1. Home
  2. Hansard & Papers
  3. Legislative Council
  4. 14 September 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 35 of 48 | Next Item »

About this Item
Subjects -  Aborigines: New South Wales; Drugs: Illegal; Police: New South Wales; Parliamentary Committees: New South Wales: Social Issues; Redfern; Waterloo; Riots
Speakers - West The Hon Ian; Parker The Hon Robyn; Deputy-President (The Hon Kayee Griffin); Donnelly The Hon Greg; Primrose The Hon Peter; Fazio The Hon Amanda; Burnswoods The Hon Jan
Business - Committee, Report
Commentary - Thomas TJ Hickey


    STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES
Page: 17668


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

    Debate resumed from 7 June 2005.

    The Hon. IAN WEST [2.31 p.m.]: I am pleased to resume speaking on this very important take-note debate following other members of the committee—the chair, the Hon. Jan Burnswoods; the Hon. Kayee Griffin; and the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans—who had spoken before me. This final report came down in December 2004 and followed our interim report of August 2004. There was much consultation, and evidence was given to us of consultation fatigue. I remember one representative of the non-government agencies who, despite consultation fatigue, expressed extreme hope that improvements would be made to service delivery in Redfern-Waterloo. We were indebted to many members of the Redfern and Waterloo communities who participated, including members of the Aboriginal community, tenants of the Waterloo housing estates, residents and activists of the area, and the young Aboriginal people who spoke to us over many months of important consultation.

    The Ombudsman's report that came down in April 2005 gave us an important reference to the police Aboriginal directions document 2003-06, which was referred to in recommendations 15 and 16 of our interim report. I make particular reference to those recommendations and stress the need for the police to look at that report and ensure that the important matters referred to in those recommendations are properly implemented.

    The final report considered Aboriginal community liaison officers [ACLOs] and issues relating to their pay, their training, their role, the filling of vacancies of ACLOs, support for those important positions, and the briefings that should occur when incidents occur that they are involved in. Clearly, there was a deficiency in the areas of pay and conditions, training, a clear definition of their role, the ability to fill vacancies in a prompt manner, and appropriate briefings for those individuals. There was also a deficiency in coming to grips with the complex issues the ACLOs found themselves involved in when it came to their being pulled between the Aboriginal community wanting them to be its advocate and the police wanting them to be advocate for the police; in many respects they were caught in no man's land. There was a clear need for that issue to be adequately addressed.

    The Ombudsman's report made reference to the Social Issues Committee's document, and it is pleasing that the Ombudsman has read our interim and final reports in some detail and has taken up a number of our recommendations. Chapter 3 of our report dealt with the human resources review and its findings and recommendations. From the beginning it was clear that a complex system was operating in Redfern and Waterloo. There was a confusing mix of government and non-government operations and there was a need for much better co-ordination of those functions.

    Some of those functions are listed as subheadings in chapter 3. They include child protection, youth services, specific services to Aboriginal people, drug and alcohol services, mental health services, education, housing, employment, ageing and disability services, culturally and linguistically diverse communities, and community development programs. Those very important issues are being looked at in the human resources review document and have been reviewed by the Government in its response to our report. The final chapter of the report related to the establishment of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority, which was welcomed by the communities of Redfern and Waterloo. [Time expired.]

    The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [2.41 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak on the final report of the inquiry into Redfern and Waterloo. Although the report was tabled some time ago, we are unaware of the Government's response in a number of areas. As honourable members would be aware, the inquiry was instigated following the tragic death of TJ Hickey and the subsequent riot in Redfern. The interim report dealt with urgent matters, one of which was the removal of the needle exchange van from the Block. That issue is still unresolved.

    The second report examined matters in more detail. We undertook the inquiry under difficult circumstances because we lacked so much information. Whilst formulating the first interim report we were unable to obtain the Coburn report into policing, which had been delayed. That information was not available to us. When we undertook the second stage of the inquiry and the final report, information such as the Human Services Review was not available until the very end of the inquiry. The Government continuously made pre-emptive announcements about processes, particularly about the establishment of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority.

    The committee then examined the issues in depth. We looked at ways to support policing and increase the level of training for police who deal with the indigenous community. We looked at drug and alcohol use and abuse on the Block and surrounding areas and issues relating to Waterloo. The Government established the Redfern-Waterloo Authority, headed by Minister Sartor, while the committee was still undertaking the inquiry. The task of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority was to develop a Redfern-Waterloo plan for infrastructure development and redevelopment of the area. Some months later there has been little or no action on the authority's plans and recommendations.

    The recommendations included the redevelopment of the Block in partnership with the Aboriginal Housing Company and an examination into the future of Waterloo high-rise housing and a health facility establishment. What stage are we at? Typical of this Government, we are at the stage of the release of a glossy brochure entitled "The Redfern Waterloo Update, August 2005". After handing down a substantial report that included many recommendations and the establishment of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority, the Government has released a glossy brochure, produced with taxpayers' funds, which includes an open letter from Minister Sartor to Mick Mundine, the Chief Executive Officer of the Aboriginal Housing Company, in which he states that he does not want to redevelop the Block in accordance with the proposals put by the Aboriginal Housing Company.

    The Minister states in a glossy brochure, produced with taxpayers' money, that he is unable to properly negotiate with the Aboriginal Housing Company and calls on the company to agree with the requirements of the task force. There are lots of taxpayers' dollars going into producing glossy brochures and establishing committees, but there is not much action. There are lots of advisory committees being established, but there is not much happening. In the open letter Minister Sartor states:

    Let's work together to find a shared vision for the Block and make it a place for all of us to be proud of.

    The Hon. Ian West: Point of order: I assume the Hon. Robyn Parker is dealing with the final report, which I spoke to previously. That report was delivered in December 2004. The documents she is referring to are dated August 2005. I ask that the member be directed to keep to the take-note debate.

    The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: To the point of order: The report, which has numerous recommendations that refer to the Redfern-Waterloo partnership program, was tabled in 2004. I am discussing the recommendations, the establishment of the Redfern-Waterloo project, and an update in 2005 about the lack of progress. My remarks are completely relevant to the inquiry and this report.

    The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! I do not uphold the point of order. However, I remind the Hon. Robyn Parker that her remarks must be relevant to the report being debated.

    The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: Further recommendations in the report relate to problems in policing and how to deal with riots. This inquiry came about because of a riot. It took another riot in Macquarie Fields following the riot in Redfern before any action was taken to establish a full-time riot squad and before any of the recommendations were acted upon. After those two riots, and soccer riots, action was finally taken to establish a riot squad. The establishment of a riot squad was one of the committee's recommendations, and it took the Government a very long time to act on that recommendation.

    Part of the Minister's directions to the Redfern-Waterloo Authority was to look at the future of the Waterloo public housing buildings and to establish a Redfern-Waterloo plan. Minister Sartor has now scrapped earlier plans to demolish the Department of Housing towers. Those towers will not be demolished and we await the proposals in the Redfern-Waterloo plan. It seems to me that it will invoke land-use zoning to make decisions that ride roughshod over this community. Certainly this report, with all its detail, recommendations and commitments in regard to consultation, seems to be going nowhere.

    I join the people of Redfern and Waterloo in wondering just how many reports have to be presented before the Government will act? How many riots must there be before there is action by this Government? Is the Government prepared to take action only in relation to planning? Is the Government prepared to take action only in relation to glossy brochures? The only action the Government seems prepared to take is to establish committees and utilise zoning to run roughshod over a community in crisis. I congratulate those people who participated in the inquiry and thank them. I express my thanks to the committee secretariat staff—particularly Julie Langsworth for her contribution—who endured very difficult times with the Government making announcements throughout the inquiry. I note that not much has changed in Redfern or Waterloo, even after such a substantial inquiry. I look forward to further developments.

    The Hon. GREG DONNELLY [2.51 p.m.]: I thank the House for the opportunity to speak in this take-note debate. I am not a member of the Standing Committee on Social Issues that investigated this matter, but I have had an opportunity to read the report and I agree with much of what has been said by honourable members who have spoken in this debate. There is a range of issues, issues that have a history and require careful consideration. The problems facing many of the residents of Redfern-Waterloo call for practical solutions. I appreciate the point that the Hon. Robyn Parker was trying to make. She asked: Why have things not been resolved? Why have things not been fixed up? It seems to me—

    The Hon. Robyn Parker: It is over 10 years and nothing has happened.

    The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: I think one could argue that it has taken—

    The Hon. Duncan Gay: It has taken 250 years!

    The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: Exactly, yes. The Opposition would like to reduce things to a specific period of time and blame the Government for not resolving issues—

    The Hon. Robyn Parker: They have to move the needle van.

    The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: —that have been around for a long period of time.

    The Hon. Robyn Parker: The needle van has to be moved.

    The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: If the honourable member believes that a magic wand can be produced to resolve a number of these systemic issues, she is dead wrong.

    The Hon. Robyn Parker: Moving a needle van!

    The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: If the honourable member were to give a fair appraisal of the report she would be even handed and acknowledge that point. I think this issue is far too important for a cheap political stunt, for her to get up in this House and criticise the Government—

    The Hon. Robyn Parker: For not moving the needle van?

    The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: For not having resolved these issues after six months, issues that are obviously of some significance.

    The Hon. Duncan Gay: A glossy response!

    The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: Well, a glossy response? I do not think that that is all the Government is doing.

    The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is all the Government has done.

    The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: I do not believe that is the case at all. In focusing our attention on the issues—

    The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! Honourable members will cease interjecting and allow the Hon. Greg Donnelly to conclude his speech in silence.

    The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: I refer specifically to chapter 4 of the report. I think it is pretty significant to look at the way in which the sections are laid out. Chapter 4 specifically makes reference to child protection, youth services and services to Aboriginal people, in that order, followed by some other items. It strikes me that a number of the problems faced by people living in Redfern-Waterloo turn on the difficulties of the breakdown and disfunctionality of the family structure. The issues that flow from that are reflected across a number of subsequent headings dealt with in the chapter, matters relating to drug and alcohol abuse and matters under the heading of education—truancy, suspension and such like—which also reflect in issues associated with unemployment.

    The Hon. Robyn Parker: What has the Government done about that?

    The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: The honourable member asked: What has the Government done about that? Is she suggesting that the Government creates jobs for people?

    The Hon. Robyn Parker: I am talking about truancy.

    The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: We are talking about a range of issues here. Taking the matter of unemployment among the indigenous youth in the Redfern-Waterloo area, surely the honourable member does not seriously believe that the Government can simply create jobs and say to those people, "Do this work.". The fact of the matter is that indigenous people struggle greatly—not only in that part of Sydney but in parts of regional and rural New South Wales—for job opportunities to be made available to them, opportunities that they can take up. We all know the significance of employment to people in general. The significance of the job means far more than the income derived from it at the end of the week, as important as that is. Employment is linked to identity and self-worth; it affects our self-confidence and a whole range of other matters. The fact that these young people are unemployed—although it is not restricted merely to young people—means they are denied many of the things that we enjoy and just take for granted.

    I will return to the point that I was dealing with in the first instance about the breakdown of the family unit. I believe that one of the big challenges will be for the Government, in co-operation with the community, to develop amongst indigenous people a deeper understanding of the importance and centrality of the family unit to the maintenance of stability required to address a number of the issues they face in Redfern-Waterloo. Some three weeks ago a witness before the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, of which I am a member, informed the committee that between 10,000 and 15,000 Aboriginal people pass through that part of Sydney at any one time. In other words, it is almost an itinerant population constantly turning over. Many people do not permanently reside in the area but are simply passing through. They stay for a short period of time and then return to regional New South Wales. They may be accompanied on the return trip by people who live in the area but elect to travel to regional New South Wales and return later. One of the reasons given by the witnesses was that they come and go because there is not a lot for them there, so far as employment opportunities and a stable family unit are concerned.

    These people do not have a family that they can spend time with during the day or return to in the evening. They cannot enjoy what so many of us take for granted—that is, family stability; somewhere to go to enjoy a meal with mum, dad and the kids, to talk about the day's work or the day at school, to feel they are part of a family and that people care. I do not think anyone underestimates the challenge of trying to come to terms with some of these issues, particularly bearing in mind that Aboriginal people have faced such difficulties, not merely for decades but in some instances for generations. In my view, the provision of drug and alcohol services is important. I think this is obviously an area that the Government is going to give increasing attention to because there is no doubt that the issue of, shall we say, the softer drugs—

    The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Soft drugs? What is a soft drug—an aspro?

    The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: If you will let me finish, I am not talking about aspros; I am talking colloquially about drugs that are deemed to be—

    The Hon. Greg Pearce: Who put you up to wasting time?

    The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: It is not a case of time wasting.

    The Hon. Greg Pearce: It is time-wasting waffle!

    The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: No, it is not time wasting at all.

    The Hon. Greg Pearce: You have not even read the report.

    The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: I have read the report, actually.

    The Hon. Greg Pearce: Have you?

    The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: Yes, I have. On the issue of drugs, I think—

    The Hon. Greg Pearce: Why are you speaking such waffle if you have read the report?

    The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: For the purposes of explaining a spectrum of drugs—

    The Hon. Greg Pearce: You are just wasting time.

    The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: No.

    The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! I remind all members that interjections are disorderly at all times.

    The Hon. Robyn Parker: Drugs are not a joke.

    The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: I do not think anyone on this side of the Chamber has suggested that drugs are a joke. I am talking about the way in which people generally understand drugs. I think it is generally accepted—

    [Interruption]

    Does the Hon. Robyn Parker want an explanation of what is generally understood to be a soft drug?

    The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Is marijuana a good drug?

    The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: Are members opposite looking for an explanation of what is generally understood to be a soft drug? Do they not understand? I am happy to give them an explanation.

    The Hon. Charlie Lynn: What about tolerance?

    The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: It is not a question of tolerance or harm minimisation.

    The Hon. Charlie Lynn: It should be. Harm minimisation is important.

    The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: There is no doubt that the drug problem is a very serious issue. I will read to the House recommendation 18 because I believe it is important. It reads:
    That in implementing the recommendations of the Human Services Review, the Redfern Waterloo Partnership Project ensure the intermediate development of a drug and alcohol services plan and a mental health services plan. Both must provide for adequate local services and culturally appropriate services.

    [Time expired.]

    The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [3.01 p.m.]: I welcome the opportunity to speak to this report. As a former member of the Standing Committee on Social Issues I always take great interest in the excellent reports prepared by the committee, and in particular I took great interest in reading this report. First, I thank the Hon. Robyn Parker. I was fully prepared to speak to the report itself, but the honourable member has allowed me the opportunity to speak about some of the issues that came about from something that she seems not to be aware of. She said she was not aware of a Government response to the report. In fact, I have been carrying the Government's response with me, which is dated 22 February 2005. Of course, I will make that response available to the Opposition's research officers, who obviously do not seem able to use the Internet or the Intranet.

    The Hon. Robyn Parker: Have they done anything about it? Have they acted on it?

    The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: Members opposite did not even know the Government's response existed. They did not even know it was there. Now they are criticising it, saying, "We did not even know it was there." They have been caught out, and now they are saying, "Have you done anything about it?" Members opposite did not even know that the Government's response was there, and now they are saying, "What have you done about it?" The best they can do is pick up a pamphlet. But I have the Government's response.

    The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! I call the Hon. Robyn Parker to order for the first time. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.

    The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: Members opposite did not even know there was a Government response to the report, and now they are saying, "What have you done?" Members opposite should go back to their research officers and say to them, "Don't send me in here with this report and these notes. You should go back and do the proper work." Those people should be drawn into line.

    The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: Madam Deputy-President, I hesitate to draw your attention to this matter, but I note that the Hon. Amanda Fazio is reading a newspaper, which is contrary to the standing orders. I ask you to draw the honourable member's attention to that breach of the standing orders.

    The Hon. Amanda Fazio: To the point of order: I am not reading a newspaper. I am reading a newsletter from the Neuroscience Institute of Schizophrenia and Allied Disorders, which is helping me to understand the carry-on on the other side of the Chamber.

    The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! There is no point of order.

    The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: I apologise to the House for being distracted by the lack of research opposite. For the edification of members opposite I will refer to some of the matters raised by the Hon. Robyn Parker. Again I thank the honourable member for pointing out those matters. The Government's response to the interim and final reports, entitled "Redfern-Waterloo—A report on progress—Inquiry into issues relating to Redfern and Waterloo", is dated February 2005 and appeared under a covering letter signed by Dr Col Gellatly, the Director General of the Premier's Department. The Government's response reads:

    The NSW Government's response to the Inquiry into issues relating to Redfern and Waterloo was announced in two stages, in June and October 2004.

    The Hon. Duncan Gay: Are you going to table this document?

    The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: This is the same group of people who are saying, "What about services? What about community welfare?" During the lead-up to the last State election the Opposition proposed slashing thousands and thousands of community workers, including welfare workers and child protection workers. Yet members opposite now have the gall to say they are concerned about these issues. Two days before the last State election they wanted to savage the welfare sector to pay for their deficit spending, yet now they have the hide to claim that they are concerned about these issues. The Government's response continues:
    In June 2004, the Government announced a package of 32 strategies and initiatives to enhance policing in Redfern.

    In October 2004, the NSW Government committed significant resources to the regeneration of the suburbs of Redfern-Waterloo. This commitment builds on the Government's previous work in the area, and is a radical departure from other work being undertaken in revitalising and strengthening communities in Australia.

    The key elements of the Government's commitment to Redfern-Waterloo are:

    A. the appointment of a Minister with special responsibility for Redfern-Waterloo;

    B. the establishment of a new statutory authority, known as the Redfern-Waterloo Authority (RWA), and an associated fund to facilitate development of the area;

    C. the continuation of the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project (RWPP) until 30 June 2008 and expansion and redirection of the RWPP Team to focus on specific areas of responsibility which complements the role being undertaken by the new RWA; and

    D. the development of three key strategies which address infrastructure, jobs and human services.

    This paper outlines the Government's staged response to the issues raised through the Parliamentary Inquiry and is divided into the following sections:

    Policing in Redfern-Waterloo
    Minister with responsibility for Redfern-Waterloo
    Redfern-Waterloo Plan
    Redfern-Waterloo Authority
    Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project
    Human Services in Redfern-Waterloo
    The Aboriginal Housing Company and redevelopment of The Block.

    With regard to policing in Redfern and Waterloo, the Government's response reads:

    In July 2004, the NSW Government announced a package of 32 strategies and initiatives designed to enhance:

    1. Community safety in the Redfern area;

    2. Strategic and operational effectiveness of the Redfern Local Area Command; and

    3. Support for local frontline police.

    The package, known as Enhanced Policing in Redfern 2004, includes:

    Enhanced police resources;
    Enhanced incident response;
    Enhanced criminal investigation capabilities; and
    Enhanced community engagement by and cultural awareness of police.

    It also provides:

    More police at Redfern;
    More experienced police at Redfern; and
    More support for Redfern police from other NSW Police commands.

        Enhanced Policing in Redfern 2004 is informed by a wide ranging review of policing resources and strategies in Redfern, including:
    Police response to civil unrest in Redfern in February 2004;
    Evidence presented to the Social Issues Committee of the NSW Legislative Council;
    NSW Police Association submissions; and
    Recommendations arising from internal investigations undertaken on behalf of the Commissioner of Police.

    The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: Standing Order 91 (4) provides that a member may read reasonable lengths of extracts from books, newspapers, publications or documents. The emphasis, of course, is on "reasonable lengths" and "extracts". The Hon. Peter Primrose is deliberately filibustering by reading directly at length from a document that is, by his own admittance, a public document and available on the Intranet. He has told honourable members where they can access it. Madam Deputy-President, I request that you draw the honourable member's attention to Standing Order 91 and request him to desist.

    The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: To the point of order: The Opposition raised the fact that it was not aware of the existence of this document that is readily available. I have pointed out that the Opposition's research staff need to go and find the document for Opposition members. However, in relation to this particular matter, the debate is now; the timing is not of my choosing. I am seeking to edify the Hon. Robyn Parker and others about information of which she was unaware, and I am using copious notes to do so.

    The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: The honourable member is misleading the House because he is not using copious notes. The reference to copious notes indicates that they are something originating from the honourable member, but he is reading from a public document.

    The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: To the point of order: This is a take-note debate on a committee report. In my experience, when members are talking about a committee report it is necessary for them to refer in some detail to the recommendations of the committee. That is the very essence of the contents of a report. The Hon. Peter Primrose has been going through the Government's response to the report because the legislation lays down that the Government must respond in detail to the recommendations of the committee. In order to comply with the terms of legislation that establish committees such as the Standing Committee on Social Issues, a take-note debate and a Government response are required. It is a great pity that the Deputy Chair of the committee, the Hon. Robyn Parker, took some seven months to notice that the Government response to the report existed. The Hon. Peter Primrose is doing the House a great service by ensuring that both the recommendations of the committee and the Government's response to the recommendations are known to the House. In doing that it is necessary for him to refer in some detail to the committee's recommendations and to the Government response.

    The Hon. Greg Pearce: Further to the point of order: The Chair of the committee and the Hon. Peter Primrose misled the House when they referred to what the Hon. Robyn Parker said. Before the Hon. Robyn Parker commenced her contribution we had been speaking about the Government's response. The Hon. Robyn Parker was making the point that the Government has not responded to the problems in Redfern and Waterloo. One of the points that the Hon. Peter Primrose raised was that a Minister has been appointed for Redfern and Waterloo, Frank Ernest Sartor. I must say that Frank Ernest Sartor is neither frank nor earnest.

    The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: Further to the point of order: I am pleased that the honourable member has decided to desist. This discussion is about whether it is appropriate for members of this House to refer to copious notes; it is not about allowing the Hon. Greg Pearce to denigrate Ministers.

    The Hon. Ian West: To the point of order: The Hon. Peter Primrose has been referring to important notes regarding the outcome of the report we are dealing with. It is inappropriate for the point of order to be raised when the member's copious notes were edifying the Hon. Robyn Parker as to the Government's response to the final report in December 2004.

    The Hon. Duncan Gay: What is the point of order?

    The Hon. Ian West: My point of order is that the Hon. Peter Primrose has been giving us an extra report and you should be listening to it in much more detail.

    The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! On 27 February 1990 former Deputy President Sir Adrian Solomons ruled:

    The rules quite clearly provide that a member is not entitled to read a speech but a member is entitled to quote from a document, book, article, provided that the document is noted and that quotes are acknowledged.

    And that is what the Hon. Peter Primrose has done. I remind members that Standing Order 91 (4) provides that a member may read reasonable lengths of extracts from books, newspapers, publications or documents. I do not uphold the point of order. I note the member's time for speaking has expired.

    The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [3.16 p.m.]: I support the final report of the Standing Committee on Social Issues in relation to the inquiry into issues relating to Redfern and Waterloo. I draw the attention of the House to the minutes of the meeting held on 24 August 2004, appearing at the back of the report, when the committee was looking into the establishment of this inquiry. I know there have been a lot of interjections and a lot of carry on this afternoon, but when we debate this issue we should be mindful of the fact that the committee was set up in response to a very tragic incident that happened in the Redfern-Waterloo area. In the level of interjections and the kind of behaviour that has been carried on during the debate so far, many members have been denigrating the good work of this committee in looking into the issues surrounding Redfern and Waterloo. The committee refers to that incident in the report on page 1. It states:

    We will not go over here those events here except to reiterate the Committee's deep regret for the death of the young Aboriginal man and our sympathy to his family and friends, and the community. The Committee notes that the Department of Housing has offered to have a memorial erected on the site where he was injured. We understand the Government is in consultation with the family and community on this matter.
    The inquiry into Redfern and Waterloo was triggered by a tragic incident, but I think that from that tragic incident some good work has taken place. As a result, the recommendations that have come out of the work of the Standing Committee on Social Issues need to be looked at. I am not going to go into detail about the Government's response to those issues because the Hon. Peter Primrose has given some insight into that. I understand that further speakers may talk a little more about the Government's response to the Committee's recommendations. However, I think it is worthwhile noting that this was a thorough inquiry even though there was an attempt to derail the work of the committee and turn it into some sort of political circus. I commend the Hon. Jan Burnswoods for the way in which she chaired this inquiry in the face of what I would regard as fairly extreme provocation, a lot of which I think was in bad taste, given the incident that triggered the inquiry.

    The recommendations deal with a whole range of issues, such as policing, housing, health and community services. They comprehensively deal with problems that plague the Redfern area, and The Block in particular, which contribute to poor social behaviour and poor life outcomes for people in the Redfern-Waterloo area generally. I will go through the recommendations and highlight those that I regard as valuable, not just to people in the Redfern-Waterloo area but to people across New South Wales. Recommendation No. 1 is critical. It states:

    That the Minister for Police extend the level of training received by new recruits in Aboriginal cultural awareness issues as part of their Diploma of Policing Practice.

    This is a valuable recommendation but not only for the Redfern-Waterloo area. Those who travel around country New South Wales regularly and talk to not only local business proprietors but also people from all walks of life will note that country towns with large Aboriginal populations often have a disproportionately high number of police officers. And many of those police officers are fairly new graduates. Therefore, I believe that it is essential for new graduates from the police college to have theoretically as good an understanding as possible of Aboriginal cultural awareness and issues that often contribute to breakdown in social behaviours in rural communities with high Aboriginal populations. Recommendation No. 1 is powerful and has the potential to improve relationships between Aboriginal communities and police across the State of New South Wales.

    As the Hon. Greg Donnelly said, this measure is particularly important given the high transient Aboriginal population. Many people who have had run-ins in their towns move to the Redfern-Waterloo area to visit relatives or to get away from their difficulties, and this recommendation will help to break that cycle by helping police have a better understanding of the issues they face. Recommendation No. 2 states:

    That the Minister for Police ensure that the Aboriginal cultural awareness training provided to officers at the Redfern Local Area Command is reviewed … in order to develop the most appropriate training program for the Local Area Command.

    That, too, is important. We must ensure that police in policing hot spots receive the necessary assistance, not merely physical assistance by way of equipment and hardware but appropriate techniques to deal effectively with different offenders and to help them defuse problems. By doing so better relationships will be built between police and the local community. Recommendations Nos 1 to 5 deal with policing issues in the Redfern-Waterloo area whereas the other recommendations provide benefits to people throughout New South Wales.

    A human services plan has been developed as part of the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project, and that plan will be invaluable in helping to identify procedures that need to be tightened. It will also help to break down silos in service provision, and their planning, across a range of government agencies—something that will be productive in the longer term. Many people do not fully understand the layers of disadvantage that can affect people in areas such as Redfern and Waterloo. Having this focus on problems being encountered by the relevant communities has given government agencies and the wider community a better understanding and the capacity to work to develop the necessary solutions to these problems.

    The Hon. Greg Donnelly said that during a recent inquiry members of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice heard interesting evidence from an Aboriginal social worker working in The Block area about the perceptions of young people in terms of their encounters with local police. As members of Parliament, we are privileged in that we have a good understanding of things that happen. One does not usually end up in a place such as this place unless one has a fair degree of self-confidence and a sense of wherewithal. It is vital that members of Parliament have an understanding of the way in which encounters with local police impact on ordinary residents in areas like Redfern and Waterloo because often many members assume that their life experiences can be transposed onto other people.

    Some people do not have a basic understanding of their rights, nor do they have the same expectations from life because of their layers of social disadvantage. Indeed, they may well be the second or third generation in a family that has not had high expectations and does not expect good outcomes in life. Even though it took a tragic event to ensure that we held an inquiry into issues relating to Redfern and Waterloo, the very comprehensive study that has been undertaken has led to these powerful and important recommendations. I am pleased to note that the Government's response to the recommendations and the report has also been comprehensive. It indicates that all the issues were investigated and that the recommendations have been taken seriously. There is, therefore, a good chance that further improvements will occur for Redfern and Waterloo as a result of this inquiry.

    [Time expired.]

    The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [3.26 p.m.], in reply: As chair of the committee it is my duty, and might I say my pleasure, to speak in reply to this take-note debate. Technically speaking, the debate commenced back in February when an appropriate motion was moved upon the resumption of parliamentary sittings. Members spent some considerable time in June debating the final report of the Redfern-Waterloo inquiry, and we are now able to complete the debate following the winter recess.

    Unfortunately, back in June the time I had available to me to speak had expired before I was able to express my thanks to a number of very important people. I shall commence my contribution today by doing just that. The Committee is most grateful for the excellent contributions it received from people in the Redfern and Waterloo communities. We received 94 submissions and heard evidence from more than 100 witnesses. Those witnesses included representatives from Aboriginal communities, particularly Redfern. However, it is important to emphasise that Waterloo has a slightly larger Aboriginal population than Redfern has. Representations were received also from a broad range of government and non-government service providers and community groups in the area. We heard also from many young people in the area. People from the Redfern and Waterloo communities could not have tried harder to co-operate with the Committee, and we owe them a great debt for their co-operation. I take this opportunity to thank all of them.

    I thank also the Jumbunna House of Indigenous Learning, which is located at the University of Technology; representatives from the Russian community with whom we met at community facilities in the Department of Housing estate; Mick Mundine and other people employed by, or on, the board of the Aboriginal Housing Company and those who work with the board; and members of the South Sydney and Koori South Eastern Sydney interagencies. Not only did all those groups talk to us about problems and issues in the area; they also played an important role in putting the Committee in touch with individuals and groups in Redfern and Waterloo and facilitating our having useful conversations and hearings with them.

    This inquiry, more than many we have undertaken, was difficult for the Committee staff, and on behalf of the Committee members I pay tribute to all of them, in particular Julie Langsworth and Rachel Callinan. As director of the Committee Julie started the inquiry, but partway through the inquiry she took up a new position. However, she continued to work on this report, and we are grateful to her for her continuity and for the passion and commitment she displayed. We are also grateful to Rachel Callinan who was loaned to us by the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, and I thank the chair of that committee, the Hon. Christine Robertson, for generously lending Rachel to us. Rachel worked on those parts of the interim report that dealt with policing issues and, despite her work for the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, continued to work on those same issues in our final report.

    The other members of the committee secretariat, including Merrin Thompson, Victoria Pymm and others, also worked very hard. It was a difficult inquiry for the staff, particularly early on when the hearings and debate were quite heated. Sometimes we forget the pressure we place on committee staff when we as members perhaps do not behave as well as we should. But all of us thank the committee staff of the Standing Committee on Social Issues for their work. I acknowledge also the contribution of the committee members who took part in the inquiry. All of them have spoken in this debate and have expressed their various points of view. In particular I mention the Hon. Greg Pearce, who joined the committee for this inquiry but is no longer a member of the Standing Committee on Social Issues. He contributed to this debate, and I thank him for that.

    I shall now address a number of comments made by members who contributed to the debate, namely the Hon. Greg Pearce, the Hon. Kayee Griffin, the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans and the Hon. Ian West, who began his speech in June and finished it today. I concur with the Hon. Ian West, who emphasised the importance of training in cultural awareness and of dealing with police issues relating to the employment and training of Aboriginal liaison officers. While the inquiry was under way we had the opportunity to see some of the advances the police were making partly as a result of the initiatives announced by the Minister. We were able to visit Tranbie. I thank the people of Tranbie for allowing us to see first hand the new cultural awareness programs that have begun there in full co-operation with Superintendent Smith of the Redfern local area command to ensure that everyone in the police service who is employed at Redfern receives appropriate training. In that regard, it is important to place on record the Minister's decision—a decision made while the inquiry was under way—that new probationary constables would no longer be appointed to Redfern. There was an understanding that police officers at Redfern needed a level of experience that reflected some of the problems in the area.

    Today I thank also the members of this House who were not members of the committee but who spoke in the debate. Sometimes it is valuable to have contributions from members who stand back a little from an inquiry and who are perhaps a little more objective in their views on a particular report or issue. I thank the Hon. Greg Donnelly for his thoughtful remarks and for highlighting some issues about youth unemployment and the need for assistance to families to help compensate for some of the problems that have been created by some very dysfunctional families and groups in this area. I thank also the Hon. Amanda Fazio and the Hon. Peter Primrose for taking part in the debate.

    I reiterate, as I did when I tabled this report, that we continue to be aware of, and to greatly regret, the death of the young Aboriginal man—the incident that was responsible for the establishment of the inquiry. Considerable time as elapsed since that unfortunate incident, but for the family of that young man the pain and problems, including severe economic and social problems, continue. Therefore, in wrapping up this debate it is appropriate that again I express our regret. I wish to mention also some specifics of the action taken since the Government's response to this report was tabled. We hear a lot about Redfern in terms of some of the more headline-grabbing issues—

    Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.


Last modified 05/12/2007 16:42:03   :   Update this page