Case Study 2 – The Three Ministerial Advisory Committees

In December
2004 Minister Sartor wrote to residents asking them to write to him with their
views on community advisory structures. This letter indicated what the Minister
already had in mind:

The current
thinking is for three advisory committees of about 15 members each, comprising
residents and State and local government, covering such areas as Human
Services, Employment and the Built Environment.

I am also
considering public forums for residents or representatives of community
organisations, as well as working groups on specific projects.

In
addition, the Redfern Waterloo Plan, which will probably be prepared in phases,
will be subject to public exhibition and input at each stage.[1]

During the
lobbying on the RWA Bill, REDWatch
and a number of other groups argued that the Bill should be strengthened to
ensure that community consultation mechanisms were guaranteed in the
legislation rather than left to Ministerial discretion[2].
The groups wanted at least the same opportunities for community participation
in planning decisions under the RWA as are available under local government
legislation.

It was
argued that there should be an overarching community advisory group/council, as
existed under the RWPP. As the three areas proposed by the Minister interact
with one another it is important for
the community to have input into how these interactions take place and to
identify what might fall between the
cracks. The government had accepted the need to break down such silos and have
a much more integrated response to human service delivery in the area[3] so
the same principles should apply to the RWA advisory structure. It was further
argued that having a few residents appointed by the Minister, as a minority on
the advisory groups, did not adequately ensure a community voice to the RWA.

In April
2005[4] the
community learnt that the Minister’s letter inviting written responses, and the
letters he received as a result, was classed by the Minister as a ‘community consultation’.
The final outcome of the ‘consultation’ appeared identical to what the Minister
indicated he had in mind in December 2004. The leaflet said in part:

Following community consultation,
the Minister for Redfern-Waterloo, the

Hon. Frank Sartor MP, is now inviting Expressions of Interest from residents

of Redfern, Waterloo,
Eveleigh and Darlington to participate in any
of three Ministerial Advisory Committees…Built Environment …Employment and Enterprise …Human Services
…

Upcoming meetings and events will be advised to residents in
our inaugural newsletter and website (still under construction). A Community
Forum to meet at least four times a
year will be open for members of the public to attend. The purpose of this
Forum is to provide the Minister with advice on the broad strategic direction
of the Redfern-Waterloo Plan and to provide the community with a direct link to
the Minister.[5]

Back in
December 2003, the RWPP presented the community with their future ’Community
Engagement Strategy[6].
It was well received as it covered a range of consultation mechanisms. The
strategy, however, was never implemented. There has not been a Community Forum
of either the RWPP or the RWA since 2003 and the RWPP Community Council was
only convened a couple of times in 2004 before the RWPP let it die.

In contrast
the RWA’s community engagement strategy, as so far advised to the community, falls
well short of that proposed by the RWPP. There is neither a Community Council
nor opportunities for community involvement in Taskforces and public discussion
workshops to have in depth discussion around specific topics or areas of
concern to the community.

It is also
unclear how public meetings four times a year will provide the ‘broad strategic
direction of the Redfern-Waterloo Plan’ as well as the opportunity for the
community to meet the Minister, find out what the RWA is doing and raise their
concerns. Nine months into its operation no public meetings have been held and
clearly the RWA strategic direction is coming from somewhere other than the
community.

Proper
mechanisms to inform the community about RWA activities have not even been put
in place, let alone the genuine partnership that the Upper House Inquiry
recommended. We are yet to see ‘a comprehensive strategy to ensure there is
effective consultation and communication with the Redfern and Waterloo communities’ or the improved ‘relationship
with the local community, particularly the Aboriginal community’.[7]