PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Contact us | Advanced search |   search
  1. Home
  2. Hansard
  3. Legislative Council by date
  4. 2 March 2005

Standing Committee On Social Issues

Printing Tips | Print selected text | Full Day Hansard Transcript | « Prior Item | Item 27 of 47 | Next Item »


About this Item
SubjectsPolice: New South Wales; Parliamentary Committees: New South Wales: Social Issues; Riots; Aborigines: New South Wales; Drug Abuse
SpeakersBurnswoods The Hon Jan
BusinessCommittee, Report, Motion


    STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES
Page: 14402


    Report: Inquiry into Issues Relating to Redfern and Waterloo: Interim Report

    Debate resumed from 10 November 2004.

    The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [2.30 p.m.], in reply: As no other honourable member wishes to speak to the take-note debate of the Standing Committee on Social Issues report entitled "Inquiry into Issues Relating to Redfern and Waterloo: Interim Report", I will briefly reply to the debate as the chair of that committee. Honourable members may recall that the interim report of the committee was tabled in August 2004 and the final report was tabled in early December 2004. However, because of the standing orders of the Legislative Council, this debate is about the interim report. Although debate has taken place since the committee produced the final report, the standing orders require that I speak only to the interim report at this time.

    On behalf of the committee, I again thank the committee secretariat for its work in preparing the interim report and the final report. In particular, I thank Julie Langsworth, who continued as the acting director of our committee after her appointment to the Standing Committee on State Development. She continued to be in charge of the Redfern and Waterloo inquiry. I thank Rachel Callinan, who was lent to us by the Standing Committee on Law and Justice for the purposes of the Redfern inquiry. Without the work of Julie and Rachel, what was already a relatively difficult inquiry would have been much more difficult. I thank them and the other committees that, in effect, lent them to us.

    I will not make much comment about the contributions members of the committee and other members made to this debate. They raised a variety of issues, a number of which have been addressed in the final report of the committee, by the actions the Government has taken and by the legislation that passed through this House to establish the Redfern-Waterloo Authority late last year. The issues have also been addressed in the Government response to the report, which has been received. I will mention some of the issues that arose out of this debate that are mentioned in the Government's response to the report, which was tabled in the House. A large part of the Government response dealt with policing issues, which reflects the fact that a large part of the interim report dealt with policing issues. The Government response outlined the various steps that have been announced by the Government that relate to a number of the committee's recommendations. The Government response also deals with events, actions and policy announcements that have occurred since that time. If honourable members want to follow the progress of the inquiry and what has come out of it, they should look at the Government response that was tabled recently.

    Many of the committee's recommendations have been adopted, some have not and some are on hold. For instance, of interest to honourable members, particularly the Hon. Ian West, is the committee recommendation that in addition to the six-month review of policing matters, as proposed by the Minister, there be an 18-month review. Six months seems fairly short. To some extent, the Government is probably hedging its bets. In its response to the report, after the summary of the committee's recommendations, it says, "The New South Wales Government will determine the need for further review once the outcomes of the six months review is finalised." When the committee was adopting the interim report, it recommended a review of incidents of violence against police during the past decade.

    The Government has said in its response that the police will not undertake a review as the resources required to undertake such a task are too great to warrant the expense. One can understand, as so often happens, that using resources to record a problem rather than address a problem is difficult for governments. For example, using resources to examine the history of something may be far less important to the police than using the resources to deal with the issues. Nevertheless, I hope that our report and inquiry has contributed towards an awareness of violence against police. I hope the Government and the police will address that issue. It is not in order for me to address most of the other issues raised in the Government response as they relate to the committee's final report. The House will take note of that report in the future.

    However, I refer to comments in relation to the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project, which has been extended until 2006, with an additional $5 million. That was announced in May, prior to the committee completing its interim report. A number of announcements have been made in relation to the partnership project and its place within the structure of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority. It is under the broad authority of Minister Sartor and the new Minister for Community Services, Ms Reba Meagher, who replaced the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt. As we know from debate on the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Bill last year, those issues will be of ongoing interest to committee members and the House.

    Another issue dealt with at considerable length in the interim report relates to the Aboriginal Housing Company and the redevelopment of the Block. That issue remains, in public terms, no more advanced now than it was when the committee made its interim report. I note that the Government response has a relatively short paragraph in relation to the audit and other things that we talked about in our report but, in terms of the major issue, it says the renewal of the Block is the subject of ongoing negotiation between the Government and the Aboriginal Housing Company. This is obviously a complex issue. The land and houses are owned by the Aboriginal Housing Company, and in order to redevelop the Block, and make it a good place to live for existing tenants and all others who could live there, requires the expenditure of a large number of millions of dollars. The real question comes back to: What kind of redevelopment is appropriate and who contributes the money? I reiterate the committee's recommendation that the three tiers of government—State, Federal and local—have definite responsibilities in relation to Aboriginal people and the Block, and that all three tiers of government need to be involved in resolving those issues that focus on the area known as the Block.

    Motion agreed to.

         Contact us | Job opportunities | Site help | Copyright and conditions | Privacy | RSS feeds Parliament of NSW RSS feeds