Saving the Laman St fig trees

The Marsden Report, August 2009

Code of Conduct complaint should be summarily dismissed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a copy of a letter I received today...

Solar sailor heading to Hong Kong

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

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

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.