Redfern-Waterloo Authority Bill
| About this Item |
Subjects | Aborigines: New South Wales; Planning and Development; Redfern; Waterloo; Redfern Waterloo Authority |
Speakers | Sartor Mr Frank; Moore Ms Clover |
Business | Bill, Division, Second Reading, Third Reading, In Committee, Motion |
Page: 13272
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 17 November.
Mr FRANK SARTOR (Rockdale—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) [12.18 p.m.], in reply: I have listened intently to the debate and I thank all honourable members for their contributions. A number of issues came out of the second reading debate and, following consultation with the honourable member for Bligh and with the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Wakehurst, I foreshadow that I will move a number of amendments.
I have taken on board some of the suggestions, including an amendment to clause 45 which the honourable member for Wakehurst requested, and amendments will be moved in Committee. The bill will create the Redfern-Waterloo Authority, which will manage public infrastructure, land and properties in the area and promote the social and economic development of the community. By establishing a dedicated body the authority will be able to deal in commercial property management and development, at a distance from the Government, while remaining accountable to the Minister and the community. When the board has been established I will appoint a board and a chief executive officer. I again state for the public record that the honourable member for Bligh, in her capacity as the Lord Mayor of Sydney, will be invited to be a member of the board.
The work of the authority will be funded through the establishment of a Redfern-Waterloo Fund. The issue of funding was raised by the honourable member for Wakehurst and the honourable member for Bligh. The fund will be financed through commercial activity on government land and properties and developer levies including those from the Carlton and United Breweries [CUB] site at Broadway, which is within close proximity to the operational area and is explicitly provided for in the bill. As a starting point, the Redfern-Waterloo Authority will assume control of the Australian Technology Park, including all of its revenue and expenditure and approximately 20 members of staff who are currently employed there. The funding of operational activities will be addressed over time in negotiations with the Treasurer in accordance with the usual annual practice that applies to all State government statutory authorities.
In relation to the Carlton and United Breweries site, it follows from the provisions of clause 29, relating to affordable housing contributions, that developments on the former CUB site will be declared State-significant developments. The capacity of the authority to raise affordable housing contributions on this site will deliver a range of housing choices to the disadvantaged communities of Redfern and Waterloo. I am advised by the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning that he intends to delegate his authorities to the City of Sydney Council in respect of this site. This will enable the council, through its central city planning committee, to undertake the rezoning of the site and exercise the Minister's consent authority's power under the delegation. I am also advised that any instruments of delegation will specify, among other things, that provisions for affordable housing and other development contributions should be consolidated under one provision that is applicable to State- significant development.
In the context of State-significant sites, a schedule has not been finalised and will be the subject of further detailed consideration. However, I am able to say that I expect that most government land at Redfern-Waterloo will be declared State-significant, including the Australian Technology Park, the Eveleigh railway workshop and the Department of Housing assets, the Block and surrounding areas as well as the Carlton and United Breweries site as explicitly mentioned in the bill. At this stage other sites have not been settled or determined. If the honourable member for Bligh is concerned, I will be happy at a later stage to discuss the matter with her.
The possibility of disputes between Ministers was also mentioned during the debate. The bill provides explicitly that the Premier will resolve differences between Ministers. The provisions in relation to surplus land are not dissimilar to provisions in the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority legislation. They provide that if the Minister agrees that the land is surplus to core business, it will be transferred under terms and conditions to be negotiated, with the Premier having a right to arbitrate disputes. That is how issues are resolved between Ministers—either by a Cabinet process or by the Premier, and that will apply in relation to this project.
A big issue with this project is consultation. It is my view and the Government's view that consultation is a pretty vital part of this exercise. The Government is committed to ensuring that the community will be consulted on, for example, development of the Redfern-Waterloo Plan. In accordance with clause 14 (3) of the bill, the Minister for Redfern-Waterloo will consult widely with the community and all levels of government when developing the plan. In this regard I am sympathetic to the amendment foreshadowed by the honourable member for Bligh, which is intended to strengthen the authority's consultation process. The amendment will be considered at the Committee stage.
In accordance with clause 11 of the bill the Minister may establish advisory committees consisting of members of the local community to advise on matters and strategies to be included in the plan. It is my intention that advisory committees will be established and will be appropriately focused on providing the support and detailed assessment necessary which it will not always be appropriate for the board itself to consider. Consultation on this project began in November 1998. Between November 2001 and March 2004 substantial consultation was undertaken involving 1,500 participants. Collectively the consultations addressed all issues associated with Redfern and Waterloo, including youth, infrastructure development, the delivery of human services and community safety.
The information that was collected in these consultations has been used to inform public policy and service delivery. The environmental planning aspects of the Redfern-Waterloo Plan will be addressed through environmental planning instruments under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Other aspects of the plan will address broader social issues, such as human services delivery and employment. It is fair to say that addressing the concerns and issues associated with Redfern-Waterloo will be a significant challenge. It is equally fair to say that consultation will be a vital part of the process. The process will be important, but it is also important to note that the authority, the Minister and the Government must try to reconcile competing claims.
Claims are always made during a consultation process and some involve requests for more public resources, which may or may not be available, absent infinite taxation revenue. But government has an important role in reconciling competing claims and ensuring that progress is made toward outcomes that will result in improvements in the area through a degree of leadership. Consultation is important, but at the end of the day governments have responsibility to ensure that there is progress: put another way, talking is great, but at some point, doing becomes even better. While it is essential to discuss, debate and settle on correct courses of action, at the same time it is essential to affect progress by taking action. The Government has a very genuine commitment to achieving better outcomes for Redfern-Waterloo.
Under the provisions of the bill the Heritage Act 1977 will not apply to land or development in the operational area which is declared to be State-significant under the Redfern-Waterloo Plan, despite prohibition or restriction under the Heritage Act. This provision ensures that the authority is free to develop infrastructure for the benefit of the local community. For example, the Redfern railway station has been identified as an appropriate location for a town centre, as called for by the local community. But the station site's development needs to balance a whole range of complex issues. It must meet the requirements of the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act and meet RailCorp's future operational requirements as well as other functional and planning requirements. It is important in redeveloping the railway station to balance the needs of competing claims in a relatively expeditious manner. Any development process will be subject to public consultation, as the Government is required, and intends, to engage in.
It is important to note that clause 28 is not a unique provision. The power is comparable to the provisions of the Walsh Bay Development (Special Provisions) Act, for example. I also point out that clause 28 is circumscribed substantially because the function to which it relates has to be identified in the Redfern-Waterloo Plan and it has to be essential for achieving development. There are some provisions that circumscribe the exercise of the power provided in clause 28. Concern has also been expressed about provisions relating to authorised officers. I point out that those provisions mirror the provisions of the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority Act. The exercise of their functions will be limited to the operational area of the authority. The functions may well be necessary, especially in relation to public domain supervision.
As I have already pointed out to the honourable member for Bligh and the honourable member for Wakehurst, the bill provides for delegation and assignment of functions to other organisations. It may well be that functions are required to be carried out by authorised officers and that those functions are already being carried out by the officers of the City of Sydney Council. In that event it may make a great deal of sense to outsource those functions. I have held discussions with the Minister for Police. There is no intention to duplicate police work or appoint officers to carry out police work. That is not the intention of clause 28; it is included in the bill to import flexibility. I particularly have in mind in relation to clause 28 issues relating to management of the public domain. I know that there are some challenges currently associated with the Australian Technology Park, and meeting those challenges may require the appointment of rangers, for example. If this clause is exercised, the functions may well be delegated to officers of the City of Sydney Council or some other body.
The honourable member for Wakehurst and the honourable member for Bligh have referred to the process by which the operational area can be expanded. I acknowledge the contribution of the honourable member for Wakehurst in suggesting an amendment to clause 45, which I intend to accept. One important issue relates to social impact statements. We need to distinguish between the role of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority and the role of the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project [RWPP]. The creation of the authority is one aspect of the Government's response to extensive consultation with the Redfern and Waterloo communities over recent years. The Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project will continue its work to improve the socioeconomic conditions of the Redfern and Waterloo communities by focusing on issues such as community safety and the delivery of human services.
The establishment of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority and the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project was a clear acknowledgment of the need to have two interrelated but separate bodies, each having a defined focus of delivery in quite separate areas of responsibility. The continued placement of the RWPP within the Premier's Department will ensure that the capacity exists to drive change across all government agencies. Some members suggested that the authority was focused on infrastructure development. This is the case. The RWPP has the unambiguous responsibility for leading the reshaping of human service delivery in Redfern and Waterloo.
The community has a right to expect effective and accountable services that have the capacity to meet their needs. It is my responsibility as Minister to ensure that all services, government and non-government, deliver on these expectations. The bill and the ongoing work of the Redfern-Waterloo partnership represent a bold and earnest attempt by the Government to address decades of social and economic disadvantage in Redfern and Waterloo. Some of the provisions are more in the nature of reserve powers. Nevertheless, the Government believes that the necessary authority should be provided so as to maximise the prospect of success of this very important initiative. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Clauses 1 to 13 agreed to.
Ms CLOVER MOORE (Bligh) [12.32 p.m.], by leave: I move my amendments Nos 1 to 4 in globo:
No. 1 Page 6, clause 14 (1) (a), lines 5-8. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
(a) to promote, facilitate, manage, undertake and secure the social, economic, ecological and other sustainable development and use of the operational area, including the development and management of land, the provision of infrastructure and the establishment of public areas,
No. 2 Page 6, clause 14 (1) (f), line 21. Insert "sustainable" before "improvement".
No. 3 Page 6, clause 14 (3), lines 27 to 29. Omit "The Authority is to consult with, as appropriate, any non-government agency or community group dealing with such issues."
No. 4 Page 6, clause 14. Insert after line 29:
(4) In exercising any of its functions, the Authority is, in such cases as it thinks appropriate, to consult with local government, the business community, the local indigenous community, local non-government agencies and the general community.
The honourable member for Canterbury and the honourable member for Heffron, who have grave concerns about the Aboriginal community in Redfern and Waterloo, expressed their support for this bill because it would address the social problems of Redfern and Waterloo, and the Block in particular. We should not fool ourselves. This legislation is not intended to fix the social problems in Redfern and Waterloo. When we look closely at the bill in Committee we will see that it is nothing more than a grab for cash. With stamp duty revenue way down, the Government is looking for a new source of revenue. I have grave concerns about aspects of this bill. Indeed, the bill could be described as a Trojan horse to annex more land from local government by stealth. As we were waiting for this debate to come on, one member said to me, "We are really creating another level of government."
I believe that this legislation can have dramatic consequences for large tracts of inner-city land. I am concerned about the setting up of what could be considered by many as a special police force, and about the extraordinary and unfettered powers being given to the Minister under this legislation. It is important that all honourable members, who, over the years, have expressed their grave concerns about the Block, Redfern and Waterloo, support my amendments. Amendments Nos 1 to 4, which I understand the Government will support—and I welcome that—introduce new references in the bill to "social, ecological and sustainable development" in relation to the authority's functions. Without these amendments, the authority would read that it is:
… to promote, co-ordinate, manage, undertake and secure orderly and economic development.
These amendments will add the words "social, ecological and sustainable development" to improve the nature of the authority. While I believe this bill is fundamentally the wrong approach, these amendments represent a modest step in the right direction. Addressing and combining community and physical renewal at the same time is critical for the Redfern-Waterloo area. There is an opportunity to build on the work that has been achieved by the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project. Sustainable development should be a central element to the bill. I mean "sustainability" in all senses of the word; I mean environmental, community and economic sustainability, which is fundamental to effective outcomes for this area.
The Redfern-Waterloo area needs rigorous and long-term outcomes. The only way this will be achieved is through a well-planned process that ignites community imagination and pride. These amendments will strengthen the provisions relating to the authority's obligation to engage with local government. I note that the Minister in his reply to the second reading debate said that there had been extensive consultation. I have been involved in all the consultation that has occurred since the Redfern-Waterloo project was set up. I am concerned about this area, which is in my electorate. As the Premier's Department representative, Michael Ramsey, knows, the consultation has left a lot to be desired in terms of informing the community that it was on and engaging the community during the process. The Minister cannot say that there has been effective and exhaustive consultation since the Redfern-Waterloo project was set up. Consultation is the major area that has fallen down, and I have said that to two Premiers.
Community engagement and consultation is critical in addressing the longstanding local problems. The community wants to be involved in the process. We have a fine line to tread, and any new approach must be inclusive and implemented sensitively so that it does not alienate people. I agree absolutely with the Minister, who said that there needs to be action—I have been saying that for years—rather than talk. But what we are debating in this bill is the nature of the action. I have always spoken for the rights of people in this community, and I have supported their right effectively to be involved in the process and to have a say in the future of their area. This bill has significant omissions, and I believe that my amendments Nos 1 to 4 will improve it.
[Consideration interrupted.]