REDWatch Submission - NSW Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage Inquiry
Basis for Submission
“REDwatch is a group of community residents and friends from Redfern, Waterloo, Eveleigh and Darlington who support the existing diversity in these areas and wish to promote sustainable, responsible economic and social development. REDwatch recognises the importance of the Aboriginal community to the area.
REDWatch has been formed to:
- Monitor the activities of the Government (local, state and federal), the Redfern Waterloo Authority, and any other government instrumentality with responsibility for the Redfern, Waterloo, Darlington and Eveleigh area, to ensure that: (a) The strategy benefits a diverse community, (b) Communication and consultation is comprehensive and responsive (c) Pressure is maintained on authorities
- Provide a mechanism for discussion and action on community issues.
- Enhance communication between
community groups and encourage broad community participation”. (Objects of REDWatch Inc.)
REDWatch
makes this submission with special reference to the inquiry terms of reference
which asks the Inquiry to inquire into and report on “(c) previous Social Issues
committee reports containing reference to Aboriginal people – and assess the
progress of government in implementing adopted report recommendations”.
In 2004 the
Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Social Issues held an Inquiry
into issues relating to Redfern and Waterloo (Redfern and Waterloo Inquiry). That inquiry had a
strong focus on the Aboriginal people who live in Redfern and Waterloo and on government activities that
impact upon them. That inquiry issued an Interim Report with 22 recommendations
in August 2004 and a further Final Report in December 2004 with 38 recommendations.
The progress of Government in implementing these adopted report recommendations
should be assessed by the current inquiry under 1 (c) of its terms of
reference.
We note
that Redfern and Waterloo Inquiry
Recommendation 37 proposed: “That a further parliamentary inquiry into
issues in Redfern and Waterloo
and measures taken to address them be conducted in 2006”. No follow up
inquiry was conducted so this present inquiry provides an opportunity to
re-look at aspects of the Redfern and
Waterloo Inquiry that relate to Aboriginal people and a follow up Inquiry
into all aspects of the implementation of the Government’s plans in Redfern
Waterloo should be considered.
The
covering letter to the Government response to the 2004 Redfern and Waterloo Inquiry stated: “The Government's plans for Redfern-Waterloo, which were announced
in mid to late 2004 took into account issues raised through the course of the
Inquiry. Accordingly, the Government's
response is divided into seven sections, including: Policing in
Redfern-Waterloo, Minister with responsibility for Redfern-Waterloo, Redfern-
Waterloo Plan, Redfern-Waterloo Authority, Redfern-Waterloo Partnership
Project, Human Services in Redfern-Waterloo, and the Aboriginal Housing Company
and Redevelopment of the Block”. The Government’s progress in
implementing the recommendations of the Redfern
and Waterloo Inquiry in these areas in the response should at least be
assessed by the current inquiry.
At the end of the inquiry in December 2004 the Government envisaged that:
- “The Redfern Waterloo Authority will administer a Redfern Waterloo Fund and manage public infrastructure, land and properties in the area” (Premiers Announcement October 26 2004)
- “The Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Program (RWPP) - to continue for the medium term, co-ordinating various government services in Redfern-Waterloo and implementing the findings of the Human Services Review” (Attachment to Letter sent by Minister Sartor December 2004).
- “The Minister responsible for the Redfern-Waterloo Authority will
coordinate all State Government funding within the area.” (Premiers Announcement October
26 2004)
Despite the
Government agreeing in 2004 to extend the RWPP funding until 2008 and to
restructure it (Final Report p 147), early in 2005 a decision was made to wind
up the RWPP and to incorporate its functions and funding into the Redfern
Waterloo Authority (RWA) effective as of 30 June 2005. Hence any
recommendations in the Redfern and
Waterloo Inquiry which refer to the Redfern Waterloo Partnership Project
should now be applied to the RWA.
At the time of the Redfern and Waterloo Inquiry it was thought that the Human Services Plan and the Redfern Waterloo Plan would be separate plans. The inquiry recommendations reflect this. The Minister, after the establishment of the RWA, decided that the Redfern Waterloo Plan would be made up of plans for three separate areas. The Redfern Waterloo Plan currently has the following components:
- Human Services Plan Phase One - December 2005,
- The Employment and Enterprise Plan - May 2006
- Built Environment Plan Stage
One - August 2006.
A Draft
Human Services Plan (Phase 2), covering services provided to older people,
people with disabilities, homeless people and migrant communities, was
exhibited in late 2006 but has not yet been approved by Government. A Built
Environment Plan Stage 2 dealing with public and affordable housing is under
preparation and is expected to be released for consultation in the first half
of 2008.
The RWA is of the view that everything required of the Redfern Waterloo Plan will be met by these individual plans. REDWatch is of the view that key areas that should be in the Redfern Waterloo Plan are missing as a result of the Plan being constructed in this way. REDWatch is also of the view that interactions between aspects of the three plans have not been adequately addressed. REDWatch provided the RWA with a proposal for how the Plan could be prepared in consultation with the community in May 2005 but this was ignored. For proposal details see www.redwatch.org.au/redwatch/statements/2005redwatch/050531Plan/ .
Redfern Waterloo is important to Aboriginal People
Redfern
Waterloo is an important focus for Aboriginal people from around metropolitan Sydney, NSW and Australia. It was the birth place
of many of the Independent Aboriginal Organisations such as the Aboriginal
Medical Service, the Aboriginal Housing Company, the Aboriginal Legal Service
and Aboriginal Children’s Services just to mention a few. This tradition
continues, in 2007 Redfern action put the story of the neglect of Black Diggers
on the national agenda. Redfern is the site of the Block, the first land
purchased by Aboriginal people with funding from the Federal Government for
housing for Aboriginal people.
With the
gentrification of Redfern many Aboriginal people have been pushed out of the
area as rents became expensive, leaving the present Aboriginal population
living primarily in public housing. According to the city of Sydney website 2006 data shows 276 Indigenous
people in Redfern and 369 in Waterloo-Zetland based on Australian Bureau of
Statistics, Census of Population and Housing, 2006. While the Aboriginal
population who reside in Redfern Waterloo is relatively small, Aboriginal
people come to the area for services and to connect with friends and family.
Redfern is usually the first port of call for Aboriginal people coming to Sydney from NSW and around Australia. Any decisions about the
future of Redfern Waterloo need to involve the Aboriginal families and clans
that are part of the community and the broad range of services which cater for
those who visit the area.
The
Aboriginal community in Redfern is not homogenous. It is made up of Aboriginal
people from different tribal groups from throughout Sydney,
NSW and Australia.
This means that successful engagement with the Aboriginal community involves
talking to a wide range of different people who are not represented by any one
organisation or leader / elder. Government’s approach has tended to be to work
with and support the parts of the community that are most easily identified or
who think similarly to government and to ignore and deride those that they find
difficult to deal with. The RWA’s involvement with the Redfern Waterloo
Aboriginal community has not been immune from this, especially in their use of
past disagreements between various parts of the community to try and stop the
Aboriginal Housing Company’s Pemulwuy Project. Trying to play various groups
off against each other didn’t work and the outcome was that many who had
historical differences with those currently involved with the housing company
have come out in their support.
Most in the
Aboriginal community who live in Redfern Waterloo have had negative experiences
in their interactions with various arms of Government, either first hand or
through their kin. As some the most disadvantaged in the community, Aboriginal
people’s everyday experience of how the federal and state systems work and
interact with them should provide valuable input to Government in the task of
improving government human services and in assessing what can assist in overcoming
Indigenous disadvantage. Sadly the first hand experience of marginalised people
is seldom listened to or valued by those exercising power over how assistance
is delivered.
Each time
the system is exposed as wanting, as REDWatch believes it currently is in
Redfern Waterloo, we get a new study that digs up most of the same old facts
and new policies that change some procedure to address the shortcomings. Seldom
are the procedures taken back and tested against the experience of the service
suppliers and the service users to see if they reflect their experience and
address their concerns and priorities. On the occasions that input is sought,
as it was in part in the preparation of the RWA Human Services Plan with
Service providers, the input is often ignored or dismissed by government policy
makers as irrelevant rather than taken seriously.
It appears
that government departments only seem to refine service provision rather than
finding long term ways to minimise the problems which cause people to seek such
services in the first place. Any serious attempt to overcome Indigenous
disadvantage has to involve the adequate provisions of services to meet
existing human needs, early intervention to try and prevent problems at the
earliest possible stage and strategies to assist people out of disadvantage
rather than to just better servicing them in their disadvantage.
If the Inquiry into Closing the Gap – Overcoming
Indigenous Disadvantage is to produce results it will have to come to grips
with a community like Redfern. It will have to understand how the Government’s
policies and ways of doing business, both past and present, impact on the
different parts of the Aboriginal Community both constructively and detrimentally.
In looking at its recommendations it needs also to identify the factors that
are specific to successful implementation in an inner city location like
Redfern and Waterloo
with a diverse Aboriginal population.
The Inquiry into Redfern and Waterloo in
2004 recognised the importance of Redfern to Aboriginal people and made many of
its recommendations specifically on Aboriginal Issues and their interaction
with the Government programmes in the area. Many others recommendations were
equally applicable to Indigenous and non-Indigenous people as they apply to the
provision of mainstream Government services to the whole community.
In this submission REDWatch will raise some general issues about Government involvement in Redfern Waterloo. Much of this relates across the community but it also impacts significantly upon Aboriginal people. If for example, Government does not have a robust process for discussing issues with the community this will impact even more on the Aboriginal community where literacy levels are lower and there is a cultural preference for face to face discussion rather than dealing in written reports and the preparation of written submissions.
The dispossessions of Aboriginal people creates unique problems that have to be addressed
While many
aspects needed to overcome Indigenous disadvantage are similar to overcoming
any form disadvantage, the committee has to remember that Indigenous
disadvantage has a history of dispossession, of control and of repression which
led to / created the loss of language, culture, identity and esteem.
Recommendation 16 of the Redfern and
Waterloo Inquiry proposed a commitment to a community healing strategy.
This could well be a way of characterising the task of overcoming Indigenous
disadvantage. How do you go about healing the results of 220 years of
dispossession and demoralisation? How do you provide the confidence, the skills
and experience for people who have had them denied or taken away? How do you
heal the damage and reinstate to individuals and communities what has been
denied to them over such a long time?
When the Settlement Neighbourhood Centre, which works with
many of the youth from the Block, refused to make a submission to the RWA on
its Draft Human Services Plan it was seen as being uncooperative and
obstructive. The Settlement
letter to the RWA, which is attached as Appendix 1 [The
Settlement Human Services Letter], explained why the Settlement would not make a submission. The letter
raises many of the issues which the RWA and your inquiry will need to address.
It has to deal with justice and advocacy. It has to be about working with a
diverse range of people and problems. It is about dealing with the effect of
the 220 years of dispossession of everything held dear.
The Redfern and Waterloo Inquiry in its
Interim and Final Reports made many recommendations about relations between the
police and the Aboriginal community. This is a crucial area for this inquiry to
investigate, not just because of the present extraordinarily high levels of
Aboriginal incarceration and the problems this creates, but because of the
historical role police have played in the dispossession of Aboriginal people.
As the enforcers of past government policies Aboriginal communities grew up to
distrust police and the system they represented. This legacy of distrust, which
is not shared by any other group in Australia in the same way, has to
be taken into account when dealing with Aboriginal Police relations.
This is the
reason a police car chasing an Aboriginal teenager on a bike, police pulling a
car over with an Aboriginal driver for a routine check or a strip search of an
Aboriginal youth have much more significance and baggage within the Aboriginal
community than there would be in the white community. It is crucial that police
working with Aboriginal people have extensive training in racism issues and
Aboriginal culture so that they do not perpetuate bad Aboriginal/ police
relations into the future. After years of being on the receiving end of racism
and abuse most Aboriginal people are well attuned to recognising racism, even
if those who are accused of it are not aware that their actions could be
interpreted as racist.
The Inquiry
into Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage must look closely at how the NSW Police
Aboriginal Strategic Direction Policy is being implemented within a community
like Redfern and try to understand Aboriginal concerns about the police
treatment of Aboriginal people. Only a full opening up of these issues can
start to address past practices and the history of distrust to throw light on
how that history is perpetuated and the distrust of police passes on to
subsequent generations. As part of this it has to address incarceration levels
by helping offenders out of what too often has been a cycle of incarceration
leading to further criminal activity.
Along side this; the Inquiry into Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage will have to deal with the health impacts of loss of self identity and dispossession. It will have to deal with the high levels of drug and alcohol abuse and the domestic violence that often go with it. It is difficult to understand given the wide concern within the Aboriginal community as well as the broader community about domestic violence and child abuse why Mud-gin-gal, the Aboriginal Women’s centre in Redfern, has had so much trouble in obtaining support for projects to address such issues in Redfern Waterloo. The contribution from the RWA of $70,000 for In-home Family Support for Aboriginal Families barely scratches the surface of what needs to be done.
REDWatch has documented the Government and RWA’s Activities in Redfern and Waterloo
REDWatch as
well as, many individuals and organisations have written many papers and
submissions about the RWA and its Plans. Much of this material is available on
the REDWatch website at www.redwatch.org.au
and we do not propose to repeat it here. The most recent analysis by REDWatch
of the RWA and its activities was “An Agenda for Redfern Waterloo Changes in
2007” produced in March 2007 for the NSW State
election. This analysis is still valid and we have attached this document as
Appendix 2 [An
Agenda for Redfern Waterloo Changes.] for the Inquiry’s easy reference.
We have
also attached as Appendix 3 an article in the Indigenous Law Bulletin No 47 by
REDWatch spokesperson Geoffrey Turnbull in August 2005 entitled “Actions
Speak Louder than Words: Redfern-Waterloo’s Recent Experience of
‘Consultation’“ [www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ILB/2005/47.html]. This article
documents the initial experience of the community, including the Aboriginal
Housing Company, of the RWA’s approach to Consultation.
REDWatch is
happy to clarify for the committee any of the issues raised in these papers or
in the rest of this submission.
For the remainder of this submission REDWatch wishes to bring to the attention of the Inquiry some of the recommendations for action from the Redfern and Waterloo Inquiry that have not been implemented by Government but which in our view should have been implemented.
The Missing Partnership in the Redfern Waterloo Project
The final
chapter of the Redfern and Waterloo Inquiry
Report dealt with the Future of Redfern Waterloo. Among the issues dealt
with by the committee were: “Working with the non government sector and
the community” and “community engagement”. From these
sections the Inquiry made Recommendation 36 which states: “That the NSW Government, through
the Redfern Waterloo Partnership Project and the Redfern Waterloo Authority,
take all possible steps to achieve genuine partnership between State and
Commonwealth agencies, the City of Sydney Council, the non government sector
and the local community in order to address the issues facing Redfern and
Waterloo”.
The
absorption of the RWPP into the RWA marked the end of any notion of
“partnership” involving the community and the non government sector. Promises
made to the community about Community Engagement Proposals under the RED
Strategy disappeared along with the RWPP Community Council and the promises of
consultation made when the RWA Act was being negotiated through Parliament.
It was
argued after the RWA was established that the area had been much studied and further
consultation was not really required. It was seen by the RWA as more important
to get plans drawn up rather than talk further with the community about the
problems. There is of course some truth in this statement about the area being
much studies but consultation is not just about identifying problems it is
about testing what the reports found with the community to make sure that the
problems are identified correctly and that plans and strategies adopted also
cover community priorities and concerns.
The result
of the RWA’s approach was that Plans were drawn up with minimal community
input, signed off by Government Departments and Cabinet before they were ever
seen by the community. “Community consultation” effectively became the
opportunity to make a written submission on the plan during its exhibition
period. This is a long way from the Partnership approach the community expected
it would receive.
In April
2005 after the RWA was set up the Minister promised: “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 provides the community with a direct link to the Minister.” (RWA’s
Redfern-Waterloo Plan #3, April 2005 – How Your Voice will be Heard) – Other
than an early meeting specifically for Public Housing Tenants the Minister has
never called or attended such a Community Forum in Redfern Waterloo. In the
first six months of the RWA, the Minister did meet with members of local ALP
branches but these also were seen as too problematic and ceased.
The only
mechanism for ongoing community input, other than writing or ringing the RWA,
is through the community positions on the three Ministerial Advisory Committees
(MACs) which meet quarterly. Despite their name the Minister has never attended
any MAC meetings and it is unclear how the Minister’s chosen community
representatives who sit with representatives of Government Departments on these
Advisory committees can advise the Minister. The meetings are primarily updates
about what the RWA has done in the last three months.
As
mentioned above, the formal exhibition of plans is what is called
“consultation” by the RWA. By contrast the City of Sydney in drawing its proposals, including
its Development Control Plans which are similar to the RWA’s Built Environment
Plan, provides many opportunities for community input before a proposal goes to
council and goes on public exhibition. There is a general community view that
there is little use making submissions to the RWA as after the cabinet has
already signing off on a plan there is little likelihood that new material will
be included or proposals changed. REDWatch and others feel this view has been
borne out with the lack of changes made to the RWA Plans exhibited to date.
In the
early stages of the Human Services Plan preparation there were meetings of
human service cluster groups to provide input, but many participants lost
confidence in the Plan when their input and concerns were not reflected in the
Draft Human Services Plan or the final version. In the case of the Built
Environment Plan there was so much information missing from the exhibited Plan
as well as conflicts between the Plan and the simultaneously exhibited SEPP
that REDWatch asked for the Plan to be withdrawn, fixed and then re-exhibited.
In contrast the RWA’s final Built Environment Plan included a lot of new
material which had not previously been publicly exhibited because it was added
in after the exhibition!
Final plans
for Redfern Railway Station have been drawn up. Despite (at time of writing)
the RWA website still saying that the RWA will “undertake community consultation
on the resultant design options” no consultation has ever taken place. We are
told the Station Design will not become public until after Government Funding
has been agreed.
The RWA has
had what it initially called a design competition for the concept plan for North Eveleigh. Based on this a firm was appointed to
undertake the concept plan for North Eveleigh.
If this concept plan follows the process that was used for Rachael Forster
Hospital the community
will not see the details of what the RWA propose for this part of our suburb
until it appears on the Department of Planning Website with Director General’s
Requirements.
REDWatch has consistently expressed its desire to work with the RWA in a cooperative way but we have found ourselves characterised as opponents rather than partners. From our perspective the RWA has not taken “all possible steps to achieve genuine partnership” with “the non government sector and the local community in order to address the issues facing Redfern and Waterloo” as requested in Recommendation 36. This failure to genuinely engage the community has led to a lot of cynicism about the Government’s and RWA’s real interest in Redfern and Waterloo.
Improved Government Co-ordination?
The RWPP
and the RWA held out the promise that they could get Government Departments and
non government organisations together to seriously tackle the area’s problems.
In the Government announcement “The Minister
responsible for the Redfern-Waterloo Authority will coordinate all State
Government funding within the area.” The Redfern and Waterloo Inquiry
Recommendation 30 was that “That the NSW Government ensure that the
Redfern Waterloo Partnership Project, or a similar coordinating body, is
extended beyond 2008, is adequately resourced, with appropriate performance
measurement, so that the long term social disadvantage in Redfern and Waterloo
can be addressed.”.
In the case
of the Human Services Plan (Phase 1) initially there was some reason to believe
that there has been some improved co-operation between departments at policy
level. The Plan covers a range of Human Services delivered by a number of
departments and it allocates responsibility for delivery and co-ordination to
various departments. Encouragingly, given the Morgan Disney focus on NGOs, the
first part of the Human Services Plan recognised that Government Agencies
needed to improve the delivery of their services and that they needed to put in
place proposals for early intervention to address the area’s problems.
Against the
advice of Recommendation 9 of the Redfern
and Waterloo Inquiry the RWA has made no request for additional funding to
cover the additional cost of early intervention strategies. The community and
NGOs have been told repeatedly that individual Government Departments are expected
to find the increased resources from other activities within their existing
departmental budget. Similar pressures have also now been placed on department
budgets by the NSW State Plan which expects implementation to be made within
existing budgets. Early intervention strategies require initial additional
funding as existing services need to be maintained until the results of early
intervention work their way through the system. In the long term early
intervention will save on service delivery later, but if the extra money is not
available to introduce early intervention it is difficult to see how the RWA
Human Service Plan can be implemented.
REDWatch is
unaware of any Human Service Review of Government Core activities being
undertaken as covered by Redfern and
Waterloo Inquiry Recommendations 7 and 23. REDWatch is also unaware of any
audit of Government assets in Redfern Waterloo as requested by Recommendation
25. No report was made publicly available as requested by the recommendation.
We agree with the recommendation that such a review should have been undertaken
and the results made public to compliment the Morgan Disney Review.
Such
information would have been crucial had the RWA adopted Redfern and Waterloo Inquiry Recommendation 32 which requested “That
the NSW Government, through the Redfern Waterloo Authority and the Redfern
Waterloo Partnership Project, establish short, medium and long term strategic
objectives for the area and key outcomes associated with those objectives. In
addition, the Government's
performance against these objectives should be regularly reviewed and reported
to the public.”
No short,
medium or long term objectives were established by the RWA. While the City of Sydney is looking at
planning out to 2030, the RWA has not assessed what government services may be
required in the area after the residential and working population is increased
to the levels sought by the Government. REDWatch and others have argued that
Government land should not be disposed of until there was a study undertaken of
what public domain and services were required for the area in the future. On
the sale of the school site REDWatch was told that if the Government needed
space for a new school in 25 years then it would have to go into the market and
buy the land for it. This lack of long term planning smacks more of a
Government and Authority looking for short term gains than of any genuine
attempt at long term strategic planning for the area.
Coordination
between Government Departments on the ground has been even more difficult to
obtain. Recommendation 20 of The Redfern
and Waterloo Inquiry was “That the Department of Housing continue to
seek ways to address tenant concerns in relation to maintenance, the physical
environment of the estate, estate and tenant management, and security and
safety.” Redfern Police recently undertook a Safety Audit of Waterloo
Green. The audit found that inadequate maintenance by the Department of Housing
was a major contributor to the poor safety on the Waterloo Green, which is
Departmental land. While the RWA has facilitated a response to the Safety Audit
local residents are concerned that little has happened and that the
Department’s duty of care is still not being properly exercised. The major
concern is that if such issues can not be addressed on existing Department
properties what is the likelihood that such issues will be better addressed
following the RWA and Housing NSW’s proposed renewal of public housing stock.
The Morgan
Disney report on Redfern and Waterloo Human Services, which focused primarily
on NGOs, set expectation that there was enough money already in the area. It
expected to find savings by streamlining the way existing services operated
which could be used to meet un-met needs in the area. Much of the Morgan Disney
report is now widely dismissed and the RWA has been unable to find the savings
expected by rationalising services and service providers. However what has
eventuated is that while no savings have been found to be re-directed towards
un-met need, neither has any new funding been forthcoming.
Non
government agencies pointing out areas were funding is desperately needed to
meet unmet need have repeatedly been told by RWA Human Services staff that
there is no additional government funding for human services in the area. This
creates an intolerable situation for service providers whose staff see needs
increasing within the community, due in part to older and higher needs public
tenants, but have no access to increased resources to address the needs. They
are left in the invidious situation of not being able to accommodate new
service users as they are already running at full capacity unless there is
additional funding.
The Inquiry into Redfern and Waterloo also
recognised the importance for the Government to be involved in capacity
building within the Aboriginal (Interim Recommendation 3) and NGO communities
(Recommendation 11). These important recommendations have not been undertaken
by Government at the level required. During the preparation of the Human
Service Plans NGOs, both Indigenous and non-indigenous, were expected to put
time, for which they were not funded, into attending meetings and providing
input to the RWA. There was considerable resentment that no resources were made
available for this activity which was not funded by existing NGO funding
agreements and took time from funded programmes. These concerns were compounded
when the final plans came out and NGO’s found little of their input reflected
in the final documents and felt there time had been totally wasted.
One of the
issues in capacity building is that resources are needed for staff and
committee training and development especially in NGOs that rely heavily on
volunteer management committees. Because of funding constraints they also often
have to employ relatively inexperienced staff who have greater training needs
and require additional support. Good NGO Aboriginal staff are often enticed
into better paying government jobs leaving NGOs to train up new Aboriginal
staff and to deal with issues faced by inexperienced staff without any
additional support. Most community organisations go through problem patches
with staff or committees and capacity building to minimise such problems and to
assist organisations through those periods can minimise these problems.
Another
significant Recommendation which has also not been implemented is Inquiry
Recommendation 22 which proposed “a community development strategy for the
area, the primary focus of which is on community members and groups. The
strategy should include provision for a small grants scheme to fund local
community development activities”. What many of us understand as
community development seems very much out of vogue in Government circles
including the RWA. The fear seems to be that active community groups who are
taking an interest in their communities and what happens to them create
potential problems for government and should not be encouraged. If you need
proof of this look at the way in which the website “Community
Engagement in the NSW Planning System” has gone from winning Planning
awards in 2004 for best practice to now when the site is no longer being
maintained or part of the mainstream Department of Planning website ( currently
http://203.147.162.100/pia/engagement/index.htm
).
The changes
in the way the Government approaches planning are reflected in the way the RWA
deals with the local community. REDWatch for example has been refused a link on
the RWA site on the basis that we are political in a way that the Redfern
Waterloo Chamber of Commerce and service providers are not! By contrast the
City of Sydney
maintains links to residents groups and Chambers of Commerce on their website.
One of the
main problems for the RWA is that proper community engagement and capacity
building, like early intervention, is a time consuming and expensive process
and the return on investment is not immediate. The RWA has been in a hurry to
be seen to deliver. With no real commitment to a robust community engagement
process in developing its plans, resources were not made available to fund a
proper community engagement process. The result is that “consultation” has
become limited to the opportunity to make a submission on a plan or development
proposal during the exhibition phase rather than an opportunity for community
involvement in the development of the proposals in the first place.
Recommendation
13 of the Redfern and Waterloo Inquiry
called for the reinstatement of the Youth Taskforce with a membership of
Government and non government providers.
Recommendations 14 and 15 dealt with improved youth facilities and
provision of weekend programmes. Little has happened in this area. The Fact
tree still occupies the same premises. After an initial flurry of activity to
reorganise Youth Services in line with the RWA’s Human Services Plan the Youth
Taskforce has effectively stopped meeting and services continue to operate out
of substandard premises. Funds have not been made available to expand operating
hours. There are some prospects of improved facilities in a 1 to four year time
span depending on funding being found but Human Services are largely on their
own in finding suitable accommodation as services removed from the old Redfern
School found out when it was being prepared for sale.
The demise
of the Redfern Waterloo Street Team (RWST) has seen the Government quit service
delivery in this sector apart from programmes run in association with Alexandria Park Community
School. It was initially
expected that the balance of the RWST funding would be allocated to local Youth
Services programmes but this did not eventuate.
Currently the RWPP money is due to run out in mid 2008 and the indications are that the RWA will essentially quit the RWPP Human Services role it took over and leave that role to Human Service Agencies in co-ordination with the RWA.
Lack of Transparency
The final
chapter of the Inquiry into Redfern and
Waterloo also dealt with the need for transparency. This also continued to
be a problem under the RWA. While the RWA makes available the component parts
of The Redfern Waterloo Plan, other important documents including “accountability
measures” covered by Recommendation 35 are not made publicly available.
The RWA drew
up a set of Human Services Evaluation Framework and Performance Indicators in
June 2006 and REDWatch has a “final draft” of these documents on its website
but the final documents are not available on the RWA website. Helen Campbell from Redfern Legal Service served as
a NGO representative on HSMAC until her term was not extended and the NGO
representative position was dropped. She told REDWatch last year that as of mid
2007 the Departments had yet to established common base line data for
assessment of the Human Service Plan. This was at the time when the 18 month
assessment of the Human Services Plan was due.
It is
impossible for those outside the RWA to assess if the various plans are being
implemented and if they are having the expected effect. There are public Human
Services and Employment and Enterprise Plans but no public basis for assessing
their implementation other than general statement praising their work from
within the RWA itself.
The RWA
Annual Report shows it is making sizable grants to various organisations but
this is the only information available to the community, there are no public
grant guidelines, selection processes or evaluation guidelines. In a recent
Estimates hearing in answer to a question about per capita funding levels the Minister
said “Our main emphasis in Redfern is opportunities for people, rather than
cash handouts. We do not do cash handouts.” (15 October 2007) and yet
the RWA’s 2006-07 Annual report shows them making Sponsorship and Grant
payments of $827,166.25. Surely there has to be some reporting on the
effectiveness of this funding and how it compares with the service delivery of
agencies like DoCs who normally handle such project funding.
The Redfern and Waterloo Inquiry
Recommendation 31 said: “That the NSW Government, through the
Redfern Waterloo Authority and the Redfern Waterloo Partnership Project, ensure
that the Redfern Waterloo Plan and the Human Services Plan contain an
appropriate set of indicators and performance measurements by which the
objectives of the Plans can be assessed. In addition, the Plans should be made
publicly available; and regular evaluation and review should be undertaken and
made public”. Clearly regular
evaluation and review, if they are being undertaken, are not being made public
as recommended by the Redfern and
Waterloo Inquiry. This Inquiry should ask the RWA to make public all
evaluations and reviews.
With most
RWA documents going to cabinet subcommittees it has been easy for the RWA to
deny access on the basis that the document is a cabinet document. The original
RED Strategy documents were denied release on this basis as has the evaluation
report of the Redfern Waterloo Street Team (RWST). From what has been leaked to
the media about the RWST evaluation report the main objective of not releasing
this report seems to have been to avoid the embarrassment that this highly
talked up government land mark programme had major problems (see government
submission to the Redfern and Waterloo
Inquiry as an example).
The
importance of the RWST document to Redfern Waterloo is two fold. Firstly Youth
Services were told that proposals in the Human Services Plan for way they were
to be reorganised was based on what the government learnt from the evaluation
of RWST, but without the RWST Evaluation release they are being deigned
information that would help them to assess how it might be possible to improve
their services. Secondly, according to media reports the main problem with the
RWST was that it was set up by Government who thought they could deliver an on
the ground service better than those that had worked in the area with youth for
a long time. The effect was to make the situation worse. This attitude that
Government knows best and we can’t learn anything from the local NGOs
perpetuates itself in the RWA and increases the likelihood that similar
problems will reoccur. We have attached the two media articles referred to for
ready reference by the committee as Appendix 4 – Redfern plan backfires: report
– SMH 20 Oct 2007 [www.redwatch.org.au/media/071030smh] and Appendix 5 – FOI Controversy over street team – UTS
Precinct South 4/2007 [www.redwatch.org.au/media/071115psb].
Among the
many Conflicts of Interest the RWA has is that it is responsible for promoting
the area and increasing property values on Government Land
as well as running programmes in the area. What the RWA publishes on its
website and in its Newsletters and Annual Report seem designed to help promote
and sell Redfern Waterloo rather than anything which allows their activities to
be critically evaluated by the community.
It should
come as no surprise then that Inquiry recommendation 28 that the Government
should “ensure that all future commercial or residential development
applications of scale are subject to a comprehensive social impact assessment
process” has also not been adopted by the RWA and the Government.
Much has
been written by the RWA about its Aboriginal training programmes but there is
no public information available which allows these programmes to be assessed;
either in terms of the employment effect, the proportion of Redfern and Waterloo
people who are part of the training, or what, if anything, is being done to
assist those with no culture of work prepare themselves to take up a training
opportunity and making a successful transition to employment.
The RWA did
commission a study on “Creating a Culture of Work in the Redfern
Waterloo Area” which, while it does not appear on the RWA website, was
released to REDWatch and is on our website. While there have been questions
raised about aspects of the report, it does open up some important areas for
further discussion and action. There is no publicly available information about
what the RWA is doing to address the important but difficult problems of those
with no personal or family work culture. The only public reference to this work
on the RWA website disappeared recently.
One of REDWatch’s concerns about the RWA’s Aboriginal Employment and Enterprise activities is that they seem to be providing training opportunities for people outside the area rather than focusing on the difficult end of the employment market where lack of work culture, criminal histories or substance abuse make the transition from unemployment to employment a long and almost impossible process for many Aboriginal people alienated from the “whitefella’s” system.
Conclusion
REDWatch
agrees with the Redfern and Waterloo Final Recommendation that “That
the NSW Government take the lead in encouraging all political parties and
independents to adopt an ongoing commitment to Indigenous issues and work
cooperatively with the Aboriginal community to address the serious social
disadvantage affecting Aboriginal people.”
Your
current Inquiry is about this very thing but it has to have practical
manifestations in the way the Government goes about things and have
recommendations it makes implemented. Aboriginal people lived for a long time
under the Mission Managers and in many respects Government still behaves this
way towards the disadvantaged including the Aboriginal community. Government,
and its Departments and Authorities, have to show respect for Aboriginal people
and find ways of genuinely listening to their experience of the systems and
then work with them to find ways to improving the systems to solve the
underlying problems that give rise to many of the issues faced by the Aboriginal
community.
Many in
Redfern and Waterloo
are disappointed that the opportunity for change held out by the Government’s
intervention in Redfern Waterloo has been squandered. Where there was an
opportunity to get Government Departments’ working together to address the
area’s problems we have instead some high profile Aboriginal employment
initiatives within the construction industry linked to the area’s real estate
renewal and no real indication that the social issues will be addressed. In the
end the community fear that we may end up with an even more polarised community
as new residents come into a more Manhattanised Redfern and Waterloo and live
in close proximity to higher needs public housing tenants who continue to deal
with a non integrated human services system that doesn’t address their problems
which require intervention from multiple agencies.
REDWatch
encourages the Legislative Council
Council’s Standing Committee on Social Issues Inquiry into Closing the Gap –
Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage to look at the practicalities of what
needs to happen to overcome Indigenous disadvantage in a complex inner city
urban area like Redfern Waterloo. If solutions that will work within our
community can be found then in all likelihood they will be transferable in
large part else where and to other marginalised groups.
The current
issues facing Redfern Waterloo are not just Aboriginal Issues. There are a
large number of non-Aboriginal people, in public housing, who share a very
similar experience of government services and like the Aboriginal Community are
among the marginalised in our community. On the other side there are the new
inner city renters and landowners who come to the area because of its proximity
to the city, work and entertainment as it gentrifies. They have pushed out
almost all low income private renters but are often unaware of the challenges
of living side by side with the high needs people in the area’s public housing.
They too need the human services systems to do their job and for Government to
seriously address issues of disadvantage and inequality or the increasing
polarisation of the community may lead to future incidents of conflict within
the community.
If
Government can not find workable solutions to address such problems in Redfern
Waterloo then the well meaning Recommendations from this current Inquiry will
join those from the earlier Redfern and
Waterloo Inquiry and gather dust with the numerous other studies into
Aboriginal and Redfern Waterloo social issues that have been undertaken over
decades. The challenge for Government is to address the underlying issues which
are the only way to lead to lasting change. To do this Government has to listen
to the marginalised and their communities and make long term commitments to working
in partnership with communities to overcome disadvantage. This is especially so
in addressing Indigenous disadvantage.
Geoffrey
Turnbull
Spokesperson
REDWatch
Incorporated
31st
January 2008
Email: mail@redwatch.org.au
Post: c/- PO Box 1567, Strawberry
Hills NSW 2012
Ph: (02) 9318 0824
Web: www.redwatch.org.au
Appendices Attached
- Appendix 1 – Settlement Letter to RWA of 9 March 2006 over RWA HSP Submission - The Settlement Human Services Letter
- Appendix 2 – An Agenda for Redfern Waterloo Changes in 2007 - An Agenda for Redfern Waterloo Changes.
- Appendix 3 – Actions Speak Louder than Words: Redfern-Waterloo’s Recent Experience of ‘Consultation’ ILB 47 - www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ILB/2005/47.html
- Appendix 4 – Redfern plan backfires: report – SMH 20 Oct 2007 - www.redwatch.org.au/media/071030smh
- Appendix 5 – FOI Controversy over street team – UTS Precinct South 4/2007 - www.redwatch.org.au/media/071115psb
Further information about the NSW Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Social Issues Inquiry into Closing the Gap – Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage can be found on the NSW Parliamentary website Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage Inquiry