Wednesday, 16 September 2015

"Making it Happen", Baird style

The Baird government’s newly released state plan, titled “Making It Happen”, is at least as significant for what’s missing from it as for what it contains.

The new plan replaces the state government’s former “NSW 2021:A Plan to Make NSW Number One”, released in September 2011, after Barry O’Farrell’s election as NSW Premier.

The original plan contained general goals and hundreds of specific targets, grouped under the key policy areas of Economy, Transport, Health, Family and Community Services, Education, Police and Justice, Infrastructure, Environment and Communities, and Accountability.

The new Baird plan significantly reduces the number of goals and targets and entirely scraps a number of these categories, and their associated goals and targets.

For Newcastle, one of the most significant changes is the scrapping of the “transport” category, and the previous plan’s specific target (under Goal 8) to “increase the share of commuter trips made by public transport to and from Newcastle CBD during peak hours to 20% by 2016.”

Before the Baird government cut the Newcastle rail line on Boxing Day last year, the evidence suggests that they were on track to achieve this relatively modest target, with official figures indicating that increased use of rail services were providing a steady increase in commuter trips to and from the Newcastle CBD.

Since the rail cut, the numbers are trending decisively the other way. 

It’s difficult to be exact about the specific extent of the decline, because the state government hasn’t yet provided data that would allow a direct comparison of what we now have with what we’ve lost. However, the downward trend is clear.

The NSW Minister for Transport, Andrew Constance, recently confirmed to a parliamentary estimates committee that the replacement bus service between Hamilton and Newcastle Stations is providing around 65,000 trips per month, which works out to an average of 2,167 per day on a 30 day month. 


That’s more than twice the figure given by the Minister for the replacement bus service.

Because the Minister’s daily rate figures include weekend days and the others don’t, they can’t be directly compared. But Newcastle and Civic rail stations were known to be strong weekend performers, so the difference that factor would make is likely to be negligible.

That means that it’s almost certain that public transport patronage to and from the Newcastle CBD has been more than halved since the government cut rail services to Wickham, Civic and Newcastle stations.

The figures for bus use offer no glimmer of light. 

Patronage and fare-box revenue figures for Newcastle Buses have been headed downwards for many years, and the current year figures show that they still are.

It’s hard not to conclude that the reason the Baird government’s new plan hasn’t retained the Newcastle transport target from the previous plan is that they’ve realised that their decision to cut the Newcastle rail line makes it unachievable.

Better to remove the target itself than face the embarrassment of inevitable failure.

It corresponds with the Baird government’s whole approach to the rail issue in Newcastle, including its recent steadfast refusal to include any discussion of re-establishing train services on the rail corridor land in their recent “Community Engagement” process on the city’s revitalisation. 

Refuse to provide information or evidence to support the policy, attempt to circumvent legal requirements, ignore their self-declared “referendum” on the issue, refuse to discuss it, and remove relevant targets to disguise policy failure.

That's “Making it happen”, Mike Baird style.

Tuesday, 1 September 2015

Liberal allegation drags local debate to low level

Sometimes, you have to despair at the standard of political debate in this city. 

Readers may have noticed that a recent change to Newcastle Council’s investment policy has made waves in the local and national media.

The change added a preference for “environmentally and socially responsible investments” where any such investment complies with legal requirements and policy objectives, and offers a favourable rate of return compared to alternatives.

Essentially, it means that the council should go for more environmentally and socially responsible investment options, all other things being equal.

By any reasonable measure, it’s a pretty moderate and sensible change. How else would a reasonable ratepayer expect our council to invest our money?

The change was initiated by Labor’s Ward 3 councillor, Declan Clausen, and was carried by a combined vote of Labor and Greens councillors. Liberal and Independent councillors voted against it.

The initial local newspaper coverage of the change followed the stock-standard pattern of a tabloid media beat-up that didn’t let facts stand in the way of setting up a good old fashioned barney between well-known mouthpieces of the coal industry (Tony Abbott, Bob Baldwin, Joel Fitzgibbon, the Hunter Business Chamber) and Labor’s relatively new Ward 3 councillor and Lord Mayor.

Clearly, the coal industry advocates were worried that the industry might not brush up too well on “environmental and social responsibility” criteria, and that the council’s policy might send a signal to this effect. 

Wow! Hold the front page on that scoop.

Under obviously intense media and internal party pressure, the Labor councillors gave the unfortunate appearance of backing away from aspects of the policy in the days following the change.

Spurred by the smell of political blood, the Liberal Party (and its key media supporter, the Australian newspaper) even criticised the council for entering into an agreement with Port Waratah Coal Services (PWCS) for $12million in development levies to cover its proposed Terminal 4 development.

The Australian reported Newcastle Liberal councillor and Lord Mayoral hopeful Brad Luke as branding this move “hypocritical”, on the grounds that it was somehow inconsistent with the decision to change to the investment policy.

Really? 

Could anyone seriously suggest that a council should forgo development levies designed to compensate for the impact of a development on a community on the grounds that the same council might want its investments to be used to support socially and environmentally responsible industries?

The $12million agreement with PWCS was adopted by a combined Labor, Liberal and Independent vote (including Clr Luke).

Greens councillors Therese Doyle and Michael Osborne opposed the deal on the grounds that the amount fell too far short of the $48million levy that would be owed if the council’s adopted 1% of value policy was applied to the $4.8billion development proposal.

For this they were accused of “having a price”.

What nadir of the political discourse have we reached when councillors can be subjected to such an allegation for fighting to get a better deal for the city from a major industrial development that they think is not paying its way?