What's new for New Year 2013?

If the run-up to the 2012-13 Festive Season is any indicator, this year is shaping up as a lively one for local politics.

Newcastle's newly elected Liberal dominated council is now well past its 100 day milestone, and despite some initial media speculation that the new council might be more harmonious than its bitterly divided predecessor, tensions were evident at the very first meeting.

Clr Andrea Rufo, the only successful candidate of the Community 1 group that emerged from the Laman St figs campaign, used his first balance-of-power vote to install a major figs opponent, Liberal councillor Brad Luke, as the new Deputy Lord Mayor, along the way breaking the established Newcastle practice of rotating the Deputy position among all interested councillors.

The newly elected Lord Mayor, Clr Jeff McCloy, attracted immediate controversy, proposing that the council employ his election campaign manager as his chief Lord Mayoral advisor.

He withdrew the proposal after a public outcry, but was moved enough by questions asked about the matter by Newcastle Ward 4 councillor Jason Dunn to leave him a voice mail message telling Clr Dunn he would "get what you deserve" if he kept it up.

Clr McCloy also drew the ire of the union, which referred his proposal and comments he made about council staff to the Industrial Relations Commission.

One legacy of the previous council - the proposed disposal of council-owned childcare facilities - was postponed to consider other options.

However, the new conservative council quickly followed the lead of the previous council in axing Newcastle's Show Holiday, and making noises about cutting or privatising council services.

As the year closed, the thought-bubble politics that so plagued the previous council returned with a rushed but short-lived decision for two hour free parking in the Newcastle CBD over the Christmas period.

The council will be reviewing its parking strategy this year.

As I predicted in my November column, just as we were all settling back to enjoy the cricket, the beach and too much good food and festal cheer, the local news that dominated the close of the year was the state government's long-rumoured announcement that it intends to cut the Newcastle rail line at Wickham.

At the same time, they were announcing new rail lines and services for Sydney.

The previous proposal to cut the rail line and build a new terminus at Wickham under the former Labor government was estimated to cost more than $300million - and that was without any alternative replacement system.

Without providing detailed costings of their proposed alternative, the O'Farrell government has announced that it will allocate $120million, and will seek a similar amount from the Federal government.

NSW Planning Minister, Brad Hazzard, said that the entire package may be considerably more than the initial outlay, but would not reveal further estimates because the private sector would be involved in some of the work.

The proposal is presented as part of the state government's Newcastle Urban Renewal Strategy 2012, which is now on public exhibition for comment until 17 March.

Newcastle councillors are as divided on this issue as the local community.

It's sure to dominate local politics for much of this year, and is likely to be a key local issue in the election for the federal seat of Newcastle, given that the Coalition state government wants the Federal government to chip in to help cover the costs of cutting the line.

The Department of Planning website says that community information forums will be held during the exhibition period, at dates and venues to be announced.

See the website for more information, at: http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/HousingDelivery/UrbanRenewal/RevitalisingNewcastle/tabid/613/language/en-AU/Default.aspx

Newcastle stockpile blast could have force of Hiroshima bomb, says explosives expert

Tony Richards is an expert in ammonium nitrate as an explosive.

He says that having thousands of tonnes of potentially explosive ammonium nitrate stockpiled on Newcastle's doorstep "frightens the daylights" out of him.

For more than two decades Mr Richards managed and designed blasting operations for large mining companies such as BHP, Goldsworthy Mining, Thiess Bros and MIM Holdings. He has also managed the explosives plant at BHP's Olympic Dam mine in South Australia for Orica.

At times, he says, he held the record for managing the biggest open-cut and underground mining blasts in Australia.

Mr Richards has outlined his concerns about Newcastle's ammonium nitrate stockpiles in a recent submission objecting to Incitec's proposed Kooragang Island ammonium nitrate manufacturing plant.

He says he's concerned not so much with the manufacturing, but with the storage of huge quantities (10,000 to 12,000 tonnes) of ammonium nitrate so close to urban areas and other industries.

Orica already stores a similar amount next to the proposed Incitec plant.

Mr Richards' submission on the Incitec proposal says that "a worst case scenario of a 12,000 tonne blast at the front door of Newcastle is the destruction of the city and suburbs with countless deaths and injuries".

He cites the 1947 Texas City Disaster - still considered the United States' worst industrial accident - in which 2,300 tonnes of ammonium nitrate detonated, causing an explosive chain reaction that killed more than 500 people and injured thousands more, and destroyed Texas port and its Monsanto and Union Carbide industrial complex.

The blast knocked people to the ground 16 kilometers away, shattered windows 60 kilometers away, and was felt 160 kilometers away. A two tonne anchor thrown by the blast was later found in a 3 meter crater 2.6 kilometers away.

50,000 people live within five kilometers of the Incitec and Orica sites on Kooragang Island.

Mr Richards' submission refers to many other accidents involving ammonium nitrate, not one of them involving any deliberately mixed explosive.

"No matter what people say about how safe it is, I can tell you - as someone with my experience - that it frightens the daylights out of me to have that sort of tonnage sitting on the front door of Newcastle," he told me.

"If the stockpile goes up, the force could be similar to the Hiroshima atomic blast."

If an accident allowed time for evacuation, people would have to be moved west of Charlestown, Mr Richards said.

He lists lightning strikes, an earthquake, or an act of terrorism as potential triggers.

Mr Richards has conveyed his concerns to representatives of the major political parties, including Newcastle' s local state and federal members, Tim Owen and Sharon Grierson, and at recent public forums in Stockton and Islington.

"I'm talking to anyone who will listen," he said.

"People think it's too difficult.

"It's my hope to make enough people aware that someone is elected who is prepared to say, 'no, I'm not going to renew these licences'".

The ammonium nitrate stockpiles should be located west of Broken Hill, he said.

Torturing facts to toe the anti-rail line

Rumours of an imminent announcement from the NSW Coalition government about the future of the Newcastle rail line are rife around town - again.
Forgive my skepticism, but don't be surprised if it comes as a silly season curtain-raiser, unleashed for formal public comment in the January festive fog, when the media goes to sleep and attention is on the cricket and the beach, or when many are away or enjoying family time with the kids on holiday.
On cue for this scenario, the former NSW Premier and current head of Infrastructure NSW, Nick Greiner, made local news in a recent speech to the Hunter Business Chamber, saying that the Newcastle rail line should be cut.
But there was nothing new in anything that Mr Greiner had to say about the Newcastle rail line
In 1990, Mr Greiner's government was the first to announce an intention to cut the rail line, despite a comprehensive expert report it had jointly commissioned with Newcastle Council (the Travers-Morgan Newcastle CBD Transport and Development Study) comparing the various options for the future of the rail line that rated keeping it as superior to the other alternatives on four out of five criteria.
That wasn't what the government,or the vested interests lobbying to cut the line, wanted to hear, so the study's release was accompanied by a brief announcement from the government and council-appointed steering committee recommending that the rail line be cut.
Since then, deliberately or unwittingly, advocates for cutting the rail line have repeatedly misrepresented the steering committee recommendation as though it was from the study report itself.
Unfortunately, this established a disturbing pattern of misrepresentation in a range of influential government reports and studies into the rail line's future over the next two decades.
A series of reports prepared under the Iemma Labor government during 2003 and 2004 by the Lower Hunter Transport Working Group, initiated by the then Minister for the Hunter, Michael Costa, culminated in advising that the line should be cut at Broadmeadow.
However, when Professor Graham Currie, from the Institute of Transport Studies of the Department of Civil Engineering at Monash University, reviewed these reports in 2005 he was highly critical of their methodology, data and analysis, and concluded that they provided "biased, flawed and misrepresented advice".
The most recent example in this lamentable tradition is the Hunter Development Corporation's Newcastle City Centre Renewal Report, released in March 2009, which supported cutting the line west of Stewart Avenue.
This recommendation turned out to be based on the (incorrectly) assumed view of Newcastle University that a university CBD campus would not be viable with the rail line in place, resulting in a $640million anti-rail error in the cost-benefit calculations on which the study and its recommendation relied.
It's clear that the option of keeping the rail line would easily win a corrected cost-benefit analysis, but the report's discredited recommendation is still widely quoted by anti-rail advocates, including the recently elected Lord Mayor, Jeff McCloy, and the Hunter Business Chamber.  Neither the HDC nor the current Coalition government has moved to set the record straight.
The strategy of the anti-rail campaign over the past two decades seems to be that if the facts don't fit, just distort or ignore them, and keep repeating the mantra that the rail line must go until people are eventually bludgeoned into accepting it.

Which council will be the real McCloy?

Many regular council watchers who attended the first meeting of the newly elected Newcastle Council were surprised that media coverage portrayed it as an example of how the council could work together.

This portrayal was based on a single unanimous decision about paid carparking in the Newcastle CBD.

In that decision, notices of motion from Liberal and Labor councillos arising from election commitments they made to stop the spread of paid parking in the CBD were combined in a spirit of cooperation.

It was certainly an instance of collaboration among elected councillors on a major issue (though the decision was made in the absence of any  information about - or consideration of - its impact on other council programs dependent on the projected parking income, and on a range of other council policies and strategies, such as city renewal, transport, cycling, and climate change, which will now have to be reviewed and adjusted over the coming months).

The vote had two immediate consequences: it stopped the roll-out of paid parking in the CBD, and it stimulated positive local news coverage for the newly elected council about how it signalled a new spirit of cooperation.

But other decisions at the same council meeting indicated a different possible trajectory.

Earlier in the night, the new council scrapped the previous system of rotating the Newcastle Deputy Lord Mayor position between all interested councillors over the four year council term. This usually resulted in each Deputy Lord Mayor serving a 4 month term.

It was introduced in the 1990s as a way of giving all councillors an opportunity to perform the role, and of defusing the back-room political wheeling and dealing that usually accompanies annual appointments.

The annual appointment system was recommended by council staff, without any explanation, despite the rotation system being the status quo in Newcastle.

The option to keep the rotation system was proposed (by Greens councillor Michael Osborne), but lost 7 to 6 votes, with the four Liberal councillors combining with three Independents against the four Labor and two Greens councillors.

The next major vote at the meeting was on a proposal to reverse the previous council's decision to give away the city's childcare centres.

This had caused significant concerns among some childcare centre management committees, who said that the decision had been made before they had been provided with sufficient information to judge whether or not accepting the council's "gift" would be viable for them, and without fully exploring and discussing other options, such as leasing.

The 8-5 vote to change this decision and undertake more consultation with the childcare management committees was supported by the Labor (4) and Greens (2) councillors, and by two of the Independents. The four Liberal councillors and Lord Mayor Jeff McCloy opposed the change.

So, as a glimpse into the future voting patterns and dynamics on the new council, the first meeting was really more a mixed bag than the love-in portrayed by the media.

I suspect this is a more accurate indicator of how things will be.

The council election and the "mandate" question

Claims of a mandate are an established part of post-election political manoeuvering. But they need to be taken with a good pinch of salt, and the recent Newcastle council election is no exception.

Jeff McCloy polled very well in the Lord Mayoral campaign, achieving 43.3% of the primary vote.

However, his campaign advertising blitz has raised questions about the extent to which he effectively "bought" the election through his capacity to vastly outspend the other groups and candidates.

Mr McCloy is now claiming his election as a mandate to cut the Newcastle rail line, and is now reportedly already talking to Macquarie Street about this.

The Liberal state member for Newcastle, Tim Owen (who publicly supported Mr McCloy's tilt for Lord Mayor), stated that he saw the council election result as a referendum on the urban design of the CBD.

But what does the election result really tell us in terms of any claimed "mandate", and what real status does it have as a quasi-referendum?

A referendum is a stand-alone vote in which voters cast their votes for or against a clear proposition.

Councils can hold such referenda or plebiscites in conjunction with council elections, but Newcastle did not do so for this election.

An election mandate to take certain action depends on a candidate being elected on a clear policy position that they were actively advocating in their public information and in public debate during an election campaign.

Mr McCloy was elected on less than 50% of the vote, and the material that he distributed to the general public during the election campaign appears to have been almost silent on the issue of the Newcastle rail line.

His widely distributed letter to ratepayers talked about developing and maintaining facilities for all, holding the council accountable, getting better value for money for ratepayers, providing 200 extra parking spaces in the CBD, establishing a street art program, and cutting council red tape - but not a single reference to the rail line.

A major opinion piece by Mr McCloy published soon after he announced his candidature talked about issues such as the need to fix Hunter St - but, again, didn't even mention the rail line.

The material distributed by Mr McCloy at the polling booths also said nothing about the rail line.

Mr McCloy clearly has a mandate to perform the role of Lord Mayor, to which he has now been elected. He can also legitimately claim an electoral mandate to attempt to carry out the specific policy initiatives on which he actively campaigned, and on which voters clearly voted for him.

However, claiming a mandate on less than half the vote, for an action that wasn't even mentioned in material distributed to voters, is stretching any reasonable notion of what constitutes an electoral mandate.

And that's without the added complication of how voters in the Newcastle Council area could legitimately "mandate" an action to remove infrastructure and services that directly affect so many commuters from outside the Newcastle council area.

Gateway challenges and opportunities for Wallsend

Anyone who watched the final stage of the Tour de France, as the riders entered the Champs Elysees past the magnificent Arc de Triomphe, has felt the power of a sense of arrival.

In architecture and urban design, the psychological and emotional impact and symbolic resonance of entry routes and gateway points has been recognised since ancient times. They can take your breath away, or make you feel welcome. Or not.

Cities around the world have recognised this, and have often deliberately designed entry routes and gateway points to create a powerful and positive experience of arrival.

For visitors, such experiences can provide a key first impression or an abiding memory for their encounter with a place.

I remember the first time I saw Newcastle. It was at night, and I drove in via the old Pacific Highway route, through Charlestown and over the ridge-line before the City Road descent . Not exactly the Champs Elysees, but the spectacle of the lights of the city spread out below did the job for me.

The F3 Freeway changed all that. Now, the first impression most new arrivals have of Newcastle is the Newcastle Link Rd and the Lake Road/Thomas Street roundabout at Wallsend. The first significant building they encounter is the F1 Hotel.

As a gateway to create a sense of arrival it has its problems. True, drivers can glimpse the pleasant greenery of Wallsend Park, but there's nothing that - either directly or symbolically - conveys to a visitor that they are welcome, or have arrived at a place that might have something special to offer.

This presents both a challenge and an opportunity.

Development will inevitably spread along the Link Rd (and who picked that as the name for our main gateway route?). How we develop and maintain that route, and what we do at the key entry point, will determine the first impression many visitors will have of Newcastle.

We need to seize this opportunity before the chance to do something significant passes us by.

This issue emerged at a recent community workshop conducted by the Wallsend Business Improvement Association as part of updating its strategic plan for the Wallsend Town Centre.

Workshop participants noted the potential to present what Wallsend has to offer to visitors entering Newcastle from the F3: its rich history and heritage, its "country village" character, and its proximity to major emerging eco-tourism attractions such as the Blue Gums Hills Regional Park and the Hunter Wetlands.

To complement this, participants saw opportunities to promote the new Tramway Cycleway from Glendale to Wallsend, to find new ways to present the area's history and heritage, and to develop new accommodation and visitor facilities in the area.

These ideas could form part of a Newcastle Gateway Strategy, aimed at recognising and taking advantage of Wallsend's gateway status and potential.

This will have to begin with the basics. At the moment, this key entry site doesn't even provide basic information for visitors to find out what the area has to offer.

The need for some sort of conveniently accessed visitor information facility emerged as one of the key points from the Wallsend workshop.

How the new council that is elected in September responds to this will have a significant impact on the future commercial health and character of both Wallsend and the rest of Newcastle.

Rates a social justice issue

We all care about council rates when we receive our rates notice from the local council asking us to pay up.

But as an issue, council rating systems are a topic that make most people's eyes glaze over faster than you can say "ad valorem".

That's unfortunate, because it's a key issue for anyone who cares about social equity and public services.

Most people are aware that rates provide most of the funding for the services that councils provide, and that the amount that a ratepayer pays is linked to the value of their land.

One common misconception is that a council receives more rate revenue if land values in their area go up. In fact, in NSW that isn't the case, because the state government restricts the total amount of rate revenue that a council can collect (called "rate capping").

Leaving aside special levies (such as the waste service charge) that are usually included in rate bills, rate capping effectively sets the size of a council's total rate revenue "pie", while other factors (including land value) determine how this pie is divided into the individual slices that each ratepayer pays.

Probably the most vigorous debate about council rates is whether the amount each ratepayer pays should be the same for everyone (i.e., a base rate) regardless of ability to pay, or whether it should be linked to some "ability to pay" indicator, such as land value (i.e., ad valorem - or "according to land value").

Those who see rates as simply a "fee for service" tend to argue that everyone should pay the same amount; those who see rates as a kind of tax tend to argue that the amount that individuals pay should reflect their ability to pay.

In NSW, at least half of each residential rate assessment must be based on land value. The other half can be either ad valorem or base rate.

Comparing the two, the greater the ad valorem component, the less that people who own relatively lower valued land pay. With a greater base rate component, owners of lower valued land pay more, and owners of higher valued land pay less.

Because people who own lower valued land tend to be poorer than those who own higher valued land, a base rate tends to shift the rate burden on to those with less ability to pay.

Newcastle Council has adopted the maximum possible base rate of 50%. This tends to advantage wealthier ratepayers (who own land above Newcastle's average land value) at the expense of ratepayers who own land below the average value.

Of course, land value can be a blunt instrument for this purpose, and not everyone who lives on higher valued land does have a greater ability to pay. Councils have developed hardship provisions to accommodate such exceptions.