Undoubtedly due to some of my life’s experiences, I’ve long been interested in those people who are prepared to take a stand on what they believe in. I took some time to get to know something about a couple of these people, which led to the following essay.
IN DEFENCE OF USUSAL SUSPECTS AND VOCAL MINORITIES
While Barry O’Farrell was surging towards victory in the NSW elections of March 2011, one of his promises was reform of the planning system, including returning planning powers to local communities. From July 2011 an independent panel (two former Ministers, one from each side of politics) reviewed the planning system. Then, in July 2012 as is the way of major reform, the government released a Green Paper, setting out its proposals and the changes that would come. In mid-August Corinne Fisher went to a NSW Nature Conservation Council presentation about that Green Paper. After learning about changes that the government’s critics say heavily favour developers at the expense of communities, she couldn’t sleep that night. Spurred into action, she’s been busy ever since.
For some years closed circuit television has been popular as a crime prevention measure with politicians and community members. There’s little actual evidence that it works, but it’s clear that many people feel better with CCTV in place. And politicians find the allure quite seductive. Adam Bonner has strong beliefs about this. In October 2009 Shoalhaven City Council, on the NSW south coast, commenced a process to install CCTVs into the CBD of Nowra. Assault, break and enter and malicious damage along with anti-social behaviour had long been a scourge in the town. After reading about council’s plans in the local paper Bonner asked for information. That wasn’t readily forthcoming. But this kept him busy for the next three and a half years.
*
In every community there are those people who, when they discover something that’s wrong, say to themselves “I’m going to do something about that.” And then there are the rest of us. Watching on. Offering helpful support. Or not. Corinne Fisher and Adam Bonner are two people prepared to act on their beliefs about two very different wrongs. They both know their stuff and can argue their case with the best of them. Fisher gets widespread support, Bonner does not. They both get a sense of satisfaction from their effort. And they both pay a price.
Activists occupy a strange place in the Australian psyche. Variously seen as trouble makers, noble defenders of democratic rights, misfits or idealists and regularly spoken of in pejorative rather than admiring terms, particularly by politicians. Sometimes they are best appreciated only in older age or after death.
The Oxford Dictionary defines activism as “the policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change.” This may extend of course to preventing change. A level of self-interest sometimes drives activism, such as when building support for election hopes, or gathering opposition to a nearby development proposal. For many people though, there is little or no personal gain. Activism is often an accidental stumble, when someone takes a stand on an issue without realising where it might lead. Sometimes this has life changing consequences. Born activists are rare, although the subjects of this essay may qualify.
*
After her sleepless night Corinne Fisher contacted community groups in her patch, Sydney’s Lane Cove, urging them to come together and hear what she had learned about the government’s planning reforms. A couple of local area meetings later, the Better Planning Network formed, with a leadership group of nine people, Fisher as convenor. From those initial meetings with around 20 community groups represented, the BPN has grown to a membership of over 430 groups throughout NSW.
The network is well organised and professional in its approach, with a clear and well supported platform along with a strong support base and a reliable media presence. What’s even more remarkable is the network’s approach to the state government. In meetings with Planning Minister Brad Hazzard, and senior planning bureaucrats, and in its regular media releases, the network has recognised that change to planning laws is needed. The BPN has stressed its acceptance of the need to meet housing targets for a growing population. But it hasn’t shied away from what it sees as the problems with the changes, labelling these as “meeting an agenda for developers,” and a “cynical betrayal [by the government] of every promise made to the community.” The network’s offer to work with the government and help developers and communities engage is an outcomes approach with a tantalising win-win allure. “They weren’t sure what to make of us,” Fisher says, “particularly our offer to help make change acceptable to the community.” These are all achievements that don’t come easy for any group of voluntary members working in a high-pressure environment. And it is high pressure.
Most weeks Fisher puts 40 to 50 hours work into the network. Other lead members of the network devote similar amounts of time. The network’s leadership group meet regularly, there’s a constant stream of communication with the membership and the media, public meetings to attend and the preparation of submissions and support for members. A BPN motto is “Stand up and make some noise,” and network members provide training in aspects of campaigning and public engagement to facilitate the noise.
The most difficult parts of her role as convenor are dealing with the different skills and abilities that people bring to the network. And dealing with conflict. “Staying calm takes some effort,” she says “and with my French background I’m not naturally disposed that way.” She reflects that it’s been a big learning curve, “knowing when to say sorry, managing egos, including mine.” The leadership group and the broader membership works very well with few hidden agendas – the bane of many community groups. “Some people think we should focus on population or urban sprawl but we stay with the common ground and the agreed platform.” The protection of natural and cultural heritage is fundamental to the wellbeing of communities, and community engagement is essential at every stage of the planning process, being two key elements of the platform.
For Fisher, married with a couple of young children, a supportive family and comfortable financial position make her effort possible, but what allows her to sleep easily among the constant pressure? Her working background as an environmental consultant and a social policy analyst in the public sector provides the professional capacity. She readily counters the banal criticisms from some among the developers lobby that casts the Better Planning Network as a bunch of anti-development, scaremongering treehuggers – even if she has been an environmental consultant. But, luckily, the criticism has never been personal, always issue based, which makes it easier to deal with. An emotionally strong person, who in her words has, “always been a good organiser,” she thrives in the role. Twelve years in the public sector was stifling, she says, and gave little opportunity to use her skills.
When I first approached Fisher with this story in mind, around eight months after the BPN formed, we spoke of the reluctance many people have about getting involved. She sees this as being based on their family’s history and their education. “Many people don’t have any tradition of getting involved, and if they want to do something they don’t know where to start,” she says.
Fisher lost a lot of family members on her mother’s side in the holocaust and has often wondered what she would have done if she had been around then. Activism ran deep with both her grandfathers driven by a strong sense of social justice. But it seems to have skipped a generation – her parents, she says don’t have a sense of civic involvement. On moving to Lane Cove Fisher actively looked for an opportunity to get involved in community affairs, before settling on the Lane Cove Conservation Society. The group started in the early 1970s, in the time of the green bans, and has a committed and capable membership. People with a broader view than just the local and who know how to get things done.
Fisher says for her it’s been a journey of self-discovery. “I never expected to have this role, to see myself in the media regularly. Proving to myself that I could do it has been rewarding. And working with and meeting so many good people. Getting close insight into how the world works. How political decisions are made.” For Fisher her greatest fear was that, after all the effort that had gone in, nothing worthwhile would be achieved. While some concessions have been made to appease community opposition, she says the fundamental bias in favour of developers remains.
Fast forward six months, to the end of November. The government has had no difficulty getting its legislation through the lower house, where it controls the numbers. Debate in the upper house began in the afternoon of Tuesday 26 November. Further amendments were made over the next 20 hours, but late on Wednesday afternoon it was clear to Fisher that, with the support of the Labor Party and minor parties, the Upper House would pass the legislation. Having watched around 15 hours of the debate, either in the house or on-line, Fisher then left, totally exhausted, entirely deflated. “I went to a friend’s house and slept for two hours. I just couldn’t go home and be a mum at that stage,” Fisher said. When she woke they gave her dinner. She then went home and sent an email update to the BPN’s membership, thanking them for their support, noting the amendments, but also the missed opportunity for visionary planning reform.
The next morning Fisher is watching Planning Minister Hazzard in the lower house, on-line, as he withdraws the bills, saying the heavy amendments are unacceptable, blaming an “unholy alliance of Labor and Greens … aided and abetted by the Shooters and Fishers.” The government would carry out further consultation with the community before re-introducing the bills in early March 2014.
For Fisher and the BPN this provides a chance to increase the pressure, keep up the campaigning – with a break over Christmas. “Even with the many positive amendments this is a wasted chance to get planning legislation that will provide certainty to developers and communities,” Fisher says. “The legislation has so many flaws that it can’t be fixed. The government need to go back to the drawing board and start again.”
When it all started Fisher thought it would be a six month campaign. “I honestly don’t know if I would have gotten involved if I had known how long it would go on,” she says. It’s entirely conceivable that the BPN will celebrate a second anniversary in August 2014. This would be certain in the unlikely event that, after more than two years of a reform process, the government was to admit it got it so badly wrong that it needed to start again.
At some stage though, the BPN’s focus on planning legislation will change. Still it won’t stop there for Fisher. The network needs to be better funded, and the current workload can’t be maintained, but in some scaled down way she’ll keep at it. She’s found an outlet for her talents.
*
Adam Bonner graduated from university with degrees in social work and arts and later completed a law diploma. But he didn’t practice. “In the end,” he says, “I didn’t have the balls for it. I didn’t think I could stand up in court and argue a case.” Bonner, who would prefer to be called a privacy advocate rather than an anti-CCTV campaigner, holds deep philosophical beliefs that indiscriminate surveillance and the collection of personal information is an attack on personal freedom and rights to privacy. In November 2009 he began acting on his beliefs when he applied to Shoalhaven City Council requesting an internal review of its CCTV systems operation.
Council refused Bonner’s request on the grounds that the cameras had not been activated and so no personal information had been acquired. This turned out to be false but it took an application to the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal to discover this and force council to conduct the review. These were early days in what Bonner believes to be an ongoing pattern of obfuscation by council.
After receiving the internal review in April 2010 Bonner was convinced council was breaching privacy legislation. With pro bono legal support of two barristers and a solicitor he made a second application to the ADT. Right through to the hearing in November, council maintained the footage collected was securely stored on a hard disc at the Nowra police station. At the hearing though, they revealed the footage had been “inadvertently deleted,” meaning the case could not proceed.
“During this time council often accused me of wasting ratepayers money,” Bonner says, “yet through their incompetence a case that had proceeded for eight months was dismissed. How much ratepayers money did they waste?” Bonner says he took a little time after this considering whether to “go home with my tail between my legs or carry on.” But for Bonner giving up then and there was not a feasible option. Tenacity is a strong point.
In preparing his third application to the ADT he had to summons council for footage and it took until June 2011 to lodge the application. He had expected more pro bono legal support but unexpectedly this wasn’t available. Now, headed for the major legal test he was suddenly on his own. “This was confronting my own demons,” Bonner says. “Did I now have the balls to stand in court and argue a case for something I personally believed in.” Fourteen years after graduating with a law diploma, it was time to put it to good use.
Bonner’s argument has four main elements. Firstly, policing and collection of evidence for prosecution is a state, not council responsibility. Secondly, while police are exempt from privacy and personal information legislation, councils are not. Thirdly, CCTV cameras do not meet council’s stated aim of being a crime prevention measure. Finally, the system used by Shoalhaven Council does not and can not comply with privacy legislation.
Three hearing days were held over May, June and August 2012. Bonner had support from expert witnesses in the fields of criminology and computer vision. With five council staff, two senior police officers and the installer of the cameras to cross-examine, as well as bringing in evidence in chief from his two expert witnesses, he worked virtually full-time in preparation. He’s not one for leaving much to chance. “When you’re running a legal case through a tribunal or court you’re to a large extent on your own. I knew I was going to be up against council’s legal team and I had to be organised.” Luckily he’s at his best working alone or in small groups, finding larger groups frustrating.
One of Bonner’s expert witnesses, Emeritus Professor in Criminology Paul Wilson, provided evidence that “public CCTV, particularly in cities and town centres, has a statistically insignificant effect on crime reduction.” Other evidence was pretty damning to council’s position. A survey had shown the number of people who felt unsafe in the streets where the cameras were installed had actually increased. In the streets where cameras had been installed most of the crimes being targeted had increased. Council’s initial research into the efficacy of CCTV systems was flawed and inadequate, overlooking contrary evidence. Bureaucrats being required to provide information to support a particular political decision is, of course, not unknown.
After the first two hearing days Bonner felt he had done okay, but wasn’t confident. It was only towards the end of the third day that he started to believe it might go his way. In early May, nine months after the last hearing day, the ADT decision was handed down. Council had lost on a number, but not all, of the grounds that Bonner had contested. Two orders were made. Council were to refrain from any conduct or action that contravened any information protection principles or privacy codes of practice, which meant turning off the cameras. And apologise to Bonner.
In the more than three years of his campaign Bonner was regularly subject to attack and ridicule in the media led by local pissant politicians. When the success of his legal action became known a furious response unfolded. A few high profile cases where CCTV had assisted police in solving serious crimes added impetus to claims that the cameras are essential. The local newspaper, the South Coast Register, showed it has a pretty low bar for acceptability of comment on its website, although the moderator says they haven’t allowed the most personal of the attacks.
The decision had implications for councils throughout the country and NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell quickly pledged to get the cameras turned back on. Even then Prime Minister Gillard got in on the act as the decision followed shortly after an announcement of $40 million in funding for local crime prevention measures. O’Farrell’s solution was to change the law. This took a couple of weeks during which the vitriol continued. The turning back on of the cameras was greeted with a sense of triumph. So does Bonner feel it was a waste of time?
When Bonner and I met for this story his commitment to act on his beliefs stood out. He wrote his first letter to a politician at age seven when he shared his concerns about kangaroo culling with Gough Whitlam, who replied to him. In his late teenage years he started a Young Labor branch, quitting the ALP some years later. As a 22 year old he instigated a successful challenge to the local RSL Club that did not allow women members. Active involvement in the local progress association, campaigning against industrial developments, a daily letter writing campaign for four years opposing the invasion of Iraq in 2003 – these are part of what he does.
Bonner describes his parents as liberally minded, tolerant and polite people who always cared about others. His grandmother was a big influence, being very strong minded and committed to social justice and fairness. A self confessed street-fighter in his youth, he stood up for other kids who were being bullied. Treating people with respect is important to him. Not dropping his standards in response to abuse is a touchstone.
Despite the ultimate outcome he’s a proud man and he’s faced his demons. The tribunal acknowledged his efforts representing himself in difficult circumstances. He’s disappointed the public perception that CCTVs aid crime prevention, when research questions this, has gone untested. “There’s some consolation that the final decision to put the cameras back on was not made by learned judgement but by politicians unable to face public opinion,” he says. “Uninformed public opinion.”
And he will continue lobbying for the beliefs and principles which have carried him this far. One of the orders made by the ADT was that Shoalhaven City Council provide Bonner with a written apology. He’s still waiting.
*
Back in 1988, when writing on the development of a civic culture, the US consumer advocate and political activist Ralf Nader described the “salacious satisfaction that can be derived when citizens roll up their sleeves and get involved in creating societal alternatives.” Few people experience this at a deep level, but Corinne Fisher and Adam Bonner have.
There is some prospect of the NSW government using special powers to bypass Parliament and introduce its planning reforms, realising Corinne Fisher’s greatest fear. And Shoalhaven City Council, like many local municipalities that provide a stepping stone to grander political stages, could not resist the seductive appeal of a dubious approach to public safety.
This is an age when many bemoan high levels of community apathy and widespread unwillingness to get involved. Adam Bonner and Corinne Fisher are two people prepared to stand against great odds. Shining a light on difficult and sometimes dark places, holding politicians and bureaucrats accountable. Whether you agree with them or not, they, and others like them, should be applauded and recognised. Usual suspects and vocal minorities such as these add vitality and at least a little more integrity to society.