REDFERN-WATERLOO AUTHORITY BILL 2004
Briefing Note 16th November 2004
Background:
The Redfern Waterloo Authority (RWA) appears to take up part of the role of the
existing Redfern Waterloo Partnership Project (RWPP). Its primary function is
to implement a Plan for the area,
similar to the plan being devised by the RWPP as part of the Redfern Everleigh
Darlington (RED) scheme.
Unfortunately, the RED scheme has
not yet been released, and nor has the Redfern Waterloo Plan, so we do not yet
know the precise purpose of the RWA or how it will work with the RWPP.
Key recommendation:
We have concerns that the Authority’s goals are not properly defined, too much
power is vested in both the Authority and the Minister, there is little
provision for local involvement or
consultation and there is a lack of transparency. We recommend that the Bill be referred to committee for
further investigation.
1.
While the RWA is supposed to
implement the Redfern-Waterloo Plan,
the plan has not yet been released, and in its absence it is difficult to assess
the appropriateness of the RWA.
The Redfern
Waterloo Authority (RWA) has as its principal objective “the achievement of the outcomes
of the Redfern-Waterloo Plan” (RWP) 14(2).
The
Redfern-Waterloo Plan (RWP) s26 is to be prepared by the Minister for the
operational area s26(1). This plan currently does not exist although Premier
Carr has said what might result from it in his announcement
of the Authority on October
26, 2004.
In the absence
of the detail of the Plan it is difficult to decide how the Redfern Waterloo
Authority (RWA) would be best constituted and hence care is required. Ideally
the Government should have
undertaken the process it started with the Redfern Waterloo community and
established the Draft RED Strategy which could have become
the RWP for a new authority.
2.
The legislation vests too much
power in the Minister and does not properly specify the objectives of the
Authority.
The
legislation gives the Minister complete authority to make and change the Plan
(the Minister “may amend or replace
the Redfern Waterloo Plan” 26 (5)). It does stipulate that the Plan be
“publically available” 26 (4) and that public be able to make submissions
26(4). However, it does not set out a process for making submissions,
considering submissions, proposing change or allowing public consultation. A
change to the Plan changes the principal objective of the Authority under
14(2).
A consultation
process, with appropriate notification periods and opportunity for making
submissions, needs to be stipulated.
Also, while
the Bill Explanatory Note on clause 26 says of the RWP that it “will
deal with matters such as …” where as in the Bill the “Plan may
make provision for …” 26(2). Thus, the legislation does not give any certainty
over the matters the Authority will deal with, for example it does not have to
have a “strategic vision for the improvement
of the area” or for any of the other listed areas 26 (2) (a) – (i).
3.
The legislation leaves unstated
a number of key objectives of the Plan, and the functions of the Authority do
not necessarily include all of the aims of the Authority.
Rather than
possibly be included under any other matters the Minister considers essential
for the plan 26 (2)(i) some items
should be required to be covered in the plan. This should include clearer
objectives in regard to sustainable planning and development,
community consultation, public and affordable housing, Aboriginal housing and
services, public transport, walking and cycling.
As the
principal objective of the RWA is to achieve the outcomes
of the Plan the functions (14) should reflect what is necessary to implement the Plan. It follows that the following amendments
could usefully be added to “Functions – generally”
- Amend
(14) 1a) to “… the social, environmental
and economic development and
use …” - Amend
(14) 1e) to “ … entertainment
and transport (especially public transport, walking and cycling)
activities and facilities …“ - Add new 14 (4) – “The
Authority is to undertake meaningful
community consultation during the establishment,
acceptance and review of the objectives and processes of the RWA,
consistent with the NSW Government’s
published material on Community Engagement
in the NSW Planning System” - Add – a clearer definition
of objectives in regard to public services, affordable housing and
Aboriginal services
4.
The legislation allows for
unilateral changes to the area covered by the Authority, and the Authority is
to be funded in part by sites outside its area.
The area is
defined in Schedule 1 and it mirrors the area currently being served by the
Premiers Department Redfern Waterloo
Partnership Project (RWPP). The Bill proposes that this area can be changed by
regulation (45). The inclusion of a clause in the Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Act 1974 No49 (Schedule 3.2),
effectively excludes areas within the operational area of the Redfern-Waterloo
Authority Act 2004 from the South Sydney Development
Corporation. The effect of this is that by regulation the area covered by the
RWA could be expanded to cover Green
Square and make South Sydney Development Corporation redundant.
It is also of
concern that the Bill makes legislates that the development
contributions for affordable housing from the CUB site at Broadway will come to the RWA. The CUB site is outside the boundary
of the RWA and its inclusion has created concern that the Authority may have
plans to expand into Chippendale.
5.
The legislation does not
require local representation on the Board of the Authority and does not give
the Board real autonomy.
The Bill proposes
that one of the Board of Directors is an Aboriginal Person 8 (4) but no other
provision is made to provide for Board diversity. The Aboriginal Person does
not have to come from within the
area or be associated with it.
The
composition of the Board is totally up to the Minister (3) & (4). This is
of concern as there may be no provision for any local representation on the
board.
Of equal
concern given the interdepartmental
nature of the RWA is that the board could be overly made up of State Government employees. To
ensure a variety of inputs the number of State Government
employees should be limited to say 4 including the CEO.
6.
Provisions for advisory
committees are inadequate.
The Minister
may appoint 11(1) or dissolve 11(9) advisory committees as the Minister
considers appropriate. There is no provision for an ongoing broad based
Community Consultative Committee. Such a committee should meet as regularly as the board and provide broad
community input to the Authority, The Minister, the Plan and the Board.
There are also
key areas where advisory committees should be established to ensure community
input on decisions relating to Aboriginal Issues, Public Housing, Social
Services and Public
Land and Spaces.
The board and
all advisory committees should have representation from the community including
service providers and service users.
7.
Requirements
for transparency of meetings and
documents are inadequate.
As with local
government, all meetings should be open to the community to observe
unless moved into closed session for a particular agenda item. All agendas,
minutes and findings of the RWA Board and advisory committees should be
publicly available.
The Minister
and RWA Board must also take due consideration and/or publish reasons for not
considering the advice of advisory committees
8.
There is no requirement for performance indicators.
RWA
performance indicators are to be developed in consultation with the community
as part of the RWP, and reported upon annually along with a report by the
authority to the community.
9.
The legislation gives the
Authority a blanket exemption from the Heritage Act
There are a
number of heritage items in Redfern Waterloo and there is concern at the Bill’s
proposal to diapply The Heritage Act 1977 to Redfern Waterloo. (28) The normal
provisions of the Heritage Act should apply.
10.
A number of issues remain
unclear
There are
questions about how a number of aspects of the Bill will operate and further
investigation is needed into these questions. Below are some of the areas identified:
Consent
Authority – The
Minister can be the consent authority for State significant developments in the area (27). It is not clear how other
areas that may be covered by the RWP will operate as far as consent is
concerned. There is the ability for the Minisiter to have Planning and Development instruments
drawn up but it is not clear if these will only be limited to State significant
developments and if not how consent
will operate under these plans.
We are of the
view that all processes under the authority should contain similar provisions
for the establishment of environmental and development
plans as would happen if they were made under council and that the same provisions as Council should also apply for
notification, objection and appeal as would be allowed under council.
Management of public Spaces – It is not clear how public spaces are to be administered
and how this will interact with the councils existing management of public spaces eg 14 (d) 46 (2) (h). Any
provisions for management of public
spaces by the RWA should follow the same
procedures as that for areas administered by Council.
Fund for
provision of Services
– The Bill proposes a fund “into which money is paid by persons who carry on
business within the operational area” 35(1). It is not clear what is intended
for such a fund. It is important however not to provide a disincentive to
businesses coming into the area especially as business growth is important in
supplying employment in the area
which is a prime focus of the RWA.
This Briefing
Note has been prepared by REDWatch.
REDwatch is a
residents group covering Redfern Eveleigh Darlington and Waterloo (the same
area covered by the Premiers’ Department
Redfern Waterloo Partnership Project). REDwatch monitors the activities of the
RWPP, the RED strategy and its other programs and seeks to ensure community
involvement in all decisions made
about the area. REDwatch meets on
the 4th Sunday of the month at the Redfern Community Centre at 2:00pm
Further
Information Contact:
Geoff Turnbull
02 9318 0824 Email:
turnbullfamily@stassen.com.au
REDwatch
C/- PO Box 1567
Strawberry
Hills NSW 2012
Ph Wk: 9318
0824