In May 2011, I wrote to each of the State and Northern Territory Boards of Management to ask them what action was being taken in their jurisdiction to implement the recommendations in my previous reports. In evaluating progress so far I am concerned with how the intention of the recommendations is being met – allowing for jurisdictional and local solutions, rather than requiring blanket compliance with a single national solution. My overall assessment is that while some reform is being achieved, much of the activity that responds to the recommendations is being undertaken in a piecemeal and opportunistic fashion.
I consider implementation of seven elements of five recommendations from my first report to be complete:
Recommendation 10.1 from my second report, regarding national support for Regional Operations Centres, has been implemented.
Police services across the Remote Service Delivery jurisdictions have been significantly involved in the development of the Local Implementation Plans, and in a range of community consultations and events.
However contrary to my recommendations, in some locations they have not been able to provide information to communities about minimum local policing levels, or the number and nature of daily community patrols, generally due to "operational" considerations. Nevertheless, substantial efforts are being made in many communities to respond to communities' needs and to engage with communities. This includes participation in community forums and events, support for community night patrols, the deployment of sworn community engagement officers in seven priority communities in the Northern Territory and engagement with sport and recreation activities such as "Off the Hook" in the Northern Territory. The relationship building that this involves not only assists police engagement with communities; it also gives communities information on the priority and capacity of police.
The Mornington Island Police Senior Sergeant uses the Community Safety Consultative Group to provide information on police staffing levels, the number and nature of daily community patrols, hotspots around the community and relevant policing action in the community. Doomadgee police have started a community policing bicycle patrol around the community. Police more recently are assisting the school with raising attendance through visiting parents of students who have not been attending school.
Staffing and retention levels and workloads remain a challenge. For example, filling the gazetted quota of police in Aurukun is an ongoing problem, and half the positions remain vacant.
Efforts are being made in all jurisdictions to simplify and streamline contracts and funding agreements.
In New South Wales, flexible funding is currently available through the Australian Government's Indigenous Common Funding Round process, and through use of the Remote Service Delivery Special Account. I note that these are Australian Government processes and that little flexibility at the State level is apparent.
The former Northern Territory Coordinator General for Remote Indigenous Services advocated for funding reform by the Northern Territory Government in all of his reports. The reports noted that the Northern Territory Government is conducting a review of its programs to local government and non-government organisations to examine comparative funding levels, funding cycles, acquittal procedures, and red tape issues. An important step in reform was the recently announced $30 million , three-year Indigenous employment program for shires. The Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing and the Northern Territory Department of Health are working together to develop improved funding models and approaches to regionalisation of funding arrangements.
In Queensland, the Department of Communities is pursuing a legislative reform agenda to reduce administrative and compliance costs. The first draft of the One Funding System for Better Services Bill 2011 has been circulated for comment. The Bill will simplify compliance requirements for non-government organisations and result in streamlined contract and funding agreements.
In South Australia, government departments, where possible, are signing two- to three-year service agreements with service providers, moving away from annual funding. This is aimed at ensuring short-, medium- and long-term outcomes can be planned for and measured. This move also enables organisations to offer longer term contracts to staff, ensuring continuity of tenure as well as the programs and services.
Additionally, the South Australian Regional Operations Centre and the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs now issue only one contract for organisations that are funded for multiple projects in a financial year. Government agencies that work in partnership to fund projects through the Indigenous Remote Service Delivery Special Account make every effort to align the reporting requirements of their contracts to minimise the reporting burden on service providers.
In Western Australia, the Regional Operations Centre develops single funding agreements for projects that are funded with both State and Commonwealth contributions, resulting in single reporting obligations for the funding recipient. Where single agreements are not possible, the Regional Operations Centre tries to align reporting timeframes and performance indicators so that one report meets the requirements of all funding agencies.
Service footprints requested in my recommendations have been developed (and are regularly updated) for Mornington Island and Doomadgee in Queensland and for the communities in South Australia and the Northern Territory. This work is underway for the communities in New South Wales. In Western Australia, a services research project is currently underway. I discuss the use of the service footprints further in the section in this report on flexible funding approaches.
The adequacy of funding for the operational costs of service delivery organisations is being addressed in Queensland, the Northern Territory and South Australia. In Queensland the Mt Isa Regional Operations Centre actively works to advise government agencies on the realistic set of operations in Remote Service Delivery communities. The Cairns Regional Operations Centre meets with funded providers quarterly to discuss project outcomes and assess progress against budgets, including monitoring the adequacy of operational funding. In the Northern Territory, this issue has also been raised by the Northern Territory Coordinator General, and Northern Territory and Australian Government agencies now routinely engage with service providers, particularly shire councils, to develop zero-based and full-cost budgeting scenarios, including in priority communities. In South Australia, both the South Australian and Australian governments have recognised the significant operational cost of providing services on the APY Lands and have increased funding over recent years.
I have discussed the need for ongoing support for governance and leadership training for each community in all of my previous reports . Substantial effort is being made in many of the priority communities, led by the Regional Operations Centres, in response to evident local need. However, as yet there is no overall strategic response or dedicated fund for each community. In response to a recommendation in my second report, the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs is developing a national governance and leadership framework. It is expected to be finalised in 2012. More immediately, each Regional Operations Centre is working to provide governance and leadership support in ways that use local opportunities and suit local conditions.
In New South Wales, governance training is available through TAFE Open Learning, and Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs leadership programs have been delivered in the two priority communities. Under the Murdi Paaki Regional Partnership Agreement, community working parties (including those in Walgett and Wilcannia) have the support of a project officer and receive funds for their monthly meetings and secretariat support. This arrangement was in place before the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Service Delivery.
In the Northern Territory activities include:
Most notably, in the Northern Territory the Assessment of Governance and Community Engagement Project is underway. The project will map existing and traditional leadership and government structures within each community and existing patterns of government engagement; identify gaps of under-representation in the structures, and gaps created by incompatibilities between western-centric governance and leadership structures and traditional ones; provide information to target programs and activities to raise the standard of engagement and participation. This is part of a strategy by the Remote Service Delivery Board of Management and the Regional Operations Centre to develop a cohesive governance and leadership strategy in the Northern Territory. The project is to be commended.
In Queensland a range of leadership and governance activities have been undertaken, many of which draw on the strengths of regional organisations, and targeting women, young people, and people currently engaged in existing formal governance bodies:
In South Australia:
In Western Australia, governance and leadership is being strongly supported by the Regional Operations Centre and landmark projects are being conducted in each community:
Like the Northern Territory research project, the cultural governance and the governance mapping projects in Western Australia present a substantial opportunity to improve the way governments and communities engage with each other. These projects are to be commended.
In my first report I recommended that Regional Operations Centre staff, including Government Business Managers and Indigenous Engagement Officers, receive specialist support to enable them to assist communities. The Indigenous Engagement Officers participate in regular recall events organised by the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, where they participate in training and development, explore challenges and share solutions, and experience a network of support. I note that substantial efforts are made to support staff in the Mt Isa Regional Operations Centre, and staff in Cape York are supported to participate in regional bodies such as the Cape York Leadership Academy.
Much of the governance development work in the Remote Service Delivery communities involves substantial conflict resolution and mediation. Care needs to be taken to support Government Business Managers and Indigenous Engagement Officers in this challenging work. I am concerned that a sufficient level of support and specialist training – particularly in relation to conflict resolution and governance and leadership, is still not being provided to Government Business Managers.
In terms of cultural competence, the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs has developed several programs aimed at building the cultural competence of its staff working in remote Indigenous communities. One such program is the Local Community Awareness Program, which is discussed further in the next section.
In my recommendations I have been concerned to make sure that Government Business Managers and Regional Operations Centres had access to advice and expertise that would enable them to support education-related commitments in the Local Implementation Plans.
In the Northern Territory, development of the education related commitments in the Local Implementation Plans relied on the good working relationship between the Northern Territory Department of Education and Training, and the Australian Government Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations. Responsibility for implementing the education related commitments in the plan rests with the staff of the Northern Territory's Department of Education and Training who work in and support the priority communities.
In New South Wales, the Regional Operations Centre has access to the Western Regional Office of the Department of Education and Communities. Local teams also engage closely with school principals.
In Queensland, the Mt Isa Regional Operations Centre has staff with extensive experience in working with government, communities, and schools to develop strategies to improve education, learning and employment outcomes. These staff provide support to Government Coordination Officers (Government Business Managers). In Cape York, the Cape York Aboriginal Australian Academy is active in Aurukun, Coen and Hope Vale. Government Coordination Officers engage at the local level and Indigenous Engagement Officers participate in Club and Culture activities, regularly facilitate interagency meetings and report on progress in education through monthly situation reports. Government Coordination Officers maintain a relationship with the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and the Queensland Department of Education and Training through participation in forums facilitated by the Cape York Welfare Reform educational stream leader.
In South Australia, the Government Business Managers maintain a close working relationship with the principals of both schools. They also have regular contact with the Aboriginal Lands District Director and the APY Lands Coordinating Principal, who provide a direct link between Remote Service Delivery and the work of the Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Education Committee. The committee is responsible for the strategic directions, development and monitoring of preschool and school education for students living in communities on the APY Lands and has a strong linkage with the Schooling Building Block Working Group.
Local school governing councils support the committee as the second tier of governance in Anangu communities. This unique governing council model is made up of one representative from each family group and is also inclusive of Anangu decision-making processes. Each family is involved in choosing their representative. Representatives from Anangu teachers, education workers and coordinators are also on the governing council as the local cultural experts.
The councils have proved to be extremely effective as a result of the following strategies:
In Western Australia, schooling commitments in the Local Implementation Plans were advised by a cross-sector working group involving the Kimberley-based senior executives of the Western Australian Department of Education, the Catholic Education Office and the Aboriginal Independent Community Schools Support Unit. Local Operations Centres engage directly with school principals and school boards and reference groups. They are also regularly briefed by the Kimberley Success Zone project coordinator for the Kimberley Success Zone Project (see case study below). This is a cross-sector initiative to increase school attendance, engagement and outcomes for all Indigenous children in all of the 42 schools in the Kimberley Region. In addition, a Schooling Building Block Working Group provides a forum for the Regional Operations Centre to gain advice from the Department of Education and Children's Services and the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations about education-related commitments in the Local Implementation Plans.
The Kimberley Success Zone promotes teaching and schooling best practice and supports all 42 Kimberley schools to improve outcomes for their Indigenous students. It is driven locally, with work underway to improve school attendance, engagement, literacy and numeracy levels. School-community partnership plans are a key component to build parental and community engagement in outcomes. These initiatives are identified through priorities and actions within the Local Implementation Plans. The Kimberley Success Zone project will add significant value to communities, including developing a pathways document to assist secondary students.
This project aims to articulate clearly and succinctly the range of possible options available to students, and maps out training organisations in the Kimberley; scholarships available (when, where and how); identifies academies and specialised programs offered by schools for Indigenous students; introduces boarding and residential options and community services; and showcases young Indigenous adults who have successfully navigated transitions from school to training and training to work. Such initiatives will go a long way towards providing the type of opportunities frequently available to urban students and, ultimately, to meeting the Closing the Gap targets.
In my second report I recommended that Boards of Management establish an education subcommittee comprising representatives of education providers and government agencies. Some progress has been made in this area.
In the Northern Territory and New South Wales, a subcommittee or reference group advises the Board of Management on education-related issues. In South Australia, the Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Education Committee is the responsible body (as described earlier in this section). In Western Australia, the subcommittee is being convened. There are no subcommittees or reference groups under the Queensland Board of Management umbrella.
In all of my reports to date I have stressed that education activities in priority communities need to provide education pathways from early childhood through to post-school training and employment.
While all Local Implementation Plans that include items under the early childhood, schooling and economic development building blocks, in practice these do not always equate to education pathways.
In New South Wales, a plan is being developed for Walgett and Wilcannia that will tie the early childhood, schooling and economic participation building blocks to ensure that pathways are in place. I look forward to seeing the final plan and how it will be implemented in communities.
In the Northern Territory the Department of Education and Training has developed the Strong Start, Bright Future model which addresses the needs of young people from 0 to 18 years to focus on integrated service delivery in the early years through to employment or further education pathways. In the first stage this will be implemented in six sites that will draw on students from seven Remote Service Delivery communities and their surrounds. In addition, a cross-agency Integrated Family Services Working Group has developed an integrated child and family service framework that is supported by an implementation plan to drive the establishment of integrated family service in all priority communities. Other programs available in the Northern Territory that aim to achieve better coordination and an education continuum include Families as First Teachers, Indigenous Parenting Support, and the Every Child Every Day policy (see case study below). I will be watching the Strong Start, Bright Future model with interest.
The Northern Territory Department of Education and Training's Every Child, Every Day initiative is beginning to yield results. Overall attendance has improved 2.3 per cent, with a 3.1 per cent rise in very remote school attendance and a 3.6 per cent lift in Indigenous student numbers when comparing Term 1, 2011 year with Term 1, 2010.
The Every Child Every Day initiative includes 36 strategies that set out how the Northern Territory Government will work with families, schools and communities to improve the enrolment, attendance and participation of young Territorians in school. The initiative also recognises the diversity of people and places within the Northern Territory and is flexible in meeting local needs and adaptive to the individual situations of families children and young people.
The Every Child, Every Day strategy includes five priority action areas to help parents, schools and communities to work together to overcome existing barriers to participating at school. The action areas are:
One strategy being implemented in remote communities as part of the initiative is a flexible and extended school year to ensure that children can attend school for at least 180 days in a year. In Gunbalanya, for example, the school will realign its terms to ensure that schooling is maximised in the wet season when people are isolated in the community. An extended break will occur to coincide with the dry season when many people leave the community for ceremony purposes.
In Queensland, the Mt Isa Regional Operations Centre uses a number of approaches to ensure seamless transition points along the continuum from early childhood to employment. Local Implementation Plans have identified the need for child health checks and early development plans to be linked to individual education plans. Under the National Partnership Agreement on Low Socio-economic Status School Communities both the Mornington Island and Doomadgee public schools are introducing a range of school-to-work transition activities and have engaged vocational education and training coordinators.
In Cape York, community-based training facilities have been established in each site to provide vocational education and training courses to assist transitions from non-participation and/or education into employment. Regular interagency meetings enable service providers to coordinate early childhood and education activities. In addition, Government Coordination Officers have a thorough understanding of Community Development Employment Projects and Job Services initiatives, links to Cape York Welfare Reform 'lighthouse' projects and work readiness programs, and opportunities under the employment requirements of infrastructure projects. The Government Coordination Officers play a coordination role and work with service providers to maximise opportunities for local people.
In South Australia, an excellent example of providing education pathways from school to employment is the Anangu Work Expo, which was held across the APY Lands (including Amata and Mimili) in early April 2011. It built on the success of the first Expo in 2010 and involved more than 800 Anangu community members, from school children to adults. Up to 18 stalls with information about training and jobs were provided in each community. TAFE SA organised the event in collaboration with 24 stakeholders.
Also in South Australia, the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations funded School Business Community Partnership Broker, Eyre Futures, which has brokered partnerships in hospitality, and is preparing partnerships in construction and land conservation and management for the Amata community. They are in the last stages of planning for students from Mimili to participate in a tiling course and obtain their white card (a construction industry prerequisite indicating that a person has undertaken basic construction induction training). People who enter construction sites in Australia must have undertaken construction induction or 'White Card training'.
The School Business Community Partnership Broker has brokered a partnership to support senior school students from Amata undertaking hospitality training before work experience at Yulara, as part of the adapted Jobs WEST program. The female group undertook the program on from 8 to 10 August 2011, and then work experience, and were highly praised for their presentation and customer service skills. The male group undertook the program from 22 to 24 August 2011 to be followed by five days of work experience from 7 to 11 November 2011.
In Western Australia, the education continuum approach is being progressed as an element of the Kimberley Success Zone Project. The schooling pathways initiative provides secondary students with a resource that will map all training organisations, scholarships, specialised programs and boarding and residential options available to them.
In the third report, I recommended that an education roundtable be convened with relevant bodies and Indigenous education innovators to discuss school attendance and education engagement issues, including what works, and how such successes might be better reflected in Local Implementation Plans.
In late July 2011 a meeting of representatives from State and Australian governments, departments of education and non-government organisations was held in Canberra to discuss the issues of non-attendance and disengagement of Indigenous students in priority communities. This meeting identified a series of issues, potential solutions and examples of successful practice. This discussion then fed into the education roundtable on 25 August 2011.
The ten participants in the roundtable included teachers and principals with experience working in remote Indigenous communities and representatives of Australian Government and State and Northern Territory education departments. The purpose of the roundtable was to contribute to the broader discussion on what works to increase school attendance and attainment by building on the work that has already been undertaken by individuals, agencies and organisations and commitments made by government for action in this area.
The roundtable started with a discussion about the issues and obstacles that face teachers and students in the delivery of education in priority schools which then led to a discussion of programs and approaches that were achieving results.
A common element of success in Remote Service Delivery schools was seen to be a strong leader in the principal, with the autonomy and flexibility to select their own staff and adapt the activities of the school to the local community. This included the ability to adapt school hours and terms to suit the environment and cultural requirements; employing community members in the school in community liaison positions and ensuring that local culture is built into the school's activities.
Employing quality teachers was also seen as essential. It was noted that teachers did not necessarily require experience working in Indigenous communities but rather flexible teaching methods and strong relationship-building skills to ensure engagement with parents and the community. It was also seen as vital that there were high expectations of both teachers and students.
In addition, there was a strong belief that schools needed to become community hubs. Because many Indigenous parents have had negative experiences with schools and education, participants stressed the importance of turning the school into a space that the community felt comfortable using. Suggestions about how this could be done included holding community meetings in the school, using the facilities for adult education and community events, and breaking down the existing negative perceptions of education and schooling and building new and positive relationships.
My Office will be developing a series of information resources from the two education meetings including, webcasts of the meetings and information about approaches that have resulted in improved outcomes. These will be available on the website at www.cgris.gov.au.
I will be working with Boards of Management, Regional Operations Centres, the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and State Departments of Education to ensure all relevant stakeholders are aware of the outcomes and new resources.
I will also follow up the issues raised by the roundtable attendees and will report on the progress in my next report.
All of the priority communities have significant immediate and long-term infrastructure needs. Impediments to meeting these needs include a lack of funding, uncertainty around land tenure reform and the absence of regular town and infrastructure planning. I address issues related to land reform in the next section of this report (see pages 53-58).
In my first report, I recommended that relevant Australian Government agencies investigate the feasibility of a single whole-of-government contracting entity to plan and manage construction of community facilities in remote communities. I was concerned not only that communities reap the benefits of new and needed infrastructure, but also that cost savings and jobs benefits of coordination be maximised. This recommendation was investigated by the Working Group on Indigenous Reform, but was not supported. Nonetheless, some jurisdictions have taken steps towards achieving these benefits.
In the Northern Territory, infrastructure programs that arise from the Local Implementation Plans and related programs are coordinated through five Infrastructure Working Groups that have been established on a regional basis. Packaging of multiple projects under a single contractor is explored where practical.
In Queensland, the Remote Indigenous Land and Infrastructure Program Office was established to address land and infrastructure planning issues in 16 Indigenous local government areas which was profiled in my third report. The Program Office works with councils to facilitate land tenure resolution and improved land administration systems in discrete Indigenous communities. It also provides support with coordination and resolution of complex land tenure issues, develops land use planning schemes and facilitates essential infrastructure provision and upgrade. In addition to the work of the Program Office, a range of activities undertaken through the Regional Operations Centres aim to link local people with employment opportunities related to construction of infrastructure.
South Australia has recently realigned its service delivery of infrastructure to rural and remote communities, moving provision from the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio to the mainstream agencies responsible for providing energy and water services across the State. Significant work has been undertaken to identify key priority projects in water, energy and road projects. A cross-government committee is to be formed to plan for and drive the delivery of key infrastructure in remote communities. A key focus in the coming year will be to educate communities in the sustainable use of energy and water to better manage demand.
The Western Australian Government is reviewing current procurement practices and trialing a number of procurement options to maximise Indigenous employment outcomes.
Whole-of-community infrastructure plans are in place or will be developed in the Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia. Sustainable planning processes are in place or being developed in New South Wales, Northern Territory, Queensland and South Australia.
I am pleased to note the work of the Infrastructure Australia Working Group on Indigenous Infrastructure. Infrastructure Australia assists Australian governments to develop a strategic blueprint for unlocking infrastructure bottlenecks and to modernise the nation's economic infrastructure. The Working Group on Indigenous Infrastructure is developing a strategic framework and a funding model to complement the Closing the Gap objectives and providing advice to COAG to meet the infrastructure needs of Indigenous people living in remote Australia. The working group is a task-oriented, time-limited group to support the Infrastructure Australia Indigenous Subcommittee and includes members from State, Territory and Australian governments, my Office and the private and not-for-profit sectors.
In my second report, I recommended that government identify funding currently committed to youth programs in priority communities, as well as opportunities to improve the coordination of the programs. This work was to inform the development of Youth Action Plans in the Local Implementation Plans.
Youth programs have been included in all Local Implementation Plans, and in every community work is underway to improve the availability of youth services and programs. The development of youth action plans is underway or to be progressed in a number of communities. In the Gulf communities they will be done as a component of Community Safety Action Plans and in Amata the plan is close to finalisation. However, to date no jurisdiction has identified funding currently committed for youth programs in priority communities.
All Regional Operations Centres have commented on the current lack of coordination in youth programs, and all are working to achieve better coordination of youth programs in particular communities, and where appropriate on a regional or jurisdictional basis. I note that in Western Australia, the State Operations Committee has established an Executive Working Group on Youth to drive better resourcing, engagement of agencies and coordination of services for youth in the Western Australian priority communities.
My second report discussed early childhood services and recommended a number of actions to support the coordination of childcare services, including development of Client-centred Service Provider Charters in each community to ensure referral pathways for children and families at risk, and workforce development. In most jurisdictions, action is being taken to ensure better coordination of family and early childhood services.
In New South Wales, Early Childhood Reference Groups have been established in communities to progress actions relating to the birth to eight years age group. In the Northern Territory, an Integrated Family Service Working Group has been established which includes Australian Government, Northern Territory Government and non-government service provider representatives across the health, community service, education and child services sectors. The group has developed an integrated child and family service framework and is now working to establish integrated family services across the Remote Service Delivery communities.
In Queensland, the Mt Isa Regional Operations Centre has been working closely with government, non-government and community stakeholders to look at how a range of services with a similar target group of young children and their families work together to ensure that they are not being duplicated and that they are coordinating and collaborating to deliver a quality continuum of services. This has been supported by efforts to undertake a joint single purchasing arrangement to provide an integrated service. Unfortunately, the initial procurement failed to find a suitable provider– a too-common issue confronted in servicing remote locations. The Mt Isa Regional Operations Centre and the Queensland and Australian government agencies involved are to be commended for their ongoing efforts. In the meantime, work is ongoing in Mornington Island and Doomadgee to achieve improved linkages between existing services and stakeholders.
In South Australia, the Department of Education and Children's Services is working with South Australia's Women's and Children's Health Network and Nganampa Health Council regarding the delivery of early childhood health and parenting services at the new Amata Early Childhood Centre. The program will include social and emotional development, physical development, early language and nutrition assistance. The implementation of the program will need to take into account workforce development, recruitment and housing issues.
The Amata Early Childhood Centre is scheduled for completion in mid-October 2011. The service model aims to support optimal health, learning and wellbeing of children from birth to five years of age. The age groups birth to three years and three to five years have complementary emphases on early childhood development and early childhood education. Services and programs may be delivered by government and non-government agencies. The final service model will grow over time and reflect community needs and available funding streams.
The Early Childhood Building Block Working Group is considering adopting the Guiding principles of our work with young children developed by the Department of Education and Children's Services as the client-centred service provider charter for each priority community. These principles are designed to:
In Western Australia, work is progressing in each location on better service coordination. Each location has a different mechanism to respond to early childhood service issues, including the Women's Group in Beagle Bay, the early years network on Dampier Peninsula and the Children and Family Centres in Fitzroy Crossing and Halls Creek. At the jurisdictional level the Regional Operations Centre is working with the State Indigenous Early Childhood Development National Partnership Committee to advise on early childhood initiatives in the Local Implementation Plan.
I also recommended that all governments ensure the delivery of ongoing and refresher training to all community workers on their legal responsibilities to identify and respond to suspected child abuse and neglect.
Substantial ongoing efforts are being made in New South Wales to ensure that government and non-government service providers understand recent changes to the child protection systems and their responsibilities. In the Northern Territory, programs are currently being put in place to make information about roles and responsibilities, and child protective and risk factors, more available to workers and community. Place-based training on responsibilities to identify and respond to suspected child abuse and neglect has been provided in Mornington Island and Doomadgee, and in Amata and Mimili. In Cape York communities, regular service provider network meetings ensure that all staff working in the priority communities are well aware of their responsibilities around child safety.
In my second report I sought to ensure that commitments in Local Implementation Plans were funded. I wanted to ensure that community members were not responsible for sourcing funding for agreed actions.
In New South Wales, commitments are funded from existing agency resources. In the Northern Territory, all lead agencies responsible for action in the Plans provided surety that the commitments were attainable; however, some commitments have been deferred due to funding allocation problems. In Queensland, the Mornington Island and Doomadgee Local Implementation Plans only contain only commitments that have funding available. In Western Australia commitments are categorised in the Plan according to what had been agreed and had commenced. In many cases actions were agreed in principle or were identified as being aspirational but requiring further consideration by government.
Where funding has not been identified for actions in Local Implementation Plans, it is my strong view that it is the role of the Regional Operations Centres and the Boards of Management to systematically identify funding gaps and to work with agencies to source additional funding.
The National Partnership Agreement for Remote Service Delivery provides the imprimatur for governments to give priority to Remote Service Delivery communities. In my second report, I suggested that individual program guidelines could be amended to give this program-by-program authority. Although this has not occurred, a number of agencies do prioritise Remote Service Delivery communities.
In the Northern Territory, government agencies have prioritised and realigned programs to focus efforts in Territory Growth Towns, which include priority communities. In Queensland, the Cape York Welfare Reform locations and Gulf priority communities have been given priority through a range of Australian Government and Queensland Government programs areas. In South Australia funding priority has been given to Amata and Mimili by agencies that participate on the Board of Management. In Western Australia, priority communities have been given priority by the Department of Health and Ageing, the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, and by the Western Australia Department of Housing.
Issues surrounding visitor notifications in communities are complex. Such notifications provide a mechanism to manage the influx of government officers wishing to do business with communities and to manage the fine balance between under- and over-consulting. They are not a gate keeping mechanism; rather, their purpose is to assist Regional Operations Centres and Government Business Managers to advise government staff wishing to engage with communities on the best way to do so, and to assist communities to deal with the sometimes large numbers of government staff wishing to engage. One of the challenges for any visitor notification system is that it must not interfere with any business-as-usual functions, and must not limit the capacity of community members to engage with government. Some priority communities are towns that function much like mainstream towns, and are on major transport routes with large numbers of tourists, other visitors and vehicles passing through.
All Regional Operations Centres have a visitor notification system in place; however, its use is often discretionary. They are most effective in the Northern Territory, and in the Queensland Gulf communities. In South Australia, a Visiting Officer Notification tool based on the Northern Territory model will be introduced in October 2011.
I am pleased to see that all Regional Operations Centres are using baseline mapping reports to inform their work, particularly further development of Local Implementation Plans.
The interpreters' framework and flexible funding pool are covered in detail in the Key focus areas in the coming months section of this report.
The development of an evaluation framework is progressing. The structure of the framework has been agreed, and key performance indicators for Local Implementation Plans are being developed in consultation with Boards of Management. I will be monitoring this work with considerable interest in coming months.
All Boards of Management (or similar) are making real efforts to improve their performance, including achieving the most effective membership. Arrangements vary across jurisdictions, but the key features are a Board of Management and a system of subcommittees or working groups. A working group structure allows for flexibility, drawing in additional expertise and focussed engagement by responsible agencies.
I believe that the efficiency and effectiveness of Boards of Management need to be constantly monitored by the co-chairs of the boards. Board of Management members have important roles to play in reaching back into their organisations to promote a focus on the priority communities and to seek opportunities to influence reform and mainstream policy development. As senior executives in their agencies, members play a vital role in promoting more flexible funding approaches, flexibility to modify inputs, and to streamline reporting and reduce red tape.
We are now approaching the midpoint of the National Partnership Agreement. All Local Implementation Plans have been agreed, but are still to be signed in the Cape York Communities and two communities in the Northern Territory. Overall, there are around 3,000 actions in the Local Implementation Plans and all Regional Operations Centres and Boards of Management are working to meet the commitments.
As would be expected in a complex undertaking, there are areas where substantial progress is being made, and areas where progress is very slow.
In examining implementation to date, it is my view that a number of factors are crucial to effective implementation:
These factors are not in place for all Local Implementation Plans in each jurisdiction.
The scope and timeframes of commitments in the Local Implementation Plans vary widely. For example some actions are as simple as arranging a meeting. Others are as complex as the development and construction major infrastructure, with complex services as part of the deliverable.
The programmatic approach and project management capability that are required to deliver on hundreds of actions in each location over a multi year period are substantial. Many actions are subject to critical dependencies, and sequencing of actions remains vital.
It is essential that commitments in the Local Implementation Plans are met, and that accountability for their delivery to government and to communities is strong. Systems for monitoring delivery of commitments in the Local Implementation Plans have been developed but more work is required to ensure they accurately report progress in each jurisdiction and location. I am aware that the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and the Regional Operations Centres are working to improve these systems and I strongly support this activity as a matter of urgency.
Furthermore, the requirement under paragraph 29 of the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Service Delivery providing for clear statements of expenditure in each location to be presented by the Commonwealth, States and Northern Territory twelve months after implementation has not yet been met. The need for clear statements of expenditure under the National Partnership Agreement in each location to be presented by the Australian, State and Northern Territory governments is also reiterated in the Bilateral Implementation Plan for each jurisdiction.
It is recommended that:
1.1 urgent and ongoing priority be given by all parties – Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs as lead Australian Government agency, State and Northern Territory lead agencies, Boards of Management and Regional Operations Centres – to tracking progress on meeting commitments in the Local Implementation Plans and priority issues as they emerge;
1.2 the system for tracking progress be complemented by effective project and program management by responsible agencies to drive the delivery of commitments in Local Implementation Plans; and
1.3 by the end of 2011, the Australian, State and Northern Territory governments publish an agreed statement of Remote Service Delivery expenditure to ensure transparency for the $291 million provided under the National Partnership Agreement.
Regional Operations Centres are currently working through a process of accounting to communities for commitments met, and updating those Local Implementation Plans that were agreed approximately 12 months ago. As part of this work, they are using the baseline mapping as an information source; continuing to increase the involvement of Local Government; working to more precisely define actions, deadlines and outcomes; and reporting to communities on actions completed.
In my last report, I suggested that tailored assistance be given to Regional Operations Centres to ensure that they are engaging with the right decision makers. Some progress is being made.
In the Northern Territory, the Assessment of Governance and Community Engagement Project will map community governance and leadership structures and examine engagement by governments (see page 18).
Engagement in Mornington Island and Doomadgee for development of the Local Implementation Plans was based on a sound understanding of community governance structures, and gaps and opportunities available to engage with a wide range of community groupings including traditional owners, families, young people, men, women and older people.
Effective community engagement is a fundamental element of Remote Service Delivery. Regional Operations Centres and Government Business Managers are have a lead role in facilitating this engagement for all government agencies. The decision making structures and mechanisms in many Remote Service Delivery communities are complex, and include many formal and informal leaders. I will continue to advocate for tailored support for Regional Operations Centres to ensure that they are engaging with the right decision makers.
Progress is detailed in the table at www.cgris.gov.au, which will be updated every six months.