The November 26 meeting of the Hobart City Council will consider the following motion:
“That the Council uphold the provisions of the Highway’s (sic) By-Law No. 3 of 1997 permitting activities in the Elizabeth Mall which contribute to the interests of pedestrian movement and amenity and the Council continue to refuse requests to sell and distribute newspapers and other goods, unless permitted under the bylaws.”
This motion is the latest response by Council to a permit application made by Green Left Weekly on July 21.
The substance of this motion is simply to restate the by-laws themselves. Granting a permit allowing Green Left Weekly to be distributed is neither “upholding” nor “violating” the Council’s by-laws. It is simply an application of the by-laws. The by-laws explicitly state that it is permissible for activities like the distribution of Green Left Weekly to occur in the mall if a permit has been issued and they explicitly give Council the power to issue such a permit.
The by-laws even spell out criteria to be used in deciding whether or not to issue a permit. I quote in full:
"Factors
to be considered when granting a licence
“46. In deciding whether or not to
grant a licence pursuant to this Division the General Manager or his (sic)
nominee may have regard to the following and any other relevant matters:-
“a) pedestrian amenity and safety;
“b) pedestrian access in the area
“c) the maintenance of public order in the area;
“d) the movement of traffic in the area;
“e) the manner of any proposed advertising;
“f) the nature, size, shape, extent and location of any proposed highway furniture;
“g) the effect on premises in the area, including other stalls, or vendors which trade in similar or associated wares to those proposed for sale;
“h) the availability of suitable parking for motor vehicles in the area;
“i) representations made by a commissioned police officer.” (p11)
None of these considerations can fairly be used to deny a permit to Green Left Weekly. Further, Council has not raised any “other relevant matters” that could provide such a basis. We have been informed that Council does not have any other written policy dealing with the mall aside from these by-laws.
The main argument that Council has put forward for denying a permit to Green Left Weekly is that granting a permit would set a precedent that could allow other similar activities also to occur. Since Council has not raised any specific problems with the distribution of Green Left Weekly, it remains perplexing what problems the Council foresees if other similar activities also occur.
Who would be affected if the proposed motion were passed?
The proposed motion does not explicitly reject Green Left Weekly’s permit application. Nevertheless, it seems apparent that this is the intention of the motion and that the motion, if passed, would likely be used as a rationale for denying a permit. Who else would be affected?
The motion will have no effect on applications to carry out commercial activities in the mall. Such applications have apparently been rejected a number of times in the past without the need for a motion such as this.
This motion would presumably be used to deny an application to set up a newsstand selling commercial newspapers or magazines in the mall. Nevertheless, the effect of denying a newsstand in the mall to a paper such as The Mercury would be negligible when measured as a proportion of total circulation. By contrast the impact of a similar action on a non-profit publication, distributed by volunteers on the streets, without the funds for extensive advertising would be much greater. (It should be noted Green Left Weekly would not oppose such an application by a commercial media outlet.)
The motion will not affect the numerous other activities that are permitted (or at least take place) in the mall since it only refers to “sell[ing] … newspapers and other goods”. Thus the motion is not an attempt to establish or codify a set of general guidelines about which activities are appropriate or inappropriate in the mall. It has not followed a period of public consultation that might be expected prior to the development of such a policy document.
Thus the main groups potentially affected by the motion before Council are community groups distributing non-profit publications on the streets. Despite Council’s stated position that no one group is being singled out, Green Left Weekly stands out as the group that will be first and foremost affected if this motion is passed.
Why this is a free speech issue
Green Left Weekly should be permitted in the mall because prohibiting its distribution would constitute a restriction on free speech, assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. Green Left is not a commercial venture (and in fact needs to be subsidised by fundraising in order to be published). None of its distributors are paid. It exists solely as a forum for discussion of ideas – many of which do not get a wide hearing in other media.
Because the paper does not make a profit, distribution on the streets makes a major contribution to the paper’s circulation. The mall is one of the best spots in Hobart for the distribution of the paper. More importantly, the mall is a public space in which free speech should not be restricted. If the Council denies a permit to Green Left (when by-laws require a permit for the paper’s distribution), this amounts to a ban on the paper in the mall and therefore a restriction on free speech.
What should Council do?
We urge the Council to reject the motion presented by the Parks and Customer Services Committee. Instead, we urge you to move and vote for the following motion:
“That the application by Green Left Weekly for a permit to distribute Green Left Weekly in the Elizabeth Mall be approved.”
Yours sincerely
Alex Bainbridge
(on behalf of Green Left Weekly)
| Free Speech campaign | Back to top |
28 November 2001
We certainly believe it is unfortunate that the precedent that Council set at its meeting on 26 November was one of restricting the freedom to distribute newspapers – an integral component of free speech – instead of actively promoting it. Green Left Weekly is distributed freely in the mall area of every capital city in Australia, except apparently now in Hobart.
I feel compelled to write now to state openly that not only has the Council made the wrong decision, but that the decision was made at least in part on the basis of blatant untruths.
Foremost among the falsehoods aired at the Council meeting on Monday was the comment by Darlene Haigh that I had “admitted” in the committee meeting on November 15 that Green Left Weekly “sometimes makes a profit”. Neither did I make such a statement, nor would such a statement be true if I had. In fact, when questioned in the committee meeting about this, I pointed out that the cover price does not cover the costs of production and that additional fundraising is required to enable the paper to come out.
Preparation as minimal as reading the “Open letter” Green Left issued on November 25 in writing over my signature would have revealed that:
“Green Left is not a commercial venture (and in fact needs to be subsidised by fundraising in order to be published). None of its distributors are paid…
“…the paper does not make a profit”
Naturally, we do not want to conclude that Haigh was deliberately trying to mislead Council. Nevertheless, it seems that at best this was a case of lack of preparation, at worst dishonesty. Neither are virtuous qualities.
Unfortunately, no one else present at the committee meeting corrected the inaccuracy.
A further source of distortion was the claim, made by Eva Ruzicka, that we “harass” people at coffee shops. Three points are relevant. Firstly, whenever the paper has been offered to people at coffee shops, there has been no harassment involved. If people are not interested, we simply move on.
Secondly, when questioned at the committee, I informed the committee members (including Ruzicka) that offering the paper to people at coffee shops had not been normal practice in the mall “for a considerable period of time”. In fact this is about 18 months.
Thirdly, and most importantly, this issue has no bearing on the permit application that we made. We applied for permission to distribute the paper (i.e. make it available to those who want it) from one fixed location outside the Cat & Fiddle arcade. When asked in the committee if we would restrict ourselves to locations specified in any potential permit, we replied in the affirmative.
These are only two of the false or distorted arguments that were used to support the motion in question. The fact that passage of the motion rested in part on arguments such as these does seriously undermine its legitimacy in our view.
Another point raised in debate by Rob Valentine related to the 1985 policy to the effect that no further commercial activities would be permitted in the mall. Valentine made clear that distributing Green Left Weekly could be permitted under the by-laws – only the policy was preventing a permit being issued. We have not yet had a chance to examine this policy document. Nevertheless, three points are relevant:
Firstly, on November 16, I asked Lionel Wells over the telephone if the Council had any written policy about the mall aside from the by-laws. He phoned me back on November 20 and informed me that his enquiries were unable to locate such a policy. This makes it seem unlikely that this policy has been guiding the attempt to deny us a permit. The first that we were informed about this policy was when Valentine phoned me at 3:40 on November 26 – 20 minutes before the closed Council meeting began. I was under the impression that he was newly familiarised with the details of the policy at that time.
Secondly, it is arguable whether or not the policy applies to Green Left Weekly at all. Green Left Weekly is a non-commercial newspaper. It does not make a profit. We would prefer to give the paper away for no charge. We ask for donations for one simple reason – without them the paper could not be produced. In this case, asking for donations is a necessary corollary of allowing free speech. But further, as we spelled out in our permit application, if a person is genuinely interested in reading the paper and cannot afford to make even a small donation, our practice is to give the paper away for free!
Thirdly, if the 1985 policy is the only thing preventing a permit application from being approved, then the policy should be changed in the interests of allowing free speech. I first spoke to Valentine about this matter in March 2001 (at an informal meeting). In addition to informing me that we had to abide by the by-laws, his comment was along the lines of: what are they worried about, you’re only distributing a newspaper? We do not understand why this should not be the attitude of Council today.
We intend to resubmit our permit application on the basis of the motion passed by Council. We believe that approving such a permit would both “contribute to … pedestrian … amenity” and also would be “permitted under the by-laws”.
If Council has policies that would prevent the approval of such a permit, we respectfully submit that such policies should be reviewed so as to allow the distribution of newspapers such as Green Left Weekly in the interests of free speech.
Yours sincerely
Alex Bainbridge
(on behalf of Green Left Weekly)
| Free speech campaign | First open letter |