Timeline:
Redfern-Waterloo
Partnership Project 2001-2004
Survey of residents – results never
released
Architects plans – never released
South Sydney Council amalgamated with City of
Sydney Morgan-Disney report – critical of local community services Some
local services tendered out to big charities (eg Barnardo’s intensive family support)
Draft RED strategy – community
consultation incomplete
Parliament Inquiry into
Redfern-Waterloo 2004
Death of Aboriginal youth February 2004 and
‘riots’ Increased police and DoCS intervention
Many local submissions to Inquiry.
Inquiry final report December 2004
Redfern-Waterloo Authority 2005
Interim Human Services Advisory
Committee March 2005
Ministerial committee appointment August
2005
Exemption from normal planning rules eg
heritage protection
Reform of human services
based on principles of integrated service delivery
Plans and reports
Human
Services Plan Phase One December
2005
Employment
and Enterprise Plan December
2005
Built Environment Plan August 2006
(these three together to form the
‘Redfern-Waterloo Plan)
Human
Services Plan implementation Framework April 2006*
Human
Services Plan Implementation Report #1 April 2006*
Draft
Human services Plan Phase Two October 2006
*These may
not have been publicly released. There is also a subsequent implementation report May 2007 (only
in the form of minutes of a meeting) and an 18 month evaluation plan, status unclear. It was originally
intended to be completed by 30 June 2007.
Committee
Membership
| Co-chairs: | RWA (Julie Parsons) NCOSS (Michelle Burrell) |
| NSW Government: | Education (Phil Lambert) |
| Police (Mark Walton) | |
| Health (Gay Horsborough) | |
| DoCS (Anne-Marie Sabellico) | |
| DADHC (Steven Gal) | |
| DAA (Ivan Simon) | |
| Housing (?) not on list | |
| Aust Government: | FACSIA (Paul Cramer) |
| ICC (formerly ATSIC) Cohn Kay | |
| City of Sydney: |
Ann Hoban |
| Community: | Services (Helen Campbell) |
| CALD (Mabel Chang) | |
| NAB? (Lynne Stewart) |
|
| ? Howard Glenn | |
| ATSI (?) |
Notes: There were several changes over time.
Some but not all of the previous RWPP committee reps continued. The Government
personnel representing the Departments changed from time to time, and sometimes
frequently. At one stage Shirley Lomas represented the ATSI community but she
resigned and (?) was not replaced. ATSI services were at one stage represented
by Rob Welsh from the Metro Land
Council, and on one occasion a man from (?)Tranby attended
At
the completion of the work on the Plan stage One there were
some changes made in representation to reflect the different areas of
focus for stage 2.
Attendance
by NSW government and City of Sydney representatives at meetings
was variable and in some cases sporadic. As these meetings were not for
decision making but for ‘advisory’ this is understandable. There was another
separate group of NSW departmental representatives who met to discuss the
actual implementation of the Plan. There is no community representation on that committee.
I attended (to the best of my
recollection) every meeting. I was never in a meeting where the community
representation (services or residents) were anywhere near as numerous as the
various government representatives. The atmosphere was bureaucratic and some
community representatives, although they attended regularly, seldom said
anything or spoke only on a narrow range of issues. They were not encouraged to
contribute. I often felt that mine was a lone and
minority voice.
Redfern Legal Centre provided responses to drafts, evidence to Inquiries, and assisted/co-operated with other community inputs.
Ministerial appointments
At the request of a local residents’
group we have investigated and provided legal advice about Ministerial Advisory Committees
(MACS). Under the relevant
legislation, the Minister has no legally enforceable obligation to consult with
anyone at all, and if he choses to do so, may appoint, listen, ignore and dismiss such persons on any terms he thinks fit.
The Minister for Redfem-Waterloo,
Frank Sartor, has never attended any one of his Ministerial Advisory Committee Meetings. I
have never met him. When I ask
about how he might receive the advice I am told that he receives reports of the meetings. However my comments
have never been recorded in the official minutes of the meetings despite my consistent and documented requests.
My appointment was not renewed at the
end of the term on 30 June 2007. A representative from the Factory Neighbourhood Centre has been
appointed.
Which services are subject to reform?
This has been a mystery from the
beginning. It is particularly relevant because who do I represent? The first
list of services produced by the Morgan-Disney report allegedly showed how
over-serviced and inefficiently serviced the area was. But when we looked at it
we found many organizations who had an address in this area but did not provide services
in this area, or only marginally
in this area as part of a state-wide national or other geographical area, or provided services to a
particular community regardless of their location and the office address was irrelevant.
In terms of plans for service reform we are also aware of services provided to this area that are not
based in this area and therefore escaped the reform agenda even though what
they do and in what
co-operation they do it is highly relevant to the reform agenda.
For example, the plans to reform youth services included neither
Hillsong nor WAYS, although both are relevant to the options
available to young people in the Redfern-Waterloo area,
because their headquarters were outside of area. By
contrast, organizations such as the National Breasifeeding Association
were
included in the list for reform because they have an address here although they
provide a national telephone service that the RWA has no power over, nor interest
in, reforming to meet local needs.
After many requests for further
information about which services in particular were subject to the Redfem-Waterloo Authority
reform agenda and on what basis I have never received a
satisfactory response.
However, if the
definition is services located only in the area and providing services only in
the area it is a very short list of very minimally funded community-based
organizations. If this group is accused of causing the problem
or failing to deliver there is no evidence to support this. (insert list of relevant
agencies)
Those I believe to have been targeted
I have worked with in defensive strategies including working on relocating services based in the Redfern Public School site and working to
develop a consortium of services to address the demand
for integrated service delivery.
What consultations have taken place?
In the development of the Human
Services Plan #1 there were ‘cluster group’ meetings around family &
children, youth, Aboriginal, and (other?) issues. There were also some meetings for the local
community. The feedback from all of these meetings was that the contribution of the participants was
not properly recorded and
in general the RWA was not actually listening to the community.
One example of the failure to listen
was the ‘sticky-beak tour. This idea arose from the suggestion that it would be helpful if
those who wished to tell us how to better integrate our services actually visited services to get a
better understanding of how and where we did what we do. This became in the hands of the RWA a ‘show-off event
where government departments presented powerpoint presentations of their alleged achievements. This
did nothing to improve
our understanding of how services operate and how the RWA might better understand their reform agenda
and was largely a waste of time.
For the Human Services Plan #2 there
were no cluster group meetings. There was a single event to bring all together at the technology park and no accountability process for the RWA to
respond to contributions. Entry was by invitation and the outcomes were reported as if
every comment were equally significant. Again, and for different reasons, this
was an inadequate and inappropriate form of
consultation.
What changes have occurred?
The original Plan highlighted the aspiration to integrate youth
services. This has not
taken place. The RWA has undertaken a number of activities, most (all?) of which were not covered by
the Plan but which are not in themselves of negative effect. While they have
not forced any amalgamation of youth services, they have provided some support for midnight basketball and run
a cooking class for young mothers (not in integration
with anything).
Possible responses from the community
sector
The Board of Redfem Legal Centre wants the sector
to know that it is aware that
the appointment was from the sector not as a representative of Redfern Legal Centre. Therefore the Board would be guided
by the sector in its response
to the termination of the appointment. One thing the Board wants to draw to attention is that a great deal
of the work was done on my paid time –that is, a financial donation to the RWA from RLC. Given the lack of satisfactory ‘consultation’ experience
one option is to bill the Authority for the time
contributed.
We have investigated and can find no legal cause for complaint. However questions in parliament about breach
of good faith or when is ‘consultation’ a metaphor for
tokenism might be one option.
The sector might want to consider choosing not to
participate any further. However
experience suggests it is always better to be at the table than outside the tent.
Helen Campbell, Redfern Legal Centre
16 August 2007