1. Home
  2. Hansard & Papers
  3. Legislative Council
  4. 7 June 2005
Contact Print this page Reduce font size Increase font size

Standing Committee on Social Issues

Printing Tips | Print selected text | Full Day Hansard Transcript         « Prior Item | Item 49 of 59 | Next Item »

About this Item
Subjects -  Aborigines: New South Wales; Police: New South Wales; Parliamentary Committees: New South Wales: Social Issues; Redfern; Waterloo; Riots; T.J. Hickey
Speakers - Burnswoods The Hon Jan; Pearce The Hon Greg; Griffin The Hon Kayee; Chesterfield-Evans The Hon Dr Arthur; West The Hon Ian
Business - Committee, Report


    STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES
Page: 16402


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

    Debate resumed from 22 February 2005.

    The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [8.10 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak first on the take-note debate on the final report of the Standing Committee on Social Issues into issues relating to Redfern and Waterloo. In accordance with the original resolution of the House, the committee tabled an interim report. Debate on that report commenced in November last year and concluded in March this year. In the meantime the final report was tabled in December last year, four months after the interim report. To make a complex series of reports on this matter even more complex, I place on record the fact that the Government responded to the interim report and the final report and that the Government response was tabled in February this year.

    Therefore, we can now take note of the final report and examine the actions taken by the Government in the weeks prior to the tabling of this report. At that time lengthy and detailed debate took place in this House on legislation to set up the Redfern-Waterloo Authority. In addition, there has been detailed debate in this House and in the community on other aspects of Redfern and Waterloo. I am sure it must irritate and distress the people of Waterloo that so often they are paired with Redfern but, unfortunately, the Redfern issues appear to attract greater public emphasis than those of Waterloo. Indeed, the committee discovered during its site visits and in evidence that there are very real problems in Waterloo, and it would be unfortunate if those problems were overlooked because of a concentration on matters to do with Redfern.

    The terms of reference of the inquiry into Redfern and Waterloo were to inquire into and report on policing strategies and resources in the two areas; to look at the Federal, State and local government programs, as well as the amazing variety of non-government services in the two suburbs; to examine the strategies of the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project, which was set up under the auspices of the Premier's Department; and to look with particular reference to the needs of the local indigenous community and the, unfortunately, longstanding proposals about the future of the Block.

    The inquiry resulted from the very tragic death of a young Aboriginal man and the riot that followed in February last year. On behalf of committee members I reiterate our deep regret at the death of that young man. The inquiry highlighted issues that have been raised many times about the considerable disadvantage experienced by the Aboriginal community, much of which lay behind the tragic death and some of the incidents that followed. It also noted the disadvantage of the non-Aboriginal community.

    The way we structured the inquiry meant that some issues were dealt with more fully in the interim report that was tabled in August, and others were dealt with more fully in the final report. I shall now turn to the specifics. The final report has six chapters. The first comprises the introduction and the last is an attempt to sum up and look forward. The other four chapters deal in detail with policing issues. Nevertheless, many major policing issues were dealt with in the interim report and a large number of recommendations were made. Also at the time we had the advantage of the response from the former Minister for Police, John Watkins, and recommendations that arose out of announcements he made. Those who read the response also need to read the interim report.

    It is interesting to also consider matters that have come to light since then. After completing an inquiry, members often continue to be interested in the area and sometimes the Standing Committee on Social Issues plays a useful monitoring role after completion of a report. For instance, I was interested to read the report of the NSW Ombudsman, tabled in April this year, entitled "Working with Local Aboriginal Communities—Audit of the Implementation of the NSW Police Aboriginal Strategic Direction". Committee members, and the Hon. Ian West in particular, will remember that we spent some time looking at that Aboriginal strategic direction policy. Indeed, we raised concerns about its implementation in New South Wales, and in Redfern in particular.

    The Ombudsman's report tabled this year contains a reference to the report of the Standing Committee on Social Issues and a number of positive references agreeing with some of committee's recommendations. The interim report and the final report referred to Aboriginal community liaison officers [ACLOs]. We attempted to grapple with the important role these people play—the almost impossible position they are placed in often as intermediaries, in a sense, between Aboriginal people and the police force. Often they are placed in a position in which it is almost impossible to please both sides. There has been too long a delay in addressing issues relating to ACLOs, including their training and problems associated with filling vacancies in many areas. However, I was pleased to read in Red Tape, the wonderful journal of the New South Wales Public Service Association, that after a 15-year fight big improvements in pay and working conditions have been won for the 53 ACLOs in the New South Wales police service.

    Committee members who talked to the ACLOs and inquired into their difficult position will welcome the improvements in pay and working conditions that have been gained through industrial negotiation and the commission. It is yet more positive evidence of the worth of the New South Wales industrial relations system and evidence of what we might lose if the Federal Government proceeds with its plans with regard to industrial relations. The final report dealt also with issues that arose out of the human services review, which had been under way prior to our committee starting its inquiry. That review was commissioned by the Government through the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project. The consultants took a long time to present their report, and there was another delay before the report and the Government's response were made available.

    Chapter 3 of our report deals totally with the human services review and its findings and recommendations. It contains also our critique on some of those findings and recommendations. In general, we found the review useful. Some of our critique picked up points that the authors of the review made, for instance, the difficulties created because that review did not examine core government activities and because some Aboriginal organisations failed to participate in the review. Nevertheless, the useful document is continuing to guide the policies and actions of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority. Chapter 4 was devoted to looking at government and non-government services. Again, that was informed by the work of the human services review.

    From the beginning it was clear that a complex system operated in Redfern and Waterloo, where a confusing mix of government and non-government agencies have grown up over many years. In some areas there was a multiplicity of specific non-government agencies, sometimes in effect competing with one another, and often the differences in their goals and objectives was not clear to people in the community. That is not to criticise the hard work and motivation of the workers in those agencies. But these areas, as long-term disadvantaged communities, have gradually built up a diverse and complex mixture of agencies. I think all committee members agreed that it was time some of those complexities were sorted out and rationalised.

    The chapter's subheadings indicate the important matters into which we inquired: child protection, youth services, specific services for Aboriginal people, drug and alcohol services and mental health services, education, housing, employment, ageing and disability services, services for culturally and linguistically diverse communities and community development programs. That list alone provides an insight into the complex nature of the inquiry. It should also be said that, with the partial exception of specific services for Aboriginal people, every one of those service mixes operates in every community in New South Wales in one way or another, whether they are located close to where people live or are somewhat less accessible. The mix encompasses the range of government and non-government services that exist in all communities in New South Wales. The report's detail provides evidence of the need for the mix of services in Redfern and Waterloo to be rationalised and improved.

    The final chapter of this substantial and detailed report deals with the establishment of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority. As I said, the bill establishing the authority was being debated in this place just as the committee was completing its report. If I remember rightly, the authority began its operations in late December or at the beginning of January. So the committee looked back on the role of the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project, the role of which was transferred to the Redfern-Waterloo Authority. The committee commented on the way the authority was likely to operate. However, we did not go into much detail because we did not see it as our role to predict the future. We had a big enough task to deal with the issues of that time.

    As I said, the establishment of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority is welcomed. While it has been criticised from a number of points of view, it is probably agreed that the suburbs of Redfern and Waterloo have long been identified as amongst the most disadvantaged in New South Wales, with low employment, high drug and alcohol misuse and poor health, diverse ethnic and linguistic make-up, and the richness of cultures and community spirit that go with that. However, it is important that we do not focus on the negatives of Redfern and Waterloo. Many communities in New South Wales would probably envy the community spirit in Redfern and Waterloo. Nevertheless, the emphasis is welcomed. [Time expired.]

    The Hon. GREG PEARCE [8.25 p.m.]: This second report followed the tragic death of TJ Hickey and the resultant riots in Redfern. On behalf of the Opposition I again express deep regret at that unfortunate death. The inquiry, like many before it, revealed a history of government neglect, inadequate funding and cover-up in relation to the area. The committee, in its interim report, quoted Dr Col Gellatly's evidence, in which he talked about poor or non-existent co-ordination, inadequate accountability, duplication of services and underresourced, untrained and non-viable services in the area. A critical part of the Government's response was the human services review, which was initially supposed to be completed by June 2004. However, it was completed only in November, and the committee received the report only after another request to the Government. That delay highlighted our concerns about the Carr Government's commitment and capacity to address the deep-seated problems in Redfern and Waterloo.

    The Carr Government's history of failure to openly and proactively deal with these problems was apparent during the course of the human services review. The review enabled us to understand the significant problems, but it was not accompanied by any extra money. The Carr Government's major promise was to come up with a human services plan. Dr Gellatly told the committee that the business plan, as he called it, would be completed by June 2005 and made public. It is now June 2005 and I look forward to seeing that human services plan for Redfern and Waterloo.

    In addition to the delay in completing the human services plan there were a number of other concerns. We heard considerable evidence about the conduct of the review—on the one hand a lack of consultation and communication and, on the other hand, unnecessary bureaucracy and the sopping up of time and resources from non-government agencies. However, the major concern was the failure of the review to include core government services. I refer honourable members to the discussion referred to in paragraph 3.55 and other paragraphs of the report in which it is made plain that key areas such as housing, education and child protection, which need to be improved, were not the subject of the review.

    The Opposition's greatest concern is the role of the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project. In the interim report we said it was a failure. Management of the human services review and the failure to get it completed in the final stage confirms that statement. The report makes a number of references to the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project. Paragraph 6.13 sums it up in this way:

    The Committee believes that a major problem is the lack of trust the community has in the Government and in particular the RWPP.

    One wonders at the confidence of the Carr Government in the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project and the establishment of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority. Paragraph 5.78 contains a quote from the Minister when he introduced legislation for the authority and made the point that the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project will lead the Government's reform of the human services review system while the focus of the authority is on job creation, urban renewal, improved public amenity and enhanced commercial activity. That shows a lack of confidence by the Government in the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project. One wonders why the Government has stuck with it, given that its announcement included funding for the project only until 2008 and the authority is meant to be a 10-year project, and given that the Premier has talked about a 25-year time frame for Redfern and Waterloo.

    The Opposition believes there should be a co-ordinating body. In this respect I refer honourable members to recommendation 30. While the committee was resolute in using its numbers to stick with the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project, it had to accept the establishment of a co-ordinating body. Recommendation 30 and a number of paragraphs surrounding the recommendation referred to the project "or a similar co-ordinating body". However, it must be adequately resourced, its performance must be measured and it must have adequate powers. The failure to address those core services in particular disqualified the Department of Community Services [DOCS]. I draw the attention of honourable members to chapter 4 and paragraphs 4.15, 4.19 and 4.22 to highlight the difficulties and inadequacies of DOCS categorising and dealing with kids and their level of problems, and promises made by the Government of further funding for DOCS—funding which has not be provided.

    The committee was extremely concerned about the level of drug use and related criminal activity in Redfern and Waterloo, particularly around the Block and Redfern railway station. The Government response to the Coburn report is discussed in this report. A review was supposed to have taken place six months after that decision—around January. Following the review the major concerns remained. The first was that strike force Timepiece, which was set up to deal with the worst people in the riot, seemed to have been terminated early. The second concern related to Aboriginal community liaison officers [ACLOs].

    I draw the attention of honourable members to paragraphs 2.102 to 2.105. I urge some caution in reading those paragraphs as I believe that rather than state the true story they reflect the Chair's views of the majority members in relation to what happened with the ACLOs. Also in the interim report we expressed our concern about the necessity to remove the needle van. The Government has promised a new health facility but there is some ambiguity about what is to happen with the needle van. With regard to paragraph 4.76 other needs have to be addressed, particularly the lack of detoxification and rehabilitation facilities close to the area, problems of truancy, the suspension and expulsion of children from schools, the need for a 24-hour youth crisis centre, and the lack of youth facilities generally.

    In regard to the Aboriginal Housing Company and the development of the Block, we support the continued ownership of the Block by the indigenous community but we expressed concerns in the interim report about the capacity and objectives of the Aboriginal Housing Company in relation to the development of the Block. The Government's response in creating the Redfern-Waterloo Authority is a farce given that Government members of the committee insisted that the Block be developed by the Aboriginal Housing Company without dealing with the issues that have been raised.

    We are concerned that the Carr Government sees the Redfern-Waterloo area as a property play rather than an area that has a list of complex social issues that need urgent attention. I draw the attention of honourable members to the evidence of Charlie Richardson and others who expressed their concerns about the way the authority was set up, the lack of consultation and the role of Minister Sartor as the funnel point for any Government funding.

    Scrutiny by this committee and the public has produced results in Redfern and Waterloo. The Government has acted but it still has not been able to escape from its need for spin and cover-up. I am pleased that early attempts by the chair and government members to remove the word "riot" from any references failed. Not only does the word "riot" appear in paragraph 2.79 of the report, but also tonight the chair of the committee talked about the riot. The inquiry had some unfortunate experiences, particularly having to hear evidence from people like Lyall Munro, to whom the majority of the committee wanted to give credence. He certainly did not deserve it. I thank the members of the secretariat, who worked very hard on the interim report and the final report. It would not have been possible to produce such reports without them. [Time expired.]

    The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN [8.35 p.m.]: In speaking in support of the final report of the committee I will comment on some of the issues that arose as a result of the committee's hearings and discussions. During the inquiry the committee received 94 submissions and heard evidence from more than 100 witnesses. This included representatives from the Aboriginal community, a broad range of government and non-government service providers and community groups, and young people from the area. The committee conducted a number of site visits and consultations in the Redfern-Waterloo area. I thank the expert witnesses who gave their time to appear before the committee and I thank those who facilitated our site visits. I appreciate that it would not be easy to organise a large number of people, particularly people working in non-government organisations, at specific sites to have discussions with our committee.

    The meetings were well organised and those who facilitated the visits made our task of speaking to the many community representatives much easier. In particular, I thank the Jumbunna House of Indigenous Learning at the University of Technology Sydney, representatives from the Aboriginal community, the young people from the area, representatives from the Russian community in Waterloo, Mick Mundine and other employees of the Aboriginal Housing Company, and members of the South Sydney and Koori south eastern Sydney interagencies. Their contribution was vital to the committee's deliberations and final report.

    A concern highlighted in both the interim report and the final report was that the residents of Redfern and Waterloo do not regard themselves as being part of a single community. They regard themselves as two well-defined, individual communities with individual problems and issues. That became apparent after speaking with the groups. We must respect the fact that although the communities work together, they are separate communities with separate issues and separate social problems, and each has culturally diverse sectors. It was gratifying that these groups met with the committee to speak about individual issues facing the communities of Redfern and Waterloo. They were frank about problems in their areas and suggested ways to resolve those problems.

    Although the two communities face very different issues, not all are unique to either community. They face similar problems of accessing resources through government and non-government sectors. It is difficult to know how many community groups operate within a specific area. It was apparent from our discussions that there were problems with communication between community groups and government and non-government agencies, with the duplication of services and with regard to service gaps.

    A number of references have been made to the difficulties faced by Aboriginal community liaison officers [ACLOs] having to deal with their own communities and represent the local area command. Their task is most difficult, as they have to be involved with both sides. They are sometimes viewed with suspicion with regard to their motivation for doing the job. Their job is not an easy one, as it involves policing issues. It is not easy to get a community on side when there are major concerns in various sections of that community. The committee made a number of recommendations in relation to ACLOs. These problems are not peculiar to Redfern and Waterloo. ACLOs throughout New South Wales face similar issues. The committee expressed concern about the adequacy of training for ACLOs and police officers in the local area command to deal with cultural awareness issues. The committee is pleased that additional training has been introduced. I am hopeful that it will continue. It was proposed that the training program be reviewed to assess its appropriateness and whether it assisted the Redfern ACLOs and the police officers attached to Redfern local area command.
    The committee conducted several hearings with representatives from NSW Police. In particular, the committee was interested in the implementation of programs at Redfern local area command, the integration of ACLOs with police and whether ACLOs were regarded as playing an important role in the policing process with the local community. The final report of the committee was a unanimous report—a pleasing result, given the issues the committee had to work through during the interim report, the recommendations of which not all committee members agreed with. The committee members have worked extremely hard to produce a final report that reflects the concerns of the community and takes into account the positive proposals and recommendations expressed by the community. I refer in particular to the concerns of young people and the Russian community in Waterloo, many of which related to the provision of services by government and non-government agencies and the relationship between the local community and police. Generally, police have an extremely difficult job, but it is even more difficult in this area, which has been the focus of the media since the unfortunate death of TJ Hickey. I thank all committee members for the work they put into this inquiry and report. [Time expired.]

    The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [8.45 p.m.]: I have much pleasure contributing to the debate on this very good and unanimous report. I take considerable personal pride in my involvement in this inquiry. Honourable members will recall that initially the Government did not want an inquiry at all, and the Opposition wanted an inquiry that concentrated on the response of police to the riots after the death of TJ Hickey. After some considerable negotiation I managed to have the Government and the Opposition agree to more sociologically aware terms of reference that called for an inquiry into not merely the immediate problem of the riots but also the tinder, as it were, that sparked the riots.

    I take some credit for negotiating with the Government a more sociological examination of the issues by the Standing Committee on Social Issues. In doing so, the Government had to acknowledge there was a problem and the committee was able to inquire into the matter in an open and honest manner. That was achieved quite well. I was pleased to note that the chapters of the interim report reflected my view of the priorities. Indeed, I spoke about that to the media. But I did not leak the report, which I was accused of having done.

    The interim report was more controversial than the final report, so I suppose some progress had been made in that regard. If one looks at the overall situation in Redfern, the Government did have its toe in the water in so far as an awareness of the need for social change is concerned. It had done something, although the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project was very much under the control of an agent of the Premier's Department and, as such, lacked credibility on the ground. This was despite having done some good work. The Government did not have a grip on the number of non-government organisations [NGOs] in the area, despite the fact that they had been working for a couple of years. The Government probably tended to look at the bigger organisations and those with significant assets.

    Relations between police and the Aboriginal community was an important issue. The Aboriginal community liaison officers [ACLOs] were placed in a difficult position in trying to bridge the gap, with the Aborigines thinking the ACLOs would be their advocates with the police, and the police thinking the ACLOs would be their eyes and ears in the Aboriginal community. Indeed, one would have to say that the position of the ACLOs and the difficulties they experienced had not been sorted out at the time the report was written. The point has been made that the problems in the Redfern area, which had predominantly an Aboriginal population, were quite different to the problems in the Waterloo area, where there was an ageing population in public housing. While the report dealt with both suburbs, I believe the issues in those suburbs were quite different and had to be recognised as such.

    The non-government organisations that were delivering services had grown like Topsy, and it is essential that the delivery of human services be better co-ordinated. The Morgan Disney human services review, although not exactly a state of the art review, certainly looked excellent to me in so far as it examined the services that were delivered and how they were delivered. It was one of the biggest service reviews ever undertaken, in terms of its scope. I believe audits need to be about how whole systems function in practice, and the Morgan Disney human services review attempted that. There was some criticism that the examination of the way non-government organisations were delivering services to the people of Redfern and Waterloo involved a big form and a relatively short interview, but such issues have to be looked at by an independent group in a relatively short time frame.

    The Government funds a galaxy of services, and NGOs simply cannot look at the big picture. As I said, the services grew like Topsy and no-one had an overall picture. It was an interesting comment that the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project, despite having been operating for two years, did not have a list of all the NGOs in the area. The Morgan Disney human services review made general statements about services and their integration. I believe there is a guarantee that no services will be de-funded in the short term, but there is another confidential part to the report, which analyses individual NGOs for good or ill. It probably makes recommendations on whether they should be funded. The general feeling is that there are too many non-government organisations and that some rationalisation is needed so that better integrated services can be developed.

    The Morgan Disney report suggests that the regular auditing of services should be monitored in an ongoing way. I believe it would be a bad thing if the monitoring were always to be done by consultants, who could be leaned on to make findings favourable to the Government. My own view is that to achieve continuity and excellence, while retaining the intellectual capital of the ability to do such reviews in the public sector, this type of monitoring of human services and the delivery of services by non-government organisations should be a project of universities; and that such funding should be provided in a reasonably long time frame, say, five years. The methodology of the studies could be developed, they could be longitudinal, and perhaps individual aspects could be studied by postgraduate students.

    The Morgan Disney report was a private consultancy, and my understanding is that it was relatively pioneering, but I believe the methodology needs to be widened and that university departments should probably be the resource. I believe that is the model we should adopt. I am aware that the Centre for Health Services Development at the University of Wollongong does quite a lot of work comparing health inputs and outcomes from the States and from the Federal Government under a Federal Government research grant, and I believe that is the model that New South Wales should adopt. I do not believe these types of ongoing surveys should be undertaken by government. In the tendering for some government contracts for the disability sector in the Hunter a ministerial minder effectively overruled a selection process which was conducted by the public service in an exemplary fashion. Such a recommendation is lacking in transparency and should not have occurred.

    There will always be difficulties related to co-ordination between non-government organisations, but I think the relationships between government and NGO are much more difficult because the government is the funding body and the NGO tends to want to second-guess what the government wants in order to retain its funding. I think that the Department of Community Services is an offender in this regard. As I say, one thing that is essential is an awareness of social issues, and I am not quite sure that has really been addressed. I believe the problem lies in putting total control in one Minister. Minister Sartor is a good Minister, in that he has a relatively keen awareness of people in society, but it all seems to be developer driven with not much money allocated and real estate concessions being the means of funding these services.

    My own view is that the Government should borrow and spend on infrastructure. Provided the return on that capital covers the interest rate, there is nothing wrong with State debt. The idea that the Government must be beholden to developers to do anything is a very bad model. I believe the Government took the committee's report seriously and that its response to the report was reasonable. I felt that the exercise of the Redfern-Waterloo inquiry was most worthwhile. The only thing that worried me a little was that when the riots occurred at Macquarie Fields it seemed that not much had been learned from the Redfern situation in regard to what the Government was doing in other housing commission areas. There appeared to be a tendency to see this as an issue involving the relationship between police and Aborigines. It was almost a racist way of looking at the issue rather than seeing that if all the disadvantaged areas of society are concentrated in one place there will be problems.

    The Macquarie Fields inquiry will test my theory and determine whether I am right in my suggestion as to the problems. Some of the early research work of Tony Vinson, which was carried out when I was a medical student almost 30 years ago, was significant. He suggested that if you take the indices of social dysfunction, school truancy rates, unemployment rates, the number of people below the poverty line and those on welfare as a percentage, you will find that crime exists in areas where there are social difficulties. We need social projects to address this issue. [Time expired.]

    The Hon. IAN WEST [8.55 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak in this take-note debate on the final report of the inquiry into issues relating to Redfern and Waterloo. This report follows on from the interim report of August 2004, which responded to the committee's terms of reference, revolving around the tragic incident at Redfern. The committee members took their task extremely seriously. The committee's interim report addressed issues relating to the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project, the redevelopment of the Block, the policing strategies and resources in the area, the Pemulwuy redevelopment project, the future of the Block, and the vexed issue of the mobile needle and syringe service, which attempted, and still attempts, to address the drug and alcohol issues in Redfern and Waterloo. The interim report produced some 22 recommendations, a number of which are being implemented as a result of the final report, dated December 2004. The interim report's recommendations 15 and 16 referred to the important matter of police undertaking audits and proper intensive training in line with the NSW Police Aboriginal strategies direction document of 2003-06.

    The committee's final report, dated December 2004, dealt with police issues, complex issues regarding the human services review, government and non-government sector co-ordination, integration, and methods of delivering services to the community at large, the Redfern-Waterloo Authority, the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project, and important issues regarding the future of the Redfern-Waterloo area.

    Pursuant to sessional orders debate interrupted.


Last modified 05/12/2007 16:32:50   :   Update this page