REDFERN-WATERLOO
AUTHORITY BILL 2004
Briefing Note – November 30 2004
REDWatch has serious concerns about many
aspects of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Bill 2004. These include:
- the speed with which the NSW Government
is trying to enact this legislation, thus limiting public input into it - the wide-ranging powers that it allows to the Minister
responsible for the Redfern-Waterloo Plan - the way the legislation grants powers to the Minister in
relation to the Plan before there is any Plan at all - the very limited public participation mandated by the Bill
- the way the boundaries of the area can be changed simply by
regulation - the lack of objects in the legislation, against which future
Ministerial action could be judged.
In essence, this Bill grants place-based
powers to the Redfern-Waterloo Minister, some
of which relate to other Ministerial portfolios, in ways that have not been
seen in NSW before.
The Government
states that the Bill is modeled on the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority Act. However, that Act does not relate to social
objectives – only economic and environmental
ones, and applies to an area whose problems do not resemble those of
Redfern-Waterloo.
Cobbling together a range of provisions of
other Acts of Parliament does not
adequately address the inter-related nature of the social and economic problems
of Redfern-Waterloo, nor does it ensure that economic development will achieve social outcomes.
With the Metropolitan Strategy flagging
other areas of Sydney
as being in need of renewal it is likely that this Bill will become a template for future authorities. It is also for
this reason that it is important that the legislation be as tight as possible
and allow those who live within the boundaries of such a Place-based authority
to enjoy similar rights as they would if their area remained under local government control.
Finally, the Minister maintains that he
will consult, he will establish advisory committees, and that all he wants in
relation to boundary changes is the capacity to make minor amendments.
If that is the case, on these matters as on
others, the legislation should reflect what the Minister says he intends to
do. This is all the more important as
this is a 10 year Plan, and over this period there may well be other Governments and other Ministers. Under the current provisions of the Bill, the
way the legislation is implemented
over time could vary significantly
from the current stated intent, and neither the people nor the Parliament could reasonably prevent this.
We believe it is possible to devise a Bill that meets both the Minister’s need for reasonable
flexibility and the community’s need for reasonable security.
A meeting
of the REDWatch on 28
November 2004 agreed that the following issues needed attention if
the above objective is to be achieved.
1. The Bill Must Have Objects
Normally Bills have Objects set out at the
beginning of the Bill which are used in the interpretation of any ambiguities
that arise during implementation of
the legislation. This Bill does not have any specified Objects.
Consideration could be given to objects
relating to social, environmental
and economic purposes of Plan such as:
• There should be an Indigenous objective
recognizing the importance of the area to Aboriginal people preferably negotiated
with Indigenous people.
• Creation of an economic environment which will provide employment
opportunities for local residents
• Provision of affordable housing that meets the diverse family, cultural and disability
needs of the local community
• Enhancement
of a vibrant and inclusive community recognising the strengths of communities
of interests in existing residents.
• Protection and enhancement of the heritage of the area
• Promotion of social justice and enhancing
of community well-being, in accordance with the interrelated principles of
equity, access, participation and rights.
The last Object would be in line with the
Government’s “NSW Social
Justice Direction Statement:
Supporting People and Strengthening Communities” which is also used in the Social and
Community Planning and Reporting Guidelines to describe the commitment a Council should have in this area.
2. The Bill Must Make Provision for a Community Advisory
Council –Clause 11
The Government
has indicated that there will be limited opportunities if any for community
representation on the Board of the Authority but that the Minister will create
advisory committees. These committees would be totally at the discretion of the
Minister.
We propose requiring one of the committees
to be a statutory Community Advisory Council, representative of the
Redfern-Waterloo community, to advise the Minister in relation to making, amending, reviewing and implementing
the Plan and on the operations of the RW Authority and other government bodies implementing
the Plan. The Advisory Committee could be based on Advisory Committee in the
Community Welfare Act 1987 No 52 or similar.
The mechanism
for appointment, fixed terms, and
conditions under which Minister can terminate a member’s
appointment or dissolve a committee
should be spelt out or be similar to existing Ministerial Community Advisory Councils.
There would be some
consequential amendment necessary to give the Minister the power to set
up such additional committees as may be seen fit and for the Minister to
consult the Community Consultative Council as well as the Board regarding the
Plan.
We are of the view that there should be
other committees established either as sub committees set up by the Community
Advisory Council or by the Minister. Such committees should include among
others an Aboriginal Reference Group.
3. There Must be Community Involvement in Making & Changing the Plan – Clause 26
Currently there is no guaranteed role for
Community Involvement in making and
changing the Plan. The Minister alone can make it and change it in what ever
way he / she likes as long as he/she takes regard of public submissions and the
result is publicly displayed. There is no requirement
to notify an intention to review, or allow specified period for submissions – the
end result is that the Minister may amend
Plan unilaterally and in an ad hoc manner.
As the principal objective of the Authority
is the achievement of the outcomes of the Redfern Waterloo Plan, the nature of the
Authority can be changed by the Minister changing the Plan.
It has been indicated in briefings that
there will be public participation in making the Plan but this is not
guaranteed in the Bill. The Minister would still retain the right to alter the
Plan as he/she saw fit.
There must be a legislated process for
consultation, to include, at a minimum, public notification, and a defined
exhibition period during which submissions may be made in writing or in
audiotape or videotape format, on the initial Redfern Waterloo Plan and for any
[material] amendment to the Plan.
The Bill could also require the Plan to be made
as a Regulation (or equivalent) under the Act and this would also allow Parliament to be able to review for 15 sitting days the
Plan accepted by the Minister.
4. There Must Be At Least A Strategic Vision in the
Plan before Anything Happens – Clause 26 (2)
The Bill provides that the Plan may contain
the listed items. It is possible that the plan may not have any of them and for
this reason we would prefer that these items must be in the Plan. If it is not possible initially, all listed
items should be included within an agreed period of say two years.
The Government
has argued that they wish to roll out the Plan and do not want to be locked
into having to have all the items listed in a Plan before they can start.
We are of the view that at least a
strategic vision for the whole area must be publicly available at the same time
or prior to any individual element
being added to the Plan or executed. The Strategic Vision must appear in the
Plan within 12 months of the legislation being enacted.
As per our previous proposal the Strategic
Vision would be subject to community consultations with the rest of the plan
and its existence should be mandated.
5. The Authority must report annually against a full
set of performance criteria to be established through the plan – Clause 26
Nothing in the Bill requires the NSW Government to report publicly on the success or otherwise
of the Plan. The Plan must incorporate performance criteria that will be used
to evaluate its various elements and
these must be reported annually and publicly.
The Legislation should require annual,
public reporting of outcomes of the Plan,
unless this is adequately covered by other legislation which would automatically
require the Authority to report in this way.
6. The Planning Instruments
Issued must allow equivalent consultation as under a Local Environment Plan – Clause 26 (7)
The Bill allows for environmental planning instruments
to be made to implement the overall
Plan and the Bill appears to allow these instruments
to be made “despite any provision of the Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979”
(Clause 26 (7))
As the Bill creates a precedent for the
creation of place-based Ministers and place-based Authorities with very broad
scope and very wide-ranging powers and it allows the State Government to take over local strategic planning from
Local Government, it is crucial to
ensure the same public consultation
provisions are in place as would be under a LEP.
This would ensure processes in line with
local government provisions would be
followed and thus ensure public involvement
in the planning process was not unduly limited.
7. There Must be a Social Assessment
/ Audit of the Plan – Clause 26
There is concern that the social objectives
central to the rationale for the Authority will not be adequately integrated
into the plan and that the infrastructure objectives will outrank social
objectives.
As the Authority will operate as a Place-based
authority with similar powers and provisions as a local government, the preparation, review and amendment
of the Redfern-Waterloo Plan must be accompanied by the development or review of a social or community plan,
generally in accordance with the social and community planning and reporting
guidelines issued from time to time by the Department
of Local Government.
8. Limits on Heritage Act Exemption – Clause 28
The Bill allows exemption from the Heritage
Act provided the Minister is of the view that the exemption is necessary for
the Authority.
We are of the view that this clause should
be deleted and that the normal provisions of the Heritage Act should apply
especially given the large number of buildings and places within the Authority’s
Area which are of Heritage Value.
The Minister has said that he needs this
provision for a particular problem with the oldest toilet in Sydney at Redfern Station. If this was the
only problem we would suggest that the Minister should seek a specific
exemption for this site, however according to press reports there appear to be
other areas where the Minister wishes to bypass the Heritage Act.
If this provision cannot be deleted we
propose that the Bill require an assessment
process for proposed exemptions to be both public and independent of the
Minister. We propose that if the Minister wishes to use this provision that he
gives notice that he plans to do so and provides 30 days for submissions on the
proposal so it can be considered on its merits
by the Minister responsible for Heritage Matters.
This process would at least remove the
conflict of interest between the Minister as Developer and Consent Authority
for bypassing the Heritage Act provisions.
9. Limits of the Expansion of the Authority’s Area –
Clause 45
There is considerable concern that this
provision could be used to expand the operational area of the Authority and
move it away from its stated focus. To ensure this is not possible we would
prefer that the boundary could only be changed by amending
legislation.
The Minister has indicated that he wants
the ability to move the boundary a block or two if needed. If this is to be
allowed we wish to see the Bill amended
to limit the expansion allowed by Regulation.
We propose that the expansion of the area
of the Authority in Schedule 1 be limited to a maximum of 5% of the Authority’s
original gross area. Any change above this figure would need the Act to be amended.
Conclusion
The interests of Redfern Waterloo residents
must not be sacrificed in the name
of the interests of greater Sydney.
REDWatch is of the view that these changes
to the Bill would address major concerns in the Bill without unduly limiting
the ability of the Government to
undertake the program it has outlined for the Authority and the Plan. This
would result in a better Bill and greater surety in the community that the Bill
is not a stalking horse to be used for other purposes not directly related to
Redfern Waterloo.
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 Premier’s
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