Log in

Forgot your password?
You are here: Home / UrbanGrowth, SMDA & RWA Plans & Activities / Government, UG, SMDA & RWA Statements / 2010 / RWA Responses to REDWatch Questions

RWA Responses to REDWatch Questions

At the REDWatch meeting of 4 March 2010 attendees placed questions into a question box and these were passed to the RWA for a response. The RWA replied in writing to a number of the questions on 7 April 2010. The balance questions were answered on 5 May 2010. Following the RWA meeting on 15 March 2010 the REDWatch Co-ordinating Group also wrote to the RWA raising a number of concerns. At the end of that letter were a series of questions summarising the issues raised. The RWA responded to this letter in their response of 7 April 2010. For ease of interpretation REDWatch has taken the RWA responses and added into it the questions and the REDWatch Co-ordination Group Letter.

Questions to the RWA arising from meeting of 4 March 2010

Q: How can the heritage objectives of Eveleigh's interpretation be met by the submission process / call for projects? (Wendy McCaffery)

A: The call for projects provided an opportunity for the productive participation of interested members of the community in the preservation and promotion of heritage in the Redfern Waterloo area. It has given rise to a wide range of enquiries, as well as the submission of a number of concepts.

From these submissions, Heritage Projects will be nominated to be considered by the Redfern Waterloo Heritage Taskforce at the Taskforce's next meeting on March 16. These include projects relating to the interpretation of heritage specific to Eveleigh.

The Taskforce will also discuss the continued 'consideration of heritage concepts and projects to maintain the opportunity for heritage preservation, interpretation and adaptive re-use in the Redfern Waterloo area.

The Taskforce comprises government, non-government and community representatives, including two Indigenous representatives. The Taskforce is currently seeking to fill one of the Indigenous representative seats.

Q: Has any land been set aside to build a Redfern primary school when one is needed (fairly soon)?

A: The Department of Education and Training (DET) previously advised that the majority of the RWA's operational area is within the local catchment area of Alexandria Park Community School, which enrols Kindergarten to Year 12 students. Two precincts, Eveleigh North and Eveleigh Street, are in the local primary school catchment area of Darlington Public School. Historically, the occupancy ratio of both primary and secondary school-aged persons in these localities has been low, with an average of six primary and six secondary school-aged persons per 100 dwellings. Both schools are anticipated to have sufficient permanent accommodation capacity to cater for the additional enrolments that are likely to be generated from the new medium and high density residential development.

DET advised that this advice was based on:

  • Census data from 1986 to 2006 by school catchment area for Darlington Public School, Erskineville Public and Alexandria Park Community School
  • Occupancy ratios of pre school and primary school aged children by dwelling type from 2001 and 2006 Census data
  • Existing dwelling stock and number and type of new dwellings (medium density)
  • Historic trend of parents moving out of the Inner City prior to children entering Kindergarten

They further advised that the trigger for the establishment of a new primary school is 2,500 additional dwellings. The former South Sydney LGA had the lowest yields of school aged children in both houses and medium and multi unit dwellings of all the Local Government Areas of Sydney.

The Department of Education and Training monitors population, enrolment trends in all areas and as part of this process can alter catchment areas to maximise utilisation of accommodation at schools in a locality.

Q: Why is the National Centre of Indigenous Excellence being so heavily funded, when Tranby College at Glebe is losing its funding?

A: The National Centre of Indigenous Excellence was predominantly funded by the Federal Government.

The Redfern Waterloo Authority contributed $500,000 to the Centre's construction and ongoing operation. This contribution reflected the RWA's desire to see a worldclass facility promoting excellence for Indigenous people in the areas of education, art, culture and sport located in an area of historical, cultural and spiritual significance to them.

The RWA has no involvement in the funding of Tranby College.

Q: Why is the building referred to as the Channel 7 building as if it is owned by Channel 7, when it is in fact owned by Mr Allen Linz and Channel 7?

A: Initially termed the Channel 7 building, the building is now referred to as 8 Central Avenue.

The building is being leased on a 99-year agreement by ATP Partnership, a joint venture between Rebel Property Group and Seven Network Ltd. Allen Linz is the Managing Director of Rebel Property Group. Australian Technology Park Precinct Management Ltd (ATPPML) is the lessor of the building and ultimate owner. ATPPML is a subsidiary of the Redfern Waterloo Authority.

Q: How much real and actual community participation is occurring in Redfern and Waterloo and how much of all "the good news work" is actually being imposed on the residents paternalistically?

A: The RWA is committed to consulting with the community on current and future issues in the Redfern Waterloo area.

The formal mechanism for community engagement is the three ministerial advisory committees for the Built Environment, Human Services and Employment and Enterprise plans. Each committee is comprised of community and government representatives and is now actively engaged in key issues, allowing for an active engagement in RWA planning and priorities. A number of REDWatch members are on these committees.

The RWA is committed to participation across a range of important areas where the community are closely engaged. These include, but are not limited to:

  • Representation on committees with community representation regarding specific issues, such as the Waterloo Safety Action Group, and the Learning, Employment and Enterprise Action Group,
  • Representation on groups such as the Community Drug Action Team and involvement in community activities such as Good Neighbour BBQs and the provision of assistance to local groups that rely on community membership and consensus, such as the Babana man's Group.

We also have feedback mechanisms in the RWA including a community e-mail address at redfernwaterloo@rwa.nsw.qov.au through which we receive regular communication on community issues and information.

Other mechanisms for communicating with the community include a monthly RWA Update that is sent out to close to 400 subscribers, a RWA Newsletter that is letterbox dropped quarterly to 17,600 homes in the Redfern Waterloo area (including Alexandria residents in proximity to the Australian Technology Park), an ATP Newsletter that is delivered by email every second month to over 500 subscribers, and regular updates on both the RWA and ATP websites.

For matters affecting the ATP, Australian Technology Park Precinct Management Ltd holds community meetings on key issues.

On Heritage the RWA has established the Redfern Waterloo Heritage Taskforce comprising community and other representatives to identify opportunities for heritage conservation, interpretation and adaptive re-use. The RWA will seek to establish an Eveleigh Sub-Group, which would again comprise community members, to assist this Taskforce.

The RWA is actively engaging with local businesses and building owners in the Roll Up Redfern forum. In concert with the City of Sydney and the Redfern Waterloo Chamber of Commerce, the campaign is encouraging businesses to roll up shutter doors to improve the commercial landscape and better reflect the current and future prosperity of this vibrant area.

In another initiative to improve perceptions about the area, the RWA, in conjunction with the City of Sydney Council and the Redfern Waterloo Chamber of Commerce, will soon undertake a branding exercise for the area. Community input will be a valued and necessary part of this process.

For new projects, development applications must be publicly exhibited and the public is invited to make submissions. Notices about these exhibitions will be included in the Update and newsletters, and on the websites.

In addition the RWA will continue to engage with REDWatch and attend their meetings on a quarterly basis to provide regular updates and presentations.

Q: Will the inclusion of Danks Street Festival become "owned" by RWA, as the rise in housing prices in Redfern and Waterloo has been claimed as being the result of the "good works" of RWA?

A: The Danks Street Festival is managed by the City of Sydney Council.

One of the key roles of the RWA is to communicate and promote all aspects of the Redfern Waterloo area, irrespective of which agency/organisation is involved in these events. In doing so, the RWA does not seek to claim ownership of any particular activity; rather it seeks to facilitate the communication of the many positive things that are happening in the area.

This is one of the key aspects of the urban renewal process for Redfern Waterloo. By communicating the good work being done by so many organisations that is occurring in the Redfern Waterloo, we assist in breaking down the misperceptions that exist regarding this area.

Q: What is happening with the Rachel Forster site? How long can it remain derelict?

A: An Environmental Assessment for the Project Application was lodged with the Department of Planning late February 2010. The Department is currently undertaking a "test of adequacy" to check whether the Environmental Assessment has adequately addressed the Director General Environmental Assessment Requirements (DGEARs). After a period of deliberation, the Environmental Assessment will be placed on public exhibition. Notice on public exhibitions appear on the RWA website, in the RWA Update and the RWA Newsletter.

The net proceeds from the sale of the Rachel Forster site funded the $10 million redevelopment of the old Redfern Courthouse into the new Redfern Health Centre, which is set to officially open in March 2010.

Q: Have the comments of CoS been taken into account re the Redfern Town Centre around heights, FSR and streetscape?

A: The RWA received a submission from the City of Sydney on the Draft Redfern Centre Guidelines. The RWA is currently reviewing this submission, together with other submissions. The City of Sydney will be informed of the RWA's response to this submission as soon as possible. Notice about the next step in the process will be made via BEMAC, the RWA website, the RWA Update, and the RWA Newsletter.

Q: Is the RSL car park DA a third development site? What is the number of storeys, FSR and when will the documents be available?

A: Full details of the approved Project Application are available on the Department of Planning's website under the Major Projects Register (Redfern RSL). The approved project is 18 storeys in height and has a Floor Space Ratio of 7:1. The height and FSR of the project comply with the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP), Major Development.

Q: What actual actions have the Roll Up Redfern Taskforce taken in regard to approaching businesses about removing shutters and engaging business outside the Chamber of Commerce members?

A: The RWA, the City of Sydney and the Redfern Chamber of Commerce have conducted walks around the area and engaged with business owners about roller shutters and the need to improve the commercial landscape of the area, improving perceptions about the area.

The RWA, Council and the Chamber are continuing to meet with business owners. The Roll Up Redfern group is seeking to engage with early adopters from which, it is anticipated, there will be a flow-on effect for other businesses in the area.

Q: What is the position of the RWA on the moves by the South Sydney Leagues Club to bypass Council on their plans to enlarge the Gaming area of the Club onto a larger balcony overlooking a preschool and residents? And the appropriateness of having poker machines in the same building as a family supermarket considering the large numbers of disadvantaged people with addiction problems in the area?

A: The development of the South Sydney Leagues Club is a matter that is properly for the City of Sydney Council in accordance with the planning controls for this location.

It would be inappropriate for the RWA to comment on this process.

Q: Will the installation of a needle vending machine in the new Redfern Street Health Centre influence future decisions re the needle van?

A: On 16th December 2009 the needle van was relocated from Caroline Street, Redfern to Hudson Street, Redfern. The operation of the van and its impact on drug users is currently being reviewed by NSW Health in partnership with key stakeholders.

Q: At the meeting the RWA distributed its new map of human services in the area. The following questions relate to that map.

The map shows 4 items under aging and disability.

A: See below for a response on aged and disability services.

Missionholme Hostel closed years ago. The site is now Georgia House, apparently crisis accommodation, neither for aged or disabled (the building was unsuitable to meet current standards).

A: Missionholme Hostel will be removed from our services list as part of our ongoing update of service provider details.

Amaroo Industries has also been closed for some time and the site purchased by the city of Sydney, not for aged nor disabled services.

A: Amaroo Industries will also be removed.

2/4 (and Clift Noble is outside your area).

A: The Cliff Noble Activity Centre, run by the City of Sydney, sits on the border of the RWA's Authority (see the Authority Map for the RWA). For the purposes of informing the aged and disabled community of a service available, and Cliff Noble's reasonable proximity to Redfern Waterloo, it is considered prudent to include Cliff Noble on the services list.

Q: The Redfern Waterloo Community is aging as much as the rest of Australia, no aged care facilities, no respite care.

A: At the time of the Report into Human Services in November 2004 (available on the RWA Human Services web page) there are a number of aged and disability service providers in the area that were not captured in the RWA services list and map. As a first step, the services list and map provided by the RWA is the basis of a living document, where service providers can be edited and added for the benefit of residents and business in the area. If you know of any service providers that were missed, please provide the details to the RWA's Ben Falkenmire at ben.falkenmire@rwa.nsw.gov.au.

On the adequacy of services in the Redfern Waterloo area for the aged and disabled, these are two key areas of focus in the RWA's Human Services Plan Phase II, which is currently being implemented. The recent appointments of Melissa Gibson as Director of Human Services, and Jennifer Duxley as Senior Project Manager to accompany Julie Parsons, are part of the RWA's commitment to making a tangible and practical impact in the delivery of improved human services to the Redfern Waterloo area, including its ageing population.

A number of questions submitted to the RWA but not answered in the initial email were answered on 4 May 2010 and these are provided below:

Q: Re: Sale of ATP – has the Government ever sold (the lease of 99 years) a large, important, state registered heritage collection of rare machinery before to a PRIVATE buyer? (Wendy McCaffery) 

A: Other locations where heritage matters have been involved in previous property transactions include Chullora, Rozelle Goods Yard, and parts of Darling Harbour.  As you are aware, North Eveleigh will also be sold.  As previously advised, heritage is an important aspect of any future sale of the ATP, which as you are aware is on the State Heritage Register.

Q: The Henry Berry Crane in the Plaza @ ATP – It is not good conservation practice to put complex heritage machinery on exhibition in the outdoors at the mercy of the elements. At the ICI glassworks for instance 2 machines have been set up outside & look terrible, condition wise. It is contrary to the CMP + the Govt own H.A.M.’s policy & document. (Wendy McCaffery) 

A: The refurbishment of the crane is being carried out by suitably qualified contractors under the supervision of a heritage specialist.  A maintenance regime will be put in place to ensure that this important heritage asset is maintained to its preserved standard.

Q: Has a decision been made re the independent heritage person to be appointed to the Heritage Taskforce. Our understanding is that once agreement was reached by three groups a decision would be made. (R Matthews Friends of Eveleigh) 

A: As you are aware, the appointment of an independent heritage representative on the RWHT is ongoing with the RWA investigating possible nominees in accordance with the directions of the RWHT.  This includes the organisations nominated by the RWHT and the additional nominee from Friends of Eveleigh.  The RWA will report back to the next meeting of the RWHT with the outcomes of these investigations in accordance with the RWHT's requirements.

Q: State of RailCorp’s sales in the area:- 1) finished; 2) any land mass retained – if so what?; 3) ongoing (Ross Smith) 

A: There are no further sales of RailCorp land in the area at this time.  Our previous comments regarding the possible sale of North Eveleigh refer in relation to that site.

Q: The RWA Act States:

52 Review of Act

(1) The Minister is to review this Act to determine whether the policy objectives of the Act remain valid and whether the terms of the Act remain appropriate for securing those objectives.

(2) The review is to be undertaken as soon as possible after the period of 5 years from the date of assent to this Act.

(3) A report on the outcome of the review is to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 12 months after the end of the period of 5 years.


1. Is this review currently underway?

2. Has a process and timeframe for the review been established?

3. Given the problems in the HSPlan evaluation will the next evaluation be completed prior to the finalisation of the review?

4. Will evaluations also be undertaken of the BEP & EEP prior to the review?

5. Will there be any mechanism for community input into any plan evaluations and into the review?

6. Will a draft review be made public for community comment prior to being finalised and the Minister making her determination?

7. When is the outcome of the review expected to be reported to both houses of Parliament?

A: The review of the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Act, 2004 is under consideration.  Any future review process of this legislation will be carried out in accordance with relevant Government policies and procedures.

In regard to the HS Plan Evaluation, we do not agree that there were problems as you assert.  We note that there were concerns raised regarding the evaluation process and these will be taken into consideration when the HS Plans are evaluated in the future.

Letter and Questions from REDWatch Co-ord Group

The REDWatch Co-ordinating Group wrote to the RWA on 15 March 2010 (Text Below) raising a number of concerns. At the end of that letter were a series of questions summarising the issues raised. The RWA responded to these questions at the same time as the Questions from the REDWatch meeting. To assist people to understand the issues raised and the RWA response we have reproduced the Co-ord Group email to the RWA below followed by the RWA response.

Dear Roy

Thank you for your email of 5th March to REDWatch Spokesperson Geoff Turnbull which was subsequently discussed at the recent REDWatch Co-ordination Group meeting.

REDWatch is keen to enter meaningful dialogue with you about Community Engagement and improved opportunities for greater community input into discussions regarding the future shape of Redfern Waterloo in its built environment, human services and employment and enterprise. REDWatch would even be happy to explore how a genuine partnership between government and community might be achieved. This critical area could be the focus for your next meeting with REDWatch.

We welcome the opportunities you have outlined for greater community input, and trust that the mechanisms you mentioned, when delivered, will provide genuine opportunities for diverse community input into the decisions that impact heavily upon our community. It is imperative that the RWA not only seeks meetings with our community, but actively engages in feedback with the community and considers the issues they raise, and then takes this community process into account as the RWA implements its legislated responsibilities.

Turning to the issue of the RWA’s Ministerial Advisory Committees (“MACs”), REDWatch continues to have concerns regarding these committees. We are particularly concerned that the Human Services MAC (“HSMAC”) did not meet in the second half of last year when so much needs to be addressed in raising the standard of Redfern Waterloo’s human services.

While you state that the membership of the MACs has now been established, this information has not been updated on the RWA website. We are aware of a number of requests for details of who is currently a MAC member, but no member details have been provided. A case in point is Helen Campbell, who was invited to re-join the HSMAC and wrote to the RWA about the invitation as she was unsure if she was or was not on the HSMAC.

REDWatch would also like to know how the membership of the MAC’s was revised. We would also like to see details for the attendance of all committee members (both Government and community) showing how many meetings they have attended out of the total possible meetings. For the MAC process to work properly there needs to be good committee participation levels, and the MAC members need to be involved in making input into the RWA’s decision making processes.

REDWatch does have members who are on the Built Environment MAC (“BEMAC”) and HSMAC and can receive verbal reports about these two MACs. These memberships are as individuals, not as REDWatch representatives. We have no members involved on the Employment and Enterprise MAC (“EEMAC”) so we have no idea about what goes on in this MAC. REDWatch would be keen to know what the EEMAC is currently working on; what follow up has been done within the EEMAC with the RWA “Creating a Culture of Work in the Redfern Waterloo Area” study; and what is proposed by the RWA to provide employment and enterprise opportunities for non indigenous public housing tenants.

REDWatch suggests that the RWA should consider making available MAC minutes/summaries so that those concerned about a particular area can keep abreast with what is being done by the relevant MAC. There should also be a MAC mechanism where community members can place suggestions / issues of concern before the MAC’s.

REDWatch has long complained about the lack of implementation of Community Forums where the community has the opportunity to “[p]rovide the Minister with advice on planning for the Redfern Waterloo area and provides the community with a direct link to the Minister”.[1] So far only one dedicated meeting regarding the RWA’s activities has been held with the Minister which was open to all people living within the RWA area. This was organised by REDWatch. REDWatch would like to explore how the proposed Community Forums might be constructed to meet the objectives outlined by the RWA. This is important because not all of Redfern Waterloo’s issues are covered by the areas of concern the three MACs specifically address. Also many issues contain elements covered by two or more of the MACs and such issues need to be dealt with in an integrated manner.

On the subject of broader consultation, REDWatch is concerned that to the best of our knowledge the framework and timeframe for the current proposed round of consultation for the RWA’s Built Environment Plan 2 (“BEP2”) has not been finalised, made known to the BEMAC, nor made available to the public. Yet both Housing NSW and yourself say that the consultation has already started. It is of concern to REDWatch that a consultation and engagement strategy is underway without the details of the process being publicly released, especially to all those that gave their time when asked for input on how it should best be done. Any information that you can provide about why this was allowed to happen would be most welcome.

A number of the areas of concern highlighted above were detailed by REDWatch in the lead up to the last state election in An Agenda for Redfern Waterloo Changes (“2007 Paper”). This document detailed REDWatch’s 2007 concerns in a number of areas regarding the RWA and its activities. Whilst there appears to have been some changes initiated by the new Minister, most of the issues raised in the paper continue to be of concern to REDWatch and the wider community. These grave concerns are likely to be carried forward into any RWA evaluation submission and into REDWatch’s 2011 pre-election evaluation of government involvement in Redfern Waterloo.

At the heart of the many concerns we highlighted in the 2007 Paper are issues related to Community Engagement and improved opportunities for greater community input into discussions about the future shape of Redfern Waterloo in its built environment, human services and employment and enterprise.

These are some of the areas we wish to be explored further in future meetings with the RWA.

For your assistance please find attached a numbered summary of the specific questions raised in this letter. We would greatly appreciate these questions being added to the list of written questions arising at the meeting and already supplied for you to address in writing.

Again, thank you for addressing REDWatch and, of course, we look forward to welcoming you again to REDWatch on Thursday 3rd June 2010.


Trevor Davies


On behalf of the REDWatch Co-ordinating Group

15th March 2010

Below are the questions referred to in the email and the RWA’s responses.

Q: 1.     Could the critical area of how to achieve a genuine partnership between government and community be the focus for your next meeting with REDWatch?

A: Yes. The RWA is very happy to discuss the furthering of the partnership with the Redfern Waterloo community at future Redwatch (and other) meetings.

Q: 2.     Will Community Forums be held & constructed in such a manner to better meet the objectives outlined by the RWA?

A: The RWA is committed to engaging with the community on the implementation of the Redfern Waterloo Plan. This is already occurring through a number of ongoing forums that are conducted in support of the activities of the RWA including (but not limited to):

a. Meeting with Redwatch

b. Meeting with NGO's

c. Youth Services Taskforce

d. Family Violence Taskforce

e. Community meetings on specific development matters

f. Individual meetings with service delivery organisations

g. Implementation Seniors Officer Group Meetings

h. Community meetings with the City of Sydney in the Redfern and Darlington area

i. Social Housing meeting groups eg NABs

Community forums have and will continue to be held on a range of matters. The nature, attendance and agenda for these forums will vary depending on the issues and topics to be discussed, eg, the RWA is in the process of setting up a forum with the Inner Sydney Regional Council and key NGO's to discuss the delivery of human services in the Redfern Waterloo area.

As advised above at 1, the RWA is happy to discuss how this engagement can be progressed.

Q: 3.     How will the mechanisms you have mentioned in your email provide genuine opportunities for diverse community input into the decisions about our community?

A: The RWA will continue to engage with the community and is open to suggestions on how this can be effectively achieved.

Q: 4.     Why did the HSMAC not meet in the second half of last year?

A: The HSMAC has now met with the benefit of a renewed Committee and a new Human Services Team in the RWA. This augers well for future meetings of this Committee.

Q: 5.     Could you please supply the names and appropriate details of all current MAC memberships and will the MAC membership details be updated on the RWA website?

A: The MAC membership will be placed on the RWA Website.

Q: 6.     Was Helen Campbell a member of the HSMAC for its last meeting? If not, who was offered her place and why was Helen’s letter not dealt with prior to the HSMAC?

A: Helen Campbell is still an invited and welcome member of the HSMAC. Her place has not been offered to anyone else. The RWA has no record of receiving a letter from Helen Campbell regarding this matter. We would welcome her response on this accordingly.

Q: 7.     How was the membership of the MACs revised? Was the attendance record of Government and Community representatives taken into account before appointments were extended? What was the basis for adding new members?

A: All current serving members of MACs were reappointed unless they asked not to be involved in future MACs and/or have left the area. All members were appointed by the Minister in accordance with the relevant policy and procedures.

Q: 8.     Can you make available details for the attendance of all MAC members (both Government and community) showing how many meetings they have attended out of the total possible meetings?

A: Attendance at MAC meetings will be reported in the RWA Annual Report going forward.

Q: 9.     Will the RWA make available MAC minutes / summary to the community?

A: This request will be forwarded to the RWA Board for consideration.

Q: 10.   Will there be a MAC mechanism where community members can place suggestions and issues of concern before MAC’s and other committees?

A: Yes. All members of the MACs are invited to provide feedback in relation to the meetings, including suggestions for topics/issues and agenda items.

Q: 11.   What is the EEMAC currently working on?

A: The EEMAC is currently working on employment and enterprise opportunities for the Redfern Waterloo area in accordance with the Redfern Waterloo Plan. This includes coordinating with the Roll-Up Redfern group and other forums as appropriate. EEMAC (and HSMAC) members were asked for their priority issues at the last meeting and will be asked this again prior to the next meeting.

Q: 12.   What follow up is happening to the RWA’s “Creating a Culture of Work in the Redfern Waterloo Area” study?

A: The RWA is working with the CofS, the RWCC and other key stakeholders to promote business and employment opportunities for the Redfern Waterloo area The RWA is working on community based projects to promote employment among social housing tenants. The RWA is also continuing to implement the Aboriginal Employment Model with approximately 200 people now having graduated from its hospitality and construction training colleges, and over 60 % of these obtaining employment and/or further employment opportunities. The RWA has, through its work with State Government agencies and the private sector, created over 500 employment opportunities under this model.

Q: 13.   What is proposed by the RWA to address employment and enterprise opportunities for non indigenous public housing tenants?

A: As above. The Yaama Dhiyaan Hospitality Training Centre is open to both non-Indigenous and Indigenous members of the public. In addition, the RWA I working with the community and other key stakeholders through the LEEAG to facilitate training and employment opportunities for both indigenous and other cultural groups in the area. An example of this is the Landscaping Project the RWA was involved with and supported at the Waterloo social housing sites.

Q: 14.   When will the framework and timeframe for the current proposed round of consultation for the RWA’s BEP2 be released?

A: As soon as is possible

Other Matters responded to by the RWA from the Co-ord group letter

A: It is noted that Redwatch 'members' are not representing Redwatch at the MACs. The point the of e-mail of 5 March 2010 is that there are opportunities for the sharing of information between Redwatch and the MAC process by virtue of people being involved in both groups.

The Minister for Redfern Waterloo has attended a number of community forums in Redfern Waterloo over the past 14 months. This includes attendance at a Redwatch meeting as well as with social housing tenants. The Minister will continue to engage with the Redfern Waterloo community accordingly.

The process by which Redwatch intends to engage in the 2011 election is noted. This is a matter for Redwatch to pursue. The RWA will remain focussed on meeting its legislative obligations as outlined in the Redfern Waterloo Authority Act 2004 in accordance with relevant Government policies and procedures.

It is also noted that Redwatch asserts that the "wider community" holds concern that the RWA has not addressed a number of matters raised in Redwatch's paper in the lead up to the 2007 election. As advised, the RWA will continue to work with all parts of the community in relation to the implementation of the Redfern Waterloo Plan. Whilst it is acknowledged that not all members of the community will agree with the outcomes of the RWA's efforts, it should be noted that in a number of instances, the RWA has received words of appreciation and encouragement for its efforts.

This document has been compiled by Geoffrey Turnbull REDWatch Spokesperson from original correspondence,

5 May 2010.

[1] [Redfern Waterloo MINISTERIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES TERMS OF REFERENCE 16 June 2005 recirculated to MAC Members in 2009]