Last night's fig fact forum included a number of statements that were false. These are addressed below.

• Council as a public body is proud of its openness and transparency in this matter. All relevant information (except where privileged) has been put before Council and the community. Council has conducted workshops, open forums, public voices, open Council meetings and provided information to interested parties through correspondence and Government Information (Public Access) Act requests. The vast majority of the information available is on our website.
• Council did not withhold the RADAR report from Caity Raschke nor doctor it as Dr Raschke claimed in her opening statements. Council processes all requests for information in accordance with the Government Information (Public Access) Act. All requests in relation to the RADAR report were processed in accordance with these obligations and the RADAR reports provided. It is offensive to accuse council of doctoring a report.
• Council has already obtained four independent assessments by expert arborists on the Laman Street figs and they all support the findings that the risk to public safety and property is foreseeable and not insignificant.
• Due to the huge body of evidence supporting the safety risk, Council's insurer Statewide Mutual will not cover the figs beyond 31 January 2012. Council's broker has canvassed the global insurance market and no other insurer worldwide is prepared to indemnify Council for loss caused by the figs.
• Council is bound to provide an accurate assessment of risk to the insurer and we believe we have done so. Statewide made its offer to fund dynamic testing before it reviewed any existing information relating to the trees and revoked its offer after receiving Council's reports. Council has given its Insurers both Council reports and those provided by Save Our Figs (SOF) to the Laman Street Working Party.
• Statements that claim the trees are safe as evidenced by "looking out the window" are extremely irresponsible. A statement made that the level of risk of a tree failure is the same as falling out of bed is also irresponsible. Further comments made about public utilities, public liability and professional indemnity insurance indicate a limited knowledge or understanding of tree management in the urban context. Over the past 10 years, 35 Hill's figs out of 135 in the inner city have failed or been removed as a foreseeable risk. That's just over one in four.
• Council's comment on the risk assessment by Mr Mike Ellison was released last night prior to the Fig Forum. However, there seems to be discrepancies between the risk assessment in the report and comments attributed to the author in the media. The difference is an order of magnitude which is of concern.
• Any suggestion that the Anzac Centenary submission to the National Commission (made in September 2010) is behind the removal of the figs is a conspiracy theory. The Anzac Centenary submission was an ideas submission only and NOT an application for funding. This is clearly stated on the Anzac Centenary website. It is illogical for this idea to be the reason for removing the trees when no plans have been exhibited, approved nor funding received. Secondly, the submission was made at a time when there was a resolution to remove and replace the trees. The submission clearly states the figs trees are being replaced, not removed to make way for a "plaza". The submission also says Laman Street could become a cultural gathering place beyond its present function as a roadway. It never suggests that this would be at the exclusion of new fig trees. Thirdly, every single piece of concept artwork in the submission includes fig trees planted in Laman Street.
• None of the inspections, investigations, analysis, consultations, forums, working parties and reporting by Council on the Laman Street fig trees has anything to do with any proposal to construct an Anzac Memorial or underground carpark.
• Work done in providing a restraint system for the Lone Pine within the Memorial Grove is an example of proactive tree management in light of the exposure this tree will receive when the Laman Street fig trees are removed. Propagation of seeds from the Lone Pine are underway.
• A statement made at the forum that this is the first time the Roads Act has been used this way to remove trees is utterly false. Councils all over the State use the Roads Act on a regular basis to remove hazardous trees. Council's decision to remove the trees under the Roads Act was upheld by the Land and Environment Court last year.
• Council's actions in Laman Street do not herald the wholesale removal of street trees across the city. Council undertakes a very detailed and rigorous assessment of its public trees and risk is assessed on a site-specific, case-by-case basis. In fact, a number of trees that were a significant risk have been removed over the last 10 years.
• Concerns expressed at the forum regarding the necessity for Council to have police protection while undertaking reasonable, lawful removal of the trees was the result of the behaviour of members of Save Our Figs and their supporters and not Council staff. In this matter, Council staff have behaved in a professional manner despite, at times, extreme provocation.
• A detailed response to the presentation Professor Mark Stewart and a colleague of his made to Council last year has been provided on Council's website.
• Although Save Our Figs has often referred to a number of other arborist reports that contradict Council advice, none of the authors of these opinions or reports have entered into a contractual agreement that would make them legally accountable for their opinions. Council's internal reports and externally sourced reports base their opinions on detailed knowledge of the site, evidence-based investigations and readily available relevant literature.
• There is no ulterior motive to remove the trees and suggestions to the contrary are completely unfounded. Council will replant figs in Laman Street and already has replacement trees ready to go. These trees are now nearly four metres high and will be planted in specially constructed vaults to avoid the root problems that have plagued the existing figs.
• Council acknowledges that this issue has become highly contentious for some members of the community. However, it is our responsibility to act in the best interest of the whole community, not just some of its members.
• It is wasteful to spend any more ratepayers' money and resources on pursuing this issue and The City of Newcastle is extremely keen to return its full attention to its core duties as soon as possible.