They're trying to silence us

This was the conclusion we came to after receiving text messages from Greens Cr Joel Pringle, following our defence of a support session we held to help older residents submit their responses to the Davidson Report. Cr Pringle’s messages, displayed in full above, represent a fresh chapter in a long history of attempts by Newcastle councillors to silence community voices they disagree with.

CR CLAUSEN'S CLAIMS

Last week, we defended the session we held after Cr Declan Clausen questioned its appropriateness. In his statement, he also accused Our Newcastle of holding “conspiratorial views” about the council’s administration. To clarify once again, this is completely unfounded. Like many in the community, we have questioned the administration of council. Many in Newcastle have done so after scandals such as the Neylon letter-writing scandal, the pool privatisation saga, and the proposed Newcastle basketball stadium. Does this make us conspiratorial? Absolutely not.

It is healthy to question, debate and even criticise government decisions and processes to ensure integrity and transparency. By calling us conspiratorial, Cr Clausen is attempting to dismiss us as a fringe group. This couldn’t be further from the truth. During that session, there were many reasonable and thoughtful submissions. It was open to the public and was entirely non-partisan. The reality is we need more people to take an interest in local government, because the more engaged the community is, the more accountability there is and that leads to better outcomes for everyone.

AGEISM IN POLITICS

We supported older residents who were less confident in how to make their submission and or had low digital literacy. Some submissions we transcribed manually from handwritten notes. We didn’t tell participants what to write, nor did we question their content. We were providing a service that should have been offered by council or by Davidson. We believe Cr Clausen’s criticism of our session was ageist. By dismissing our efforts as “conspiratorial” and calling the workshop “inappropriate” without recognising the importance of helping community members who struggle with technology Cr Clausen undermines the participation of older people who need assistance.

Older people often feel isolated and ashamed about their lack of digital literacy. We live in a world so dominated by technology that people now require tech skills just to participate in democratic processes. Without support, they are excluded.

This wasn’t the first time Labor councillors have made ageist remarks. During the campaign, former Lord Mayor Nuatali Nelmes made the following comment about her political opponents:

"A kind of like, a mix between, um—even Biden and Trump, like you know: in their 70s, very wealthy and conservative and think they know what Newcastle needs."

(Source: https://www.nbnnews.com.au/.../war-of-words-as.../...)

None of her Lord Mayoral opponents were in their 70s. But by comparing current Lord Mayor Ross Kerridge (and potentially others) to US Presidents Trump and Biden—both in their late 70s and 80s—she was clearly attempting to create the perception that her opponents were significantly older than they are. The statement undeniably paints older age as a negative trait and draws on ageist tropes. By linking conservatism, wealth (being out of touch), and arrogance (“think they know what Newcastle needs”), the comment implicitly disparages older people.

Cr Clausen also posted on social media that “for too long local government in NSW has been ‘pale, male and stale’.” This was in a post attacking Lord Mayoral candidate Ross Kerridge (Source: https://www.facebook.com/share/1EdTs9ZCAH/).

While we agree that greater diversity in local councils is important, it is not hard to draw a link between this comment and Lord Mayor Ross Kerridge. No, Councillor Clausen did not explicitly call the Lord Mayor “pale, male and stale”—but he didn’t have to. Political attacks and discrimination are often conducted implicitly. Everyone understood who Declan was referring to. We believe this kind of language is unhelpful and discourages people from stepping forward to run for local government. It is divisive, discriminatory, and unnecessary in the pursuit of more diverse council chambers.

THE ARBITRATION OF TRUTH

Returning to the text messages: Cr Pringle is attempting to define what is and isn’t ageism. In doing so, he is effectively arguing that we cannot criticise Cr Clausen—or any other councillor—when they make ageist remarks. But at its core, Cr Pringle’s intervention appears politically motivated.

During the campaign, Cr Clausen accused Dr Ross Kerridge of sexism for his repeated use of the term “vanity” or “glamour project”. When this occurred, Cr Pringle did not step in to define what is or isn’t sexism. Had he done so, he might have noted that current NSW Police Minister and Member for Swansea, Yasmin Catley - a reported ally of former Lord Mayor Nuatali Nelmes - used the term “vanity project” in a parliamentary speech about male Coalition Minister Victor Dominello:

“It is one thing to enter this House with little more than a vanity project, but this scheme has not been thought out. It is duplicative and could lead to more unnecessary costs and red tape. Bills like this one reveal the hypocrisy of this Government…”

Source: NSW Parliament Hansard

Why didn’t Joel Pringle call out Declan Clausen then? Perhaps he did so privately, as he did with us. We’re happy to be corrected, Cr Pringle, but we are making an educated guess that no such correction was made.

You might also ask why a Greens councillor would privately message a member of the public to issue veiled threats over something that wasn’t even about him or his Greens colleagues. We believe it highlights the strength of the Greens and Labor alliance in Newcastle. This is further supported and coincidently timed with Cr Clausen’s Facebook supporting Cr Pringle on 7 June 2025.

We said in our previous statement that Labor councillors are not the sole arbiters of truth—and we believe the same goes for Cr Pringle. No councillor should have the power to unilaterally decide what is offensive, what is misinformation, or what is “truth”. When a small group of people claim that authority, they silence their opponents. Silencing political opponents and grassroots community groups may help councillors control the narrative and win elections—but it is fundamentally undemocratic and harmful to the future of local politics in Newcastle.