transport projects, such as funding a safe, connected cycleway network in Newcastle and funding the proposed Glendale interchange.

"We congratulate the Premier for offering hope to the community that she might be prepared to put people before profits on the long-running question of the Newcastle rail line," Clr Osborne said.

Council secret meetings

2010-03-22T22:48:00.000+11:00

Newcastle Greens

MEDIA RELEASE
22 March 2010

Greens councillor Michael Osborne today condemned the latest Newcastle council workshops to be held under the council’s secret meeting policy.

Cr Osborne said he had been advised that two unadvertised councillor-staff workshops scheduled tonight will discuss Newcastle’s new standard Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and council’s 2030 Community Strategic Plan.

“These secret workshops demonstrate that the council is now deliberately thumbing its nose at the public demand for more open and accountable city governance,” Cr Osborne said.

“It’s hard to imagine two council policy issues in which the public interest could be greater than the council’s long term community plan, and the city’s primary legal planning instrument,” Cr Osborne said.

“Ironically, the planning and reporting legislation that mandates council community strategic plans (such as the 2030 plan) is meant to be based on maximum community participation.

“And both councillors and council staff know how much interest and concern there is in the local community about the revised LEP.

“Information and discussion on these matters should not take place behind doors locked to the community and the media.

“I know many people in the community who would be interested in what both councillors and council staff would have to say about these issues, and there is absolutely no excuse for depriving them of access to this information.

“This is yet another abuse of council resources, and yet another act of arrogance on the part of a council that drifts further from its rhetorical claims of openness and transparency with every turn of the key that locks the public and the media out of every secret workshop.”

CAN bring Clive Hamilton to Newcastle

2010-03-22T11:50:00.002+11:00

Climate Action Newcastle have organised for Australian author and public intellectual Clive Hamilton to present their 2010 Annual Lecture.

The lecture will be at 7pm on tomorrow night (Tuesday 23rd March) at Newcastle City Hall, King Street Newcastle.

Clive is a renowned public intellectual and academic who founded and directed the progressive think tank The Australia Institute from 1994 to 2008. He is the author of many excellent books including 'Affluenza', 'Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change' and his latest book 'Requiem for A Species: Why we resist the truth about climate change'.

The last year has seen a surge in climate scepticism and apathy. Clive will discuss what is behind this phenomenon, and why we don't actually have to take climate change lying down!

A night of jailhouse blues

2010-03-18T11:45:00.002+11:00

A great celebratory fundraiser was held last night to help pay fines & court costs of over $10,000 for the 23 climate activists arrested for stopping a coal train at Sandgate last December.

Terrific people, a great venue, terrific music and a fun auction, with many thanks to all who helped bring it together (especially Greer and Geordie!).

Council Secrecy

2010-03-16T17:13:00.001+11:00

From today's editorial in The Herald...

Newcastle council workshops go behind closed doors

2010-03-16T17:00:00.002+11:00

From The Herald...

Newcastle council workshops go behind closed doors
BY JACQUI JONES CIVIC REPORTER
16 Mar, 2010 03:00 AM
FROM museum and art gallery redevelopments, to reviewing skate parks and hosting rock concerts in city parks.

These are just some of the topics discussed behind closed doors in Newcastle City Council workshops.

Critics of the civic sessions that exclude the public and media say most of the subjects canvassed are in the public interest and should be discussed in open sessions.

But others say the workshops are an informal way of sharing information, and are not for decision-making.

The Herald has obtained a list with details of most of the workshops that have been held during the incumbent council's term. It covers October to December 2008 and February to December 2009.

Only one of the 48 topics discussed in 28 behind closed doors meetings is marked confidential.

This workshop related to an organisational review.

The remaining forums covered a wide range of topics, including matters that attracted much public debate, such as last year's Fat As Butter concert and a review of city skate parks.

Cr Michael Osborne has been campaigning to let the public and media into workshops.

He said the list showed that, apart from the confidential organisational review, all other sessions should be open.

"Certainly the public interest argument, a lot of these topics have high public interest," Cr Osborne said.

The council's city engagement director Martin Coates said the sessions were a forum for sharing information only.

"There's no decisions made at workshops," he said.

"We're doing nothing that's outside [Division of Local Government] guidelines."

State Greens call for Newcastle rail reassurance

2010-03-15T10:54:00.000+11:00

Newcastle Greens

MEDIA RELEASE
15 March 2010

The weekend state meeting of the NSW Greens in Newcastle has called on the NSW Government to reassure the Hunter community that it will maintain and improve existing rail services to Newcastle station, and not succumb to vested interests lobbying to remove the city’s vital public transport infrastructure.

As the date for the state government’s long-awaited report on the Newcastle rail line approaches and vested interests step up their political pressure to cut the city’s rail line, the Keneally Labor government must make a clear commitment to maintain and upgrade the current rail line and service to Newcastle station, Greens MP and transport spokesperson Lee Rhiannon said.

“The Greens call on Premier Keneally to put people before profits, and not to condemn Newcastle to a car-dependent future for the sake of self-interested developers,” Ms Rhiannon said.

“The NSW Labor government is already on the nose for its failure to adequately plan for and provide public transport infrastructure and services. It can ill-afford another transport policy debacle.

“Retaining and improving Newcastle’s rail transport infrastructure and services will provide a sound basis for the revitalisation and future sustainability of the Newcastle CBD.

“Greens analysis of figures provided by the Government’s own Hunter Development Corporation shows that retaining and improving the rail line is a vastly superior option to cutting it.

“The recent announcement of a major university campus development in Honeysuckle demonstrates more than ever how vital the rail line will be to the city’s future.

“A rail line is essential to deal with the thousands of students who will require transport to a campus that will extend from at least Civic to Wickham,” Ms Rhiannon said.

Ms Rhiannon, who heads The Greens NSW Senate ticket for the forthcoming federal election, also called on the federal government to confirm that any federal infrastructure funding assistance provided to Newcastle will be used to expand and improve the city’s rail system.

“Federal funding for the Newcastle CBD should go to initiatives that will both revitalise Newcastle and deliver improved public transport.
“Worthwhile projects would include narrowing and landscaping the rail line, and installing safe, controlled, at-grade pedestrian crossings between Wickham and Newcastle stations,” Ms Rhiannon said.

Greens support people's blockade of Newcastle Harbour

2010-03-14T11:57:00.003+11:00

The weekend state meeting of the NSW Greens in Newcastle has supported the people's blockade of Newcastle Harbour on Sunday 28 March 2010 to highlight government inaction on a shift to renewable energy production.

Now, more than ever, we need to be turning up the heat on the coal industry, and their friends in government. The export coal industry is Australia's single biggest, and fastest growing contribution to the global climate crisis.

Newcastle, already the world's biggest coal port, is opening a major new coal export terminal over the course of this year, bringing the export capacity of the Hunter Valley coal chain to an incredible 178 million tonnes of coal per annum. That's the climate change equivalent of 30 Bayswater Power Stations. Within ten years, the coal corporations plan on exporting more than 300 million tonnes of coal per annum - a tripling of current export capacity.

Tripling coal exports means tripling coal mining. As Newcastle coal exports boom, more precious bushland will be razed, more waterways polluted, more communities ripped apart as the transnational coal companies carve their way westwards into the Liverpool Plains. The profits will be exported, but the devastation will stay here in the Hunter. The catastrophic effects of climate change will hurt all around the world.

This madness has to stop. The climate crisis is deepening, and time is fast running out. Politicians are failing to take action against the rampant coal companies, so we have to do it ourselves.

Hundreds of people will be doing just that in Newcastle on 28th March, and we'd love you to join us. We'll be taking to the harbour in a big way, occupying the world's biggest coal port with a mass of people, and demanding:
an immediate ban on the expansion of the coal industry in Australia,
a swift phase out of coal, replacing all coal industry jobs with jobs in renewable energy and other sustainable industries.

State Greens call for Council Code review to protect democracy

2010-03-14T10:56:00.001+11:00

Newcastle Greens

MEDIA RELEASE
14 March 2010

The Greens NSW, meeting in Newcastle today, called on the State Government to review the system of local government Codes of Conduct to ensure they are not misused to suppress democratic rights.

“Greens councillors around NSW are being subjected to code of conduct complaints for activities such as releasing information to communities in the public interest, and for engaging in protests,” NSW Greens Local Government spokesperson Sylvia Hale MLC said.

“In some cases, these councillors are being subjected to detrimental findings by conduct reviewers who are often not adequately trained to make such judgements, and who often approach them from a corporate or managerial perspective, without giving due consideration to democracy.”

Ms Hale called on the state government to review the Division of Local Government’s Model Code of Conduct (which is binding on all councils) to include provisions that affirm the democratic role and rights of councillors, and to remove or amend provisions that might be used to prevent councillors from performing such a role.

“The community is entitled to expect elected representatives to defend democracy, and council Codes of Conduct should facilitate, rather than constrain, their ability to do this,” Ms Hale said.

The state meeting expressed support for Newcastle Greens Councillor Michael Osborne, who is being investigated under Newcastle Council’s Code of Conduct for his involvement in a climate change protest in December last year.

“Cases like this risk bringing council codes of conduct and local government itself into disrepute,” Ms Hale said.

“The Model Code should be revised to make it clear to General Managers that complaints of this nature against councillors should be simply thrown in the bin, so that council resources are available to properly investigate matters that really do threaten democracy, such as relationships between councillors and vested interests.”

Saving the Laman St fig trees

2010-03-11T17:39:00.006+11:00

The Heritas Report, March 2010

Saving the Laman St fig trees

2010-03-11T17:04:00.008+11:00

The Marsden Report, August 2009

Code of Conduct complaint should be summarily dismissed

2010-03-07T10:45:00.000+11:00

Newcastle Greens

MEDIA RELEASE
7 March 2010

Newcastle Greens Councillor Michael Osborne today has submitted a 6-page submission on why a Code of Conduct complaint against him should be summarily dismissed.

“The complaint against me alleges that I breached Newcastle Council’s Code of Conduct by participating in a climate change demonstration in December last year,” Councillor Michael Osborne said.

“This complaint is an abuse of the Code of Conduct. It attempts to stifle basic rights of citizenship, imposes an unnecessary cost on Newcastle ratepayers, costs councillors and the council valuable time, and risks bringing the Code of Conduct itself, and those who misuse it in this way, into disrepute,” Councillor Osborne said.

“The Code of Conduct makes it clear that the section of the Code referred to in the complaint was intended to apply to council officials who are “carrying out [their] functions”, rather than to conduct that is not associated with the carrying out of council functions.

“My involvement in the demonstration that is the subject of the complaint was in my capacity as an individual citizen in a public interest demonstration against government inaction on Climate Change. I was one of a large number of other such citizens (including a Buddhist priest and an 86 year old man) who participated in a demonstration that did not involve Newcastle Council, and was unrelated to any council function.

Councillor Osborne said he still did not know who lodged the complaint, and was still waiting for a copy of the original complaint.

My response to the Code of Conduct complaint

2010-03-06T17:56:00.003+11:00

Dear Mr Smith

RE: CODE OF CONDUCT COMPLAINT

I write in response to your letter to me received by email on 23 February 2010 regarding a complaint lodged against me for allegedly breaching Newcastle Council’s Code of Conduct as a result of my participation in a demonstration.

Your letter outlines “key points” of the complaint, to which this submission responds (below).

However, I remain concerned that I have not yet been provided with a copy of the original complaint despite previous request. I hereby reiterate that request. I assume that I will be provided with a copy of the complaint (as written to the General Manager, pursuant to clause 11.6 of the Code) in due course, and I reserve my right to comment on any other points that might emerge from my consideration of it.

The following addresses the six dot points outlined in your letter as “the key points of the complaint”.

1. That your recent conduct relating to a demonstration and subsequent arrest and conviction are a breach of the Code.

It is not entirely clear from this wording whether the reference to “conduct relating to [my emphasis] a demonstration and subsequent arrest and conviction” is intended to refer restrictively to the specific conduct here alleged (that is, the fact of my involvement in a demonstration and subsequent arrest and conviction), or whether some further alleged associated (but unspecified) conduct is also at issue. Having not seen a copy of the original complaint, I clearly cannot respond to an unspecified allegation, so the following comments are provided on the basis that the complaint alleges that I:

a) participated in a demonstration, and

b) was subsequently arrested and convicted.

I must assume from your letter that these allegations comprise the full extent of my alleged conduct canvassed in the complaint. I will address each of these points in this submission.

I accept that I did participate in a demonstration, and that I was subsequently arrested and convicted. However, I do not accept the complaint’s allegation that my conduct constitutes a breach of the Code of Conduct, and I believe that a finding of a breach on these grounds would be contrary to the letter and intent of the Code of Conduct, and would also set a dangerous precedent with serious implications for all councillors and councils, and for our democratic system.

2. (a) Your letter further states that the complaint alleges that the above conduct breaches clauses 6.1 and 6.2 of the Code (specifically referencing my conviction as an alleged breach of Clause 6.2), “and possibly others”.

This submission will address the allegations as they relate to 6.1 and 6.2 of the Code. I do not believe that my conduct has breached these clauses or any other clauses of the Code.

However, I clearly cannot respond to the complaint’s apparent speculation that my conduct may have breached other unspecified provisions of the Code, and I fully reserve my right to respond to any future consideration (during this or any other investigation) that my conduct may have breached any other specific provision of the Code.

Clause 6.1 of the Newcastle Code of Conduct states:
You must not conduct yourself in carrying out your functions in a manner that is likely to bring the council or holders of civic office into disrepute. Specifically, you must not act in a way that:
a) Contravenes the Act, associated regulations, council’s relevant administrative requirements and policies
b) Is detrimental to the pursuit of the charter of a council
c) Is improper or unethical
d) Is an abuse of power or otherwise amounts to misconduct
e) Causes, comprises or involves intimidation, harassment, or verbal abuse
f) Causes, comprises or involves discrimination, disadvantage or adverse treatment in relation to employment
g) Causes, comprises or involves prejudice in the provision of a service to the community.

It is not clear from the letter which – if any – of the seven subsections of this clause the complaint is alleging that I have breached.

However, I do not believe it is necessary in any case to address these subsections, since the wording of the stem clause itself (that is, the first sentence of cl.6.1) makes it clear that this section of the Code was intended to apply to council officials who are “carrying out [their] functions”, rather than to conduct that is not associated with the carrying out such functions.

[Note that Dictionary section of the NSW Local Government Act 1993 defines a “function” as including “a power, authority and duty”]. It was clearly not the intention of this section of the Code to cover conduct in which a person who happens to be a council official is acting in some other capacity (for example, as a private citizen, or a representative of another organisation), rather than in a capacity specifically associated with the council official's function.

The complaint (as conveyed to me through your letter) does not appear to explain how my conduct in this instance could be reasonably construed as occurring in the course of my “carrying out my functions” as a council official.

My participation in the demonstration cannot be reasonably construed as “carrying out my function” in the sense in which clause 6.1 intends. Clause 6.1’s various subclauses (for example, the specific references to “the Act and associated regulations”, “the council charter”, and to other local government-specific contexts), make it clear that the clause is intended to apply restrictively to conduct directly related to local government matters [note that much, though not all, of this section of the Code is based on Schedule 6A of the Act].

A finding that my conduct in this matter had breached Clause 6.1 would therefore have to be based on the grounds that the conduct that is the subject of the complaint involved me “carrying out my functions” as a councillor. Such a finding would be against the letter and intent of this clause, and would also raise unanswered questions with potentially serious unforeseen consequences (for example, If my participating in demonstrations is regarded as part of my functions, what support am I entitled to expect from council when I do this? If it were held that I was “carrying out my functions” as a councillor in this matter, would I be entitled to claim costs for legal representation or professional indemnity insurance from council? Where would the line between a council official’s involvement as a private person or ordinary citizen and their function as a council official begin and end in the application of this clause?)

My involvement in the demonstration that is the subject of the complaint was in my capacity as an individual citizen in a public interest demonstration against government inaction on Climate Change. I was one of a large number of other such citizens (including a Buddhist priest and an 86 year old man) who participated in a demonstration that did not involve Newcastle council, and was unrelated to any council function.

The demonstration took place on state government land and involved state government services and infrastructure. I and other demonstrators were arrested and subsequently fined under a state government Act (not the Local Government Act). I did not request or seek council’s support for my involvement in the demonstration, or in any of the subsequent legal proceedings, or in any other matters associated with the demonstration. I did not make any statements referring to council or to my role as a councillor.

It would clearly be preposterous for the Code of Conduct to be interpreted and applied to councillors so as to constrain them from exercising their ordinary rights of citizenship, including the right to participate in demonstrations – especially where such activities are not directly related to any council function. Such an interpretation would breach both the clear scope and intent of clause 6.1, and contravene basic principles of free speech and the right to freedom of political communication.

The application of certain provisions of the Code to the conduct of council officials outside their direct council functions (for example, in their private lives and in their lives as individual citizens outside their direct involvement with their council) is fraught with difficulty, and has already been the subject of much discussion among Newcastle councillors and the community. Fortunately, however, the wording of clause 6.1 avoids such difficulty by drawing a boundary around the scope of conduct that it is intended to cover: that is, conduct that is directly associated with a council official actually carrying out their official council function.

Clearly, this clause does not (and was not intended to) apply to circumstances such as my participation in a demonstration.

Even if this were not so, I do not believe that my conduct would meet the other threshold for a breach of Clause 6.1 contained in the stem sentence of that clause, since it was not conduct that would be “likely to bring the council or holders of civic office into disrepute”.

My participation in the demonstration, and my subsequent arrest and conviction, were clearly part of a nonviolent civil disobedience campaign that draws on a widely accepted and deeply rooted tradition in Western democratic culture. This was reflected in the relatively minor fine [$250] imposed by the magistrate on the participants in the civil disobedience action (note that I have appealed against the recording of the conviction).

The legal systems of western democracies (such as Australia) have long distinguished nonviolent civil disobedience from general unlawful conduct. Recent cases like the East Timor Ploughshares case, the Pitstop Ploughshares case and the Kingsnorth case have all upheld the “reasonable excuse” or “lawful excuse” defence, whereby people taking action in order to prevent a greater crime have been acquitted.

Nonviolent civil disobedience takes place within an established framework of democratic theory and action that is widely respected as playing a vital role in initiating significant progressive social change. Figures such as Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Mohandas Gandhi, Henry David Thoreau, and the Suffragettes are now widely respected for having initiated significant social change through nonviolent civil disobedience.

Significantly, it is not them, but the wrongs they were opposing, that are now in disrepute. In fact, the use (or in my view, the abuse) of the Code of Conduct to suppress the right of councillors to engage in nonviolent civil disobedience would be much more “likely to bring the council or holders of civic office into disrepute” than any conduct of mine. The Code of Conduct was not intended, and should not be used, as an instrument of suppression in this way.

2(b) and 3. It is also alleged (as part of the second dot point, and dot point 3) that my conduct breached Clause 6.2 of the Newcastle Code of Conduct

Clause 6.2 of the Newcastle Code of Conduct states:
You must act lawfully, honestly, and exercise a reasonable degree of care and diligence in carrying out your functions under the Act or any other Act.

Again, I note that the complaint does not apparently explain how my conduct could be construed to come within the ambit of this clause, except for its reference to “an unlawful act”.

This clause (drawn from Section 439 of the Act) uses the same wording as clause 6.1 in specifying conduct related to a council official carrying out his or her functions under the Act or any other Act.

To the extent that I did act unlawfully in the course of the civil disobedience campaign in which I was involved, this was not pursuant to “carrying out [my] functions under the Act or any other Act”.

This clause therefore raises exactly the same issues and difficulties as clause 6.1 in relation to its scope, and its application to conduct that is not within what can be reasonably understood to be a council official’s “legal function”. If this clause were to be interpreted in a way that allowed it to be applied to any unlawful conduct at all, with no consideration as to whether the conduct was directly related to the exercise of a council official’s function, or even to its relative context and significance (for example, a parking or library fine), it would be rendered ineffectual as a way of enforcing its clearly intended – and entirely laudable - objective, which is to prevent council official’s from acting unlawfully in carrying out their official duties as council officials.

4. I am unsure how to respond to the statement (dot point 4 of your letter) that “Of significance is a quote in the Newcastle Herald where you allegedly stated that breaking the law ‘is setting an example’ and you advocate other elected representatives to do the same”.

The complaint (as reflected in your letter) does not appear to specify how such a comment might be “of significance”, and how it might be related to any alleged breach of the Code.

My reported comments which have been misquoted in the complaint (as reflected in your letter) were made in the context of the demonstration in which I participated, and in response to questions from the media about the involvement of elected representatives in such nonviolent civil disobedience actions. To take these comments out of that context in order to imply that I was referring in general to breaking the law is a gross misrepresentation.

It is clear that significant figures in history (Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Mohandas Gandhi, etc) did set an example in the way they engaged in nonviolent direct action, and that the examples they set were important in initiating what is now universally regarded as progressive social change.

I do not believe it is necessary for the purpose of this submission to explain my reasons for believing that the failure of governments to deal adequately with the challenge of climate change now requires nonviolent direct action by caring citizens (including elected representatives), but I believe that elected representatives have the same right and responsibility as any other citizen to take action in response to injustice, and of course I would hope that elected representatives (as well as other citizens) would do the same. I don’t expect other elected representatives to agree with me on this, but I hardly see how it could provide the basis for finding a breach of the Code of Conduct.

5. The complaint (as reflected in your letter) goes on to state: “A Councillor is required to protest within the bounds of the law and cannot operate outside it or advocate it”.

This is clearly a statement of the complainant’s general opinion, rather than a reference to any specific provision of the Code of Conduct. As one would expect, the Code is silent – both directly and indirectly – as to whether a councillor can participate in nonviolent civil disobedience.

It certainly does not contain any provision that places any specific requirements on councillors in relation to their participation in protest – to do so would clearly place unreasonable constraints on the normal rights of citizenship for councillors.

In fact, as I have demonstrated above, the wording of the Code (certainly in clauses 6.1 and 6.2) carefully constrains the scope of application so as to avoid the obvious problems with expanding the reach of the Code beyond matters directly related to council, into the sphere of democratic and citizenship rights.

On the question of advocacy, the complainant is, of course, perfectly entitled to hold a personal view that a councillor should not advocate nonviolent civil disobedience as an instrument of progressive social change, but the Code of Conduct does not require me to share this view, and the Code of Conduct complaint process should not be allowed to be misused to censor advocacy for a form of action that is a recognised and respected part of the tradition of western democracy simply because some do not agree with the philosophy of nonviolent civil disobedience.

The Code and the Act do contain specific provisions that relate directly to circumstances where council officials act unlawfully, and appropriate legal remedies are available in such cases. I note that the complainant has not sought any of these remedies – in my view, because they are clearly not applicable to the circumstances of this case.

6. The final dot point of your letter states that “the complainant seeks action against me to make the point that notwithstanding the cause, Council cannot condone illegal actions by Councillors”.

Nothing that the council has done – before, during or since the conduct that is the subject of this complaint – could be reasonably construed as taking a position (either to condemn or condone) my conduct in this matter. Nor should it.

My conduct was not directed against, or in any way associated with, any council service or function. The council has no position on it, because it is simply – and quite properly – none of council’s business.

The complainant apparently seeks to change this, by using the Code of Conduct complaint process as a means of bringing the matter to council via the conduct review report that will arise from this investigation.

I regret such abuse of the Code of Conduct, and that this matter will come before council in this way (though I will certainly not shy away from presenting my views on the matter, if necessary, when it comes to council).

Rather than taking unwarranted action against me to make the spurious point urged by the complainant, I trust that this conduct review will make the point that this kind of misuse of the Code of Conduct for political purposes:
• imposes an unnecessary cost on Newcastle ratepayers
• costs councillors and the council valuable time
• risks bringing the Code of Conduct itself, and those who misuse it in this way, into disrepute

In my view, for the reasons outlined above, the complaint is totally lacking in substance, and should be dismissed without further ado.

I am concerned that it was not summarily dismissed by the General Manager in her preliminary assessment, pursuant to clauses 12.8 and 12.9 of the Code.

In making this preliminary assessment, the General Manager is required to apply the criteria in Section 13 of the Code. I cannot see how any preliminary assessment of the current complaint could reasonably conclude that it should be referred to a conduct reviewer.

I therefore request a copy of the General Manager’s referral indicating the specific grounds on which that referral was based (noting that the General Manager has indicated to me that I should direct any such requests to you).

Yours sincerely

Councillor Michael Osborne

Reasonable excuse

2010-03-06T17:41:00.003+11:00

The "reasonable excuse" or "lawful excuse" defence is enshrined in our common law and, in some cases, in our statute law in Australia.

For example, federal laws make it an offence to trespass, or refuse to leave Commonwealth land when directed. However, all this is subject to whether you had a reasonable excuse. The same applies to offensive conduct and language offences under NSW law. Lawful excuse is a defence to a charge of trespass under the (NSW) Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901.

Our common law has been built up over many years and inherited from the English common law. Our common law is influenced by court decisions in England, and (to a lesser degree), by decisions of common law of countries including Canada, New Zealand and the United States.

Three court cases that relied upon the "reasonable excuse" or "lawful excuse" defence are outlined here.

Each case was about people taking action in order to prevent a greater crime...

Ploughshares

2010-03-06T13:38:00.030+11:00

Outside the United Nations headquarters in New York stands a statue titled Let Us Beat Swords into Plowshares.

The statue is inspired by a biblical quote from the Book of Isaiah (2:4):

They will beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.

East Timor Ploughshares
On 29 January, 1996, acting on the need to prevent a greater crime, local councillor Joanna Wilson from Merseyside, gardener Lotta Kronlid from Sweden, and nurse Andrea Needham from Kirby, entered the British Aerospace military site at Warton, Lancashire and proceeded to disarm a Hawk warplane.

The warplane was part of an order destined for Indonesia, which at the time was waging a genocidal war against the people of East Timor with more than 200,000 East Timorese killed, which is about one third of the pre-invasion population.

The women hammered on the radar nose of the plane and on the control panel. They stuck photographs to the jet's cockpit, showing the victims of the Santa Cruz massacre in November 1991 (when Indonesian troops opened fire on a peaceful protest, killing 270 people).

The women were part of the Christian peace "Ploughshares Movement".

"These planes will soon be killing people in East Timor unless action is taken immediately to stop them", the group said.

Another member of the group, Angie Zelter, an environmental campaigner from Norfolk, publicly stated that she intended to carry out a future ploughshares action at BAe to continue the process of disarmament there, noting:

‘One-third of the East Timorese population have died through the brutal actions of the Indonesian occupation. Hawks from a previous arms sale have been seen bombing villages in East Timor. I believe that the British Government and BAe are aiding and abetting genocide in East Timor by sending Hawk aircraft to Indonesia and that it is clear that they have no intention of taking responsibility for the deaths that have and will result from their arms deals...I believe my act of personal disarmament is a way to uphold international Laws, including the Genocide Act and the Geneva Conventions Act, which set out rules for the protection of innocent civilians.'

The "Ploughshares Four" where held in remand until the trial in July, charged with illegal entry and criminal damage. During the seven-day trial, the women — three of whom defended themselves — said they were disarming the Hawk, not vandalizing it, claiming the action was justified because the plane was going to be used against the civilians of East Timor.

After six months of imprisonment and nine pre-trial court appearances, the jury trial for the four began on 23 July, 1997 at the Liverpool Crown Court.

Each of the women testified, stating that they had a lawful excuse to disarm the Hawk warplane because they were using reasonable force to prevent a greater crime. They also cited British legislation and International law that outlaws genocide.

After several hours the jury rendered a “not guilty” verdict.

See Kronlid, Lotta, Andrea Needham, Joanna Wilson and Angie Zelter, Seeds of Hope: East Timor Ploughshares: Women Disarming for Life and Justice, London, Seeds of Hope, 1996. and The Independent.

The Pitstop Ploughshares
On 3 February 2003, Deirdre Clancy, Nuin Dunlop, Karen Fallon, Ciaron O'Reilly and Damien Moran entered a hangar at Shannon Airport in County Clare, Ireland, and damaged the US Navy war plane that was on its way to Iraq. In the hangar they set up a shrine to the innocent of Iraq and prayed until the authorities arrived.

The five went to trial in Dublin circuit criminal court in March and October 2005 on two counts of Criminal Damage which carried a maximum of ten years imprisonment.

The March 2005 trial collapsed on the 6th day when Judge O'Donnell agreed with Defence counsel arguments that his adjudication was tainted with a 'perception of bias' which was undermining the defendant's right to a presumption of innocence. The judge agreed, called a mistrial, dismissed the jury, and instructed the media not to report on the reasons for the mistrial (which was that he made biased comments about a defence witness).

The October 2005 re-trial collapsed on the 10th day, after Judge Donagh MacDonagh agreed with Defence counsel that his attendance at the George W Bush inauguration in 2001 (amongst other meetings with Bush) was grounds for his removal from the case, in that his role was tainted with a 'perception of bias'.

The third trial of the Pitstop Ploughshares started on 10 July, 2006 and resulted in a unanimous 'Not Guilty' verdict on both charges after 12 days of testimony and legal argument. Judge Miriam Anderson had agreed on 9th Day of proceedings with Defence Counsel after extensive submissions and legal argument on the applicability of the statutory 'lawful excuse' defence. After 4½ hours of deliberation the Dublin jury of seven women and five men returned and gave their decision that all the accused should be acquitted as they honestly believed they were acting to save lives and property in Iraq and Ireland, and that their disarmament action was reasonable taking into consideration all the circumstances.

Climate Change - The Kingsnorth Court Case
In October 2007, six Greenpeace protesters (Huw Williams, Kevin Drake, Ben Stewart, Tim Hewke, Emily Hall and Will Rose) were arrested for breaking in to the Kingsnorth power station, climbing the 200 metre smokestack, painting the name "Gordon" on the chimney and causing an estimated £30,000 damage.

At their subsequent trial they admitted trying to shut the station down but argued that they were legally justified because they were trying to prevent climate change from causing greater damage to property elsewhere around the world.

Evidence was heard from David Cameron's environment adviser Zac Goldsmith, climate scientist James E. Hansen and an Inuit leader from Greenland, all saying that climate change was already seriously affecting life around the world.

The six activists were acquitted after arguing that they were legally justified in their actions to prevent climate change from causing greater damage to property around the world.

It was the first case where preventing property damage caused by climate change has been used as part of a "lawful excuse" defence in court.

See The Guardian article.

New Honeysuckle campus not the right choice for city revitalisation, say Greens

2010-03-05T13:49:00.000+11:00

Newcastle Greens

MEDIA RELEASE
5 March 2010

Newcastle Greens today questioned the choice of a Honeysuckle site for the start of a new city campus.

“Today’s announcement that the first new city campus building will be in the Honeysuckle area will greatly disappoint people who were hoping that a city campus would help revitalise the Newcastle CBD,” Newcastle Greens councillor Michael Osborne said.

“The new university building will be remote from the areas most in need of revitalisation

“The Greens have strongly supported the establishment of a new city campus as a key revitalisation strategy for the Newcastle CBD, but we have argued throughout the process that it should be focussed where city revitalisation is most needed.
“Honeysuckle does not need revitalisation.

“In fact, the state government’s Honeysuckle development – which was originally marketed as “a new heart” for the city - has actually contributed to the demise of the older Newcastle CBD by attracting commercial activity away from it.

“To fulfil the revitalisation objective, new university buildings should be located in, or at least closer to, the traditional CBD, and integrated with existing university buildings in the Civic precinct (in the Hunter/Auckland/King St area)”.

Councillor Osborne said it was not clear how the “Honeysuckle campus” would be integrated with a CBD campus.

Meaningful community consultation with the Empire Park user community and neighbours

2010-03-05T11:05:00.002+11:00

Here's a copy of the Notice of Motion I submitted today with Councilor Connell.

NOTICE OF MOTION: CONSULTATION REGARDING EMPIRE PARK
COUNCILLOR: M OSBORNE, S CONNELL
MOTION

That Council convene a sunset working group with representatives from the Protect Empire Park group, the Skating Working party, Empire Park user groups, local residents, councillors and appropriate council staff to discuss the plan for the skate park facility and guide its design and implementation to ensure issues are addressed such as safety, protection from vandalism, appearance, family friendliness, ongoing maintenance funding and advocacy for public transport to the area.

That Council receive a report on the consultation processes undertaken for the federal government's Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program projects in Newcastle, and ways that the consultation processes can be improved.

BACKGROUND

There is major concern in the community that there has been a lack of meaningful community consultation with the Empire Park user community and neighbours in relation to the proposed district level skate park in Empire Park.

Part of the concern has arisen from the deadlines imposed by the federal government's Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program as part of the financial stimulus package. The local Federal MP has stated that the concerns raised by local residents and Park users are genuinely held and are deserving careful consideration by Council (see attached letter).

Empire Park is used by a wide range of groups in the community including teams from junior and senior Rugby Union, Rugby League, Australian Rules, Touch Football, Soccer, Bar Beach Bowling Club, Merewether District Cricket Club, Merewether Carlton Rugby Club, Cooks Hill Surf Club and members and visiting players at the Reid Park and Empire Park Tennis Clubs. Local residents and residents from across Newcastle use the park for family and social cricket, relaxation and dog walking.

This motion sets up a process of meaningful community consultation to ensure Empire Park remains a safe, family-friendly and inclusive park for all users and neighbours of Empire Park.

Climate change is not a matter of faith

2010-03-05T09:00:00.000+11:00

Climate change is not a matter of faith

Check out this article from The Independent in the UK...

If opinion polls are right, fewer people "believe" in climate change now than a few months ago, prior to the leak of emails from the University of East Anglia and the emergence of embarrassing errors in one of the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The science of global warming, it seems, has taken a severe hit in terms of the public's credulity.

Yet as the latest scientific research makes clear, the evidence is, if anything, stronger than it ever was about the role of humans in the observable increase in global temperatures seen over the past half-century. For scientists it is not a question of "belief", it is a question of observable fact and reasonable inference based on a wealth of scientific data. The latest study by an international team led by the Met Office's Hadley Centre reaffirms this position. The world is warming, it is observed on every continent, and there is no natural explanation that can account for it.

Indeed, the scientists go further by showing that it is only when human activity is put into their computer models of the climate that an explanation becomes evident. Man-made CO2 emissions over the past century or more can explain the recent increase in global temperature. No one has come up with a better explanation.

Some sceptics may dispute the data used in formulating global temperature records. Others may argue that the computer models used in this analysis are not to be trusted, and a few may hypothesise about some undiscovered cause. But there is now so much evidence in favour of man-made global warming, from so many different peer-reviewed studies, that the case is overwhelming.

This is not to say that the science should never be questioned. Scepticism is after all part of the scientific process. But the issue has gone beyond whether we should simply "believe" in climate change. It is not a matter of faith. The evidence for anthropogenic global warming is there for anyone to study. If sceptics are to merit our attention, they need to come up with an equally powerful counter-argument.

Legal protection needed for democratic rights

2010-02-24T10:36:00.001+11:00

Newcastle Greens

MEDIA RELEASE
24 February 2010

Greens elected representatives today called for greater legal protection of basic democratic rights of freedom of political expression, in the lead up to a local event in support of Greens upper house parliamentarian, Ian Cohen, who has been hit with $1million legal costs from comments he made in a small community hall in Byron Bay in 2001.

Mr Cohen now faces financial ruin because he criticised a developer at a fundraising event for a fellow environmental activist who was facing legal action by the developer.
Newcastle Greens will be holding an event to support Mr Cohen this Friday night (see details below).

Mr Cohen said he has been receiving tremendous support from right across the community, but was still a long way from being able to meet his costs.

“Newcastle has always had a strong progressive and activist community, who I know are very concerned about how legal processes can be used to chill democratic participation,” Mr Cohen said.

Newcastle Greens councillor Michael Osborne, who will be attending the event, and who has recently been subjected to a council Code of Conduct complaint for his own “involvement in a protest” in December last year, said that these situations demonstrated the need for eternal vigilance and greater protection for basic democratic rights.

“It’s outrageous that our institutional systems can be abused in these ways to muzzle democratic free speech, and it demonstrates the urgent need for law reforms protecting rights of public participation and protest, and giving more legal substance to our right to freedom of political expression.

“In a number of Australian jurisdictions, Greens and public interest groups have proposed legislation to protect public interest advocates against SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). The ACT has already passed such legislation.

“Unfortunately, bringing such proposals into law usually relies on support from one of the big parties, who are often too indebted to the vested interests who want to keep things the way they are."

The Newcastle Greens event will be at 7:30pm at the Gallipoli Club in Beaumont St, Hamilton on Friday 26 February. Entrance cost is $15 ($10 concession) with all proceeds going to the Ian Cohen Defamation Fund.

Mr Cohen will be speaking about his case at the event, and will be supported with performances by popular Hunter rhythm & blues band, The Pop-up Toasters; Newcastle hip-hop band, Dhopec; and local comedienne (and Lake Macquarie Greens councillor), Hannah Gissane.

For further comment, please contact:
Ian Cohen (Greens NSW Member of the Legislative Council) on: 0409 989 466
Michael Osborne (Newcastle Greens councillor) on: 0439 442 984

Council’s Code of Conduct used to stifle the public interest

2010-02-22T12:57:00.000+11:00

Newcastle Greens

MEDIA RELEASE
22 February 2010

Newcastle Greens Councillor Michael Osborne today hit out at the abuse of the council Code of Conduct “as a mechanism to stifle democratic participation and debate”.

Clr Osborne said he had received an official notification of a formal complaint against him for allegedly breaching the council’s Code of Conduct for his “involvement in a protest”.

Clr Osborne was involved in a protest action last year that involved a ‘sit-in’ on a railway line with other climate change activists.

“That protest took place within a well-established framework and tradition of civil disobedience, and it was dealt with through the legal system,” Clr Osborne said.

“The right to protest has been fundamental to achieving many of the other rights and privileges we enjoy today, and is a basic democratic right of every Australian citizen.

“It’s unfortunate that council’s Code of Conduct – which was primarily intended to prevent corruption and to deal with things like conflicts of interests and councillors receiving gifts and benefits from vested interests – is now being abused as an instrument of repression.

“Unfortunately, this kind of abuse is similar to other forms of SLAPPs (strategic lawsuits against public participation) in which legal action is taken (usually by or on behalf of vested interests) with the purpose of preventing or intimidating people from participating in public interest protests.”

Clr Osborne said that the official notification from the General Manager did not state which part of the council’s code his involvement in the protest is alleged to have breached, and he has not yet been provided with a copy of the complaint itself.

He has sought further information about the complaint, and the procedure to be followed.

Code of conduct

2010-02-22T12:55:00.001+11:00

from Michael Osborne
to Lindy Hyam
date 22 February 2010 11:12
subject Letter received last Friday

Dear Ms Hyam

Thank you for your letter received last Friday 19 February 2010 informing me of a Code of Conduct complaint lodged against me in relation to my alleged participation in a protest action.

The letter refers only to my “participation in a protest action”. If this accurately reflects the complaint, I cannot see the basis on which it could be referred to a conduct review process, since engaging in protest action is the inherent democratic right of any Australian citizen and could not – in itself – be regarded as conduct that could found a breach of the code.

I assume, therefore, that the written complaint contains more specific allegations against me, and I therefore request a copy of the complaint itself, so I can properly understand exactly what it alleges that I have done, and the specific provisions of the Code that it alleges I have thereby breached.

Once I have been provided with this essential preliminary information, I would be happy to provide a written submission in response to the specific allegations.

I would also appreciate notification of the procedure (and relevant timeline) that will be followed in the investigation of this complaint.

Sincerely

Councillor Michael Osborne

Slapp

2010-02-19T12:51:00.000+11:00

Here's a copy of a letter I received today...

Solar sailor heading to Hong Kong

2010-02-10T22:29:00.003+11:00

The Australian-invented solar powered ferry could soon become a frequent sight in and around Hong Kong's harbour.

The ferry is designed like the Toyota Prius using an electric/diesel hybrid engine with solar panels to power their electrical needs and a diesel backup engine. It means that cruising at less than 6 knots can be done with the zero emissions engine.

See the Green Living pedia and the Sydney Morning Herald.

Regal cinema in sale drama

2010-02-03T09:11:00.000+11:00

From The Herald...

BY JACQUI JONES

A LAST-MINUTE plea from film and television industry heavyweights has won a reprieve from sale for the former Regal Cinema.

Newcastle City Council last night considered selling the Birmingham Gardens property.

Proceeds would go towards a community project in western Newcastle, while a working party would look at catering to film demands in the area.

Councillors decided to defer the decision for two weeks after receiving a late submission from industry insiders.

Australian Guild of Screen Composers executive director Jo Smith, who is a former Novocastrian, led a late push to save the cinema after hearing on Sunday that the council was set to sell.

A letter with 21 signatories including The Chaser's Andrew Hansen, Academy Award nominated documentary filmmaker Bob Connolly and Blue Murder writer Ian David was sent to the council, asking it to consider re-opening the cinema.

Ms Smith and Rabbit Proof Fence writer-producer Christine Olsen addressed last night's council meeting.

Ms Smith said it was important for Novocastrians to have access to independent film.

She said old country cinemas were rare.

"The Regal Cinema is an absolute gem," she said.

Ms Olsen said the site was built with community labour and retained a strong sense of community.

"You can't take it and plonk it somewhere else," she said.

Cr Bob Cook said a council committee had considered options for reopening the cinema building, but could not find a model that would work.

Cr Nuatali Nelmes suggested deferring a decision on the proposed sale for two weeks, and most of her colleagues agreed.

Councillors Michael Osborne and Tim Crakanthorp said the interest from the film and television industry might produce some new options for the site.

The 50-year-old cinema closed in 2006 because the building was considered unsafe.

A site sale was proposed in 2008, but the council halted plans after community protest.

Council meeting 2 February 2010

2010-02-02T23:25:00.001+11:00

Tonight, the community consultation process for Laman St was adopted.

ITEM-2 CCL 02/02/10 - LAMAN STREET CIVIC PRECINCT WORKSHOP.
MOTION: (COUNCILLORS N NELMES/A BUMAN)

Council resolves to endorse the community design process outlined in this report.

Following discussion Councillor Claydon indicated that the report suggested Councillors could participate in the design workshop or attend as observers. She proposed that Councillors attend as observers only.

The Lord Mayor suggested that the matter regarding Councillor attendance be included as a Part B.

The mover and seconder agreed to include a Part B in this regard.
The motion was put to the meeting and declared carried.

RESOLVED: (COUNCILLORS N NELMES/A BUMAN)
A Council resolves to endorse the community design process outlined in this report.
B Councillors attend as observers as opposed to stakeholder members.

Climate change must be taken seriously

2010-01-22T17:10:00.001+11:00

This is a copy of the opinion piece published in The Newcastle Herald.

In many ways, the issue of climate change today is reminiscent of other great social and political struggles of our past.

In the mid to late 1800s, when the politicians were not listening to the calls to enact laws to allow women the right to vote, many women - later to be known as suffragettes - decided on a course of nonviolent direct action to highlight their cause.

Today, we are rightly appalled if women are not afforded the same status under law as men, and we celebrate the struggle of the suffragettes.

Their movement started small, with a dedicated few. Many said their actions were a waste of time, and that the politicians would not listen. Despite occasional police brutality, the number of protesters grew, involving a diverse cross-section of society in expressing their outrage at the inaction of politicians. Eventually, their moral stance and persistence paid off.

Australians are justly proud that, in 1894, the self-governing colony of South Australia was one of the first in the world to enact laws giving women the right to vote.

Unfortunately, we can’t be similarly proud of the Australian government’s actions with respect to climate change.

Carbon pollution, accepted by the world’s climate scientists as the leading cause of climate change, is still unregulated in Australia. Unlike other forms of air pollution, polluters don’t even need a licence from the EPA for carbon pollution – it’s open slather.

Despite our natural advantages and technical skills, Australian governments have not encouraged investments in renewable energy jobs with the aim that we would be the world leader in solar or wind technology.

Who could be proud of the Australian government for their failure of leadership and ‘bully boy’ tactics at the Copenhagen climate summit.

While the world’s climate scientists were saying we needed at least 25% to 40% reduction in carbon pollution by 2020, the Australian government was offering a 5% reduction.

While our near neighbours, particularly Tuvalu and the Maldives, were saying their survival required a binding treaty limiting global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the Australian government was bullying the island nations into supporting a superficial last-minute ‘statement’ that included a vague aim to keep global temperatures from increasing by more than 2.0 degrees Celsius.

Australians are right to feel let down by our politicians.

The people of Newcastle and the Hunter have never been afraid to stand up for what we believe in.

In the early 20th century, thousands marched again and again through Newcastle streets for the rights of workers to an eight hour working day, which they achieved in the historic 1916 NSW law.

In the Great Depression, hundreds protested against the forced eviction of unemployed tenants, notably in Clara Street Tighes Hill in 1932, which led to 30 arrests. Eventually, their efforts resulted in legislative recognition of the rights of tenants.

More recently, hundreds have joined the People's Blockade of our Port (the largest coal export port in the world), to highlight the need for a just transition from coal dependency.

On Sunday, I joined more than 40 Newcastle and Hunter people to express our outrage at the inaction of politicians to reduce and regulate carbon pollution that climate scientists know will have a devastating impact on the climate for our children and grandchildren.

The politicians have failed, both at Copenhagen and on the home front, to implement a coherent response to climate change.

The protesters were from a diverse cross-section of the community: young and old, scientists, professionals, and students. They included an 86 year old man and a Buddhist priest. All were concerned with the climate legacy that we are leaving our children and grandchildren.

As an elected councillor on Newcastle City Council, my role under the Local Government Act is (among other things) to represent the interests of the residents and ratepayers, and to provide leadership and guidance to the community.

It is in the interests of Newcastle residents and ratepayers that our governments reduce and regulate carbon pollution and have a coherent response to climate change. Every resident of Newcastle will be affected by climate change.

Our State and Federal governments have failed to show the leadership necessary to deal with the climate crisis.

Together, we can stand up and show the leadership necessary to deal with climate change.

Like the suffragettes 100 years ago, the struggle will be hard, we will be criticised, and some may dismiss our actions as a waste of time. But we will succeed. We must.

22 December 2009

2009-12-22T21:22:00.001+11:00

Climate change protest

2009-12-22T17:34:00.004+11:00

From The Newcastle Herald...
Photo by Dean Osland

BY JACQUI JONES
22 Dec, 2009 04:00 AM
NEWCASTLE councillor Michael Osborne is standing by a climate change protest that led to his arrest, despite a call for him to reconsider his civic leadership role.

Cr Osborne was back home in Tighes Hill yesterday after spending about eight hours in a police cell on Sunday.

Newcastle City Council's sole Greens representative was one of 23 protesters arrested and charged after a six-hour blockade of coal trains near Sandgate.

Environmental group Rising Tide organised the action, to express disappointment that the United Nations climate talks in Copenhagen failed to produce a legally binding treaty to reduce carbon emissions.

Cr Osborne is due to appear in court on January 19.

Newcastle Liberal councillor Brad Luke said yesterday that if Cr Osborne was found guilty of a criminal offence, he should reconsider his position on the council.

Resigning, or withdrawing from council matters temporarily might be considerations.

"How can he, as a civic leader, enforce rules in Newcastle if he can't obey laws in Newcastle himself?" Cr Luke said.

Cr Osborne said there was no reason for him not remain a councillor.

"I'm obliged to represent the interests of residents and ratepayers," he said.

"There's a lot of residents and ratepayers who are very unhappy with what happened at Copenhagen and the fact that carbon pollution is still being put out into the atmosphere and nothing's being done about it.

"I think it's [the protest] setting an example."

"I would encourage all elected representatives to take real action on this."

A council spokeswoman said a councillor might be disqualified from civic office if convicted of an offence and given a custodial sentence.

Action on climate change

2009-12-22T03:55:00.001+11:00

From The Herald 22 December 2010...

Climate change protest

2009-12-21T17:28:00.007+11:00

What The Newcastle Herald said...
Photo by Dean Osland

BY STEPHEN RYAN
21 Dec, 2009 04:00 AM

HUNDREDS of thousands of tonnes of coal worth millions of dollars was stopped dead in its tracks yesterday as environmental group Rising Tide vented its anger at the United Nations climate talks in Copenhagen.

Twenty-three protesters, including Newcastle Greens councillor Michael Osborne, were arrested and charged after blocking the line near Sandgate from 9am until 3pm.

The train driver saw the protesters on the track and stopped the slow-moving train before it crossed the Hunter River.

About a dozen eastbound coal trains were affected by the protest, while empty trains were unable to return to the coalfields from Kooragang Island.

The protesters were disappointed that the UN climate talks failed to produce a legally binding treaty to reduce carbon emissions.

They were especially critical of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong.

Among them was Cr Osborne who said, "I think Kevin Rudd's pathetic" as he was led to a police vehicle.

Some protesters placed bicycle locks around their necks and attached themselves to the train.

Eighty-six year-old Bill Ryan from Wollongong was the oldest protester and one of the first to be arrested.

The most difficult arrests were of four people who hung from the bridge over the river and a man who sat about four metres above the track on a tripod.

Officers from police rescue, the public order and riot squad, water police and general duties officers attended the scene, as well as two ambulances and a NSW Maritime boat.

Acting Inspector Alan Janson said police were given no warning and were forced to dedicate a lot of resources to the protest.

Brad Emery, spokesman for the Australian Rail Track Corporation, said the protesters should think about the impact their actions have on the Hunter economy and jobs.

"Protests like this cost millions of dollars," he said.

Action on climate change

2009-12-21T03:46:00.002+11:00

From The Herald 21 December 2010...

Council meeting 15 December 2009

2009-12-15T23:11:00.002+11:00

Tonight, the Council decision to cut down the Laman St trees was rescinded.

Here's what happened...

PROCEDURAL MOTION: (Councillor M Osborne)
Item 28 - Rescission motion - Laman Street trees, be the first item dealt with due to large public interest in the gallery.

The motion was put to the meeting and declared carried.

ITEM-28 NOM 15/12/09 - RESCISSION MOTION - ITEM 28 OF THE ECONOMY & CIVIC ASSETS AND GOVERNANCE AGENDA OF 17 NOVEMBER - LAMAN STREET TREES

PROCEDURAL MOTION
RESOLVED: (Councillors M Osborne)
Item 28 - Rescission motion - Laman Street trees, be the first item dealt with due to large public interest in the gallery.

MOTION: (Councillors N Nelmes/M Osborne)
The resolution of Item No. 28 of the Economy and Civic Assets and Governance Strategic Themes Committee of 17 November 2009 be rescinded.

Following discussion Councillor Osborne gave notice of a foreshadow motion as follows:

That Council form a community design panel using place making principles for the civic and cultural precinct of Laman Street.
To consider the arboricultural advice, the relevant resource and risk issues, and the full range of options available to Council and the community to address the future of these trees and make an appropriate recommendation to Council.

Following further discussion the motion was put to the meeting and the Lord Mayor called for a division which resulted as follows:

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

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

RESOLVED: (Councillors N Nelmes/M Osborne)
The resolution of Item No. 28 of the Economy and Civic Assets and Governance Strategic Themes Committee of 17 November 2009 be rescinded.

MOTION: (Councillors M Osborne/N Nelmes)
That Council form a community design panel using place making principles for the civic and cultural precinct of Laman Street.
To consider the arboricultural advice, the relevant resource and risk issues, and the full range of options available to Council and the community to address the future of these trees and make an appropriate recommendation to Council.

The Lord Mayor gave notice of a subsequent motion in respect to this matter with regard to safety issues.

PROCEDURAL MOTION
MOTION: (The Lord Mayor)
The meeting conclude at 9.00pm.

The procedural motion was put to the meeting and declared defeated.

Councillor Boyd asked the mover and seconder if they would be prepared to include a date when the report should come back to Council.

Councillor Osborne indicated by 1 May 2010.

Councillor Connell asked Councillor Osborne if he would amend the motion to a community design 'process' instead of panel.

Councillor Osborne indicated he would accept the change.

The Lord Mayor wanted it noted that public safety was paramount in his decision.

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

RESOLVED: (Councillors M Osborne/N Nelmes)
That Council form a community design process using place making principles for the civic and cultural precinct of Laman Street.
To consider the arboricultural advice, the relevant resource and risk issues, and the full range of options available to Council and the community to address the future of these trees and make an appropriate recommendation to Council.
Such report to come back to Council by 1 May 2010.

The Lord Mayor then moved his subsequent motion.
MOTION: (The Lord Mayor/Councillor B Luke)
The General Manager forthwith be given Councils full support to implement whatever safety measures are deemed necessary to ensure the public safety of the Laman Street precinct, apart from removing the trees.

Councillor Claydon asked the General Manager whether she already held such discretionary powers.
The General Manager advised that to a certain extent some things were within her jurisdiction while some elements were not.
Councillor Osborne asked the Lord Mayor if his motion could include the General Manager brought back a report to the Council outlining the risk mitigation strategy for Laman Street.

The Lord Mayor accepted Councillor Osborne's addendum and declared it Part B of the motion. He indicated it would therefore read as follows:

B. The General Manager report to Council by way of memo as information becomes available or as action is taken.

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

RESOLVED: (The Lord Mayor/CouncillorB Luke)
A. The General Manager forthwith be given Councils full support to implement whatever safety measures are deemed necessary to ensure the safety the public safety of the Laman Street precinct, apart from removing the trees.
B. The General Manager report to Council by way of memo as information becomes available or as action is taken.

Saving the Laman St fig trees

2009-12-10T17:02:00.002+11:00

Council meeting 8 December 2009

2009-12-08T23:39:00.003+11:00

Tonight, Council approved a development that didn't even comply with the Local Environmental Plan.

The 6.73:1 floor space ration (FSR) of the proposed development significantly exceeds the maximum allowable FSR for the site of 3.0:1 under the provisions of the Newcastle City Centre LEP, 2008.

The proposal has a parking deficiency of fifteen spaces.

Element 6.7 – Royal Newcastle Hospital Site of the Newcastle DCP, 2003 requires the upper storey setback to be a minimum of eight metres from the Watt Street boundary. The development approved by the Minister for Planning provided a three metre setback. The current amended proposal provides a zero setback. The design of the current amended proposal is not supported by the Urban Design Consultative Group and Council’s Heritage officer.

Notwithstanding all this, here's what happened...

ITEM-48 DA 07/0814 - 509 HUNTER ST & 386 KING ST NEWCASTLE - PROPOSAL TO DEMOLISH EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS & ERECT A MIXED COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL BUILDING COMPRISING AN 18 STOREY & AN 11 STOREY TOWER ACCOMMODATING SENIORS LIVING UNITS

MOTION: (COUNCILLORS S SHARPE/B COOK)
Concurrence be sought from the Director General of the NSW Department of Planning pursuant to the provisions of Clause 58 of the Hunter REP to the granting of consent to the application.

Upon receipt of concurrence, the application to erect a mixed commercial/residential building complex incorporating two levels of retail and commercial space, an 18- storey and an 11-storey tower comprising a total of 152 independent living units and four levels of carparking for 182 vehicles at 509 Hunter Street, Newcastle be approved and consent granted, subject to compliance with the conditions set out in the Draft Schedule of Conditions appended at Attachment B.

During discussion, Councillor Osborne gave notice of a foreshadow motion for Council reject the application on the basis that it does not comply with the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) in terms of floor space ratio and boundary setbacks in the Development Control Plan (DCP)

The Lord Mayor noted the foreshadow motion.

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, A Buman, S Claydon, S Connell, B Cook, T Crakanthorp, M Jackson, M King, B Luke, N Nelmes, S Sharpe
Against the motion Councillor M Osborne

The motion was declared carried on the division of twelve votes to one.

RESOLVED: (COUNCILLORS S SHARPE/B COOK)
Concurrence be sought from the Director General of the NSW Department of Planning pursuant to the provisions of Clause 58 of the Hunter REP to the granting of consent to the application.

Upon receipt of concurrence, the application to erect a mixed commercial/residential building complex incorporating two levels of retail and commercial space, an 18- storey and an 11-storey tower comprising a total of 152 independent living units and four levels of carparking for 182 vehicles at 509 Hunter Street, Newcastle be approved and consent granted, subject to compliance with the conditions set out in the Draft Schedule of Conditions appended at Attachment B.

Council meeting 8 December 2009

2009-12-08T22:35:00.002+11:00

Tonight, Councillors approved a 10 storey building that will dominate Watt St as you come down the hill...

The proceedings follow...

ITEM-46 DA 09/0766 – 67 WATT STREET, NEWCASTLE - ERECTION OF A TEN-STOREY MIXED COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING AND STRATA SUBDIVISION

MOTION: (COUNCILLORS B LUKE/N NELMES)
The application for the erection of the ten-storey mixed commercial/residential building and associated car parking and strata subdivision be approved.

Councillor Luke also asked the General Manager if the officers have a Draft Schedule of Conditions that they would recommend if the development application was to be approved.

The Councillors were handed the Draft Conditions of Consent.

PROCEDURAL MOTION: (Councillor A Buman)
Five minute recess to enable Councillors to review the Draft Schedule of Conditions

Councillor Luke indicated that he would like alter his motion to reflect the recommendation of Council officers being Part (a) and Part (b) of the recommendation from Council officers including the Draft Schedule of Conditions as stated in Part (b).

Councillor Osborne gave notice of a foreshadow motion of Council officers recommendation and the seven reasons for refusal.

The application for the erection of the ten-storey mixed commercial/residential building and associated car parking and strata subdivision be refused for the following reasons:

1) The proposed development is in excess of the development standard of the Newcastle City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2008 in terms of its floor space ratio (FSR).

2) The proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of Floor Space Ratio, as set out under Clause 23 of the Newcastle City Centre Local Environment Plan, 2008, to regulate density of development and generation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

3) The proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone, as set out under the Land Use Table of the Newcastle City Centre Local Environment Plan, to protect and enhance the unique qualities and character of special areas within the Newcastle City Centre.

4) The proposed development does not comply with car parking requirements that are specified under Element 4.1 – Car Parking of the Newcastle Development Control Plan 2005.

5) The proposed development does not comply with the requirements of Element 6.7 - Royal Newcastle Hospital Site of the Newcastle Development Control Plan 2005 in terms of setback to Watt Street.

6) The proposed development does not adequately conserve the heritage significance of the heritage items in the locality of the site and the Newcastle City Centre Heritage Conservation Area.

7) Approval of the application would not be in the public interest.

Councillor Claydon asked if No. 18 of the Draft Schedule of Conditions could be changed to say The Body Corporate not The developer.

Councillor Luke and Councillor Nelmes accepted this change.

Councillor Claydon drew to the attention of Council officers that there was a numerical error in the Draft Schedule of Conditions. Director Jaeger re-numbered the conditions and confirmed there were 25 conditions.

The motion was put to the meeting and declared carried.

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, A Buman, S Claydon, S Connell, B Cook, T Crakanthorp, M Jackson, M King, B Luke, N Nelmes, S Sharpe
Against the motion Councillor M Osborne

The motion was declared carried on the division of twelve votes to one.

Donations backflip – what the flies heard

2009-11-19T13:30:00.001+11:00

From the blog of Lee Rhiannon, Greens MLC...
For a moment I would have loved to been one of the flies that hang around the NSW Labor government.

It is a weird thought but imagine being the proverbial on the wall when Premier Nathan Rees and his team were discussing their plan to ban developer donations.

This is a major back flip from a party that has ridiculed the Greens over the years for our work in advocating the same thing. So what was their motivation?

Labor would obviously be looking for a way to kill off all the bad news stories linking MPs with dodgy developers. And they would know, even more than the Green Democracy4sale team, that there are new scandals waiting to break.

I think they would have also weighed up how much money is involved. Developer money is moving over to the Coalition. Since 2007 NSW Labor has received $3.1 million compared to the Coalition's $2.2 million. The gap has closed from 50 to 30 per cent difference and there is every indication that the Coalition is set to win this race as the property industry move back to their traditional electoral allies.

And I reckon the flies hanging around the Premier would have some other tales to tell. When Labor came up with their grand plan to wipe the scandal sheet clean and out manoeuvre the opposition they would have been keen for some pay back.

Looking back over Labor's antics in recent weeks and the attacks they have launched against the Greens' fund raising activities it looks like a concerted plan to discredit the Democracy4sale project. This major research initiative of the Greens has played a central role in breaking many of the donation stories that have caused the government so much grief.

Senior government leaders have used dorothy dix questions, read more here

Hmmm

2009-11-18T18:18:00.001+11:00

Newcastle Show Day will be Friday 26 March 2010.

Buman and Liberal in "Grinch Clinch" against Newcastle Show Holiday

2009-11-18T18:12:00.005+11:00

Newcastle Greens

MEDIA RELEASE
18 November 2009

Newcastle Greens councillor Michael Osborne today called on conservative Newcastle councillors who again tried to axe the Newcastle Show holiday to show a bit more Christmas cheer to local workers in future years.

Conservative councillors, led by Aaron Buman (Independent) and Brad Luke (Liberal), last night tried to cut Newcastle's Show holiday back to half a day, after attempting last year to cut it entirely.

"For the past two years now, these anti-worker councillors have tried to make council "the Grinch who stole the show holiday", just before workers are preparing for Christmas," Cr Osborne said.

"If they don't stop doing this, this "Grinch clinch" against the Show holiday will become an annual set piece from Cr Buman, his Liberal brother-in-arms (Cr Luke), and others who support this campaign by the Hunter Business Chamber," Cr Osborne said.

"During last night's debate, Cr Buman admitted he wasn't even aware that Australian workers had amongst the fewest public holidays of any country in the world.

"Information put to councillors last night indicated that the Howard government's WorkChoices system had created confusion among local businesses about the status of the Show holiday, and Cr Buman voted with Liberal councillor Brad Luke, to cut the holiday on these grounds.

"For Cr Buman and Cr Luke to exploit the confusion created by the Liberal's WorkChoices system is particularly distasteful," Cr Osborne said.

"Fortunately, enough councillors saw through this to vote to preserve the holiday.

The decision coincided with yesterday's release of research by the Australia Institute (in their Something for nothing report) showing that Australian workers work some of the longest hours in the Western world, and really should have more time with family, friends and community," Cr Osborne said.

"No thanks to Cr Buman and Cr Luke, at least local workers can go to Christmas knowing that Newcastle Council won't be further cutting back this valuable off-work time by axing next year's Newcastle Show holiday.

Why the CPRS will do nothing

2009-11-18T18:05:00.000+11:00

Maryville Markets proposal

2009-11-17T23:55:00.003+11:00

The Maryville markets proposal is put to rest...

Despite the earlier vote to place the amended LEP on exhibition to allow the proposed development to proceed being close, and only passing with the Lord Mayor's casting vote, this vote was unanimous.

DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY /NON-PECUNIARY INTEREST
Director City Assets
Mr Edmonds indicated that he had a non-pecuniary interest in Compass Housing as a Director of that particular organisation which he believed may be discussed in relation to Item 106 – Draft Amendment 7 to Newcastle LEP 2003 – Proposed Markets at 248 Hannell Street, Maryville.

Councillor Claydon
Councillor Claydon declared a significant non pecuniary perceived interest in Item 106 – Draft Amendment 7 to Newcastle LEP 2003 – Proposed Markets at 248 Hannell Street, Maryville and stated as follows: I am declaring an interest in relation to item 106, Draft Amendment 7 to Newcastle LEP 2003 – Proposed Markets at 248 Hannell Street Maryville.

As noted in an earlier declaration of interests, prior to this matter being discussed at the Public Voice Committee last week, I wish to advise Council that I am again declaring a significant, non-pecuniary conflict of interest in this matter.

In doing so, I have been guided by sections 7.10, 7.16 part (a) and 7.17 of Newcastle City Council's Code of Conduct.

I have a non-pecuniary interest in this matter, which arises from the fact that my parents now reside in Hannell Street, Maryville. I do not know my parents opinion on this matter as we have agreed not to discuss the issue and they did not live in the LGA when this matter first came to Council for discussion last April.

I have not received political contributions or political donations from the proponent and there is no reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss regarding this draft amendment to the Newcastle LEP.

But my non-pecuniary conflict of interest is significant by virtue of the fact that it involves my parents. Having declared a significant, non-pecuniary conflict of interest I am advised that I must manage it in one of two ways. Given that I cannot relinquish or divest myself of the interest that creates the conflict (in this case, my parents) I must have no further involvement in the matter. I will therefore absent myself from and not take part in any debate or voting on Item 106.

Councillor Claydon left the Chamber for determination on this matter.

Councillor Sharpe
Councillor Sharpe declared a pecuniary interest in Item 106 – Draft Amendment 7 to Newcastle LEP 2003 – Proposed Markets at 248 Hannell Street, Maryville indicating that his family owned a plant nursery and the proponent had stated in the media that plants may be sold if such markets proceeded.

Councillor Sharpe also stated that his mother wrote for the Post Newspaper which he also understood the proponent to have an interest.

Councillor Sharpe left Chamber for determination of this matter.

The Lord Mayor
The Lord Mayor declared a non pecuniary interest Item 106 – Draft Amendment 7 to Newcastle LEP 2003 – Proposed Markets at 248 Hannell Street, Maryville.

The Lord Mayor declared that in the March 2007 State Government Election a company known as Newcastle Soccer Pty Ltd purchased a number of tickets to a fund raising event which was towards a campaign to raise money for the elections in which he was a candidate. He advised it was public knowledge by virtue of the returns to the Electoral office at that time and the details are available through the Electoral office.

The Lord Mayor believed that Newcastle Soccer Pty Ltd was a related company to the applicant of Item 26 – Proposed Amendment to Newcastle LEP 2003 with respect to 248 Hannell Street Maryville and he formally declared it under the Code of Conduct and he noted it was not a pecuniary interest in his view of significance. He noted the provisions of the Code of Conduct and the provisions of pecuniary interest therefore he made the declaration.

ITEM-106 CCL 17/11/09 - DRAFT AMENDMENT 7 TO NEWCASTLE LEP 2003 - PROPOSED MARKETS AT 248 HANNELL STREET, MARYVILLE

Note: Councillors Claydon and Sharpe were absent from the Chamber for this item.

MOTION: (COUNCILLORS B LUKE/M OSBORNE)
Council resolve to:
a not proceed with draft Amendment 7 to the LEP 2003 to permit markets at 248 Hannell Street, Maryville; and
b advise the Department of Planning that Council does not wish to have this draft plan made by the Planning Minister.

Following brief discussion the motion was put to the meeting and declared carried.

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

The Lord Mayor declared the motion carried unanimously on the division of nine votes to nil votes.

RESOLVED: (COUNCILLORS B LUKE/M OSBORNE)
Council resolve to:
a not proceed with draft Amendment 7 to the LEP 2003 to permit markets at 248 Hannell Street, Maryville; and
b advise the Department of Planning that Council does not wish to have this draft plan made by the Planning Minister.

Laman St Trees

2009-11-17T23:48:00.001+11:00

Tonight (17 November 2009), the majority of councillors voted to cut down all the Laman St trees.

Here's an extract from the minutes of the meeting.

ITEM-28 ECAG 17/11/09 - LAMAN STREET TREES
MOTION: (COUNCILLORS B LUKE/S SHARPE)

a Councillors participate in a community design process using place making principles to inform the Civic Cultural Precinct Laman Street design during December 2009- March 2010.

b Council adopts a whole-of-street replacement strategy for the Civic Cultural Precinct Laman Street to be commenced in 4th quarter 2009-10 financial year after the adoption of street design for the Precinct.

AMENDMENT: (COUNCILLORS M OSBORNE/N NELMES)

Council notes the arborists' report, particularly Appendix B that rates five (5) of the Laman Street trees as having a SULE risk of 4 (meaning up to a 5 year life) and nine (9) of the Laman Street trees as having a SULE risk of 3 (meaning between a 5 and 15 year life).

Council convene a Civic Cultural Precinct Laman Street Trees working party, comprising councillors, community members, Councl staff and relevant experts, to develop a community design process using place making principles.

That the working party receive a public briefing paper outlining a range of risk management approaches for the Laman Street trees with the view to retaining the trees for as long as practicably possible. Such briefing paper to come back to council for placement on public exhibition for public comment prior to consideration of the paper by the working party.

At this stage of the meeting, the time being, 7.00pm, the Lord Mayor proposed that the meeting adjourn in order to hold dinner and commence the advertised Council Meeting by 8.00pm.

PROCEDURAL MOTION
MOTION: (The Lord Mayor)

The meeting adjourn for its scheduled dinner break.

The procedural motion was put to the meeting and declared defeated.

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

For the amendment: Councillors S Claydon, T Crakanthorp, 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 four votes to seven votes.

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

RESOLVED: (COUNCILLORS B LUKE/S SHARPE)
a Councillors participate in a community design process using place making principles to inform the Civic Cultural Precinct Laman Street design during December 2009- March 2010.

b Council adopts a whole-of-street replacement strategy for the Civic Cultural Precinct Laman Street to be commenced in 4th quarter 2009-10 financial year after the adoption of street design for the Precinct.

Land transfers from Hunter Water

2009-11-17T23:46:00.004+11:00

Tonight, Council resolved to accept the transfer of a number of properties (and part parcels) from Hunter Water Corporation.

Council meeting 17 November 2009

2009-11-17T23:33:00.006+11:00

Newcastle Show Day

ITEM-105 CCL 17/11/09 - SHOW DAY HOLIDAY 2010
MOTION: (COUNCILLORS N NELMES/M OSBORNE)
Council makes application to the Minister for Industrial Relations seeking the proclamation of Show Day for Friday 26 March 2010.

Councillor Luke gave notice of a foreshadowed motion that being Option 2 outlined in the report that Council makes application to the Minister for Industrial Relations seeking the proclamation of Show Day, commencing after noon on Friday 26 March 2010 (part day).

Following discussion Councillor Sharpe moved the motion be put.

PROCEDURAL MOTION
RESOLVED: (Councillor S Sharpe)
The motion be put.

Following the mover's right of reply the motion was put to the meeting and declared carried.

RESOLVED: (COUNCILLORS N NELMES/M OSBORNE)
Council makes application to the Minister for Industrial Relations seeking the proclamation of Show Day for Friday 26 March 2010.

Newcastle's Environment Advisory Committee

ITEM-117 CCL 17/11/09 - ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RESOLVED: (COUNCILLORS A BUMAN/S SHARPE)
1 That Council adopts the EAC Constitution at attachment A.

2 That Council call for nominations for Councillor members to the EAC and elect three (3) Councillor EAC members from the nominees by open voting (show of hands) using the single non-transferable vote system described at paragraph 26.

3 That following the election of the three (3) Councillor EAC members, Council call for nominations for the position of Chairperson of the EAC from the elected Councillor EAC members and elect the Chairperson from the nominated Councillor EAC members by open voting (show of hands) using the single non-transferable vote system described at paragraph 26.

4 That following election of the Chairperson, Council call for nominations for the position of Deputy Chairperson of the EAC from the elected Councillor EAC members and elect the Deputy Chairperson from the nominated Councillor EAC members by open voting (show of hands) using the single non-transferable vote system described at paragraph 26.

In relation to the above the following nominations were received:
Councillor M Osborne – Chair
Councillor B Cook

The Lord Mayor declared Councillors Osborne (Chair) and Cook duly elected as Council's representatives to the Environmental Advisory Committee.

Support to protect the Wallsend Aged Care Facility

ITEM-26 NOM 17/11/09 - WALLSEND AGED CARE FACILITY
MOTION: (COUNCILLORS M OSBORNE/T CRAKANTHORP)
Newcastle City Council:
1. Congratulates the community of Wallsend for their steadfast defence of public health facilities in their area
2. Supports the community campaign to keep the Wallsend Aged Care facility as a publicly owned and operated health facility
3. Write to the NSW Premier, Nathan Rees and to the NSW Minister for Health, Carmel Tebbut, urging the NSW Government to retain Wallsend Aged Care as a public sector facility, with copies to the NSW Leader of the Opposition, Barry O'Farrell, and to the NSW Shadow Minister for Health, Jillian Skinner.
4. Arrange a visit by councillors to the community picket line, as a gesture of support for the community campaign, and to discuss with campaign participants how council might further assist them in their campaign.

Councillor Boyd asked the mover and seconder whether they would accept the following modifications:
• Part 1 be amended to read as follows:
Newcastle Council…..Congratulates the community for their steadfast defence of public health facilities in their area.
• Part 4 be deleted.

The mover and seconder agreed to accept Councillor Boyd's modifications.

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

RESOLVED: (COUNCILLORS M OSBORNE/T CRAKANTHORP)
Newcastle City Council:

1. Congratulates the community for their steadfast defence of public health facilities in their area

2. Supports the community campaign to keep the Wallsend Aged Care facility as a publicly owned and operated health facility

3. Write to the NSW Premier, Nathan Rees and to the NSW Minister for Health, Carmel Tebbut, urging the NSW Government to retain Wallsend Aged Care as a public sector facility, with copies to the NSW Leader of the Opposition, Barry O'Farrell, and to the NSW Shadow Minister for Health, Jillian Skinner.

Mine subsidence

ITEM-25 NOM 17/11/09 - MINE SUBSIDENCE WORKING GROUP
MOTION: (COUNCILLORS M OSBORNE/M KING)
That Newcastle City Council establishes a sunset working party to formulate recommendations on mitigating the impact of mine subsidence on the revitalisation of Newcastle CBD.

The working party should consist of relevant stakeholders and experts including but not limited to: Council staff, a representative from NSW Mine Subsidence Board, a representative from NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet, a representative from NSW Department of Planning, a representative from Property Council and interested Councillors.

Investigations should include:
• Existing and alternative construction methods available
• Existing and alternative funding arrangements, including both public and private sector models, and State and Federal funding
• Existing legislation and possible amendments if necessary (eg for MSB to proactively address mine subsidence risk by releasing funds to partly pay for grouting)
• Consistency regarding the time that an approved DA remains valid (eg MSB approvals are valid for 2 years whereas approvals under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 are generally valid for 5 years)

The working party should report back to Council within 6 months with recommended methods and actions, consistent with the City Centre Plan, on which Council can either act directly and/or play an advocacy role to other spheres of government.

Councillor Nelmes indicated that motion was valid however, proposed that the motion be referred to the newly formed Environmental Advisory Committee for consideration.

The mover and seconder indicated that they would accept Councillor Nelmes' proposal.

The motion was put to the meeting and declared carried.

RESOLVED: (COUNCILLORS M OSBORNE/M KING)
The following Notice of Motion be referred to the Environmental Advisory Committee for consideration:

That Newcastle City Council establishes a sunset working party to formulate recommendations on mitigating the impact of mine subsidence on the revitalisation of Newcastle CBD.

The working party should consist of relevant stakeholders and experts including but not limited to: Council staff, a representative from NSW Mine Subsidence Board, a representative from NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet, a representative from NSW Department of Planning, a representative from Property Council and interested Councillors.

Investigations should include:
• Existing and alternative construction methods available
• Existing and alternative funding arrangements, including both public and private sector models, and State and Federal funding
• Existing legislation and possible amendments if necessary (eg for MSB to proactively address mine subsidence risk by releasing funds to partly pay for grouting)

• Consistency regarding the time that an approved DA remains valid (eg MSB approvals are valid for 2 years whereas approvals under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 are generally valid for 5 years)

The working party should report back to Council within 6 months with recommended methods and actions, consistent with the City Centre Plan, on which Council can either act directly and/or play an advocacy role to other spheres of government.

Copenhagan

ITEM-27 NOM 17/11/09 - CLIMATE CHANGE
MOTION: (COUNCILLORS M OSBORNE/M KING)
PART A: CLIMATE CHANGE NEGOTIATIONS IN COPENHAGEN
Newcastle City Council call on the Federal government to base its position at the global Climate Change conference in Copenhagen on the generally accepted consensus of scientific opinion in relation to carbon emission reduction targets necessary to avoid dangerous climate change (that is, in the range of 25% to 40% reduction on 2000 levels by 2020). Council write to each of our Federal MPs asking them to take our message to the Federal government and to the Australian negotiating team for the Copenhagen talks.

PART B: CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME LEGISLATION
Newcastle City Council write to the Prime Minister, the Minister for Climate Change, the Leader of the Liberal Party, the Leader of the National Party, the Leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Steve Fielding and Senator Nick Xenophon, and express Council’s concern about the CPRS not recognising the efforts of residents, businesses outside the CPRS, and councils to reduce emissions; and call on all parties to amend the CPRS legislation to ensure that voluntary actions result in the abatement of greenhouse gases additional to mandatory emissions reduction targets and that CPRS Permits are retired for every tonne of abatement from voluntary action.

Councillor Nelmes asked the mover and seconder if they would consider referring the motion and background information to the newly formed Environmental Advisory Committee.

Councillor Osborne indicated that he would accept a Part C that the background on this Notice of Motion be referred to the Environmental Advisory Committee.

Councillor Crakanthorp then gave notice of a foreshadowed motion that being Part A and Part C as enunciated.

Following discussion 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, M King, M Osborne and S Sharpe.
Against the motion Councillors A Buman, S Claydon, B Cook, T Crakanthorp, N Nelmes and B Luke.

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

Councillor Crakanthorp was then asked to move his foreshadowed motion.

MOTION: (COUNCILLORS T CRAKANTHORP/M KING)
A Newcastle City Council call on the Federal government to base its position at the global Climate Change conference in Copenhagen on the generally accepted consensus of scientific opinion in relation to carbon emission reduction targets necessary to avoid dangerous climate change (that is, in the range of 25% to 40% reduction on 2000 levels by 2020). Council write to each of our Federal MPs asking them to take our message to the Federal government and to the Australian negotiating team for the Copenhagen talks.

C The background on this Notice of Motion be referred to the Environmental Advisory Committee.

Councillor Nelmes asked the mover and seconder whether they would consider moving Part C only.

The mover and seconder indicated that they were moving parts A and C as presented.

Councillor Cook then gave notice of a foreshadowed motion that being Part C only.

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

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

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

RESOLVED: (COUNCILLORS T CRAKANTHORP/M KING)
A Newcastle City Council call on the Federal government to base its position at the global Climate Change conference in Copenhagen on the generally accepted consensus of scientific opinion in relation to carbon emission reduction targets necessary to avoid dangerous climate change (that is, in the range of 25% to 40% reduction on 2000 levels by 2020). Council write to each of our Federal MPs asking them to take our message to the Federal government and to the Australian negotiating team for the Copenhagen talks.

C The background on this Notice of Motion be referred to the Environmental Advisory Committee, ie

BACKGROUND
Climate change is already having a significant impact on local government around the world, and is now a major consideration in all of Newcastle council's relevant planning documents. Whilst it has significant local impacts and causes, the challenge of climate change is a global one.

Over the years, Newcastle Council has developed a reputation as a forward thinking council in responding to climate change, by developing innovative programs, and by adopting positions that have significantly contributed to the national debate on climate change.

Many scientists and citizens around the world believe that the Copenhagen conference (7 December 2009 to 18 December 2009) represents a last chance for the world community to avoid dangerous climate change (that is, to avoid a 2 degree centigrade increase on pre-industrial global temperatures, which is the generally accepted threshold of catastrophic climate change).

The Federal Government's own Garnaut Report identifies that this will require a reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions of between 25% and 40% on 2000 levels by 2020. The Federal Government's current targets - 5% (unconditional) and 15% conditional on a global agreement) - are well below the minimum science-based levels identified in the Garnaut report.

The clear scientific evidence is that, in order to deliver a safe climate, we must bring greenhouse pollution in the atmosphere back down to 350 ppm or lower.

A call from Newcastle Council to the Federal Government in the run-up to the Copenhagen conference would help remind the Federal Government that councils and local communities are key players in climate change, and would reinforce similar messages being sent to the Federal Government by many groups and citizens in the grassroots Newcastle community who are urging our Government to adopt a science-based approach that gives our city and the world a realistic chance of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change.

While many in the community see the Federal government’s proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) as not likely to reduce the carbon pollution by enough to avoid the severe impacts of climate change, the current legislation before the federal parliament has a perverse flaw in its design that means that voluntary emission reductions by residents or by Newcastle City Council will not lower the total emissions cap.

Under the current rules of the CRPS legislation, residents and businesses who decided to install solar panels or invest in energy efficiency measures will effectively be making it cheaper for the big polluters such as coal-fired power stations to pollute. This perverse flaw in the scheme has the potential to undermine community action and even action by local councils to mitigate climate change.

The federal government should rectify this problem by retiring CPRS permits where there are verifiable complementary abatement measures in the broader community, so the polluters can’t use them.

A range of humanitarian organisations recently highlighted the suffering in the world that is caused by inaction on reducing carbon pollution (http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=17519).
Climate change risks unprecedented global hunger in our lifetime
04 November 2009

Caritas is joining other humanitarian organisations to say climate change needs urgent action at a UN meeting in Copenhagen in December to prevent global hunger.

The statement “Climate Change, Food Insecurity and Hunger” is signed by Caritas, the UN's food and health agencies WFP, FAO, and the WHO, plus the International Federation of the Red Cross, Oxfam, World Vision, and Save the Children.

The statement says climate change is undermining current efforts to end the suffering of over one billion people already affected by hunger. Not having enough to eat is already the single largest contributor to the global burden of disease, killing 3.5 million people every year, almost all of them children in Poor countries.

The risk of hunger and malnutrition could increase by an unprecedented scale within the next decades. There could be declines from 40 to 90 percent of grasslands in semi-arid and arid areas. Coastal areas may become flooded or unsuitable for farming due to increased salinity from rising sea levels may make.

By 2050, hunger could increase by 10 to 20 percent and child malnutrition is anticipated to be a fifth higher compared to a no-climate change scenario.

Environment ministers and officials will meet in Copenhagen from 7 December for two weeks to agree a new deal on climate change. The summit must be a start to improving food production, scaling up social protection systems, and preparing for disasters. Poor communities need support to build climate-resilient lives and escape hunger.

Key messages for Copenhagen:
• Climate change will act as a multiplier of existing threats to food security,
• Achieving food security requires substantial increases in food production on the one hand, as well as improved access to adequate and nutritious food and capacities to cope with the risks posed by climate change on the other hand,
• Governments must be assisted in enhancing food production and access, scaling up social protection systems and improving their ability to prepare for and respond to disasters,
• Community-based development processes need to be fostered in order to enable the poorest and most vulnerable to build sustainable and climate resilient livelihoods and move out of chronic poverty and food insecurity,
• The humanitarian community must get prepared for more extreme weather events and protecting the already food insecure better by strengthening both crisis response and crisis prevention.

The Lord Mayor noted that the foreshadowed motion had lapsed.

Show Holidays - the facts!

2009-11-17T23:28:00.003+11:00

An international report shows that employees in the UK, Netherlands and Australia have the least public holidays.

Global comparison: employee holiday entitlements

Employees in Lithuania and Brazil have the the most generous holiday entitlements reveals a report from Mercer which shows widely differing holiday entitlements between countries across the globe.

London – Employees in Europe receive the most generous statutory holiday allowances in the world, according to data released by Mercer. Taking public holidays into account, however, employees in Lithuania and Brazil have the potential to access the most time off work.

The data comes from Mercer’s '2009 Worldwide Benefit and Employment Guidelines' which provides data into global working practices and regulations. The report analyses both the statutory minimum number of days’ holiday that companies must provide to staff, as well as the number of public holidays in over 40 countries.

The following comparison is based on statutory entitlements for an employee working five days a week, with 10 years’ service. Statutory holiday allowance is the term given to the amount of paid leave that companies must, by law, offer their staff.

Global overview
Employees in Finland, Brazil and France are entitled to the greatest amount of statutory annual leave and those in India, Canada and China, the least.

Employees in Japan and India have the highest number of public holidays while those in the UK, Netherlands and Australia, the least.

Lithuanian and Brazilian employees potentially have access to the most generous overall holiday entitlements.

Employees in Finland, Brazil and France are entitled to receive as many as 30 days’ statutory holiday a year, with those in Lithuania, Russia and the UK entitled to 28 days. Poland follows closely behind (26 days), with employees in Greece, Austria, Denmark, Sweden and Norway entitled to 25 days’ statutory holiday.

By comparison, Asia-Pacific countries fare poorly, with Australian, New Zealand and Japanese employees receiving the region’s highest levels of statutory holidays (20 days) followed by Taiwan (15), Hong Kong and Singapore (14), India (12) and China (10). Employees in Canada are amongst those with the lowest entitlement with only 10 days and while there is no statutory minimum in the US, employees typically receive 15 days a year.

Public holidays can markedly increase the amount of time employees have off work. Japan and India top the global list with 16 days’ public holiday a year, closely followed by Cyprus, Slovakia and South Korea with 15. Malta and Spain both have 14 while Portugal, Austria, Lithuania, Slovenia and Taiwan all have 13 days’ public holiday.

The UK, Australia and the Netherlands have the lowest number of public holidays (eight) followed by Denmark, Ireland, Switzerland, Canada and Romania (nine).

According to Matthew Hunt, a principal in Mercer’s International team who advises multinationals on their employment practices, “There are wide variations in the local implementation of employment practices governing public holidays. Employers are often within their rights to ask employees to work on public holidays, or require that they be taken as part of their annual leave entitlements.

“For example, while it appears that employees in the UK have more total holidays than those in Malta, company contracts can create a different picture. While the UK statutory minimum is 28 days, companies are allowed to include the 8 public holidays as part of this entitlement, so some employees may only be given 20 days holiday a year and Maltese employees may, in fact, have a better deal.”

Assuming they receive the maximum statutory holidays in addition to public holidays, employees in Brazil and Lithuania would have the world’s most generous holiday regime with a potential 41 days off a year, while those in Finland, France and Russia could receive a total of 40 days. In contrast, Canadian employees receive only 19 days, Chinese employees 21 and those in the US and Singapore both 25.

Europe holiday overview
Finland and France make provision for a statutory minimum of 30 days’ holiday a year for employees, closely followed by Lithuania and Russia (28 days), the UK (28), Poland (26) and Greece (25). The vast majority of countries have a statutory minimum of 20 days including Germany, Belgium, Cyprus, Ireland, Italy and the Netherlands.

Cyprus and Slovakia (15 days) have the most bank holidays in Europe followed by Malta and Spain (14) and then Lithuania, Austria, Portugal and Slovenia (13). France, Poland, Finland, Germany and Belgium have 10, while Denmark, Romania and Ireland have nine. With eight bank holidays a year, the UK and Netherlands have the fewest in Europe. However, in some European states such as Norway and Switzerland, public holidays can be nullified if they fall on a weekend.

Overall, including the statutory minimum and public holidays, employees in Lithuania are potentially entitled to the greatest amount of paid leave in Europe with 41 days’ holiday per year. France, Finland and Russia rank second with 40 days, followed by Austria and Malta (38), Greece (37) and Sweden, Spain and the UK (36). Employees in Italy have 31 while those in Germany, Romania and Belgium have 30. Employees in Ireland and the Netherlands have the least amount of holiday at 29 and 28 days, respectively. If employers provide eight bank holidays on top of the statutory minimum, UK employees would receive 36 days’ paid holiday a year, one of the most generous in Europe.

The Americas holiday overview
The United States offers employees no statutory minimum holiday allowance but the typical average is 15 days compared to Canada which offers a statutory minimum of 10 days. Contrary to popular European belief, low levels of statutory holiday in the United States and Canada are not comparative to European standards when taking public holidays into account.

Employees in the United States and Brazil have an additional 10 and 11 days public holiday respectively, while workers in Canada are entitled to nine days’ public holiday. In total, employees in Brazil who can take the full entitlement and the full number of public holidays would receive 41 days off, those in the United States typically 25 days and those in Canada 19 days.

Asia holiday overview
Australia, Japan and New Zealand have the most generous statutory holiday regime, offering employees 20 days’ statutory holiday. South Korea (19 days), Taiwan (15), Hong Kong and Singapore (14), India (12) and China (10) have less generous entitlements. In addition, Japanese and Indian employees receive 16 public holidays a year followed by South Korea (15), Taiwan (13), Hong Kong (12) and New Zealand, Singapore and China all have 11 days. With eight days, workers in Australia are entitled to the fewest public holidays in Asia.

In theory, employees in Japan are entitled, in total, to the most generous holiday allowances with 36 days followed by South Korea (34 days) and New Zealand (31). Employees in Australia, Taiwan and India would potentially get 28 days followed by Hong Kong (26), Singapore (25) and China (21).

In addition to annual leave and public holidays, employers in some states are required by law to give special leave for getting married or for the death of a spouse or close relative, for example. Even when there is no requirement, many larger employers provide additional leave for special circumstances.

“Employers trying to co-ordinate business operations across the world are caught in a maze of legislation when it comes to holidays,” commented Matthew Hunt. “Public holidays tend to be rooted in local tradition or religious beliefs, so it can be difficult to change practices. But with the increasing cultural diversity of the global workforce there is pressure for greater flexibility around public holidays.”

An extraordinary intervention

2009-11-09T19:29:00.001+11:00

Climate Change on the agenda at Newcastle City Council

2009-11-06T18:26:00.004+11:00

Here's the Notice of Motion I submitted today.

NOTICE OF MOTION: CLIMATE CHANGE

COUNCILLOR: M OSBORNE

MOTION

PART A: CLIMATE CHANGE NEGOTIATIONS IN COPENHAGEN

A. Newcastle City Council call on the Federal government to base its position at the global Climate Change conference in Copenhagen on the generally accepted consensus of scientific opinion in relation to carbon emission reduction targets necessary to avoid dangerous climate change (that is, in the range of 25% to 40% reduction on 2000 levels by 2020). Council write to each of our Federal MPs asking them to take our message to the Federal government and to the Australian negotiating team for the Copenhagen talks.

PART B: CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME LEGISLATION

B. Newcastle City Council write to the Prime Minister, the Minister for Climate Change, the Leader of the Liberal Party, the Leader of the National Party, the Leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Steve Fielding and Senator Nick Xenophon, and express Council’s concern about the CPRS not recognising the efforts of residents, businesses outside the CPRS, and councils to reduce emissions; and call on all parties to amend the CPRS legislation to ensure that voluntary actions result in the abatement of greenhouse gases additional to mandatory emissions reduction targets and that CPRS Permits are retired for every tonne of abatement from voluntary action.

BACKGROUND

Climate change is already having a significant impact on local government around the world, and is now a major consideration in all of Newcastle council's relevant planning documents. Whilst it has significant local impacts and causes, the challenge of climate change is a global one.

Over the years, Newcastle Council has developed a reputation as a forward thinking council in responding to climate change, by developing innovative programs, and by adopting positions that have significantly contributed to the national debate on climate change.

Many scientists and citizens around the world believe that the Copenhagen conference (7 December 2009 to 18 December 2009) represents a last chance for the world community to avoid dangerous climate change (that is, to avoid a 2 degree centigrade increase on pre-industrial global temperatures, which is the generally accepted threshold of catastrophic climate change). The Federal Government's own Garnaut Report identifies that this will require a reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions of between 25% and 40% on 2000 levels by 2020. The Federal Government's current targets - 5% (unconditional) and 15% (conditional on a global agreement) - are well below the minimum science-based levels identified in the Garnaut report.

The clear scientific evidence is that, in order to deliver a safe climate, we must bring greenhouse pollution in the atmosphere back down to 350 ppm or lower.

A call from Newcastle Council to the Federal Government in the run-up to the Copenhagen conference would help remind the Federal Government that councils and local communities are key players in climate change, and would reinforce similar messages being sent to the Federal Government by many groups and citizens in the grassroots Newcastle community who are urging our Government to adopt a science-based approach that gives our city and the world a realistic chance of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change.

While many in the community see the Federal government’s proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) as not likely to reduce the carbon pollution by enough to avoid the severe impacts of climate change, the current legislation before the federal parliament has a perverse flaw in its design that means that voluntary emission reductions by residents or by Newcastle City Council will not lower the total emissions cap.

Under the current rules of the CRPS legislation, residents and businesses who decided to install solar panels or invest in energy efficiency measures will effectively be making it cheaper for the big polluters such as coal-fired power stations to pollute. This perverse flaw in the scheme has the potential to undermine community action and even action by local councils to mitigate climate change.

The federal government should rectify this problem by retiring CPRS permits where there are verifiable complementary abatement measures in the broader community, so the polluters can’t use them.

A range of humanitarian organisations recently highlighted the suffering in the world that is caused by inaction on reducing carbon pollution (See here).

Climate change risks unprecedented global hunger in our lifetime
04 November 2009
Caritas is joining other humanitarian organisations to say climate change needs urgent action at a UN meeting in Copenhagen in December to prevent global hunger.

The statement “Climate Change, Food Insecurity and Hunger” is signed by Caritas, the UN's food and health agencies WFP, FAO, and the WHO, plus the International Federation of the Red Cross, Oxfam, World Vision, and Save the Children.

The statement says climate change is undermining current efforts to end the suffering of over one billion people already affected by hunger. Not having enough to eat is already the single largest contributor to the global burden of disease, killing 3.5 million people every year, almost all of them children in poor countries.

The risk of hunger and malnutrition could increase by an unprecedented scale within the next decades. There could be declines from 40 to 90 percent of grasslands in semi-arid and arid areas. Coastal areas may become flooded or unsuitable for farming due to increased salinity from rising sea levels may make. By 2050, hunger could increase by 10 to 20 percent and child malnutrition is anticipated to be a fifth higher compared to a no-climate change scenario.

Environment ministers and officials will meet in Copenhagen from 7 December for two weeks to agree a new deal on climate change. The summit must be a start to improving food production, scaling up social protection systems, and preparing for disasters. Poor communities need support to build climate-resilient lives and escape hunger.

Key messages for Copenhagen:
• Climate change will act as a multiplier of existing threats to food security,
• Achieving food security requires substantial increases in food production on the one hand, as well as improved access to adequate and nutritious food and capacities to cope with the risks posed by climate change on the other hand,
• Governments must be assisted in enhancing food production and access, scaling up social protection systems and improving their ability to prepare for and respond to disasters,
• Community-based development processes need to be fostered in order to enable the poorest and most vulnerable to build sustainable and climate resilient livelihoods and move out of chronic poverty and food insecurity,
• The humanitarian community must get prepared for more extreme weather events and protecting the already food insecure better by strengthening both crisis response and crisis prevention.