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]