REDWatch is a proud grassroots group of volunteer residents and friends from Redfern, Eveleigh, Darlington and Waterloo. We support the existing diversity in these areas and promote sustainable, responsible economic and social development. We formed in 2004 in response to state government development plans under the Redfern Waterloo Participation Project (RWPP) and later the Redfern Waterloo Authority (RWA).
Guiding Ethos
As a group, we continually look to engage a variety of people across different communities, the nongovernment community sector (NGOs) and those who work in government. A significant focus for REDWatch is to facilitate a welcoming, inclusive and open space where various views and opinions can be shared without judgment. We are also conscious of elevating marginalised voices in all we do because, due to multiple reasons such as resource scarcity, time, or other, many groups and identities have unequal opportunities to engage with formal consultation processes or to obtain access to decision-makers.
We achieve our aims by remaining politically neutral. Our non-partisan governance structure is derived from our elected coordination committee, comprised of people from diverse political parties. To this end, we strongly encourage people from various political parties to join REDWatch. REDWatch is guided by the notion that the best ideas and outcomes are produced when diverse views and people come together. You can see more about how we operate in REDWatch Overview: Why, how and what we Do.
REDWatch Celebrates 20th Anniversary
In May 2024 REDWatch celebrated 20 years since we were set up to monitor Government involvement in Redfern Eveleigh Darlington and Waterloo (the area covered the NSW Government’s RED Strategy and subsequently the Redfern Waterloo Authority and its Ministers for Redfern-Waterloo).
Our 20th Anniversary meeting saw the attendance or messages from some of those who were active in forming REDWatch or in its initial year. This included Tony Pooley (last Mayor of South Sydney and leader of the “See Redfern before Frank sells it tour”); Ian Thompson (Save our Park and key as a Liberal Party person in getting support to changes to parts of the Redfern Waterloo Act); Elizabeth Rice (one of two planners who assisted REDWatch); Sylvie Ellsmore (City of Sydney Councillor) represented the Greens involved in setting up REDWatch and delivered apologies from Ben Spies Butcher (Macquarie University Academic). A statement from Jenny Leong (now Member for Newtown) who was also involved at the beginning was also read and congratulations from the City of Sydney were also delivered. Reflections were shared by many other long term active and founding members. Lani Tuitavake the Chief Operating Officer of the Aboriginal Housing Company thanked REDWatch for the role it had played in providing people with fair information about what was happening in the area.
The role of key people who had been active in forming and guiding REDWatch like Trevor Davies, Ross Smith and Councillor Irene Doutney were also recognised. You can find the presentation REDWatch did for its 20th Anniversary on the REDWatch website as REDWatch 20 years - How did we get here? The second part of the meeting that covered some of our achievements over the intervening years and people’s comments after the presentation can be found on YouTube at www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOqtUnzyoDo.
It was also encouraging to have Lord Mayor Clover Moore move a Mayoral Minute at a City of Sydney Council meeting congratulating REDWatch on its anniversary and for that to be supported and spoken to also by long time REDWatch members Councillor Sylvie Ellsmore from the Greens and Councillor Linda Scott from the ALP. Both parties were involved in establishing REDWatch in 2004. The Mayoral Minute was passed unanimously by Council, which reflects well on REDWatch’s approach of working with all Councillors across the political divides on issues of concern to our communities. You can see the Council letter recognising REDWatch's 20th Anniversary which also includes the Council resolution.
Activities
REDWatch undertakes a range of activities to advance our mission, including holding regular public meetings and forums, disseminating timely information through our website, social media and email list, and regularly engaging with policymakers, elected officials, senior bureaucrats and academics to keep up to date with local issues and organise community engagement opportunities. REDWatch also makes written submissions and media statements on a diverse range of issues.
Furthermore, REDWatch Spokesperson Geoff Turnbull represents REDWatch in meetings with government agencies and NGOs including in the development, implementation and governance of the Waterloo Human Services Collaborative and its Action Plan.
This year REDWatch has also provided expertise to external bodies through walking tours, presentations and participation in training sessions. Where possible REDWatch requests a donation for this service to external groups which often helps students and professionals better understand our area, while also providing us with income to further our work. In the 2023-24 financial year this included income from sessions for:
REDWatch is a member of the following groups:
Priority areas for REDWatch
REDWatch Coordination Committee
The REDWatch coordination group meets monthly to resource and coordinate our activities. Office holders and Co-ord Group members are elected each year. Those elected in 2023 were Natasha Sitanala, Geoffrey Turnbull, Peter Rothwell, Norrie, Karyn Brown, Savanna Peake and Ben Spies Butcher. We acknowledge their valuable contribution and recognise that changes in people’s lives means that there is continual turnover in the Coordination Group and that this opens up opportunities for new people to become involved and hopefully gain experience that they will find useful in the future.
Meetings held Since July 2023
We usually meet at 6 pm on the first Thursday of the month at Counterpoint’s The Factory Community Centre in Waterloo. This may change if are doing a joint session with other groups, need a larger venue or a meeting closer to a site of interest. These meetings are open to everyone and focus on critical local challenges or broader social and political issues impacting the local community.
REDWatch has a strong history of providing a place for people from across the community to come together to discuss the issues, receive information, and creating space for collective actions. As a part of this, REDWatch requests Council and Government bodies dealing with the local community to present to the community and answer questions in a community-controlled space.
Below is a list our meetings and tours since June 2023.
July 2023
· Explorer Street South Eveleigh Rezoning with the Department of Planning
August 2023
· On-street car charging with Ausgrid
September 2023
· Waterloo South to Proceed and Homes NSW announcement – LAHC and Housing Minister’s staff
· Presentation to Rail Tram and Bus Union Retired Workers
· Participation case study panel for ANZSOG Federal Senior Public Service Training
· REDWatch runs Walking tour of Redfern & Waterloo for Festival of “Contested” Urbanism
October 2023
· People Power: Models that are changing communities and cities – Kurt Iveson
November 2023
· REDWatch AGM and Social get together
· Community Meeting on Explorer Street Rezoning at Alexandria Town Hall with ARAG and FOE
February 2024
· Homes NSW starts with Minister Rose Jackson and CEO Rebecca Pinkstone
March 2024
· Health Impact Assessment Scoping meeting with the Peer Educators
· Talk to Macquarie University students on a walking tour
April 2024
· How should we plan for growth? With City of Sydney on proposed NSW planning changes
· Sydney University Architecture student walking tour of Waterloo
May 2024
· Draft People and Place Plan with Homes NSW Property Portfolio (previously LAHC)
June 2024
· REDWatch 20 year Anniversary Celebration
July 2024
· Maintenance Changes with Homes NSW for start of new maintenance contract
August 2024
· City of Sydney Lord Mayor Candidates’ Forum Alexandria Town Hall with ARAG & FOE
September 2024
· Homes NSW on North Eveleigh’s Clothing Store announcement
October 2024
· Ending Loneliness with Jane Massa from Sydney Local Health District (SLHD)
· REDWatch runs Walking tour of Waterloo for Festival of “Public” Urbanism
November 2024
· REDWatch AGM and Social get together
]]>Some the issues REDWatch has been active on since 1 July 2021 include:
As a group, we continually look at how to engage with people from across the communities and who work in government.
We achieve this by remaining political party neutral and creating opportunities for voices that are not normally heard, to have centre stage.
List of REDWatch meetings 2021-2022 year:
REDWatch usually meets at 6 pm on the first Thursday of the month at the Factory and in the period of this report also online. These monthly meetings focus on a key challenge or issue facing the local community. REDWatch meetings are open to everyone, as is membership of the incorporated association that organises its activities.
REDWatch has a strong history of providing a place for people from across the community to come together to discuss the issues, receive information and creating space for collective actions. As a part of this REDWatch requests Council and Government bodies dealing with the local community to present to the community and answer questions in a community controlled space.
REDWatch worked with Counterpoint and Groundswell in capacity building for public housing tenants in Waterloo. This included involvement on a working group and the preparation of presentations on:
REDWatch also worked with other organisations to help them understand what was happening in Waterloo and provided speakers on the public housing redevelopment and Eveleigh at events organised by other organisations.
REDWatch coordination group also meet monthly to resource and coordinate our activities. Our office bearers meet other community groups, local decision-makers, elected officials and make written submissions and media statements on a diverse range of issues.
REDWatch is a member of the following ongoing groups:
REDWatch also wants to acknowledge the support offered by Counterpoint Community Services who allow us to use the Factory Community Centre for our monthly meetings and who cover our insurances. Counterpoint also assist REDWatch with some of their staff time and we work collaboratively with them on public housing issues through Groundswell, the WRG and on Human Services Issues.
One of the major challenges facing REDWatch at the moment is to keep our website working. It is old and keeps breaking down. We want to retain all the important information on it but also have a website that will service our communities into the future. That involves either so pro bono work or the need for a major fundraising campaign to pay someone to build a new site and transfer the existing material.
REDWatch has had another very busy year. The developments that are reshaping our area are ongoing and require ongoing monitoring by REDWatch. To do that REDWatch needs members to support the organisation and the Coordination Group to keep the organisation going and fulfilling its important community role.
We will continue to build on the work that has gone before and we thank everyone for their continued support and for giving the community a voice in the decisions made about our area.
Alice Anderson & Geoff Turnbull (Co-spokespersons) December 2022
]]>
The Redfern Waterloo Authority was set up under the direction of former Planning Minister Frank Sartor to oversee an integrated program of redevelopment, including the coordination of human services such as aged care and health, employment services and building works in the suburbs of Redfern, Eveleigh, Darlington and Waterloo.
However, the Authority has come under sustained criticism for refusing to engage in genuine community consultation and for prioritising the sale of government land, with often significantly increased density, over the other, broader, development objectives.
The Authority’s mooted plans for redeveloping public housing and its reluctance to work with the Aboriginal Housing Company on the redevelopment of the block have led to concerns that the Authority was a vehicle for gentrification.
“ REDWatch has recently been approached by a number of local residents eager to see the end of the RWA” Mr Turnbull said.
“ However, there is a range of different views both in the community and amongst our membership. Some people are keen to see some place based coordination body stay, after the RWA is wound up, others have lost all faith in the RWA model.”
Under the original Act the policy objectives and terms of the Act are to be reviewed at the end of 2009.
Minister Keneally however can make changes to community consultation and other mechanisms without waiting for a review if she wishes.
“ There is a consensus that now is the time to begin re-evaluating the future of the RWA and to begin to ask the question, what next?”
“REDWatch is committed to ensuring that residents are at the centre of this re-think, and that is why we are starting the conversation now. We look forward to working with the community, Mrs Keneally, the new Minister, and the City of Sydney Council on new ways forward that meet the changing needs of our diverse and vibrant community.”
Residents interested in discussing options for the future of the RWA and the Redfern-Waterloo area should contact REDWatch Secretary Ben Spies-Butcher on bspiesbutcher@mac.com
]]>Hello,
Thanks REDWatch. Acknowledgement.
First a brief introduction. Many of you
know me, but some of you don’t. I have been a local resident, living under the
Redfern Waterloo Authority, since it began. I helped to establish REDWatch, and
was Secretary before I stood down to contest the election. I am trained as an
economist and currently work on public policy issue at Sydney
and Macquarie Universities.
I also have a longer history in the
area. My first home was in Douglas
Street, around the corner from here, and both my
parents were actively involved in the local area, including helping to
establish Douglas Street People’s Park.
Sadly, many of the battles my parents
fought continue on today. The battles to preserve affordable housing, to
increase public open space, to properly acknowledge the place of Indigenous
Australians in our community and to properly fund public services. Those
battles continue, in part at least, because of the Redfern Waterloo Authority.
I know that the RWA is not the only issue
here – but it is a very significant one – so I’d like to spend some time
looking at its track record and discussing an alternative approach.
The RWA is only the latest in a series
of Government attempts to ‘manage’ our community. It was preceded by the
Redfern Waterloo Partnership Project, which developed what was known as the RED
scheme. That plan took years to put together – I remember going to a number of
different consultation processes, some run by the government, others by outside
consultants. I, along with many of you and many other members of the public
spent hours pouring over the plans, giving feedback and attempting to engage in
the process.
Then in 2004 the Government announced
the RWA. The RWPP was first wound back, then wound up. The RED scheme was
ditched and the RWA started from scratch. There were more consultants and more
plans. Meanwhile, the Council was quietly doing things – like the Redfern
Neighbourhood Centre. They were investing in the area. In response, the
Government abolished the Council and combined it with the City of Sydney. Labor lost the
council elections, and again the Council, with support from all sides of
politics, continued to work on the ground with the community.
Next, the Labor Government used its
powers to overrule the Council and centralise virtually all power over
infrastructure and redevelopment into the Minister – Frank Sartor.
The Labor Government promised proper
consultation processes, with regular public meetings at least every 3 months.
Its been two years, there still hasn’t been one proper public meeting – and
only one meeting with public housing tenants.
And what are the RWA’s plans for the
area?
Well in 2004 the Sydney Morning Herald
revealed leaked Cabinet plans for a dramatic redevelopment. I’ll read a few
exerpts from the Herald’s coverage of that Cabinet document.
“Under the 10-year plan, the Government will tear down the residential towers in Waterloo and privatise $540 million worth of public assets… In a major piece of social engineering, 20,000 new private renters and owners will be brought in to balance out the 7000 public housing tenants in the area, many of whom are poor, old and disabled.”
-
Sydney Morning Herald, 29 November 2004
“The NSW Government is the largest landholder in the ... area. The estimated market value of developments in the area is approximately $5 billion," the papers say.
-
confidential Cabinet document quoted in the Sydney Morning
Herald, 29 November 2004
Residents who now have only half the open space of other inner-city suburbs will have only a quarter of the space once the population is doubled, the papers reveal.
-
Sydney Morning Herald, 29 November 2004
That’s how it began. Since then the RWA has announced the sale of tens of millions of dollars in public land, including the Eveleigh rail yards – north and south; Redfern Public School and Rachel Forster Hospital. They initially also had plans to build 18-story buildings on Marian Park and to privatise the old police station and Court house – plans they backed down from after fierce community campaigns.
The RWA has an odd funding structure –
its operating budget, and all the money it hopes to spend, come from the sale
and rent of land it controls. What is more, the Government has refused to fund
normal infrastructure upgrades itself, and instead is using the RWA to fund
those works through the sale of public land. When Town Hall station receives an
upgrade the state government will pay for it – but when Redfern station is
upgraded it will be funded by the sale of land in Eveliegh.
Likewise, the supposedly ‘new’
community health facility on Redfern
Street will actually replace an existing facility
in Rachel Forster Hospital,
and will be funded by the sale of the whole Rachel Forster site.
And in all these plans there is no plan
for cycleway, no comprehensive transport plan, no plan for increasing open
space to cope with increased population, no plan for public services, like
schools and trains. Darlington and
Erskineville public schools are at capacity already – where are the services to
cater for the tens of thousands of new residents?
Even the affordable housing plan is
dismal. The entire funding for Indigenous affordable housing, while welcome,
comes from the RWA redirecting developer levies from the Carlton United Brewery
site into Redfern-Waterloo. The actual affordable housing being offered by the
RWA is only 1.25% - less than half what would have been required by the Council
– only a fifth of what was achieved in Ultimo-Pyrmont.
We have run a strong campaign on increasing
public and affordable housing. Greens in parliament have introduced a private
members bill to increase affordable housing contributions to 10% - not 1.25%.
We have also run a campaign to ensure public housing residents know what is
planned for their homes.
The RWA plans a second round of
redevelopment focused on public housing in the area.
Despite more than two years as the RWA,
and five or more years of government intervention in Redfern-Waterloo – the
Government claims they still have not worked out the details. We have to wait
until after the election. The Greens do not believe it is good enough for the
Government to announce they will develop someone’s home, still not have plans
two years later and then say, trust us we’ll tell you after the election.
This is particularly the case because
this Government has form. I have worked with public housing tenants in Minto
and Dubbo. I know that they were told it would all be OK. Minto residents were
promised they could return – but they couldn’t. Dubbo residents were involved
in a two year consultation process only to be told their homes would be
demolished without any prior warning – three months later the area had been
razed.
It is important that public housing
tenants know where they stand. Cabinet documents said their homes would be
demolished, land privatised and the population massively increased. The RWA,
who already plan massive land privatisation, still says there is a second round
of planning that will deal with public housing. But Kristina Keneally, the RWA
and the Government refuse to say what those plans are.
The Greens are committed to public
housing. We want to increase public housing across the state to rescue public
housing from becoming welfare housing, and to return it to its rightful
position as housing for low income workers. That is the real solution to the
concentration of needs we are currently experiencing – not privatising the land
next to public housing tenants.
It is not just with public housing
tenants either. The RWA has similar plans to drive Aboriginal people off their
own land at the Block. Prior to the RWA coming along the Aboriginal Housing
Company developed plans for an Indigenous community on the Block. Their plans
were entirely consistent with the zoning laws as they stood then – in fact they
were below the density allowed.
Then the RWA decided to rezone land. In
all of the Government owned land, the land it was about to sell off, it
increased the amount of residential housing that could be built. But in one spot,
on the Block, it lowered it. That’s right, the government actually decreased
how much housing the AHC could build.
In response Kristina said:
“But ultimately it’s a racist argument to claim that Aboriginal people are so victimised that the rules don’t apply to them.”
- Kristina Keneally, Submission to
Draft BEP Stage 1.
Remember – the AHC was playing by the
existing rules – their argument was that the Government shouldn’t change the
rules. In truth this had nothing to do with playing by the rules. Those same
leaked government documents also showed that the government had discovered that
were they to remove the Aboriginal community, the value of the land they were
about to sell would sky-rocket. Not surprisingly, The Property Council of
Australia, came out and publicly backed the RWA.
Frank Sartor also has a unique style of
working with the community. When Michael Mundine from the Aboriginal Housing
Company would not engage with the Government’s attempts to kick the Aboriginal
community off the Block, Sartor sent an open letter address to Mick Mundine to
every home in Redfern, Eveleigh, Darlinton and Waterloo. He then went on Koori Radio to
famously tell Mick to get his ‘black arse’ down to his office.
Alongside the plans for development
there has been a facade of a broader
community project. There is a human services plan – but it concludes
that there should be no more money. There is an employment and enterprise plan
– which acts largely as a justification for the construction of a series of
18-storey office towers as a form of job creation. It is odd indeed to think
that the main cause of unemployment in this area – a good 10 minute walk from
the CBD – is lack of access to office jobs.
The Greens are committed to
significantly increasing human services funding, to conducting a proper
evaluation of future needs and halting all land privatisation – including the
sale of Rachel Forster - so we can properly plan for the open space and the new
schools, aged care and other services we will need to cater to our growing
population.
We cannot afford to simply reelect a
member of the very Government that has imposed the RWA upon us. We cannot
afford to elect a representative from a Party that accepts hundred of thousands
of dollars every year from developers. We need a representative that can stand
up to the machine men of the Labor Party, that will hold them to account.
The broader policy picture is similar.
Where both Labor and Liberal are committed to expanding road travel, the Greens
will redirect funding from new motorways into upgraded public transport
infrastructure. We will campaign to stop the expansion of Port Botany, the F6
and the Marrickville Truck Tunnel. We have a vision of light rail, extensive,
safe cycle ways and trains and buses that are both accessible and affordable.
We will buy back Green Square
and Mascot stations and lower the fares so that new residents are not forced
into the daily traffic jams around our suburbs.
Where both Labor and Liberal accept
hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from developers, we have
campaigned to ban developer donations to political parties, and we do not
accept them.
Where Labor and Liberal engage in a law
and order auction that costs millions of dollars, with minimal effect on crime
or community safety, we will invest in the drug and alcohol treatment services,
public school and TAFE and education and rehabilitation services that actually
prevent crime and make our community safer. It costs the same amount to lock
some one up as it does to employ a teacher – there are better, cheaper ways to
improve community safety.
We will also oppose the desalination
plant, which will make it much harder to move to renewable energy, by proposing
water efficiency and recycling measures. We will move for mandatory renewable
energy targets and we will begin the phasing out of coal by opposing new coal
mines, new coal fired power stations and supporting a carbon tax to fund the
transition to jobs in renewable energy. We will oppose Anvil Hill and the 11
other coal projects Labor and Liberal are supporting. Climate Change is perhaps
the most urgent public policy issue we face – and the Greens are the only party
in this electorate that take the challenge seriously.
I am a proud member of this community
and the things it stands for. This was the site of the win for the urban
Aboriginal land rights movement. It is where the Green Bans saw residents and
workers stand together in the face of developer greed. This was where the train
age started in Sydney.
Yes, we have our problems. But we are a unique, diverse and extraordinary
community. I will fight to make our community a more vibrant, safer more
sustainable place – but I will also fight to preserve our history and our
diversity.
The Greens offer a genuine alternative to Sartor, the RWA and the Labor Government. We will hold this Government and the RWA to account. We will defend public housing and workers rights. We do not accept donations from developers or corporations. We will stand up to developers and we will work for a more sustainable approach to planning, transport and our environment.
]]>1) Do you / your party support the continuation of the Redfern Waterloo Authority (RWA)? If so what changes (if any) would you like to see happen at the RWA? If not how should the RWA’s present responsibilities be addressed? (In your answer you may like to address the following related issues):
a. Why should planning control over parts of RW be the responsibility of the RWA rather than the City of Sydney Council?
b. What benefits / risks are there for
the local community in the RWA also having responsibility for the
implementation of the Human Services (HSP) and Employment and Enterprise Plans
(EEP)?
Answer: While open to a
place-specific agency, we oppose the current RWA, which we believe is primarily
a land development corporation. If the RWA does continue at the very least the
RWA must have its funding structure changed to ensure it is not reliant on land
sales and rents. Its decision-making must change to ensure greater
parliamentary oversight of the RW Plan, and ensure greater community input.
Finally, we do not support the RWA taking planning controls away from the City
of Sydney Council.
Having the RWA as an overarching body, but ensuring other agencies have
responsibility for particular services and planning instruments helps to
minimise the risks of centralisation.
2) Do you / your party support a separate Minister for RW?
Answer: As above.
3) Since he was appointed the present Minister has had just one public meeting restricted to public housing tenants. The Minister initially promised four a year. Will you / your party expect a future Minister for RW to attend regular community meetings to hear first hand concerns about what is needed in RW?
Answer: Yes. The Greens will move to
make this a requirement of the Act, with an explanation to Parliament required
where the condition cannot be met.
4) RWA operates three Ministerial Advisory Committees, whose members are half government department representatives and half residents selected by the Minister. Do you / your party support this being the only community input option? The Minister does not attend Ministerial Advisory Committees – should s/he attend such meetings?
Answer: The Greens do not support
the current model. Given the limited nature of the current community
consultation process, there needs to be greater independence for the advisory
committees. The committees must have some access to the Minister. There should
also be a broader, formal consultation process, as was initially discussed by
the Redfern Waterloo Partnership Project and the RWA, but not implemented.
Ideally the entire structure of the RWA needs to change to reduce its focus on
development and land sales, and re-focus it on community needs.
5) Do you / your party support a representative community reference body for the Minister and the RWA to provide community input into the RWA?
Answer: If RWA continues, yes.
6) The RW Act provides for the Minister for RW to deal with the Minister for Planning and with the heritage office. Should the Minister for RW also be responsible for departments or agencies from which s/he can receive delegated authority or on which s/he is reliant for independent advice?
Answer: No.
7) In estimates hearings the Director General and then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs avoided questions concerning RW citing that they were the responsibility of the Minister for RW. Should the Minister for RW be the sole government spokesperson for RW?
Answer: No. The RWA’s role should be
to coordinate and bring different agencies together, it should not be used by
departments for abdicating their responsibility to the area.
8) What role do you / your party see for a future Minister of Aboriginal Affairs in RW and for improving engagement between the NSW government and the local Aboriginal communities?
Answer: The DAA has a significant
Indigenous staff and experience working with Indigenous communities. Under the Two Way Together
program they also have responsibility and experience for coordinating whole of
government approaches to Indigenous communities. The RWA should draw on this
expertise in developing its approach to Indigenous communities.
9) Do you / your party support the sale of government land in RW as a method of funding government initiatives in RW?
Answer: No. Redfern-Waterloo has one
of the lowest open space to person ratios in Sydney. As population increases there are
also increasing needs for public services, as well as increased need arising
from the selection criteria for public housing. Land should only be sold to
purchase other new public assets, where the new assets are more appropriate to
the community’s changing needs.
10) Do you / your party accept the current government view that existing unmet human service needs in RW can be addressed by reforming current human services without any additional government funding?
Answer: No. Needs for human services
are increasing as the population increases and as the needs of the population
increase, particularly due to new Department of Housing eligibility rules.
Funding needs to recognise this.
11) Do you / your party support increased human services funding for services in RW to meet the higher needs of new public housing tenants?
Answer: Yes.
12) The RWA has plans for government departments to introduce early intervention strategies and other new initiatives detailed in the RWA HSP and EEP. Do you / your party support these changes? Is it feasible for NSW departments to operate these new early intervention strategies, in addition to maintaining existing human services, in RW without increased funding?
Answer: The Greens support the
recommendations for early intervention but believe additional funding is
required to implement these approaches. We believe in the medium term any
increase in funding will produce equivalent or greater savings, and so should
be viewed as an investment.
13) Many government funded human services in RW operate from substandard premises. Should sufficient government funds be made available to ensure suitable accommodation for all?
Answer: Yes. This reflects a broader
problem of government funding under-resourcing the ongoing capital costs of
providing services. Ideally this funding should be provided to all services,
but short of this, and in the context of the RWA, it is appropriate that the
RWA play a role ensuring this funding is provided.
14) Do you / your party support government funding to relocate the PCYC to the former Redfern School site or to fix the substandard accommodation on the existing site?
Answer: We are wary that relocating
will be used as a justification to sell the current site, however, provided
relocation does not lead to the loss of public land and infrastructure we are
supportive of which ever option is chosen by the PCYC.
15) The RWA has the potentially conflicting roles of land owner, developer, planner and consent authority. Do you / your party support local government style transparency in the RWA so that the community are properly notified of what decisions affecting the area are being considered, so they can see when and by whom they are made?
Answer: Yes. The Greens do not
support the RWA taking away planning controls from the Council. Returning these
powers to Council would largely solve this problem.
16) The Upper House Inquiry into RW called for better engagement / partnership by government with the community. Do you / your party support a greater role for community in the various stages of the development of RW plan rather than only being able to make written submissions during the formal exhibition phase which is often after the plan have been accepted by cabinet?
Answer: Yes. The model of using
outside consultants, who report to government, then leave the community, has
not worked. There must be an ongoing relationship between those developing
plans and the community to allow a flow of information in both directions and
genuine involvement from community members.
17) Do you / your party support the development of a vision for RW being developed jointly by the community and the government / RWA?
Answer: This might be better done by
Council, but if the RWA is to continue, yes. There do need to be appropriate
strategies and safeguards to ensure that the views of all residents,
particularly the most vulnerable, are included in the development of a vision.
In particular, there need to be specific strategies to engage the range of
different views amongst public housing tenants, Indigenous people, the CALD
communities and groups with a high turn over (such as students).
18) Do you / your party support a fully integrated RW Plan where all the elements of the Plan are publicly available prior to implementation so the community can see that their concerns have been covered and not just those of the government?
Answer: Yes. The failure of the
Redfern Waterloo Act to specify any requirement for a full Plan is a serious
flaw. A timeline must be set for the full Plan to be made public.
19) Do you / your party support a publicly released study of the education, health, aged care and other services that will be needed for the future expanded residential and working population of RW prior to any further sales of public land?
Answer: Yes. It is clear that the
demographics of the area are changing as more young families remain in the
area. There are already significant pressures on primary schools in parts of
the electorate. There are not sufficient aged care facilities, and this
shortfall is set to increase as the population ages. No public land or facility
should be sold until a comprehensive study of future needs is completed.
20) During implementation of the RW Plan do you / your party support community involvement in the evaluation and any necessary adjustments to the plan?
Answer: Yes. The Greens support
making this a requirement under the Act.
21) Are you prepared to work with the community to build a future for RW in which the most marginalised will have a place in the RW of tomorrow and not just those who can afford to live in a gentrified inner city of the future?
Answer: The Greens are strongly committed
to ensuring Redfern Waterloo continues to be an affordable and diverse
community. We are committed to the expansion of public housing and to a minimum
10% affordable housing quota in all new developments.
Under the
legislation the RW Plan is made and changed by the Minister. It is proposed
that it be made up of the three RWA Plans most of which are already public.
These are the Human Services Plans, The Employment and Enterprise Plan and the
Built Environment Plans (with the redevelopment of public housing and
affordable housing outstanding). Some aspects of the Plans have raised concern
and you / you party’s comments on few specific questions based on the plans
would be appreciated.
22) Do you / your party support the planning controls to establish an 18 storey “commercial core” in Redfern?
Answer: No. Urban consolidation can
be achieved without this scale of development.
23) Do you / your party support the sale of parts of North Eveleigh to fund the redevelopment of Redfern Station or should this be covered from the state budget in the way proposed for the Town Hall Station upgrade?
Answer: No. The Redfern train
station upgrade should be funded out of consolidated revenue as are other train
station upgrades. The requirement to redirect funding from land sales to public
works has placed increased pressure on the RWA to maximise profits from land
sales, and thus reduce affordable housing requirements and compromise heritage,
planning and environmental considerations.
24) Do you / your party support the RWA’s proposal to fund measures to lessen the impact of main roads on the area surrounding Redfern Station from the developer levy rather than spend this contribution for community facilities to service the increased residential and working populations?
Answer: No. (See Q23).
25) Should the cost of reducing the impact of main roads on the communities they pass through be met by the RTA and the state budget?
Answer: Yes. There should also be a
focus on reducing traffic (not just the impact of traffic) and expanding
public, pedestrian and cycle transport.
26) Do you / your party support the government’s reduction of residential floor space on The Block?
Answer: No.
27) Do you / your party support the 12 storey zoning gazetted over the area currently occupied by the Large Erecting Shop or do you / your party support some continued active heritage rail and associated tourism use of the Large Erecting Shop?
Answer: The Greens support the
preservation of heritage in the Large. We believe plans for a 12 story
development are incompatible with maintaining the heritage of the site. There
are a number of proposals for future use, these must be developed through a
broader process of community consultation.
28) Do you / your party support the inclusion of an interpretive tourist link of the heritage sites listed in the RWA’s gazetted heritage map to showcase the earlier use of the site and people who worked at Eveleigh?
Answer: Yes.
29) Do you / your party support the sale of the former Rachel Foster site to pay for a new community health centre in the former court house and police station?
Answer: No. There needs to be a
comprehensive analysis of current and future needs in the area before any
further sales of public land. There is a genuine community concern that the
Rachel Foster site would be better used as an aged care facility and/or a drug
and alcohol treatment facility. There is also a need for the expansion of drug
and alcohol services, as identified by the Aboriginal Medical Service. The community health centre was announced
prior to the sale of Rachel Foster. We are concerned the government is using
the RWA to fund through land sales commitments ordinarily met by departmental
budgets.
30) RW currently has low public and open
space per capita. The increased population proposed by the RWA would further
decrease it. Should the RWA be required to provide the increased public and
open space required for the expanded population? How will you / your party stop
erosion of public amenity as population densities increase?
Answer: Yes. Redevelopment involves
the release of land not currently open to the public. There is scope for
increased public open space alongside urban consolidation as part of the
redevelopment. This needs to be an explicit goal of the RWA. There are
innovative alternative approaches, such as reclaiming airspace above the
railway lines and/or above new developments. The Greens have and will continue
to advocate for greater pubic open space.
31) Do you / your party support the under grounding of all cabling in redevelopment areas and the provision of infrastructure for high speed internet for new and existing residents?
Answer: Yes.
32) Do you/your party, support:
a. that the developers ensure any construction is environmentally sustainable with respect to electricity usage for lighting/climate control, storm water re-usage, etc.?
b. the upgrade of the services infrastructure, electricity, water supply and sewage, to cope with the increase demand caused by the higher population densities?
c. a repair fund by developers against building work that could potentially alter ground and ground water levels damaging surrounding existing structures?
Answer: Yes to a and b. The Greens
are willing to examine a repair fund, but would prefer solutions that did not
lead to the lowering of ground water tables, but allowed for greater retention
of run off on site rather than through storm water (as well as recycling). The
Greens support re-strengthening the BASIX rules that apply to new developments.
33) At present RW has a low level of private car ownership and transport routes through it to the city. What measures will you / your party support to improve the use of public transport links for local people to the city and laterally to hospitals, shopping centres, parks and other public amenities?
Answer: The Greens support the
extension of light rail to the harbour, through the inner west via Parramatta Rd and
through Redfern to Randwick.
We support the expansion of the new mini-bus service, currently funded by
council, to operate everyday. We support the development of a comprehensive
bike plan as part of the RW Plan, including multiple crossing points over the
train line, bike paths linking the inner-city to the eastern suburbs, and all
of Redfern-Waterloo to the city.
34) Do you / your party support public housing being housing of last resort with allocation and retention of tenancies dependant on the highest level of need?
Answer: The Greens support a
substantial increase in public housing stock to allow for a transition from
social housing to extend eligibility for public housing to low-income workers.
We believe this is most effective and equitable way to address the current
problems arising from the concentration of people with high needs in public
housing. The Greens propose an additional $900 million for public housing and a
mandatory 10% affordable housing quota in all new developments.
35) How do you / your party propose to handle the service needs and social impacts of public housing estates being made up of higher needs tenants?
Answer: The Greens propose the
expansion of public housing to reduce the concentration of high needs tenants.
However, we recognise there are currently additional needs and these needs must
be addressed through increased service provision, particularly the provision of
mental health and drug and alcohol services, but also child care, dental and
health care and transport services. This requires that the RWA and/or
government to commit to increasing human services funding.
36) Do you / your party want to see the number of public housing units maintained / increased or decreased? How will this impact on RW?
Answer: The Greens support an
increase in public housing, not only in Redfern Waterloo, but across the state.
We believe this is the most equitable and efficient mechanism for reducing the
concentration of need in public housing whilst also providing all people with
the right to a home. There must also be a dramatic expansion in the provision
of affordable housing to ensure gentrification does not force low-income
workers and students out of the area, and to ensure prevent polarisation of the
area.
37) Do you / your party support the current government position of reducing the proportion of the population in public housing in RW by doubling the RW population while maintaining the same number of public tenants. Do you support this being achieved by public private partnership redevelopment of existing public housing?
Answer: No. The Greens support an
increase in public and affordable housing as part of any redevelopment. The
Greens oppose public private partnerships which have proven inefficient and
undemocratic. The public sector is better placed than the private sector to
finance redevelopments and to properly manage the risks of redevelopment. There
are also concerns over the conditions that must be met to attract private
interest in redevelopment, something that has so far prevented planned private
public partnerships in Elizabeth
St.
38) Do you / your party support public housing tenants being housed in the RW area during the redevelopment of the public housing estates?
Answer: Yes. This must be guaranteed
before the election.
39) Do you / your party support affordable housing being developed in RW?
Answer: Yes. The Greens support a
mandatory 10% affordable housing quota in all new developments, and support for
cooperative and other affordable housing ventures.
40) Do you / your party consider the RWA’s proposed 1.25% affordable housing levy sufficient?
Answer: No it is grossly inadequate.
See above.
41) Please detail how your party’s affordable housing policy would be implemented in RW and to whom affordable housing would be available?
Answer: The Greens currently have a
private members bill before parliament to increase affordable housing in all
redevelopments to 10%, This would apply to RW. Affordable housing must remain
in public or cooperative ownership to ensure future residents continue to have
access to affordable rents.
42) RW has a large and increasing elderly population. Older people in RW can’t get access to many services as they are working at capacity. Dementia and frail aged services are particularly affected as there is no local residential facility available when independent living is no longer an option. How do you / your party propose to meet this unmet need?
Answer: The Greens believe that we
should redirect funding from law and order to human service provision. NSW has
the highest incarceration rate in the country and the highest recidivism rate.
Prisons are far more expensive than other human service interventions, and
demonstrably less effective. By targeting funding at preventative
interventions, we believe we can improve community safety and save money that
can be used to fund other health services such as frail aged services.
43) How do you / your party propose to address both the crisis and long term health needs of drug users in the area, as well as the social disruption and crime associated with the drug trade in the area?
Answer: The Greens support harm
minimisation as the most effective way of dealing with drug and alcohol use. We
support the provision of wet centres, injecting rooms, along with a
prescription trial for heroin use and the decriminalisation of personal drug
use. We believe this will help to undercut the black market provision of drugs,
and much of the associated crime. The costs of the law enforcement approach to
drug use are substantial, and a move towards harm minimisation would release
funds for reinvestment in treatment services and other human services. Any move
towards harm minimisation must be evidenced based and implemented through
initiating and expanding properly evaluated trials.
44) Alcohol related street and domestic violence are major issues in the area. What steps do you / your party propose to address this issue? Do you support the establishment of wet centres and increased funding for culturally specific drug and alcohol detox facilities?
Answer: Yes. As mentioned above we
believe a shift from the law and order approach to a harm minimisation and
evidenced based approach to alcohol and drug related crime will both save money
and improve community safety. These services must be culturally appropriate.
45) People with mental health or dual diagnosis issues are often unable to access services that cater to all their needs. How do you / your party propose to address their problems?
Answer: As above – we currently
spend billions of dollars policing and imprisoning the mentally ill.
Redirecting this funding to mental health services would be a more just and
effective way of addressing mental health needs, and reducing associated
anti-social behaviour.
46) What ongoing employment and enterprise services would you / your party provide for the increasing needs of public tenants in RW?
Answer: The RWA has provided some
short term apprenticeships in the construction industry and a small pilot
project in catering, both aimed at the Indigenous community. We welcome both
these initiatives and commit to supporting and expanding them. However, the
broader EEP focuses on building office space. It does not provide any detail on
job creation, other than building space for offices, nor does it explain why
office jobs are likely to meet the needs of a community already within walking
distance of the CBD. There is no plan for job creation, only for development.
The Greens support the retention of some light industrial zones to the south of
the RWA area. In addition, the Greens support the retention of CDEP programs
and job training and creation programs that specifically cater for both
Indigenous and public housing residents. We will substantially increase funding
to TAFEs and to public education.
47) What policies does your party have to assist the most marginalised in our community become job ready so they can take advantage of the improved job market?
Answer: The Greens strongly support
increased funding for public education, including TAFE, the provision of 200
additional Teaching English as a Second or Other Language (TESOL) teachers and
greater funding for students with special needs. Access to TAFE is key to
ensuring that unemployed and marginally employed people gain the skills they
need to gain well paid employment. The Greens support the retention of the
Community Development Employment Program (CDEP) in Redfern-Waterloo.
48) Is there anything else your would like to add about your policies and RW which has not been covered?
Answer:
Answers supplied by Ben Spies-Butcher Greens Candidate for Heffron
Candidate’s Contact Details: e-mail: heffron@nsw.greens.org.au or call 0414 744 758.
Candidate’s Profile: http://www.nsw.greens.org.au/candidates/electorates/heffron
Candidate’s Website: www.heffron.nsw.greens.org.au
(soon)
and http://ssg.nsw.greens.org.au/
Party’s Website: http://www.nsw.greens.org.au
South Sydney Herald Profile: Political Profile - Ben Spies-Butcher, Greens’ Heffron community-minded candidate
REDWatch website: Search the REDWatch site for Ben Spies-Butcher
Any Website Content of specific relevance to Redfern Waterloo area and issues:
]]>QUESTIONS FOR CONSULTATION
Redfern is a
unique community, in a unique situation.
The NSW government already has agreements
in place with the Federal Government.
The RWA, Redfern-Waterloo Authority, has begun to outline employment strategies in the Redfern-Waterloo Employment
and Enterprise Plan. The RWA employment
strategy encompasses the CDEP program, and what RAC, Redfern Aboriginal
Corporation is doing.
What is the point
of such a plan, if a successful organisation and service, already in place, run
by Aboriginal people for Aboriginal people, with people in
the community responsible to each other in
the community, is slashed?
Scenario 1: If
another organization were to win the contract for STEP brokerage, it would be destructive
for the community, and devastating if RAC is destroyed.
Scenario 2: If RAC
were to win the tender, and funding were not available to cover the community
development aspects (hinted at but
not fully explained), the restriction in services provided would still be
devastating, for reasons which will follow.
Even if it were
not running successfully, (far from the case), it would be foolish and counter
productive to risk either closing or curtailing RAC. It would create confusion,
disappointment, anger, lowering of
morale, and disempowerment. It would
be taking several steps back, without any certainty of a step forward.
Proposing to cease
funding to Redfern CDEP makes a mockery of the whole RWA process.
We urge you to
The new directions
are too narrowly focused on employment
outcomes. Effective employment agencies are well and good, but CDEP provides a
service which assists in other essential ways, meeting real needs. How will this
vital support be sustained, and itself improved?
And if not, WHY NOT?
With no clear explanation of the community
development side of CDEP, the not
unreasonable concern is that DEWR wants to phase it out. i.e. There is a brief
statement, with no clarification,
commitment or explanation. Its
minimal treatment makes it appear as though DEWR considers it irrelevant,
unimportant, non-essential.
DEWR’s
new directions are not acknowledging the unique circumstances of some groups of Aboriginal people. Removal of community
development programs would have dire
effects.
‘Regardless of our best efforts, groups of
people have always experienced discrimination and disadvantage. Despite their
desire and efforts to work, these groups find it hard.’ Tanya Plibersek,
Federal Member for Sydney
Many Aboriginal people in Redfern are not
born and raised in the area; they come
from a variety of regions, and bring with them some
of the characteristics of people in communities exempted from CDEP closure.
Certainly STEP brokerage will be able to
match people with jobs. However preparation to become
job-ready for a number of people is a slow steady process. It can’t be measured easily.
Some
groups of Aboriginal people have significant barriers to entering the labour
market. For some it is taking time, in a culturally appropriate, sensitive,
supportive environment. It needs to
be recognized that some may never
reach the desired point. What of these long term job-seekers?
Concerns were expressed succinctly at a
community forum on the CDEP changes held at Redfern Community Centre on 9th
December.
‘If community service goes, the brokers would need to be very selective about the people they choose to promote / push into the commercial world. The new scheme might be successful getting jobs, but for a narrower range of people. It looks as though the ones who need help the most, won’t get it.’
‘They are currently employed and working (even if not to mainstream standards.)’
‘The option that appears to be offered to them is – forget it, walk away, give up.’
‘Bottom line – we are not going to be able
to look after the community’
‘Why would the government
want to put these people back out onto the street, instead of working, and
working towards working, even if it is happening slower than we want? If there
are no resources to support them, and they are sent back to the street, some will return to crime,
possibly becoming what is known as LOCers – life of crime.’
As was said in the
Wallaga Lake submission, it is wrong to assume that indigenous people can be eligible and
compete in the labour market on the same
terms as the rest of the community.
Issues that have prevented, or delayed some people moving off CDEP include
CDEP is effective
in that it gives people meaningful
tasks to do, while developing job readiness. The government itself has said
there are better alternatives to people on welfare, waiting for handouts.
RAC submitted ‘The Community Development side of CDEP is vital to our community. It:
The proposed
changes are incomprehensible in the light of very recent statements from Kevin Andrews about substantial improvements, good figures and strong performance. i.e
Twice as many people moved from CDEP into jobs in the last year. Worse, the
welfare to work policy in this context has the following flaws regarding
adequate training and skill development.
It has been said
that if the expectation is that we have sustainable
outcomes, it is in the community development
environment of CDEP that the social
issues and other barriers are addressed. It appears that the scheme only provides support for a limited time and the changes could leave people in trouble.
CofFEE, the Centre
of Full Employment and Equity, referred to a paper from a Conference on Economic Efficiency and Social Justice. ‘Policies
achieve tentative or short term reattachments
to the labour force at the expense of deepening employment
security.’
What assurance is
there that there will be ENOUGH jobs – enough RELEVANT, APPROPRIATE jobs,
and how will people moving from CDEP
into jobs be supported?
‘One of the main effects of forcing people
into the labour market is that it cuts off their access to training, rather
than providing them with skill development
in order to move higher up. i.e It forces people to the bottom of the job pile’
Dr Ben Spies-Butcher, Greens candidate for Heffron
As stated in many submissions to the first proposal, Aboriginal people need
· hands on training
· in a culturally friendly environment
· customised training with individual support
·
motivational
training
‘The ability to
perform well in training, and in a workplace dominated by non-indigenous people
is an acquired skill that takes time
and experience to develop.’ Sydney Region submission
CDEP is successful
because it moves people from welfare to work through work experience and effective
opportunities to develop skills useful in employment.
It is a unique opportunity to gain work skills and learn work routines in a
supportive team environment.
QUESTION Can, or will a
new enhanced employment ‘broker’ do
the same ??
The government needs to remain sensitive to these issues. CDEP
supports people to challenge the barriers they face, in gaining employment or education, to a sustainable outcome.
‘To claim that the
government’s objectives can be
achieved through the artificial separation of employment
and community development activities
of CDEP is to misunderstand, at a fundamental
level, the productive nature of public sector employment.’
CofFEE
DEWR has dropped a
bombshell on CDEP service providers.
1. If they win the
contract, they will have to force their long-term job seekers off CDEP and send them to Centrelink,with
the instability and fear of the future that will create. They would need to
rebuild relationships, and a climate of trust. They would welcome the enhancement
to their goal of enabling economic stability for as many people as possible,
but that will be in the midst of a destructive, restrictive climate. Why cannot
that very thing be done in such a way as to build on the current success?
2. If another organisation
gets the ‘brokerage’, the ramifications will be huge. Aboriginal people will be
even more excluded. How can such a thing be contemplated, even for a moment? Even if vague hints that STEP might continue CDEP activities bear
fruit, the proposal to abolish and replace Aboriginal services, successful and
steadily improving, is extraordinary. The apparent repeating of history by this
‘mainstreaming’ has serious implications and repercussions.
Nobody disputes
the need for people who are job ready to go into appropriate paid work, nor the
desirability of improving what is successfully in place.
There is scope to
improve - why not ‘build on the
successes’, AND meet our mutual obligations
of reducing disadvantage and providing social and cultural support.
The impact, on the
community of service providers, and the community as a whole, of this erosion
of self determination, and community capacity building, would be too negative.
If not racist, it is impractical.
The amount of good will of employers would
need to be ascertained, and further developed.
The racism that is still a reality; is
still being practiced, would need to be countered and eradicated by a rigorous
and committed education program. It should not be optional.
There would need to be extensive training
in intercultural awareness and communication, and SENSITIVITY to Aboriginal peoples’ culture, history, protocols and social
needs.
'There are currently around
20,000 jobs in the Redfern-Waterloo area –
more than double the resident workforce.
Driving down local unemployment
therefore requires BETTER TRAINING FOR JOB SEEKERS.’ RWA
B. The combination of four service areas in one forum, coupled with the limitation of only one delegate per organisation, limits the opportunity for specialised input into the forum discussions on the topics under discussion.
C. Active community members, who would have attended open community discussions as undertaken in phase one of the HSP, have been excluded from the process and replaced by those chosen by the RWA.
D. The only opportunity most people will have to make comment will be when the Draft Phase Two Plan goes out for public consultation. Based on the Phase One consultation there was little room for change to the plan at the final stage; this will be especially so if it to goes to Cabinet before community consultation.
REDWatch has
identified the following issues from the RWA Issues papers and our limited
discussions, as important for the RWA and the Forum to consider:
1. Identifying the needs of service users in the area - There has been no process that we can see that identifies the met and unmet needs of service users in the area. Any Plan must start with the needs of the services users and an identification of met and unmet need. The RWA should undertake a process of identification of met and unmet needs with the users of the services prior to drawing up plans for reforming the various services.
2. The lack of lead-time given to respond to the RWA Issues papers means that there has not been time for community groups to undertake any discussions with service users.
3. The RWA should not assume that the existence of services to one CALD community means that all CALD communities have access to services so CALD service needs should be assessed for each of the CALD community sectors.
4. There has been nothing supplied in the issues papers that identifies the projected growth of service users. Clearly in the case of services for the elderly the demographic trends need to be taken into account when looking at service organisation.
5. There is nothing in the issues papers dealing with the pivotal role played by DoH tenure and allocations policy in determining the demographic shape of the area in future.
6. Housing is a pivotal service for all the service areas under consideration and great emphasis should be put into ensuring that housing policy is fully integrated with service delivery to the services areas. In particular, there needs to be effort to reduce duplication with the DoH’s Human Services Accord and for local services to be integrated into it.
7. A full range of accommodation options for the aged community and their families need to available in the area including serviced accommodation, nursing homes and retirement facilities. This should include consideration of Rachel Foster Hospital as a well placed site for the provision of such community services.
8. Transport options need to be available for people to get access to services and recreational activities. This is not just in terms of adequate community transport, but also improved public transport and local transport (such as Perth’s Central Area Transit (CAT)) type options. Older people losing their spouse driver or their licence places increased reliance on public transport options.
9. There is an assumption that reorganisation can fund unmet need. With service providers saying they are operating at capacity and that there is significant unmet need the Government must commit to ensuring adequate funding to meet the identified needs. This must involve additional one off funding for any reorganising of services and any additional funding required for services if savings can not be achieved by efficiencies.
10. As with the HSP phase one services, government departments and services must develop an integrated approach to dealing with service delivery and adequately fund it. They must also have in place programmes for identifying and meeting unmet need.
11. The RWA HSP Phase 2 must build on what already works rather than starting new initiatives from scratch.
12. Service users and service providers both bring different perspectives to how services can be improved and what needs are not being adequately met. The RWA should listen carefully to input from both these sources before reforming services.
13. Issues of safety are central to why many residents do not access services, or do not access services as early as they could. These safety issues need to be addressed.
14. Policy changes by the DoH, which promote limited tenure, have significant effects on the community, reducing residents’ stability and identification with the community. This creates higher needs for services, particularly when existing government policy meant that new residents will have complex higher needs.
15. There is a need to ensure Indigenous specific and appropriate services. Many of the issues raised in the CALD issues paper are also relevant to indigenous people.
16. There is a need not only for aged services, but also for services for younger families, both in the Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. The lack of these services impact on the sectors under consideration in Phase 2.
17. Foster care is an important issue, particularly for the Indigenous community. Increased support needs to be given to older people providing both formal and informal foster care as well as crisis assistance.
18. Many of the issues identified in the discussion paper are structural issues decided by state and federal governments. These need to be identified as such, and strategies identified for dealing with state-commonwealth issues, rather than services being implicitly asked to address structural issues outside their control.
19. Adequate funding must be identified to implement the review. If this funding cannot be secured through departmental reallocations, then the RWA should make a separate request for additional funds.
20. Multiple access points are often preferable because different people and communities access services differently.
21. RWA should avoid duplication of taskforces where effective taskforces already exist, as with the CoS Community Safety taskforce. The RWA should instead look at resourcing and facilitating existing taskforces and inter-agencies rather than setting up duplicating structures.
22. There should be opportunities for those involved in the consultation to see the plans and comment on how their views have been represented prior to the draft plan going to Cabinet.
23. There is no system for monitoring the quality and quantum of service delivery to service users
24. REDWatch reaffirms the need for a more community driven and cooperative approach to service review.
25. In the community consultation for Phase One of the Human Services Review the community expressed a strong desire for a number of outcomes which should also be taken up in Phase Two. Theses included:
(Report of Community Outcomes Workshops of 4 April 2005 in Redfern-Waterloo Human Services E-Newsletter - Issue Two 19 April 2005)
Issued by REDWatch Co-ordination Group 19th July 2006
For Further
Information contact:
REDWatch
Representative to HSP Phase Two Forum - Tiffany McComsey or
REDWatch
Spokesperson - Geoffrey Turnbull Ph Wk: (02) 9318 0824 mail@redwatch.org.au
or
REDWatch
Secretary - Ben Spies-Butcher secretary@redwatch.org.au
REDWatch is a residents and friends group covering Redfern Eveleigh Darlington and Waterloo (the same area covered by the Redfern Waterloo Authority). REDWatch monitors the activities of government activities such as the RWA and RWPP and seek to ensure community involvement in all decisions made about the area. More details can be found at www.redwatch.org.au.
]]>Residents seek consultation to ensure harm minimisation works
Today Geoff Turnbull, spokesperson for the Redfern residents group REDWatch, called on the state government to begin consultations over its plans to open a primary health centre on Lawson Street Redfern.
"REDWatch welcomes the state government’s plans to increase resources for health care, particularly in relation to drug issues, in Redfern. We recognise that drug use is a reality in Redfern, and that a range of strategies need to be used to address the issue, including providing users with clean equipment, counselling and support. We believe that harm minimisation approaches will improve outcomes, not only for drug users, but also for residents.
"It is important that this new centre works in conjunction with existing services, such as those provided by the Aboriginal Medical Service in Redfern. Concerns expressed by the AMS about a lack of consultation are disturbing. For this new centre to be effective the government must bring existing providers, users and residents along with it, rather than simply impose solutions.
"We are calling on the government to enter into consultations with the AMS, other service providers, service users and local residents. It may be that local knowledge can improve the existing plan, ensure better coordination and avoid duplication. While we support the government's initiative, we believe it is vital that the details of the plan be subject to community input, and allow all those effected to have their say."
Further Information Contact:
Geoff Turnbull 02 9318 0824 Email:
turnbullfamily@stassen.com.au
Ben Spies-Butcher
0414 744 758
New Primary Health Care Facility in Redfern Welcomed
A meeting of REDwatch today welcomed the announcement of a new primary health care facility in Lawson St Redfern, and the extension of drug and alcohol support services to the area.REDwatch spokesperson, Geoff Turnbull, said,
“This announcement demonstrates that the Carr Government is finally facing up to the very real drug and alcohol issues in Redfern and are beginning to provide drug users with the support services they require.”
“REDwatch believe that issues of drug and alcohol abuse must be addressed as a health issue. This new centre hopefully signals the State Governments commitment to working with the community and providing drug users with the support they require.”
“As the Upper House Inquiry has noted, to be successful this new centre needs to be part of a broader consultation and community education campaign to ensure it has support of the broader Redfern community”.
“Of course, the details of the plan need to be examined, such as the exact location, the process of community consultation and the range of services provided. This area has been subject of numerous consultations, plans and inquiries. It is vital that the plan build on the work of the Upper House Inquiry, the Redfern Partnership Project, existing service providers, such as the Aboriginal Medical Service and other stakeholders.”
REDwatch is a residents group covering Redfern Eveleigh Darlington and Waterloo (the same area covered by the Premiers’ Department Redfern Waterloo Partnership Project). REDwatch monitors the activities of the RWPP, the RED strategy and its other programs and seeks to ensure community involvement in all decisions made about the area. REDwatch meets on the 4th Sunday of the month at the Redfern Community Centre at 2:00pm
Further Information Contact:
Geoff Turnbull 02 9318 0824 Email:
turnbullfamily@stassen.com.au
Ben Spies-Butcher
0414 744 758
REDwatch
C/- PO Box
1567
Strawberry Hills NSW 2012
Ph Wk: 9318 0824
The Proposed Redfern Waterloo Authority (RWA) and Plan (RWP)
The Premier has announced a Redfern Waterloo Authority to be
modelled on the Sydney Harbour Foreshores Authority. The Authority is to be
headed by NSW Minister Frank Sartor and will manage and potentially develop all
NSW Government land in Redfern,
Eveleigh, Darlington and Waterloo.
It will also implement a broader
Redfern Waterloo Plan for the NSW Government.
REDwatch, a group of residents drawn from the area covered by the Redfern Waterloo Authority, have a number of concerns about the announcements and have adopted the following points, which need to be accepted by the government if the RWA is to service the interest of the local community.
1. There should be one integrated stakeholder managed entity driving the social, environmental and social agenda of the RWA. Successful overseas models should form the basis for the RWA structure
2. If the human Services and social agenda is to operate separately from infrastructure component then:
a) there must be mechanisms for maximum community participation in both operations,
b) The social agenda must form the basis of the infrastructure development
c) There must be complementarity of effort and close co-ordination between both bodies.
3. Effective equitable social development outcomes must be equally as important in the RWA’s core work as economic and environmental objectives. This should be reflected in the RWA charter, focus, work processes, membership and behaviour.
4. The government should appoint representatives from nominations made by established community organisations operating in the area to the RWA and the RWPP if it operates separately.
5.
There should be representatives on the board(s) from the
broader community and human services sector including public housing and the
aboriginal community
6. Retain housing mix in order to ensure the diversity of the community by:
a. Mandatory affordable housing targets in private developments
b. Guaranteed levels of aboriginal housing
c. No net loss of public housing.
7. Real partnerships between State, Federal and Local Government with residents, service providers and business are essential in tackling Redfern Waterloos challenges.
8. There must be comprehensive community information, engagement and consultation strategies and these must be implemented.
9. A Redfern Waterloo Community Council must have a genuine role in monitoring the activities of the RWA and RWPP and ensuring community involvement in the processes.
10. Government to develop alternatives to public-private partnerships. Alternatives to include use of government debt financing and incentives for superannuation fund investment for infrastructure developments.
11. Any funding arrangements, concessions and arrangements to recompense a private party for the provision of infrastructure or services for the RWA are to be fully disclosed to the community and this disclosure subject to independent audit. Disclosures to include all building concessions, incentives and disincentives provided by any party and to include externalized impacts where the community suffers loss of amenity to provide concessions for the developer.
12. The government should establish the RWA so that the potential conflicts of interests between its roles as infrastructure planner, regulator, land manager, land seller, financier and social planner are identified, disclosed and addressed from the outset.
13. The consent authority function should be subject to public notification, public objection and independent appeal such as to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal.
14. Social Impact Assessments should be undertaken prior to all developments.
15. The Redfern Waterloo Plan should undergo similar community consultation to that promised to the community for the draft RED strategy which the Plan now replaces.
16. The Human Services Review to be made available to the public, agencies and the City of Sydney Council to inform the opinions and programmes.
17. Any proposed introduction of pooled funding, locality based priorities or other significant changes in service delivery should not be introduced without extensive consultation with service recipients, government and non-government service providers and the broader community.
18. The details of the proposed RWA and the enabling legislation should be made available for public discussion prior to its introduction to parliament and its implementation.
19. Legislation to be reviewed after 12 months operation of the Authority to determine if any amendments are required to the Act.
20. The Authority to produce an annual report to the community.
P
21. There should be no net permanent alienation of public land managed by the Authority and the maximum public benefit should be derived from the use of public land.
For more information contact:
Geoff Turnbull Ph:
9318 0824 Fax: 9310 2746 email: turnbullfamily@stassen.com.au
Ben Spies-Butcher Ph: 0414 744 758
REDwatch meets monthly at the Redfern Community Centre on the
4th Sunday at 2pm
Postal Address: c/-
Geoff Turnbull, PO Box
1567, Strawberry Hills NSW 2012
03 November 2004
]]>
Residents of Redfern, Eveleigh, Darlington and Waterloo are clearly skeptical about plans to redevelop their area. They recently railed against the loss of park lands, the forcing of Aboriginal housing off The Block, increased traffic and disruptions to bike lanes and plans to turn Redfern into part of the CBD. The concerns were expressed at a public forum called by the Redfern-Waterloo Authority (RWA) to discuss its plans for the area.
The RWA’s draft Built Environment Plan is just one of three plans for the area that have been released so far - with many more elements to come. All of these plans form part of a grand vision for the redevelopment of the Redfern-Waterloo area to be overseen by a specially created government body, complete with its own Minister - Frank Sartor. It is an experiment in planning that hopes to incorporate employment, service delivery and social mix into the usual plans for the physical space.
This process has been going for several years under a number of different names, of which the most recent is the RWA.
The draft Built Environment Plan includes a radical vision for transforming the area around the station into a central business district - with six 18 story office blocks next to the old TNT towers (which are 12 stories), a thousand new residents and up to 18,000 new workers.
The plan also includes the development of significant government land, including the North Eveleigh railyards, Redfern Public School and Rachel Forster Hospital. The RWA claims that this will be an important part of revitalising the area, providing space for Sydney’s growing residential and business needs and that the sale of government land in the area will help finance much needed investment.
But the 70 residents attending the public forum expressed a range of concerns. Those in the
Watertower, the apartment building on the eastern side of Redfern station, were anxious about the future of the Marian Street Park, which appears to become office space under the plan.
Residents expressed their outrage at moves to lower the allowance for residential housing on The Block, potentially making it impossible to proceed with the Aboriginal Housing Company’s award-winning Pemulwuy Project, and thus forcing Aboriginal housing off the Block.
Bike riders were critical of a planned road tunnel under the railway lines from the Australian Technology Park to Wilson St, near Codrington St. The tunnel would potentially bring thousands of cars onto the area’s main bike highway.
Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, argued that it was impossible to properly respond to the plan without seeing details of how the extra traffic would be managed or what new open space would be provided for the significant increase in population, plans that the RWA is still developing.
Following on from the forum, residents group REDWatch held their own community meeting to allow residents to hear each other’s concerns. The meeting, of about 50 people, resolved to work together to ensure residents are fully aware of the implications of the development and have a real say in how, and if, it proceeds.
Submissions on the Built Environment Plan can be made until April 14 via the RWA website
- www.redfernwaterloo.com.au and more information can be found at the REDWatch website www.redwatch.org.au.