'Bait and switch': deputy lord mayor decries Rising Tide venue change
The Newcastle Herald reported last week that Rising Tide submitted a request to Newcastle council to amend its event application and move the November blockade protest campsite from Richardson Park to Foreshore Park.
The climate concert would be held at Camp Shortland as previously planned.
An extraordinary council meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 12, regarding the event application.
Newcastle deputy lord mayor Callum Pull, a vocal critic of the blockade, said if the council chooses to approve the event application on Tuesday, the decision will not be compliant with requirements of the Local Government Act.
He said, however, the council could vote to reject the application without another exhibition.
The Act says if a council proposes to grant a lease or licence, the proposal must be notified and exhibited publicly, including on the council's website and on the land to which the proposal relates.
The proposal has been notified for Camp Shortland and Richardson Park, but not for the proposed new site of Foreshore Park.
Rising Tide spokesperson Alexa Stuart said the decision to move the campsite was based on "careful consideration" of safety concerns raised by police, council submissions, discussions with councillors and council staff and feedback from Newcastle East residents.
The Newcastle East Residents Group has signalled its support for the campsite to be held in Foreshore Park.
Deputy lord mayor Callum Pull said Rising Tide had "taken us on a ride for the last two months".
"It is very, very poor of Rising Tide to bait and switch locations at the eleventh hour," Cr Pull said.
"Staff have already gone through a long and arduous process, taking submissions and compiling a very comprehensive report.
"This will put councillors in a state of uncertainty."
Ms Stuart said it would be "unnecessary" for the application to go back through the public consultation process.
"The purpose of this process is to find out if the community supports an application and whether any amendments are required," she said.
"The outcome of this process is that there is overwhelming support for the application, but a community preference for one site and not another."
"An event of this scale takes many months to plan and organise, so we hope that after Tuesday night we will be able to lock in our high-profile line-up of musicians and book the infrastructure required for an event of this scale."
Ms Stuart said Cr Pull was "out of touch" with the Newcastle community.
The council report showed 86 per cent of more than 1850 submissions were in favour of Rising Tide's bid to use Hamilton North's Richardson Park and Camp Shortland.
"Independent polling by YouGov showed that 66 per cent of Novocastrians think that council should approve this application," she said
"We hope that councillors will listen to their constituents and vote to support our application on Tuesday night."
An internal City of Newcastle email to councillors states that the council did not approve the event licence in line with legislation in 2024.
Lord mayor Ross Kerridge caused a stir by using his delegated powers to approve the 2024 event application.
Cr Kerridge defended his decision at the time, saying he came into the situation late in the piece, being elected two months before the event.
He said his decision was about maintaining civil order as the event had been promoted nationally following a number of meetings with Rising Tide which began in February 2024.
The internal email to councillors said failure to follow the legislation would not automatically invalidate any resolution of the council.
It said the dollar cost of the public notification was "relatively minor", but there was a "significant cost" of 110 staff hours spent developing the report, particularly given the 458 paper-based submissions.
A decision to approve Rising Tide's amended event application without another round of public exhibition could breach the Local Government Act, the deputy lord mayor claims.
The Newcastle Herald reported last week that Rising Tide submitted a request to Newcastle council to amend its event application and move the November blockade protest campsite from Richardson Park to Foreshore Park.
The climate concert would be held at Camp Shortland as previously planned.
An extraordinary council meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 12, regarding the event application.
Newcastle deputy lord mayor Callum Pull, a vocal critic of the blockade, said if the council chooses to approve the event application on Tuesday, the decision will not be compliant with requirements of the Local Government Act.
He said, however, the council could vote to reject the application without another exhibition.
The Act says if a council proposes to grant a lease or licence, the proposal must be notified and exhibited publicly, including on the council's website and on the land to which the proposal relates.
The proposal has been notified for Camp Shortland and Richardson Park, but not for the proposed new site of Foreshore Park.
Rising Tide spokesperson Alexa Stuart said the decision to move the campsite was based on "careful consideration" of safety concerns raised by police, council submissions, discussions with councillors and council staff and feedback from Newcastle East residents.
The Newcastle East Residents Group has signalled its support for the campsite to be held in Foreshore Park.
Deputy lord mayor Callum Pull said Rising Tide had "taken us on a ride for the last two months".
"It is very, very poor of Rising Tide to bait and switch locations at the eleventh hour," Cr Pull said.
"Staff have already gone through a long and arduous process, taking submissions and compiling a very comprehensive report.
"This will put councillors in a state of uncertainty."
Ms Stuart said it would be "unnecessary" for the application to go back through the public consultation process.
"The purpose of this process is to find out if the community supports an application and whether any amendments are required," she said.
"The outcome of this process is that there is overwhelming support for the application, but a community preference for one site and not another."
"An event of this scale takes many months to plan and organise, so we hope that after Tuesday night we will be able to lock in our high-profile line-up of musicians and book the infrastructure required for an event of this scale."
Ms Stuart said Cr Pull was "out of touch" with the Newcastle community.
The council report showed 86 per cent of more than 1850 submissions were in favour of Rising Tide's bid to use Hamilton North's Richardson Park and Camp Shortland.
"Independent polling by YouGov showed that 66 per cent of Novocastrians think that council should approve this application," she said
"We hope that councillors will listen to their constituents and vote to support our application on Tuesday night."
An internal City of Newcastle email to councillors states that the council did not approve the event licence in line with legislation in 2024.
Lord mayor Ross Kerridge caused a stir by using his delegated powers to approve the 2024 event application.
Cr Kerridge defended his decision at the time, saying he came into the situation late in the piece, being elected two months before the event.
He said his decision was about maintaining civil order as the event had been promoted nationally following a number of meetings with Rising Tide which began in February 2024.
The internal email to councillors said failure to follow the legislation would not automatically invalidate any resolution of the council.
It said the dollar cost of the public notification was "relatively minor", but there was a "significant cost" of 110 staff hours spent developing the report, particularly given the 458 paper-based submissions.
A decision to approve Rising Tide's amended event application without another round of public exhibition could breach the Local Government Act, the deputy lord mayor claims.
The Newcastle Herald reported last week that Rising Tide submitted a request to Newcastle council to amend its event application and move the November blockade protest campsite from Richardson Park to Foreshore Park.
The climate concert would be held at Camp Shortland as previously planned.
An extraordinary council meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 12, regarding the event application.
Newcastle deputy lord mayor Callum Pull, a vocal critic of the blockade, said if the council chooses to approve the event application on Tuesday, the decision will not be compliant with requirements of the Local Government Act.
He said, however, the council could vote to reject the application without another exhibition.
The Act says if a council proposes to grant a lease or licence, the proposal must be notified and exhibited publicly, including on the council's website and on the land to which the proposal relates.
The proposal has been notified for Camp Shortland and Richardson Park, but not for the proposed new site of Foreshore Park.
Rising Tide spokesperson Alexa Stuart said the decision to move the campsite was based on "careful consideration" of safety concerns raised by police, council submissions, discussions with councillors and council staff and feedback from Newcastle East residents.
The Newcastle East Residents Group has signalled its support for the campsite to be held in Foreshore Park.
Deputy lord mayor Callum Pull said Rising Tide had "taken us on a ride for the last two months".
"It is very, very poor of Rising Tide to bait and switch locations at the eleventh hour," Cr Pull said.
"Staff have already gone through a long and arduous process, taking submissions and compiling a very comprehensive report.
"This will put councillors in a state of uncertainty."
Ms Stuart said it would be "unnecessary" for the application to go back through the public consultation process.
"The purpose of this process is to find out if the community supports an application and whether any amendments are required," she said.
"The outcome of this process is that there is overwhelming support for the application, but a community preference for one site and not another."
"An event of this scale takes many months to plan and organise, so we hope that after Tuesday night we will be able to lock in our high-profile line-up of musicians and book the infrastructure required for an event of this scale."
Ms Stuart said Cr Pull was "out of touch" with the Newcastle community.
The council report showed 86 per cent of more than 1850 submissions were in favour of Rising Tide's bid to use Hamilton North's Richardson Park and Camp Shortland.
"Independent polling by YouGov showed that 66 per cent of Novocastrians think that council should approve this application," she said
"We hope that councillors will listen to their constituents and vote to support our application on Tuesday night."
An internal City of Newcastle email to councillors states that the council did not approve the event licence in line with legislation in 2024.
Lord mayor Ross Kerridge caused a stir by using his delegated powers to approve the 2024 event application.
Cr Kerridge defended his decision at the time, saying he came into the situation late in the piece, being elected two months before the event.
He said his decision was about maintaining civil order as the event had been promoted nationally following a number of meetings with Rising Tide which began in February 2024.
The internal email to councillors said failure to follow the legislation would not automatically invalidate any resolution of the council.
It said the dollar cost of the public notification was "relatively minor", but there was a "significant cost" of 110 staff hours spent developing the report, particularly given the 458 paper-based submissions.
A decision to approve Rising Tide's amended event application without another round of public exhibition could breach the Local Government Act, the deputy lord mayor claims.
The Newcastle Herald reported last week that Rising Tide submitted a request to Newcastle council to amend its event application and move the November blockade protest campsite from Richardson Park to Foreshore Park.
The climate concert would be held at Camp Shortland as previously planned.
An extraordinary council meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 12, regarding the event application.
Newcastle deputy lord mayor Callum Pull, a vocal critic of the blockade, said if the council chooses to approve the event application on Tuesday, the decision will not be compliant with requirements of the Local Government Act.
He said, however, the council could vote to reject the application without another exhibition.
The Act says if a council proposes to grant a lease or licence, the proposal must be notified and exhibited publicly, including on the council's website and on the land to which the proposal relates.
The proposal has been notified for Camp Shortland and Richardson Park, but not for the proposed new site of Foreshore Park.
Rising Tide spokesperson Alexa Stuart said the decision to move the campsite was based on "careful consideration" of safety concerns raised by police, council submissions, discussions with councillors and council staff and feedback from Newcastle East residents.
The Newcastle East Residents Group has signalled its support for the campsite to be held in Foreshore Park.
Deputy lord mayor Callum Pull said Rising Tide had "taken us on a ride for the last two months".
"It is very, very poor of Rising Tide to bait and switch locations at the eleventh hour," Cr Pull said.
"Staff have already gone through a long and arduous process, taking submissions and compiling a very comprehensive report.
"This will put councillors in a state of uncertainty."
Ms Stuart said it would be "unnecessary" for the application to go back through the public consultation process.
"The purpose of this process is to find out if the community supports an application and whether any amendments are required," she said.
"The outcome of this process is that there is overwhelming support for the application, but a community preference for one site and not another."
"An event of this scale takes many months to plan and organise, so we hope that after Tuesday night we will be able to lock in our high-profile line-up of musicians and book the infrastructure required for an event of this scale."
Ms Stuart said Cr Pull was "out of touch" with the Newcastle community.
The council report showed 86 per cent of more than 1850 submissions were in favour of Rising Tide's bid to use Hamilton North's Richardson Park and Camp Shortland.
"Independent polling by YouGov showed that 66 per cent of Novocastrians think that council should approve this application," she said
"We hope that councillors will listen to their constituents and vote to support our application on Tuesday night."
An internal City of Newcastle email to councillors states that the council did not approve the event licence in line with legislation in 2024.
Lord mayor Ross Kerridge caused a stir by using his delegated powers to approve the 2024 event application.
Cr Kerridge defended his decision at the time, saying he came into the situation late in the piece, being elected two months before the event.
He said his decision was about maintaining civil order as the event had been promoted nationally following a number of meetings with Rising Tide which began in February 2024.
The internal email to councillors said failure to follow the legislation would not automatically invalidate any resolution of the council.
It said the dollar cost of the public notification was "relatively minor", but there was a "significant cost" of 110 staff hours spent developing the report, particularly given the 458 paper-based submissions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
20 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Trump's latest Olympic edict effectively closes US border to transgender athletes
That order, made in February 2025, is prefaced by saying that ' In recent years, many educational institutions and athletic associations have allowed men to compete in women's sports. This is demeaning, unfair, and dangerous to women and girls, and denies women and girls the equal opportunity to participate and excel in competitive sports '. The effects have been swift and stark. Almost immediately afterwards, the US's National Collegiate Athletic Association amended its policies to limit competition in women's sports to athletes assigned female at birth only. Last month, the US Olympic and Paralympic Committee amended its policies to ensure consistency with that February 2025 order. What was missed back in February was the order's intent to prevent from entering the United States any person whose intended entry enlivens section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the United States' Immigration and Nationality Act. That provision says, ' Any alien who, by fraud or wilfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this Act is inadmissible.' In context, what Trump's order is directed atis preventing entry to the United States by any person who asserts that they are anything other than the gender they were assigned at birth. Given the legal position in the United States is that '… It is the policy of the United States to recognise two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality …' a transgender woman applying for a US visa would be committing a fraud if using a passport denoting their selected gender as opposed to birth gender. Trump has already declared Department of Homeland Security officers will forbid entry to any transgender athletes attempting to pass through LAX to compete at the 2028 Games. Because the Trump Administration won't countenance 'men' beating female athletes. There's no precedent I can conjure here. Even the Third Reich didn't impose a blanket ban on black or Jewish athletes competing at the Berlin Olympics in 1936. The question as to the participation of transgender athletes in Olympic and international-level elite athletic competition is increasingly answered by the exclusion of such athletes. Loading Major international federations such as World Aquatics have adopted policies deeming transgender women ineligible in female competition. The exception is where they never experienced male puberty, or unless they had their male puberty pharmacologically stopped before their 12th birthday. World Athletics has recently enshrined in its rules a one-off gender test, which must be passed for an athlete to compete in female competition. The International Olympic Committee itself must set clear and unequivocal policy to protect the integrity of female athletic competition. But while it's the responsibility of the IOC and the international federations to traverse this minefield, it's wicked that the US president considers it within his domain to dictate who can and can't compete at the Olympics. Unless the US Congress can override Trump's orders – or unless the Supreme Court rules them unlawful – the grim future for US transgender athletes and indeed any transgender person seeking entry to compete in sporting competition in the United States is plain. But what is truly frightening is the prospect Homeland Security might round up international transgender athletes coming into America; asserting criminality. When the 2028 Games to were awarded to Los Angeles in 2017, the US Olympic Committee noted that the IOC had relied on the US Government to respect the Olympic Charter. Trump was US President in 2017. The provisions of the Charter are entirely inconsistent with the bold concept of arresting any athlete for attempting to enter the host nation to compete.
The Age
20 hours ago
- The Age
Trump's latest Olympic edict effectively closes US border to transgender athletes
That order, made in February 2025, is prefaced by saying that ' In recent years, many educational institutions and athletic associations have allowed men to compete in women's sports. This is demeaning, unfair, and dangerous to women and girls, and denies women and girls the equal opportunity to participate and excel in competitive sports '. The effects have been swift and stark. Almost immediately afterwards, the US's National Collegiate Athletic Association amended its policies to limit competition in women's sports to athletes assigned female at birth only. Last month, the US Olympic and Paralympic Committee amended its policies to ensure consistency with that February 2025 order. What was missed back in February was the order's intent to prevent from entering the United States any person whose intended entry enlivens section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the United States' Immigration and Nationality Act. That provision says, ' Any alien who, by fraud or wilfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this Act is inadmissible.' In context, what Trump's order is directed atis preventing entry to the United States by any person who asserts that they are anything other than the gender they were assigned at birth. Given the legal position in the United States is that '… It is the policy of the United States to recognise two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality …' a transgender woman applying for a US visa would be committing a fraud if using a passport denoting their selected gender as opposed to birth gender. Trump has already declared Department of Homeland Security officers will forbid entry to any transgender athletes attempting to pass through LAX to compete at the 2028 Games. Because the Trump Administration won't countenance 'men' beating female athletes. There's no precedent I can conjure here. Even the Third Reich didn't impose a blanket ban on black or Jewish athletes competing at the Berlin Olympics in 1936. The question as to the participation of transgender athletes in Olympic and international-level elite athletic competition is increasingly answered by the exclusion of such athletes. Loading Major international federations such as World Aquatics have adopted policies deeming transgender women ineligible in female competition. The exception is where they never experienced male puberty, or unless they had their male puberty pharmacologically stopped before their 12th birthday. World Athletics has recently enshrined in its rules a one-off gender test, which must be passed for an athlete to compete in female competition. The International Olympic Committee itself must set clear and unequivocal policy to protect the integrity of female athletic competition. But while it's the responsibility of the IOC and the international federations to traverse this minefield, it's wicked that the US president considers it within his domain to dictate who can and can't compete at the Olympics. Unless the US Congress can override Trump's orders – or unless the Supreme Court rules them unlawful – the grim future for US transgender athletes and indeed any transgender person seeking entry to compete in sporting competition in the United States is plain. But what is truly frightening is the prospect Homeland Security might round up international transgender athletes coming into America; asserting criminality. When the 2028 Games to were awarded to Los Angeles in 2017, the US Olympic Committee noted that the IOC had relied on the US Government to respect the Olympic Charter. Trump was US President in 2017. The provisions of the Charter are entirely inconsistent with the bold concept of arresting any athlete for attempting to enter the host nation to compete.
ABC News
21 hours ago
- ABC News
Boy hit by car outside St Edmund's College petitions for pedestrian overpass on Canberra Avenue
A teenage boy who was seriously injured when he was hit by a car while walking to school has called for an overpass to be constructed over the road where he was hit. St Edmund's College students Aiden Stuart and Aaron Way were hit by the allegedly stolen car while on the median strip of Canberra Avenue on the morning of March 28. Six weeks after the almost-fatal incident, the ACT government announced it would install a new traffic light pedestrian crossing on the road. But Aiden and his mother, Nektaria Stuart, are concerned that solution will not offer enough protection, so they are petitioning the ACT Legislative Assembly to construct a pedestrian bridge over the road instead. Ms Stuart said that while what happened to her son was "a freak accident", it could easily happen again. "They walked the footpath from Kingston from the bus stop, they stopped on the median strip — they were a metre off the road when he came off the road towards them. "If some person who doesn't want to be a decent human being wakes up [and] gets behind a wheel, that's going to happen again if those children are on that road." Ms Stuart said to see an overpass constructed in response to the petition would be wonderful. Independent MLA Thomas Emerson, who is sponsoring the petition, said the government needed to act on the community's concerns. "[Aiden said], 'Look, a pedestrian lights crossing wouldn't have saved me, so what if something like that happens again and we end up with a death, or we end up with another serious injury?'" he said. "He's calling for an overpass, it looks like a sensible solution. And if it's a question of funds, then we've got to talk about priorities." Mr Emerson said there had been "clear calls" for a footbridge over the area for the last 30 years. "It is concerning — and we've heard that from the principal of St Edmund's College, we've heard it from St Clare's College, and the entire school community around them. "When you've got clear calls for action, you've got to really respect those and listen to those." The ACT government has been contacted for comment.
