- That
all the submissions to the EE Plan are posted as per the practice for
Parliamentary Inquiries. - That
the EE Plan takes into account the changes in the Department of Housing’s
Reshaping Public Housing Plan and the associated tenant turnover with the
inherent dilution of the “Work Place” readiness and ability to enter the
workforce of the replacement tenants. - That
the EE Plan’s reliance on the ‘trickle down’ effect from the employment
created from the built environment is questionable, especially since the
issue of sustainability of employment opportunities has not been
addressed. - That
the need to address and resolve the structural issues to ensure a
successful employment plan that will complement changes in the built
environment to deliver positive benefit to the community of the RWA area. - That
there is no demonstrated sustainable means of implementation. - That
selected residents will be initially given preference for employment over
non-residents. There is concern that this approach has the potential to
create division in the community and lacks long term positive
implications. - The RWA
and its Minister appear not to have reacted to community concerns whilst
imposing their own predetermined outcomes. - That
there is no expanded provision of Child Care
facilities at prices that are not in themselves economic deterrents to
entering the workforce. - That
there is no expanded provision for mature age people to re-enter the
workforce. - That
there is no provision for funding for the implementation of the EE Plan.
This in is face of the importance of the Plan and its ability to reduce
the demand for Welfare and Human Services. - That
there is a need for additional statistical and analytical work to be done
to identify, quantify and then track actual outcomes. - That
the linkage between locale and new commercial /industrial estate
development in the RWA area is weak and thus calls into doubt the value
placed on it. - That
the Poverty Trap factor –get low paid work, start earning , loose benefits
and loose freedom/flexibility of time – has not been given due weight or
consideration. - That
the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures used to measure the outcomes
of the EE Plan will be different chronologically to those used to develop
the EE Plan. - That
the EE Plan does not fully take into account the low rate of motor vehicle
ownership throughout the RWA area and the attendant dependence on public
transport to access places of employment. - That
there is minimal provision for small scale light industrial/non-office
type commercial space. - That
there is barely provision of support for small scale family based
business. This sector is the predominant source of employment. Its income and wage bill stays in the
local area. - That
the full potential of Planning Instruments is not being used for creation
of sustainable employment of a nature suited to the people of the RWA
area. - That
the Private Corporate sector controls the employment opportunities and
nature of them. - That
the “EE Plan is RWA Centric” and fails to address potential and real
conflicts with other Government Departments and their Policies – there is
no “whole of Government” approach as such. - That
the needs of the Culturally and Linguistically Diverse [CALD] sector have
not been recognized or responded to. - That
there is potential for low paid workers to be forced out of area by rising
housing costs due to competition from the influx of workers generated by
the EE Plan. - That
the Redfern Waterloo Authority has been hampered in its efforts by a lack
of funding. This gives rise to concerns that the EE Plan may be
compromised as a result and thus dependent on learning as it is
implemented.
Redfern, Eveleigh, Darlington, Waterloo Watch
