A video posted on the internet that depicts a security guard trying to stop a man from filming the Newcastle heavy rail corridor has prompted Transport for NSW to remind contractors and employees of the rights of the community.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Anti-rail truncation advocate David Threlfo posted a two-minute clip on YouTube on Sunday.
It had received 184 views as of yesterday afternoon.
The clip included footage of the CBD rail corridor over-grown with vegetation and surrounded by barbed wire fencing near Hamilton Station, where trains now terminate.
It also depicts a security guard holding his hand in front of Mr Threlfo’s camera and asking him to stop filming the rail corridor.
But Mr Threlfo can be heard off camera insisting on his right to film the work site because he is standing on a public street.
The Mercury sent the video to Minister for the Hunter and Transport Minister Gladys Berejiklian yesterday for comment.
Ms Berejiklian’s office referred the Mercury’s inquiry to Transport for NSW, which is involved in the rail project.
A spokesman for the department said people were legally allowed to film work on the rail line without permission if they were shooting from a public space.
He said all Transport for NSW staff and contractors were regularly briefed on how to communicate appropriately with members of the public.
“Transport for NSW will remind all workers on the Wickham transport interchange project of their obligations,” the spokesman said.
The state government has continued work to truncate the heavy rail line into Newcastle CBD despite a Supreme Court injunction in December that meant the government could not remove the rail line without an act of Parliament.
Since then, workers have removed electricity wires and other infrastructure along the rail corridor and have built roads and walkways across sections of the heavy rail track, most notably at the Stewart Avenue crossing near Wickham Station.
An appeal has been lodged against the Supreme Court’s ruling.