Councillor Chris Harris

On behalf of The Greens I will introduce a Notice of Motion to the City of Sydney Council on Monday 1st September 2008 in order to increase the compliance monitoring of late night premises in the late night entertainment hotspots of the City.

It is clear that there are owners of pubs, nightclubs and bars who are eager to make big profits out of the service of as much alcohol as they can serve to patrons but who are reluctant to do so in a responsible manner. Such premises breach conditions of consent, fail to follow proper plans of management and are in breach of the law. The City of Sydney needs to be more active in pulling these operators into line and therefore needs an increased physical presence during the hours between midnight and 4am.

City Rangers will not be targeting patrons but rather they will be visiting premises during these late hours to ensure that late night premises, which are making large profits serving alcohol are doing so in accordance with what council had in mind when it approved the use. Rangers will be checking that premises are following conditions imposed by The City when approval was granted. This would include adequate security and good management of patron behaviour inside and outside the venue

The need for more compliance monitoring has become obvious from the increased number of complaints of violence and late night disturbances by patrons who have been served too much alcohol by late night venue operators. This extra Ranger presence will be on Thursday, Friday & Saturday nights and will involve extra expenditure by council. I think this is more than justified.

I have spoken to members of the Gay & lesbian Community for example who have told me that they just don’t bother visiting some areas of Oxford St and Kings Cross late at night any more because they feel it is unsafe.

Better compliance will lead to better management of premises, earlier identification of patrons who should not be served more alcohol and a decrease in acts of violence after hours.

It is important to understand that City Rangers do not have the powers vested in police – however  they will be working in cooperation with local police and will be able to contact police when their attendance is required eg breaches in the law relating to responsible service of alcohol.

The Greens want to ensure that people can have fun during a late night out on the town without being subjected to violence and creating unreasonable disturbance to others. Council’s actions can improve the management of late night premises and the safety of those who want to say out late and have a great time.  
 
Notice of Motion

Greens Cr Chris Harris
 
1st September 2008
 
 
1. That council increase the number of compliance staff patrolling the Darlinghurst/Kings Cross/Potts Point/Rushcutters Bay entertainment area, the Oxford St late night entertainment area and problem areas of the City and The Rocks as follows:
 
a) Two officers operating together to patrol the designated areas between the hours of 8pm - 4am on  Thursday, Friday and Saturday evenings.
b) Officers to be well acquainted with conditions of consent and plans of management of individual premises particularly those premises serving alcohol to larger numbers of patrons and particularly in premises that have generated complaints.
c) Particular areas of focus to include noise, approved patron numbers, footpath queueing and consumption of alcohol outside of premises
d) Note to be taken of breaches of the law relating to responsible service of alcohol and for this to be promptly communicated to police at the relevant Local Area Command
 
2. Council notes that compliance staff do not have the powers of police and that the focus of compliance staff is to enforce conditions of consent that apply to operators of premises that are serving alcohol.
 
3. Council notes that patron behaviour is the responsibility of the operator of the premises and that enforcement action is directed to the operator and not patrons.
 
4. Council notes that breaches of the criminal law are beyond the jurisdiction of compliance staff. However compliance staff are encouraged to work with police to report criminal breaches; compliance staff will also be in a position to provide evidence in court proceedings should that be necessary.
 
5. That this increased compliance regime be implemented for a trial period of 12 months, that the City seek the cooperation of and coordination with local police and that an evaluation be reported back to the relevant council committee for discussion and public input.

Norman Thompson’s article in The SMH about political donations drew some letters to the editor, shown below.

1. From Clover Moore, 27 August

Independent and transparent

Norman Thompson overlooks that the Greens use similar manoeuvres to misrepresent the cost of their campaigns, including channelling donations through head office and using taxpayer funds from the unaccountable “political education fund” (”Coming clean on donations can be a ‘dirty’ business”, August 26). The Clover Moore independent team has no well-resourced head office, receives no taxpayer funds and, unlike the Greens and other parties, our local campaign donations and costs will be directly reported.

I have consistently refused donations that could compromise my independence. Before the last council elections we accepted a donation from Living Sydney - a political organisation being wound up. It came with no conditions and the unknown sources have no ability to influence us. It was accepted in good faith, disclosed, and has been public for four years.

Clover Moore MP Lord Mayor of Sydney

2. From Lee Rhiannon, 28 August

No Green light to channelling

Clover Moore (Letters, August 27) is wrong when she alleges funding impropriety by the Greens. The Greens do not “channel donations through head office”. Each local group raises and expends its funds locally, but we are obliged by electoral law to make disclosures on a statewide basis.

The Greens do not accept donations from corporations or others with interests in development, liquor, gambling and the like. We spend the funds we receive from the NSW Political Education Fund within the requirements of the law, mostly on educational items and some on party administration. Our claims on this fund are audited and available for public scrutiny.

Lee Rhiannon, MP Sydney

3. From Chris Harris 28 August (unpublished)

Moore misleads again

According to Ms Moore, independents receive “no taxpayer funds” (letters, SMH 27th August) - this is a blatant untruth. In the 2007 state election for the seat of Sydney, Ms Moore won the election and received $17293 in public funds for her efforts. In fact any candidate in a state election who achieves 4% or more is assisted with public funds in this way - The Greens received $6790.

Ms Moore cannot avoid the fact that she accepted $30000 from Living Sydney, Frank Sartor’s old political party, which sourced a majority of its funds from developers and hoteliers. All this was on the public record for years and she should have checked this before she accepted the money.

If Ms Moore is fair dinkum she should return it immediately

Chris Harris
Greens Lord Mayoral Candidate
Chippendale

By Norman Thompson (published in The SMH)
In March this year NSW Premier Morris Iemma and Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell gave strong backing to a wide ranging overhaul of political funding laws.
But after more than a decade of relying on corporate money to fund big spending campaigns, have the Labor and Coalition parties really turned their back on their generous donors?

An examination by the Greens Democracy4Sale Research Project of the NSW Election Funding Authority (EFA) records reveals that a number of leading politicians have learned how to hide dirty money while talking up their commitment to cleaning up election campaigns.

The new donation game in town is to find a loophole and exploit it fully. We are at a point now where it is nearly impossible for voters to link major party candidates with money from developers and other discredited donors such as alcohol interests, hotels, gaming outlets and the tobacco industry.

Hiding the money donated from such sources is done mainly in three ways.

The first is where money raised at fundraisers for a local candidate is first handed over to the party head office, which then passes the money on to fund the candidate’s campaign.

Another method is for the money to be donated to the campaign committee of a separate candidate, which agrees to accept the donation and pass it on to other candidates who claim not to take “dirty” money.

The last of the popular methods is to funnel money to “clean” candidates from donors through innocuous looking third parties, such as companies or other organisations.

When these tactics are used, it is difficult and often impossible for the public to know the original source of campaign funds for many candidates. Here are examples of each to illustrate how easy it is to exploit these loopholes.

First, the head office option. In the 2007 NSW state election Liberal candidate returns lodged with the EFA indicated that no donations had been received. Yet in many seats Liberal candidates had spent large amounts of money on their campaigns. Mike Baird spent over $263,000 in his Manly campaign, Peter Debnam almost $94,000 in Vaucluse, Barry O’Farrell $42,000 in Ku-ring-gai and Chris Hatcher over $200,000 in Terrigal.

Where did the hundreds of thousands of dollars come from that funded the 2007 Liberal campaigns in individual electorates? While a small amount could be the candidate’s own money, most of the funds came from a pool of donations the NSW Liberal Party had received. The largest donors to that party were property developers, the hotel and club industry, banks and other financial institutions.

Some say if the donations are at arm’s length, there cannot be any question of a candidate knowing where the donations come from and so there is no effect on later decisions.

This is unlikely. Much of the money is given at fundraising events, many of which were held in local areas, where the donor can sit down and discuss issues with the candidates.

While the Liberals deny any of their candidates accepted donations, disclosure forms lodged with the EFA indicate otherwise. Clubs NSW informed the EFA that they gave $5000 to O’Farrell’s campaign, and Belford Productions contributed $20,000 to Prue Goward. The wealthy founder and CEO of WorleyParsons Ltd. which is involved in the energy and resources industries donated $5000 to Mike Baird’s campaign. None of these Liberal MPs informed the EFA that they have received this money.

Considering the bad donation stories involving the Labor Government this year it’s not surprising Premier Iemma has said he favours this Liberal Party tactic of funneling all donations through head office.

Ironically, Morris Iemma has presented this new approach as one of his solutions to “cleaning up” donations. All it is likely to do is clean up the appearance of those donations, as the money flows on.

While it is not illegal to funnel donations through a party’s head office, and to cut out any money trail to a local candidate or MP, it is certainly not ethical.

If both major parties exploit this loophole it is going to be almost impossible to expose donation scandals similar to those that linked Wollongong MP Noreen Hay and Newcastle MP Jodi Mackay to local developers.

The second donations trick — that of shifting money from one campaign to another — is already very popular in the Labor Party. It was a common practice in the 2003 election, and used to a lesser extent in 2007.

Linda Scott was the Labor candidate for the NSW state seat of Sydney in 2007. She ran a strong public campaign on not accepting donations from property companies, hotels, tobacco or gaming outlets. The Democracy4Sale Project has discovered that Scott received in-kind donations of $21,320 from the Labor MP Kristina Keneally for printing campaign materials. In turn Keneally received almost $20,000 from “Frank Sartor for Rockdale” and thousands of dollars from other property and hotel interests.

Surprisingly, in her declaration lodged to the EFA Scott did not declare that $20,000 of her money came from Keneally. Had Keneally not been so thorough in her own return to the EFA we never would have known about the funneling of money from property and hotels to the Scott campaign.

Scott is the second candidate on the Labor Party’s ticket for the Sydney Council election, and the money trail behind her campaign compromises the credibility of Labor Mayoral candidate Meredith Burgmann’s commitment not to accept any funds from property, alcohol, gaming or tobacco interests.

An example of the third technique of funneling money — through third parties to hide the real source of the funds — can be found in the campaign funding of Sydney’s Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, who has for years claimed she does not take money from property developers. She has frequently called for a complete and unequivocal ban on developer donations to political parties and elected officials at state and local government levels.

In June 2008 Moore severely criticised recent amendments to NSW donations laws because they did not ban donations from the property development industry, or other “high-risk” industries.

However, in the 2004 Sydney Council election the Clover Moore Independent Party accepted considerable property money for its campaign. The Moore Party received almost 50 per cent of its money from Living Sydney Ltd. Living Sydney was set up in 1995 as a political campaign management firm and collected hundreds of thousands of dollars for Frank Sartor’s campaigns for Sydney Council. Approximately 70 per cent of this money came from property companies between 1995 and 2004. The Living Sydney donors included many well known property companies such as Meriton Apartments, Multiplex, Mirvac, Grocon and Transfield.

The possible laundering of money through a third party means that candidates funding campaigns this way are always going to be suspect. Ms Moore claimed she was given guarantees that no property money came to her from Living Sydney Ltd., but this has been denied by two people who were directors of the company in 2004.

The way the Labor and Liberal parties and some independents are exploiting these funding loopholes underlines the need for far-reaching reform of the NSW and federal electoral funding laws. Governments can attempt to close loopholes in their disclosure laws in order to increase transparency of the source of money flowing into the coffers of the political parties. That’s a good thing. However, it appears every time one loophole is closed, political parties and candidates find other ways to avoid accurate disclosure.

Failures in the current system demand some well designed changes to our donation laws to stop private money buying access to those who make decisions that affect the lives of us all. To do this, we need to ban all corporate and group donations, place a low limit on donations from individuals and put caps election expenditure. Candidates should also continuously disclose donations from individuals and the money they spend on their own election campaigns.

These are important steps to take if we want to promote a healthy and vibrant democracy in this country.

August 16th 7pm to 12:30am (numbers depending)

Please come along on 16th August to the Sydney City Greens Trivia night, for an evening of socialising and fun, trivia and fundraising.

Cost $20 per person ($10 Concession $30 Keen Green)

All enquiries and bookings (whole tables or individual seats) to willsyd@gmail.com 0415870582 add TRIVIA BOOKING in email subject please.

Drink prices are very reasonable, $10 jugs Coopers Green.

Some nibbles supplied, BYO Food welcome.

http://www.thegaelic.com/

A priceless remnant of Sydney’s heavy industrial history is threatened with closure, which could mean the loss of skills and iron work manufacture critical for the preservation of much of Sydney’s heritage landscape.

Wrought Artworks at the Australian Technology Park has been told by the Redfern Waterloo Authority to vacate its premises by the end of September, 2008.  This is despite the fact that the small business is training apprentices, and according to the owners, is performing valuable work on State-owned equipment for which it receives no financial reward.

I put a question to the City of Sydney Council on June 30, 2008 which was well received by the Lord Mayor who voiced her concern about the threatened closure. However, many aspects of the answer which came back from City of Sydney staff who had sought information from the RWA have been challenged by Wrought Artworks.

Wendie McCaffley of Wrought Artworks has submitted a response to statements made by the RWA and ATP.  Below is my question, the answer, and Wendie’s response.
 

The Question 

Question without Notice – Council 30 June 2008
WROUGHT ART WORKS (S044440)
7. By Councillor Harris
My question concerns the Blacksmith’s Shop at the Australian Technology Park at Eveleigh – it goes by the name of Wrought Art Works. This small operation has been told by the Redfern-Waterloo Authority to vacate its premises by 30 September and a campaign has been organised to try to save it. The construction of the AustralianTechnology Park even included the building of an acoustic wall to accommodate this workshop. This operation is employing several young apprentices who are learning old skills which are in short supply today, as well as providing a link to the building’s industrial past and Sydney’s heritage. How could Council work with the Redfern-Waterloo Authority to allow Wrought Art Works to continue its very worthwhile operations at the ATP?

 The Answer
Staff have sought information from the Redfern Waterloo Authority (RWA) on behalf of the ATP. Wrought Art Works is a commercial operation that has operated from the Blacksmith’s Shop for around 18 years. Wrought Art Works has not had a lease or licence with ATP on the premises, nor do they pay rent. Wrought Art Works believes it has a verbal agreement from State Rail for free use of the property in perpetuity. ATP believes the organisation should pay rent and their tenancy should be subject to a lease or licence. Wrought Artworks does not accept this. ATP reports that it has issued a six months eviction notice in order to bring the matter to a resolution. ATP has advised Wrought Art Works it is prepared to consider them remaining in the premises on condition that they sign a standard form lease, pay an appropriate market rent and conduct themselves in accordance with legal obligations the same as any other tenant of the ATP.
 

And Wrought Artworks response.

“It has come to our attention that a Question Without Notice was asked by Councillor Harris at the Council meeting 30 June in regards our occupation of the blacksmiths shop and that  we wish to respond that  the supplementary answer from the ATP/RWA was incorrect, we wish to state:

“WAWs believes it has a verbal agreement from State Rail for free use of the property in perpetuity.
Wrought Artworks does not have a verbal agreement with State Rail. The verbal agreement was with Dr. Tom Forgan-(The initial  ATP- CEO) who said we could be here as long as we wished and that he was not interested in any money from these bays.
 
ATP believes the organization should pay rent and their tenancy should be subject to a lease or license. WAW does not accept this.
The ATP has never offered any lease or asked for any rental.
 
ATP  has advised WAW it is  prepared to concider them remaining …..
We have not been advised of anything.
 
…on condition they sign a standard lease…
A standard form lease is completely inappropriate for any tenure by a blacksmith in an office complex and I stated in prior discussions this year that I would be happy to formalize our tenure under the existing arrangement , but would not sign a standard lease. By signing a standard lease I would be signing away the right of the workshop to operate in perpetuity forever.
 
…and pay an appropriate market …
A market rental would  be inappropriate as the land area and value in commercial terms is beyond our ability to pay. Unlike other tenants Wrought Artworks performs valuable work on the State owned equipment in its care and other duties for which it receives no financial reward. For instance  today I gave tours to four groups of school children considering a career in Rail Engineering and entering into Rail Cadet ships. Nor was a commercial outcome of the operating blacksmithing bays ever sought by Government agencies. In fact we specifically kept our work light weight and unindustrial so as not to affect the amenity of other tenants.
Should we have pursued a commercial use for all the equipment in our care, Redfern Station platform would be shaking from the use of the double arch hammer[ As it used to do] and every tenant in the park would long ago have sued the ATP for damages.
 
…in accordance with the legal obligations the same as any other tenant of the ATP.
It would be unrealistic of the ATP to consider our legal obligations the same as any other tenant.The Guidelines for the site state from the Eveleigh Precinct Conservation Policy that Bays 1-4a of the locomotive building should be treated differently to the remainder of the building given that the machinery identified as a Heritage item by the REP is largely located in this area.”

******

While the answer from the Redfern Waterloo Authority and the response from Wrought Artworks presents two sides of an argument, the threat to the blacksmith’s business has attracted much attention and a burgeoning campaign from the local community, heritage experts and a former Eveleigh worker, Brian Dunnett, who is passionate about saving this piece of Sydney’s industrial and railway heritage.

Brian Dunnett has made a lengthy submission to the NSW Department of Planning regarding the whole Eveleigh workshops site. He sees a future for Eveleigh as a functioning heritage treasure which could become an important cultural tourism icon.

Below are Mr Dunnett’s submission and a publication on the Eveleigh Workshops by Brian Dunnett and Robert Haworth.

north-eveleigh-submission.doc
pp157-171_dunnett-haworth_everleigh.pdf