- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 17 November 2004
Redfern-Waterloo Authority Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 7 of 48
| Next Item »
Page: 13036
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 11 November.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [11.54 a.m.]: I lead for the Coalition on the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Bill. There have been, and continue to be, major social issues in and around the Redfern-Waterloo area. As shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs for about nine years, I have regularly raised in this place social disadvantage issues affecting Aboriginal people. However, many social issues of disadvantage to Aboriginal people also apply to non-Aboriginal people in the Redfern-Waterloo area. It is my view, which I have carried through with the Opposition for nine years now, that as far as is practicable there should be bipartisan support for measures to address issues that disadvantage Aboriginal people. There should be—and there has been by the Coalition while I have been the shadow Minister—every effort to ensure that there is, as far as is practicable, a bipartisan approach to Aboriginal issues. In the debates that arose from the Wik and Mabo issues and from the reconciliation process, Coalition members have certainly tried to ensure a level of bipartisanship in the knowledge that, if that is achievable, it will be the best way forward for Aboriginal people.
However, on many occasions during that period I, on behalf of the Liberal Party and The Nationals, have made the point that there should be a co-ordination of the services that reach out to Aboriginal people, and there needs to be genuine consultation with the Aboriginal people and a partnership with them on what they see as being in their best interests. At this moment I am focusing on Aboriginal people rather than on non-Aboriginal people in the area of Redfern-Waterloo, who also suffer disadvantage. That is specifically because the Liberal-Nationals Coalition has been raising these issues for years. I have raised them in this place in debates on reconciliation and pointed to the need for a far more effective way to deliver real improvements for Aboriginal people. I have raised questions in the budgetary process in this place and through estimates committees. I have not been able to make the points directly in that forum because the Carr Government excluded Legislative Assembly members from the estimates committee process. However, I have passed questions to members of the Liberal Party and The Nationals to ensure that those questions were asked.
The sorts of issues that I have raised through my colleagues relate in particular to benchmark issues. What improvements have there been in the years of the Carr Labor Government? What were the objectives of those measures? What were their aims? What were the benchmarks? Were those benchmarks achieved? Not for one second do I suggest that Labor members have not been well-intentioned regarding working with the Aboriginal people and doing the right thing in attempting to develop the protocols and partnerships that could possibly make a real difference in the lives of Aboriginal residents in New South Wales. I do not question the intent of members on the Government side. What the Liberals and The Nationals say is that the sorts of improvements we would have hoped for in the Redfern-Waterloo area, as well as in other parts of New South Wales—whether in Wilcannia, Brewarrina or Bourke—have not been achieved.
One of the reasons for that is the failure of the Carr Government to set in place processes that would guarantee consultation with Aboriginal people and to develop, from the grassroots up, programs that would be likely to produce a change. As a consequence of my understanding of, and concern about, those issues I have become more and more frustrated by the Carr Government's failure to introduce benchmarks to evaluate what is and is not working. Recently in the estimates committee hearings the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs indicated that some benchmarks had been put in place, but it is still a largely unco-ordinated and piecemeal approach. I do not wish my comments to reflect badly on the Minister—I am sure his intentions are good—but he indicated often that he could not answer the question because it was a health or education issue, or not within his portfolio. To a great extent that highlights the problem we face in improving the lot of Aboriginal people.
One view is that mainstreaming services is critical, but another is that unless mainstream services are responsive to the needs of Aboriginal people we will not achieve any improvements. I am sure it was no surprise whatsoever to Aboriginal people or anybody who has been involved with Aboriginal people to see the events of the past 12 months unfold in Redfern. Obviously the death of TJ Hickey was a terrible tragedy. His mother, one of the elders of the Aboriginal community, came into this place maybe a year or two earlier and met with members of Parliament on both sides to talk about problems facing Aboriginal women, such as family breakdown and violence. It was an excellent initiative driven by the Aboriginal community, not by government. But, tragically, TJ Hickey, who, in many ways, personified many of the problems of young Aboriginal people disconnected from the society in which they live, found himself in conflict with the law and, sadly, died.
TJ Hickey's death prompted the riot, which focused intense media coverage on a systemic, long-term and difficult problem: Aboriginal issues and Aboriginal disadvantage. We focused on law and order, which was right and proper, but bubbling below the surface were the problems that had existed for years, such as failure to deliver the necessary co-ordinated services that would empower young Aboriginal people to feel good about themselves, stay at school and take the opportunity to become contributing citizens in our society. I know that wonderful things are happening in education. Tranby College, which is doing great work with more mature Aboriginal people, has been around for the best part of 40 or 50 years. I know that some piecemeal work has been undertaken with young Aboriginal persons, but we have not achieved what we need to achieve. The disadvantage is still rife.
Overlying all these things are the structural problems of communities all over New South Wales, the physical environment in which Aboriginal people live. But only one kilometre or so from this place are Redfern and Waterloo. You can stand on the Block and see the high-rise buildings of Sydney. During the Sydney 2000 Olympics, just four years ago, many of the folks who came to see Sydney at its shining best would not have been to Redfern. They would not have seen young Aboriginal children playing among the syringes of the Block. They would not have seen the group of people who act regularly as gatekeepers at the top of the Block, often, unfortunately, under the influence of alcohol or drugs. They would not have seen houses in a total state of disrepair. They would not have seen some, not all, Aboriginal people at their front doors almost comatose from the influence of alcohol or drugs.
They would not have seen the struggle between the Aboriginal Housing Company and some people who were still living on the Block but who were not in the mob that runs the Aboriginal Housing Company. I use "mob" in the Aboriginal sense, not in any pejorative sense: they were not of the same group. Aunty Joyce Ingram, a well-known elder who lived on the Block, moved out in the last six to 12 months. I think she occupied the last house on Eveleigh Street. At the rear of the house Aboriginal people moved constantly in and out of another house that formed part of the structural integrity of her house, but it was a rundown old house. On my visit to the Block as shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs I would see, and saw regularly, people coming in and out of the building. I was told that it was a drug house. I do not know whether it was, but the drugs supplied at the Block were all too prevalent. I remember that when the houses on the southern end of Aunty Joyce Ingram's house were knocked down the syringes were in prolific numbers across the vacant area.
The Aboriginal Housing Company laid grass across the area. I was told that the syringes lay there as a grass was put down. I bring these things to the attention of honourable members because we must understand that the issues for Aboriginal people are not simple. Most of us who have worked with Aboriginal people understand how much we do not understand. We understand that the issues are so complex that a quick fix or simplistic approach would be nigh impossible. We understand that much needs to be done, but I think most of us would say that it must be done from the bottom up. My experience from visiting Aboriginal communities as shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is that in communities that own their issues and solutions there is a good chance that positive things will come from that empowerment. As the shadow Minister I am concerned that the legislation, although it may be well intentioned, may achieve little and may perpetuate the top-down approach of governments for the past 200 years or more, and they got it wrong regularly.
I am concerned about the Government's approach to the preparation of this bill. Although the Liberal Party and The Nationals accept unreservedly that Aboriginal people must have the same degree of input into the resolution of their problems as do other people, Aboriginal community groups inform me that this bill has been developed without their input. Although that has been reported to me by a number of people, to save the time of the House I will mention only one group. The information I am about to disclose is already a matter of public record, so I do not believe that any disadvantage will result from my pointing out that the Aboriginal Medical Service—an organisation that is a very well-known for its good works—wrote to the Premier, under the signature of Dr Naomi Mayers, expressing its concern.
I do not intend to read her letter onto the record because it is sufficient for the House and the Minister to be informed that, in relation to the preparation of this bill, the Opposition is aware of the very high levels of concern that have been expressed by a highly respected and meritorious group within the Aboriginal community. The concerns extend beyond the mere lack of consultation to fears of a waste of years of work that have gone into the development of partnerships and protocols between governments and Aboriginal people with a view to ensuring that Aboriginal people have a say in their future. I know that those issues have been drawn to the attention of the Premier and, by inference, the Minister for Energy and Utilities.
In a sense, this bill is more about planning than anything else. The bill is interesting more because of the provisions it does not have than because of the provisions it has. Much of the detail of its implementation has been left to the regulations, and at this stage members of this House have no way of knowing what will be covered by the regulations. However, we know that an authority will come into existence and it will be very similar to the structure of the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority, which is already the subject of an inquiry by the Legislative Council. Many of the issues that will be examined by the inquiry relate to the extension of the authority's powers in ways that could be construed to apply to political purposes or that are, at best, unlikely to achieve the best outcomes for areas under the authority's control. Although some of the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority initiatives have had a positive effect, other aspects of its control have had negative effects on the authority and on Sydney.
Despite the fact that the Legislative Council's inquiry will review the functions and powers of the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority, a new authority which is based essentially on the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority's structure will be established by the Carr Labor Government before the inquiry has reached any conclusions. The only significant difference between the two authorities is that the Redfern-Waterloo Authority legislation provides much less detail than did the legislation relating to the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority. The structure of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority features the functions of the chief executive officer, the functions of the board, and the omnipotent powers of the Minister. I note that the bill optimistically states that its objects are to secure orderly economic development and management of land and the provision of infrastructure.
The bill purports to promote housing choices and cultural development and to create employment opportunities for local residents as well as commercial opportunities for local businesses, but how those objectives will be achieved is not clear from the provisions of the bill. One must be concerned about the Minister's intention to create a biotechnological park along the lines of the biotechnological park that currently exists. Presumably the Minister believes that he will be able to create jobs for people who live in the Redfern-Waterloo precinct by the construction of a new biotechnological park, and one wonders, by reference to that proposal, how securely connected to reality the Minister is. While I do not cavil with the Minister's idealism, I wonder about the practicality of that proposal bearing in mind that most of the Aboriginal people who live in the Redfern-Waterloo area leave school at approximately 14 years of age—as, sadly, do most Aboriginal people throughout Australia.
I suggest that people with an incomplete secondary education will not be able to benefit from the types of jobs that the Minister publicly envisages being part of the solution for the Redfern-Waterloo area. I would like to think that in approximately a decade or two, when more Aboriginal students remain at school as a result of early intervention and pursue their education beyond secondary level, the Minister's ideas will become reality, but over the next few years I would say that his proposal will prove to be quite unrealistic. Although that is not a reason to vote against the bill, it nevertheless is justification for querying whether this bill has a realistic chance of being successfully implemented if it is enacted in its current form. This issue highlights the flaw in the approach that has been adopted to formulation of this bill—the top-down approach that has been adopted by the Minister. When the Minister's comments about how he envisages employment opportunities being created are added to the concerns I have already outlined, the reasons for my concern about this bill should be obvious.
The bill provides for the Heritage Act 1977 to be overridden, and that is a telltale sign of a planning bill. This bill purports to give the Minister the capacity to take over planning duties from the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning. The people of New South Wales are entitled to be assured that the development of Sydney is being approached in a co-ordinated and sensible fashion, yet an enormous number of planning problems exist. I therefore wonder about the logic of taking a large aspect of planning control away from the current Minister for Infrastructure Planning and handing them over to a Minister who does not necessarily understand the virtue of overall planning objectives and the need for a co-ordinated approach.
The Coalition is also extremely concerned about the way in which the relationship between the Redfern-Waterloo Authority and the Council of the City of Sydney may be affected by this bill. The planning aspects of this bill appear to be in conflict with some of the planning that has already been carried out by the City of Sydney Council. I note that schedule 1 to the bill purports to describe the operational area of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority and that that will be the basis of funding allocations to carry out development of the Redfern-Waterloo area. The site of the Carlton United Brewery appears to have been added to the authority's operational area, but not because of its geographical significance; rather, it will effectively be a cash cow as a result of section 94 contributions under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The Coalition has not been informed how that will work.
As the former shadow Minister for Housing, I am aware that the City of Sydney Council uses developer contributions to fund its excellent homelessness service. As the Minister is a former Lord Mayor of Sydney, he should also be aware of that. It is therefore incomprehensible to me why the Government thinks it is appropriate to dip into the funds of the City of Sydney Council, which essentially is what this bill provides. I have had a limited opportunity to discuss this matter with Michael Ramsay of the Premier's Department, who is the person responsible for the Redfern/Waterloo Partnership Project, and I thank the Minister for that. However, even if briefings on this issue were unlimited, I doubt that the level of discussion could ever be regarded as satisfactory.
The first briefing was held yesterday afternoon, at which I thanked the Minister. However, if the Opposition had not been consulted on the development of the bill, and if groups including the Aboriginal grass roots organisations had not been consulted, a productive outcome may not have been achieved. One aspect I put to Michael Ramsey—and I thank him for his help in the discussions—was: Where does the bill set out the funding sources? Where is the money coming from to do whatever is to be done, which is not clear? It was put to me that some seed funding is coming from Treasury. I ask the Minister to address that in his reply, or at some other appropriate time, to explain what the seed funding is, where it is coming from and what it is expected to do. I add a further, broader question: Exactly how will the funding be achieved?
In discussions it was put to me that the Redfern-Waterloo Authority would have the rights over certain lands. The example given was that in the redevelopment of the Redfern railway station, envisaged to occur in the next few years, there might be some commercial opportunities to realise a profit. That is an interesting idea, but I wonder what Minister Costa thinks about that. Of course, Minister Costa is having some difficulties keeping the trains running at all and doubtless he would be desirous of getting his hands on any money to try to fix the system—to get better railways, cleaner trains, the sorts of things that New South Welshmen want for their railways.
I ask the Minister: Has a protocol or arrangement been entered into between Ministers who are responsible for various government lands that are held within the geographical area laid down in schedule 1 to the bill? If so, what are the protocols? I ask the Minister to lay that out very clearly, because Mr Ramsey could not answer that question. The Opposition needs to know that is to be done. Have other Ministers agreed to effectively hand over their assets? If so, on what basis is that appropriate?
Mr Frank Sartor: Surplus to core business.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The Minister indicates it is surplus to core business.
Mr Frank Sartor: Those that are surplus to core business.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Those that are surplus to core business. If that is the sole criteria for funding, one could envisage the Minister having awful problems in trying to get the funding necessary to carry out the provisions of the bill, vague as they are. The Minister has been a member of this House for only a short time, but from my experience I know that Ministers do not easily give up assets when they have other core financial problems with which they need to deal. The Minister may not see them as core assets, but Ministers see them as core to the bottom line, to the capacity needed to carry out their ministerial functions. The Opposition is interested to hear more from the Minister about what protocols are in place, and how they will work.
I commenced by talking about social issues that underpin problems in Redfern and Waterloo. It is interesting that the bill is unclear on how its provisions will intermesh with the improvement in the societal outcomes that are necessary to be achieved in Redfern. Clause 26 provides for the development of a Redfern-Waterloo plan. Under the current wording of the bill various matters may be taken into account in the preparation of that plan, as set out in paragraphs (a) to (i) of clause 26 (2). They include strategic vision for improvement of the area, urban design, land use zoning, and so on. The average person would not understand how this will play out, how it will work, and I certainly do not understand that. Whose strategic vision for the improvement of the area is to be considered? Is it to be the strategic vision that is offered by the people who live there or by the people who have their businesses there? Or is it to be the strategic vision that is to be developed in a vacuum somewhere else, perhaps by the Minister or by Michael Ramsey's group that is doing the project?
How will the plan be developed? The bill requires a lot of trust, a lot of hope, for it to be passed through this House, because the Government has not provided the Opposition with the necessary details for it to make an informed decision on the substance of how this will work. That is because the Government is operating in a bit of a rush; it is trying to be seen to have a political solution to what is fundamentally a very difficult set of social circumstances in the Redfern and Waterloo areas. I accept that past measures have not worked. The Morgan Disney and Associates Pty Ltd report dated November 2004 entitled "Making Connections: Better Services, Stronger Community" highlighted that past measures have not worked very well. I thank the Minister and Michael Ramsey for making that report available. The report states:
A total of 102 organisations providing 192 services to the area …
Of the 192 services in the area; around thirty services are solely focused on Redfern and Waterloo.
The report notes that it is very difficult to establish precisely how much money has gone into the Redfern-Waterloo area to address social disadvantage, and further states:
Taking account of the limitations in establishing accurate funding totals for this Review we estimate there is in excess of $35-40m currently allocated to human services for residents in Redfern and Waterloo either through locally based services or services delivered from out of the area.
We know, as best we can from the report, that there is in the order of $35 million to $40 million going into services, but the report highlights also that the services have been largely unco-ordinated. The services have not gone where the community wants them to go. The report further states:
This Review found that there is considerable rhetoric, but few concrete examples of integrated service delivery.
The Opposition finds it difficult to understand how this bill will address the long-term failure in the delivery of services. It would appear that the Government somehow intends that to be addressed through the Redfern-Waterloo plan, which appears to be in the sole domain of the Minister to develop. Without casting any aspersions on the Minister, I wonder how that will be done. It would be wonderful if the Minister could suddenly bring the services together in a co-ordinated way. I am not sure whether that is what the Minister intends or whether he or any successor would have the capacity to achieve that.
Opposition members do not resile from the fact that we need a better and more co-ordinated delivery of services—an issue that is up in the air. It is entirely unclear in this bill how that will occur. After consultations with the Liberal-Nationals Coalition the Minister confirmed this morning that he intended to move amendments to this bill. The issue that I now wish to address relates to the designated area referred to in schedule 1 to the bill, which is described as the operational area of authority. Clause 45 would enable regulations to be promulgated that would give the Minister absolute authority to annex other parts of Sydney. I am sure that the City of Sydney Council would not be terribly ecstatic about that.
Mr Frank Sartor: I have lots of spare time.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The Minister might have lots of spare time but we do not want him to take too much under his control. We want him to do the job that he has been put there to do, which is to behave responsibly and sensibly, and to consult with the community.
Mr Frank Sartor: As I always do.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The Minister says that he does, which is good. The Opposition and crossbench members will address the open-ended nature of the bill. We have been given only a short time within which to get our heads around a complex bill and to address its social dysfunctions. The Opposition is not prepared to accept clause 45 in schedule 1, which effectively will enable the Minister to annex other parts of Sydney. Yesterday I indicated to the Minister that that clause should be amended to limit his power, or the power of his successor. The Minister handed me his proposed amendments, the second of which reads as follows:
No. 2 Page 21, clause 45. Insert after line 24:
(3) A regulation is not to be made under this section unless the Minister certifies that he or she is satisfied that the changes to the operational area are broadly consistent with the delivery of the strategic vision of the Redfern-Waterloo plan.
That amendment, which is fairly broad, will apply only minimalist restrictions on the Minister. The Legislative Assembly might accept that amendment but Opposition members will address that issue in the Legislative Council. I would like to speak in detail about many aspects of this bill. As I said earlier, the Coalition is concerned about several aspects but it will address those issues in the upper House. Opposition and crossbench members will establish whether those provisions should be changed or amend7ed. The honourable member for Bligh has a number of concerns about this bill and I share many of them. However, the Opposition will establish in Committee whether or not it will agree to her proposed amendments. Her concerns, which are quite valid, relate to aspects in the bill about which the Opposition is concerned. We will look more closely at the way this bill has been drafted, the powers that have been given to the Minister and the uncertainty that surrounds it. I have indicated to the Minister that the Opposition will support his proposed amendments to clauses 45 and 46. I will listen with interest to the contributions of other honourable members.
Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY (Heffron) [12.35 p.m.]: I support the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Bill. As the member for Heffron I represent a significant area—Waterloo—covered by the Redfern-Waterloo Authority. In the minds of the public Waterloo often gets tacked onto Redfern as an afterthought. The media and political parties tend to focus on the Block and on policing as though they are the only issues of importance to the area. Whilst those issues are important they are not necessarily the only issues of importance to Waterloo. Today I wish to highlight the Waterloo area and indicate why I believe the authority and this legislation will bring opportunities to the area. Waterloo presents many challenges. It supports one of the highest concentrations of public housing in Sydney. There are more than 2,000 units of public housing in Waterloo, which represents 67 per cent of dwellings in the suburb.
Ninety-five per cent of public housing residents receive income support from the Government and 51 per cent of households earn less than $399 a week, compared with 20 per cent for the rest of Sydney. The unemployment rate is 16.6 per cent, almost triple the figure for the rest of Sydney. Of the 5,202 people in Waterloo, 41 per cent come from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and 38 per cent of the population stopped education at year 10 or below. A report entitled "Communities of Advantage and Disadvantage", which was prepared last year by Professor Tony Vinson, ranked Waterloo in the top 5 per cent of the most disadvantaged postcodes in New South Wales. It is worth noting that Waterloo is a pocket of disadvantage surrounded by more advantaged communities such as Rosebery, Eastlakes, Alexandria, Erskineville and Kensington. Even Redfern ranks only in the top one-third of all disadvantaged postcodes and it is much more advantaged than Waterloo on several of Professor Vinson's key indicators.
I know from community consultation, from several mobile offices and community forums that I have held this year, and from regular meetings with the Redfern Local Area Command, Alexandria Park Community School, the Department of Housing, South Sydney Youth Service and the Waterloo Neighbourhood Advisory Board that those statistics translate onto the ground into real social justice issues about the lack of affordable housing, the lack of employment opportunities, the challenges confronting young people and a congregation of people with high support needs. Such a congregation exists largely because the population in public housing units has changed. Often public housing is the only option available for people with a mental illness, the elderly, the disabled, and the drug and alcohol addicted. That leads to a very unhealthy social mix with a high concentration of people facing significant challenges and problems.
I can speak generally about a family I know in the area that has three children. That family is living in public housing. The parents try to teach their kids to respect themselves and others. They ensure that their kids go to school, yet they have to cope with drug dealing on the corner, mentally ill people causing disturbances late at night and last year a murder in their neighbourhood. I do not mean to portray Waterloo as a dangerous and difficult place. We acknowledge that there is a resilience and a strong community spirit. I have been in the high-rise towers, I have stood on street corners when holding mobile offices and I have doorknocked in the area. I have never felt threatened; I have always felt welcome. The people of Waterloo face enormous daily challenges. They want a healthier community, a better social mix and a safer community. I welcome the introduction of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority. I hope that, with the co-operation of the local community, we can create a healthier and more vibrant Waterloo.
It is worth asking: How will the authority assist in the revitalisation of Waterloo and Redfern? Following extensive community consultation the authority will undertake work that was undertaken by the partnership project. I acknowledge that there were some challenges early in the life of the project relating to the consultation process. The project has worked on crime prevention strategies and anti drug and alcohol initiatives. The project has also developed a series of strategies for infrastructure, service delivery and jobs to address the long-term changes that are needed in the area. It is my understanding that the authority will build upon the groundwork that the project has laid. The authority will promote the economic and social development of the operational area. It will be required to prepare and implement a Redfern-Waterloo plan, including strategies for employment, training, improved human services, improved urban design and infrastructure, and a plan for the long-term development of the area. The plan must be put on public view and people will be able to make submissions.
Specifically, the authority will promote and co-ordinate the orderly economic development and use of the operational area—that is, Redfern and Waterloo—including the development and management of land, the provision of infrastructure and the establishment of public areas. It will provide and promote housing choices in Waterloo and Redfern. It will provide and promote employment opportunities for local residents. It will enhance and manage public places in the operational area and improve, maintain and regulate the use of those public places. It will promote and co-ordinate cultural, educational, commercial, recreational, entertainment and transport activities and facilities in Redfern and Waterloo. The authority will also have development and management control over sites deemed to be State significant by the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning. The Minister will have the authority to sub-delegate to the City of Sydney Council. The work of the RWA will be funded through the establishment of the Redfern-Waterloo Fund, which will be financed through commercial activities on government land and contributions raised through community levies and developer contributions. I understand that the authority will develop a contributions plan in due course.
I have heard it said that the Redfern-Waterloo Authority and the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project are about driving public housing out of the inner city. The Government has already made a commitment that there will be no decrease in either the number of public housing residents or the number of public housing dwellings. I have also heard people say that the authority is about the gentrification of Redfern and Waterloo. I do not believe we need an authority for the gentrification of the area. Left to their own devices, Redfern and Waterloo would probably gentrify but that would occur to the detriment of those who need economic and social support. If that happened it would create a division between the haves and the have-nots. It is my political view and ideal that a society is healthy only when those who are most vulnerable are supported and included. If gentrification of the area occurred without the intervention of this authority to assure economic and social support of some of the most needy people in our community we would end up with a very unhealthy community indeed.
It is worth noting and putting on record some of the concerns that my constituents have brought to me regarding this legislation and the authority. I ask the Minister to address them. First, concerns have been raised with me that the legislation leaves unstated a number of key objectives of the plan and that the functions of the authority do not necessarily include all its aims. There is great concern in the community I represent that the legislation does not define or expand upon the concept of social mix. There is concern that the definition of "social mix" should have regard to various income levels, the various cultural groups in the area and a range of housing options. I support the inclusion in this legislation of that description of "social mix".
There is also concern that the legislation does not contain broad definitions or provisions with regard to affordable housing. Not only is this issue important to my constituents but I take a particular interest in it. According to the Fairfax property guide, the average house price in Waterloo in the past 12 months is $558,000. The average unit price is $426,000. When we consider that more than half the families in Waterloo live on less than $399 a week it is not hard to see that purchasing their own home in their area is a completely impossible dream. But affordable housing is not just about being able to buy one's own home; it is also about being able to rent one's own home. I know from my work in the area and from my involvement with the Redfern-Waterloo community council and community forums that the affordable housing question comes up over and over again.
As I said in my submission to the upper House inquiry, it is essential that we explore adequately the question of what it means to provide affordable housing. Affordable housing can mean many things, including low-priced homes that can be purchased by low-income and middle-income families, changes to building design and regulation to allow the development of less costly homes, a land bank that council or developers could develop for public housing, subsidised rent or rent control, or private housing vouchers. We have not yet had a full discussion about this in Redfern and Waterloo. I look forward to having that discussion when we have an authority to oversee the economic development of the area.
Another issue that has been raised with me is that the legislation does not require local representation on the authority's board. Although it provides for one Aboriginal person to serve on the board it does not specify that that person must be a local. I recognise that it is not always desirable to prescribe everything in legislation as it lessens the flexibility needed to address changing needs, but I urge the Minister to be mindful of that concern and to ensure that the board is constituted appropriately so that it can respond to the needs not just of Aboriginal people but of the various culturally and linguistically diverse groups—such as Chinese and Russian groups, which have high populations in Waterloo—and make sure that they are addressed through the authority.
This Government began a process of community renewal and partnership in 2002 through the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project. The Government recognises that long-term sustainable solutions can be achieved only by developing strategies that connect employment, human services, community safety, infrastructure, the built environment and enterprise development. The Government recognises that Waterloo is one of the most disadvantaged areas in New South Wales. It has a high concentration of public housing, disproportionate representations in the community of people with mental illness, drug and alcohol addiction, single-parent families and the elderly, dependence on income support for subsistence and a lack of affordable housing. Sadly, the issues do not grab the public's attention: They will rarely prompt a news headline or hours of discussion on talkback radio. These are the age-old issues of equity, social justice, advantage and disadvantage. I congratulate the Government on taking up these issues, on working with the community and particularly on adopting a whole-of-government approach by establishing the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project and now the Redfern-Waterloo Authority. It is a welcome move and a giant step forward in creating a revitalised Waterloo. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove) [12.46 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak to the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Bill. I recognise and pay particular tribute to the traditional owners of the land. It is one of Australia's great tragedies and disgraces that in this first-world nation there are people who do not have access to the same levels of health care, education and life expectancy as the greater population. The purpose of this bill is to establish the Redfern-Waterloo Authority and to specify functions relating to the management and improvement of areas in Redfern and Waterloo. This bill was introduced following the Redfern riot and the inquiry into issues relating to Redfern and Waterloo conducted by the Standing Committee on Social Issues, which focused new attention on the area. The Government's conduit to addressing complex problems in Redfern-Waterloo is a separate Redfern-Waterloo Authority. Although that sounds good—I certainly will not oppose the bill—I think some adjustments are needed.
The bill establishes the Redfern-Waterloo Authority, which will be responsible for promoting and securing orderly economic development, developing and managing land, and providing infrastructure. It will be responsible for promoting housing choices, employment opportunities for local residents, commercial opportunities for local businesses and cultural development. It will permit the Minister responsible for the authority to request the Minister administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to give effect to environmental planning aspects of the Redfern-Waterloo plan by making the necessary environmental planning instruments. Reciprocally, the Minister administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act may delegate functions as consent authority to the Minister administering the proposed Act. The legislation specifically overrides the provisions of the Heritage Act 1977 to the extent that they will prohibit or restrict development in the operational area—for example, State significant development—and will allow areas affected under schedule 1 to be changed by regulation under section 46.
I refer the House to the executive summary in the "Review of Human Services in Redfern and Waterloo". The main finding is that the human services systems need to be reformed and reshaped at a local level to achieve improved outcomes for the community and clients. The review identified a total of 102 organisations providing 192 services to the area. Of the 192 services, approximately 30 are solely focussed on Redfern and Waterloo. It is estimated that in excess of $35 million to $40 million is currently allocated to human services for residents in Redfern and Waterloo, either through locally based services or services delivered from out of that area. The report states:
Overall, Waterloo is the more disadvantaged of the two areas but the striking feature of Redfern is the co-existence of extremes of advantage and disadvantage.
Other honourable members have referred to that issue. Gentrification of Redfern is well advanced, and certainly is increasing in Waterloo. That is a possible area of concern. Areas of disadvantage seem to apply to the non-Aboriginal population as well as the Aboriginal population. It is important to look at the measures of social disadvantage for Waterloo. In 1999 and again in 2003 Waterloo ranked in the top 5 per cent of most disadvantaged suburbs. Waterloo appears 7 times out of 14 in the variables in the top 30 ranked most disadvantaged New South Wales post codes. Those areas of disadvantage include high levels of imprisonment, disability, sickness and benefit recipients, court convictions, long-term unemployment, psychiatric hospital admissions and mortality.
Child maltreatment and indicator levels of child abuse are not high in the two areas. The report said that data on both child protection and domestic violence are difficult to obtain. However, from the Vinson report it seems that relatively speaking the rates of substantiated incidents of child abuse are not high. Overall, Waterloo is more disadvantaged than Redfern. The report discussed the socioeconomic profile. As has been mentioned in this Chamber, the general population of both suburbs have low incomes; heavy levels of unemployment, particularly among young people; lack of support in public housing, particularly in Waterloo; low levels of attainment in education, especially for people who have not completed year 12; and families with children and young people, particularly single parents.
Among the Aboriginal population, there are significant levels of unemployment among young people aged 15 to 24 years; low incomes in both suburbs—more than 50 per cent of people have incomes of less than $400 per week; significant proportions of people in public housing in both suburbs—78 per cent in Redfern and 91 per cent in Waterloo; early school leaving problems and low levels of education in people 15 years and older; significant proportions of people are not in the labour force category and this discourages job seekers and people on pensions who may wish to have the opportunity to find employment; very few people under the age of 55 years; and low numbers of children and young people when compared with the rest of Sydney—there are about 60 pre-school age children, 88 children aged 5 to 9 years and 69 children aged 10 to 14 years.
The socioeconomic circumstances common to both suburbs include a higher degree of social mix in the populations; a much higher proportion of dwellings, in the category of flat, unit or apartment than for Sydney as a whole, particularly in public housing, as stated before; unique cross-suburb transport difficulties; and poor access to the Internet which, of course, affects the ability of children to carry out further studies. Whilst there seem to be systematic long-term social problems in Redfern and Waterloo, which have been highlighted in the upper House inquiry about the Redfern riot, an integrated approach is needed to confront the social and infrastructure problems that could be facilitated through an authority.
It has been asked: Is this the best integrated approach to social and infrastructure issues or is this a structure that should be seen to be proactive but is really unlikely to deliver? Will the authority impose another level of bureaucracy on planning issues in the Redfern-Waterloo area? It may not have the capacity to address the complex social issues, as I have stated before, including educational, health and employment problems. This issue is very complex and needs to be approached from the bottom up. We need to get the community behind us. We should not deal with unilateral decisions from a Minister's office. We have seen a long-term failure to address the issues in the Redfern and Waterloo areas. There has been a serious unco-ordinated approach to the provision of services.
Up until now this Government has taken its eye off the ball with respect to the problems and issues confronting Redfern and Waterloo. This is a well-motivated bill. However, I am concerned that it will continue to perpetuate the failed top-down approach that has occurred in all State governments and the Federal Government. It is the cause of many of the current problems. We have to engage the community, and the community must take ownership of the issues that face them and the solutions needed. We need to empower the local community. For too long communities have been directed from government down. It is time that the local community was empowered to address those issues and to find and seek the solutions itself. It requires government to give them the tools to do the job. I do not oppose this bill, but I do not think it should be the sole domain for the Minister to develop. We need more community participation and consultation to achieve positive outcomes because the people of Waterloo and Redfern deserve a lot better than they are getting now.
Ms CLOVER MOORE (Bligh) [12.55 p.m.]: In 1999 the Block came into my electorate. I was confronted by the desperation, high unemployment, crime and urban blight that characterised the Block. Since that time things have improved, but I am sad to say that the change has been marginal. The decision to establish an authority that will oversee the much-needed physical urban renewal of Redfern and Waterloo represents an opportunity to implement a best practice example of combining community and physical renewal and addressing those needs simultaneously. There are many successful models where this has happened in both the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and I hope the Government is able to learn and build from those experiences. Addressing and combining sustainable community and physical renewal at the same time is critical for Redfern-Waterloo, and it is building on the work already achieved by the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project.
I note that the Minister for Energy and Utilities, Minister for Science and Medical Research, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer), and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts said in his second reading speech, "Where relevant the authority shall take into consideration issues of sustainable development." I am concerned that sustainable development seems to be tacked on the side. Sustainable development should be central to this bill. Indeed, sustainability in all senses—environmental, community and economic—is fundamental to effective outcomes. Redfern deserves outcomes that are rigorous and long term. The only way that will be achieved is through a well-planned process that ignites community imagination and pride. The Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project was established to address the entrenched social problems of hopelessness, drug abuse, crime and suffering that have plagued Redfern. Given the work that has already been done in this area and the raised community expectations after 2½ years in the process to date, there is a need to ensure that any new Redfern-Waterloo Authority will play a constructive role in finding solutions.
When the Government first announced it would be setting up a new Redfern-Waterloo Authority, I welcomed a commitment to address the longstanding and complex issues facing the Redfern-Waterloo area, but I said that I needed to see the bill to see how it would work in practice. I said that I would keep an open mind, in the hope that the proposal might fast-track some long overdue solutions and make a real difference to people's lives. There has been a long history of talk about improving services and we now need to see action, rather than more working groups and plans. However, community engagement and consultation is a critical factor in addressing these longstanding local problems—it is a fine line to tread, and any new approach must be inclusive and implemented sensitively so that it does not alienate people.
I have always spoken up for the rights of people and communities to effectively participate in the development and future of their areas, and I will continue to do so. It is clear that community and urban renewal is urgently needed, and obviously the Government sees private development as one way of paying for this renewal. The worst outcome would be that the new authority would simply add another layer of bureaucracy, alienate the community and undermine recent work, and the whole project would end up being nothing more than a real estate development exercise.
We now have the bill, and I am rather surprised and disappointed that there seems to be a big gap between the Government's stated intention and what appears in the bill. While the Minister's second reading speech talked about the social challenges faced by disadvantaged communities, which appears to be the primary justification for the establishment of the authority, the human services issues are not addressed in the bill. Indeed, human services are set out in clause 26 as an optional aspect of the Redfern-Waterloo plan to guide the work of the new authority. I note that the Minister said:
The authority builds on the work that has been undertaken by the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project since 2002. The authority and the partnership project will work hard … the Authority and the partnership project are complementary.
However, it seems the Premier's Department will assume responsibility for co-ordinating the delivery of human services in the area—and I welcome that move—but it is unclear why the establishment of the new authority is justified and why its aims cannot be achieved in a similar way: through co-ordination and co-operation. Given that we have a three-tiered system of government, I believe strongly in maintaining the integrity and autonomy of democratically elected local government, and I object in principle to State intervention. Any such intervention needs to be justified and clearly in the public interest. A diverse resident mix is critical for successful and vibrant communities. Redfern and Waterloo have high levels of public housing. I call on the Government to include specific clauses about measures to ensure a social mix of income levels, household types and cultural groupings, and affordable housing.
Without any justification, or even explanation as to how they will be used or can be expected to assist this community, the bill includes some extremely draconian powers. I intend to outline some of these and move amendments, as I believe that the onus needs to be placed squarely on the Government to justify these extraordinary powers to the people of New South Wales. Some of these powers would be greeted with alarm and controversy even if they were introduced in the context of anti-terrorism measures. One wonders whether this gives an indication of how the Government views the Redfern-Waterloo area, and what needs to be done. Is this the Carr Government's "balaclava and dogs on the wharves" moment, cloaked in the language of addressing social problems? This is the sort of scenario conjured up by clause 36, which creates authorised officers, with identification cards, to enforce offences against the Act which are as yet unspecified and can be created by regulation. This suggests some sort of private police force being established, and it is reasonable to ask why that is necessary and how these powers are to be used.
The bill also contains a range of other powers that seem to be extraordinary, such as clause 45, which enables the Government to extend or change the operational area by regulation. That could have dramatic consequences for large tracts of the inner Sydney area, leading some to speculate that the bill may in fact be little more than a stalking horse. It could enable the annexation of further land in the South Sydney airport growth corridor, replicating some of the proposals put forward for the former South Sydney Development Corporation by stealth. Interestingly, both the Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph have speculated about a Government intention to grab inner-west and southern corridor land, just as this bill appears to be. Some cynics have suggested that the State Government is still seething over the loss in the local government elections, and that, after the failed bid for Town Hall, it is now embarking on a power grab to get their hands on valuable development land in the area.
I note that one of the justifications put forward by the Government for the summary amalgamation of the Sydney City Council and South Sydney City Council areas on the eve of the March local government elections was that the expanded Sydney local government area would be better able to plan for the future and finance servicing and infrastructure of South Sydney. I recall the Premier particularly referring to Redfern benefiting from being brought under the mantle of the City of Sydney Council. After only seven months, the Government has already started to summarily excise areas from the control of the City of Sydney Council!
The intention to access development contributions from a large site outside the boundaries of the operational area tends to suggest that the real agenda here is to access development money—in fact, to cherry pick prime sites in the Sydney local government area to suit the State Government. Clause 29 (1) (b) specifically gives the authority control over the development contributions for affordable housing from the former Carlton and United Breweries site in Broadway. Indeed, council's Central Sydney Planning Committee, which is dominated by Government appointees, is now going through a proper process to develop a local environmental plan in close consultation with all stakeholders from the community through to the owners. This site is outside the operational area covered by the bill, and the contributions alone from this one site are expected to be in the order of $10 million to $30 million.
Clearly, there is a lot of money at stake here. This figure of $10 million to $30 million in developer contributions to affordable housing from just one site needs to be contrasted with the Government's estimate that between $8 million and $10 million is currently spent on services in the Redfern-Waterloo area. The function of the board and the relationship between it and the Minister need greater clarification. While it could be reasonably expected that a major function of the board would be to help develop the Redfern-Waterloo plan, it is not addressed. Indeed, the function of the board is very vague. The only specific board functions outlined in the bill are in clause 11 (4):
The Minister is to consult the Board about the appointment of any advisory committee under this section.
Clause 9 (1) describes the responsibilities of the chief executive officer:
The Chief Executive Officer is responsible for the day-to-day management of the affairs of the Authority in accordance with the specific policies and general directions of the Board.
Unless I have missed something here, that seems to be the sum total of the board's role! While there are detailed provisions in schedule 2 concerning appointments and procedure, it does not include specific clauses outlining the objectives or the functions of the board, or even how often it should meet. That is a major omission, indicating that the board itself has little value or input other than to provide a convenient public veneer to cover up the potentially authoritarian, controversial and divisive actions of the Minister and the authority. The powerlessness of the board is contrasted with the far-reaching and remarkably unfettered powers of the Minister and authority to do, as clause 15 (2) provides, "all such … acts as may be necessary or expedient for the exercise of its functions".
The Minister prepares the Redfern-Waterloo plan, pursuant to clause 26, with little guidance other than a shopping list of things which may be included if he so chooses, or "any other matter that [he] considers is essential for the purposes of this Act." The Minister's plan then forms the basis for the work of the Authority. There is no mention at all of the role of the board in developing the Redfern-Waterloo plan, and I propose to rectify this by moving an amendment to include the board in this process. Let us not fool ourselves. The Government does not need draconian legislation to fix the social problems in Redfern-Waterloo. It is continuing to rely on co-operation and co-ordination, as it always has. The real question is why the Government cannot fix the community and urban renewal problems in the same way. I know there is lots of goodwill out there amongst the stakeholders—the City of Sydney being one of many—who would welcome a co-ordinated approach, and be happy to work co-operatively with the State Government on joint projects. The big issue here—the elephant in the lounge room that people are pretending is not there—is access to a new cash cow to address the lack of infrastructure planning by the Government.
Stamp duty revenue is falling fast now that the property boom is over, and the State was starved of infrastructure spending after we put everything into the Olympic Games. The Government is now paying the price, and so is the community. Current problems with the rail system are ample evidence of that. It is not just the Redfern-Waterloo community at stake here. After years of neglect, Sydney needs to make a quantum leap and make some major infrastructure decisions to support the continued growth and economic prosperity of the city.
The head-in-the-sand approach just does not cut it any more. The Government needs to start taking responsibility for more than the rest of the four-year electoral cycle. Communities expect more from their leaders; they expect responsible long-term planning. The political phobia about public debt needs to be re-thought, and with Australia leading the world with public-private partnerships we need to start in our own backyard and find more innovative ways to create the sort of city we want. Development corporations in Sydney have a poor track record. Green Square failed in terms of planning linkages and infrastructure provision, and became just a real estate exercise, with people now isolated in new apartment blocks in the middle of nowhere and with no public transport. This is the wrong approach, and it is unnecessary.
There has already been disappointment with the Regional Employment Development Scheme, which failed to co-ordinate with Redfern-Waterloo community projects and again promised, but has not delivered, transport and infrastructure. This grab for cash through the proposed Redfern-Waterloo Authority needs to be considered in this broader context. "Value capture"—as the Government so euphemistically describes it—may well be the way forward here. However, I believe this needs to be done in an integrated way which addresses infrastructure and community issues at the some time. I dispute that this bill is the way to do that. The question also needs to be asked as to why the Minister needs to be the consent authority, and the necessity for the other powers has not been justified. This is no response to the community and urban renewal issues facing many of our suburbs. What is the Government proposing to do here? Is it that we keep on annexing new suburbs under draconian legislation until local government eventually becomes obsolete?
I remain unconvinced of the need for this bill, and I intend to move amendments to address some of the more objectionable clauses. I will only support the bill if the proposed amendments are incorporated. I support the bill being referred to the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues in the event that my proposed amendments are not successful in this Chamber. As the State member for most of the area concerned, and as Lord Mayor of Sydney, I emphasise my desire to work co-operatively with the State Government to secure a better future for this area and its people. However, if this bill is enacted just to facilitate the ongoing and disgraceful sell-off of public land and property to boost Government revenue, without local and social benefits, it will be opposed.
Mr WAYNE MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [1.09 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the bill, but I will highlight a number of important issues. The purpose of the bill is to establish the Redfern-Waterloo Authority and to specify its functions relating to the management and improvement of certain areas in Redfern and Waterloo. The bill is an attempt to deal with a number of recent social problems in those areas, such as the Redfern riot. An inquiry conducted by an upper House committee has brought a new focus to Redfern and Waterloo. The Redfern-Waterloo Authority will consist of a board and chief executive officer responsible for the day-to-day management of the area. It will be responsible for promoting and securing orderly economic development, developing and managing land, providing infrastructure, promoting housing choices, promoting employment opportunities for local residents and commercial opportunities for local businesses, and developing the culture.
The Redfern-Waterloo Authority will permit the Minister responsible for the authority to request the Minister administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to give effect to environmental planning aspects of the Redfern-Waterloo Plan by making necessary environmental planning instruments. Reciprocally, the Minister administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, as consent authority, can delegate functions to the Minister administering the proposed Act. The Act specifically overrides provisions of the Heritage Act 1977 to the extent that it will prohibit and restrict development in the operational area, and allows the area affected to be changed by regulation. The complex and difficult issues in the Redfern-Waterloo area involve education, health and employment. Both the Government and the community must work together to resolve these problems. However, the Opposition has grave reservations that the setting up of an authority will do so.
The setting up of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority is a leap of faith. The bill gives the Minister a number of detailed functions such as implementing a strategic vision for the area, and responsibility for urban design, land use zoning, development, human services, the creation of employment opportunities, infrastructure renewal, regeneration of public land assets and any other matter the Minister considers essential for the purpose of the legislation. Someone once said, "When I cannot see, I will trust." That is exactly what the people of New South Wales are saying, via this House, to the Government, which has set out a plan for the urban renewal of a difficult area. But the vision of what will happen is based on trust. Little is set out as to how the Minister will meet the requirements of the legislation. There is a distinct risk that the bill will create another layer of planning bureaucracy, and the authority may not have the capacity to deal with the complex social issues.
The Government believes that businesses will be encouraged to move into the area for which the authority will be responsible, but why will businesses want to operate in the area when additional levies will be imposed on them? The Government is optimistic in claiming that the authority will create jobs when, tragically, most Aborigines leave school between 10 and 13 years of age and are unemployed. The Opposition understands there has been little consultation between the Government and Aboriginal groups. We query whether the Minister has the support of the Aboriginal people to carry out this plan. It is a planning solution to a complex set of social problems. Knocking the old buildings down and building new ones will not solve the social problems. The community will still have the same needs and difficulties in education, employment and health.
What consultation, if any, has taken place between the Government and entities such as the Aboriginal Medical Service Co-operative Ltd, an organisation that does tremendous work and is held in high esteem? The Government has ridden in roughshod and said, "You will do it this way. Here is the formula. We are giving all-encompassing powers to the authority and the Minister. We will solve it. We will knock down your old buildings and we will build new ones." But will that solve the problem for people who cannot afford housing? How will the Government solve the problems for people who have no chance in the world of ever owning their own home?
How will the Government resolve young Aboriginal unemployment? How will it resolve problems relating to the health, general welfare and wellbeing of Aboriginal people? Setting up an authority is great. Setting up another level of bureaucracy may achieve some kind of superficial solution, but it will not resolve the inherent and complex social problems that exist in the Redfern-Waterloo area. It is part of our history. There have been many turns of the wheel in those suburbs. At the moment the area is crying out for help and it requires more than a government prescription for urban renewal. The bill is oriented to planning and urban renewal and does not deal with the fundamental social problems.
Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury) [1.17 p.m.]: I welcome the opportunity to support the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Bill. I am pleased to have been asked to speak on the bill because the fundamental changes it outlines will be enormously important to the redevelopment and reinvigoration of the Redfern-Waterloo area. As other speakers have said, the Redfern-Waterloo area is a complex one. It is changing rapidly, as is much of the inner city of Sydney. The area has wealthy sections, a prosperous middle class, light industry, schools, non-government organisations that provide important services, and a mixture of housing.
I draw attention to the Waterloo Housing Commission flats and the provision to the Aboriginal community of housing on what is known as the Block. Many poor people live in the area. The bill makes the Minister in charge of the authority accountable to the community for government action. The term "urban renewal" has become deceptively familiar. It connotes a complex process, and urban renewal in an area as complex as the Redfern-Waterloo precinct presents an enormous challenge. To my mind, the authority is a good idea. I have come to that conclusion based on 30 years of working in Aboriginal affairs and from having maintained a close connection with the Redfern-Waterloo area.
My association with Redfern stems from the early 1980s when my youngest child, Willurei, attended the Murrawina preschool, which at that stage was located in Eveleigh Street on the Block. I was also a board member of the Murrawina preschool and for many years a member of the board of The Settlement in Edward Street in Redfern. Although The Settlement is situated in an old run-down building, it nevertheless undertakes terrific programs for young people who live in the Block. Although those programs are not specifically designed for Aboriginal young children, they nevertheless attract Aboriginal young people in the main. My children also attended the Darlington Public School, which is in the Redfern precinct. I was the Director-General of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and I was involved in the work of the Aboriginal Housing Company; I helped to develop its business plan. I was involved in the development of the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project while I was part of the bureaucracy.
It goes without saying that this bill needs to be viewed in its entirety. It should be understood that the authority is only one of the elements of an overall approach to resolving problems associated with Redfern. As others have pointed out, human services aspects will be dealt with by the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project, whereas the Redfern-Waterloo Authority will have more to do with infrastructure, the management of resources and the management of various pieces of land in the precinct. Those of us who have been involved in similar exercises know how challenging such a project is. Members of the Opposition have expressed concerns about a co-co-ordinated approach, and I acknowledge that that is a challenge. But if there is any place of New South Wales that needs a co-ordinated approach because of the complexity of the issues and the mix of people in the area, it would have to be the Redfern-Waterloo area.
Having been involved in Aboriginal affairs for 30 years, I have experienced different waves of programs centred on the Redfern-Waterloo precinct. I would argue that previously there has never been an approach that is as bold, as compassing, as far-reaching and far-sighted as this legislation, and I say that for straightforward reasons. The authority will look after all the communities in the Redfern-Waterloo area. I understand that the honourable member for Heffron referred to a number of those communities, including the Russian community, the indigenous community, the Chinese community and a number of other communities. The area also has notoriously difficult social justice issues owing to widespread poverty and the mix of urban cultures to which I have already referred.
It is important for people to view the authority as a body that will manage the whole of the precinct rather than different aspects of it. I make that clear because in the past a co-ordinated approach has not been possible. Although in the past much attention has been focused on the area and enthusiastic efforts have been made, those measures were not co-ordinated. The power and importance of this bill is that it provides for a co-ordinated approach to be adopted. In an earlier debate the honourable member for Southern Highlands referred to the Carr Labor Government as a dinosaur government. I reject that assertion totally and I believe this bill refutes that assertion. For more than 20 years I have been arguing that the outcomes for indigenous people will never change unless a properly co-ordinated and articulated approach is adopted to the resolution of the issues. That approach should not be limited to the bureaucratic level but should be extended to the ministerial level as well.
This bill will enable Ministers to work together in the utilisation of infrastructure, such as rail services, to improve human services. That is one of the great strengths of this legislation. I remind the House that both the Redfern and Waterloo areas, particularly Redfern, are of enormous significance to the history and culture of Aboriginal people, as the honourable member for Baulkham Hills has already pointed out. The establishment of the Redfern-Waterloo Fund, which is provided for in this bill, represents a different approach to management. It will ensure that funds are available and properly managed to provide infrastructure and services and support redevelopment of various sites in the precinct. The bill sets out clearly the parameters for the acquisition, management and use of the land. At the risk of using what has become a hackneyed expression, the bill represents a holistic approach that will bring together the provision of human services and the management of infrastructure. The Redfern-Waterloo Authority is not an indication of a disjointed approach to planning but, rather, a commitment to overall planning.
To my mind the elements of the overall plan include the efforts and responsibilities of the government for the area, private enterprise participation, contributions made by civil society organisations, such as those that have already been mentioned during the debate, and civil societies. Not all civil organisations in the Redfern-Waterloo area are Aboriginal non-government organisations, but many of them are. The overall plan is all about communities, and one of the keys to making the plan work will be proper discussion, involvement, consultation and negotiation by the participants in planning whom I have just mentioned. As I have said, the bill provides for a higher level of accountability by the Minister and, by extension, by the Government. While I wish to focus mainly on the area known as the Block, I point out that it is counter-productive for the Block to be the sole focus of this legislation and that failure to take into account wider considerations will result in this important legislation being undermined. I say that for a number of reasons.
Redfern holds a special place in the hearts and minds of indigenous people, not just throughout Sydney and New South Wales but right across the whole country. It is a symbolic place, and regard should be paid to its symbolism and history, not only to its social circumstances that are so clearly evident. The Redfern-Waterloo area is truly the birthplace of self-determination in Australia. There can be no better evidence of that than the fact that the Block, which is an area of land owned by the Aboriginal Housing Company, is the subject of freehold title. That land was handed to the community by Gough Whitlam in the 1970s, the first land rights initiative in Australia. For those reasons, it is important to remember that the Block holds a special place in the hearts and minds of people throughout Australia.
However, it would be dishonest of me not to acknowledge that enormous problems of social dysfunction exist in that part of the Redfern-Waterloo area. Over the past 10 or 15 years, there has been an observable breakdown in the social structure of the Block. I remember a time when someone who had to catch a train from the Redfern railway station would park their car at the Block because it was safer there than it would have been in the parking area of the Redfern railway station. Sadly, that is no longer the case. I share with many people who have raised families in the area great distress over the problems that have gripped the community. Honourable members would be well aware of the drug economy that exists in the area. That has been one of the major factors leading to the social dysfunction to which I have already referred.
The shadow Minister referred to some people he knows in the Redfern area. He would agree with me that they are good people, people who have committed their lives, often voluntarily, to social capacity building. That must be clearly stated. The work of people in non-government organisations [NGOs] in the area must be recognised. However, action is desperately needed, and I think the combination of the Redfern-Waterloo project, the Redfern-Waterloo Authority, the work of the NGOs, and the governance structure that the bill represents will continue to address the issues.
I conclude with this point: The Redfern-Waterloo Authority Bill provides enormous opportunities for overall planning for an area that reflects all the things mentioned by previous speakers today—poverty, wealth, people with highest support needs, and many young and old people. I am excited about these infrastructure plans and the possibilities. At the end of the day we as the people responsible for passing legislation must think carefully about the bill. I have carefully considered it, and that is why I am speaking to it. I am excited about the model in the bill for social and urban renewal. There are similar models for Darling Harbour, Sydney Cove foreshore, and so on for some time. The model in the bill provides a new challenge to the communities that make up the Redfern-Waterloo area, and I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire.
[Madam Acting-Speaker (Ms Marie Andrews) left the chair at 1.32.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.)
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:43:06 : Update this page