Most of the early implementation gains of the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Service Delivery have been made, and many of the outputs in the National Partnership Agreement are in place or in train. I have observed and have anecdotal evidence that the National Partnership is now starting to gain traction at the community level, and in some communities progress is clear.
At the end of the day, though, the National Partnership Agreement is fundamentally about reform. It is about changing the way governments work together, changing the way governments work with communities and, equally important, facilitating a change in the way communities work with governments.
In my three reports to date I have made a number of recommendations to governments to assist with entrenching the new ways of working required under the Remote Service Delivery strategy. This report reviews in detail progress with those recommendations and further examines a number of key issues that require additional attention by governments.
Investing in building government capacity is an integral component for the Remote Service Delivery partnership's holistic approach to governance and leadership. I have consistently advocated that greater priority be given to the attraction and retention of qualified staff to work in Remote Service Delivery communities and that they be given adequate support, in recognition of the challenges of working in remote communities.
The National Partnership Agreement on Remote Service Delivery requires specific action on cultural competency training. While there is a significant amount of activity in this area, I am concerned that training: is not always coordinated, tailored and relevant to local circumstances; is directed only to those staff directly involved in delivery; and is focussed on cultural competency, with minimal focus on the broader skills required for working in a community development context.
This report recommends improvements in coordination and coverage of cultural competency training (Recommendation 2, page 41).
In August 2011, I convened an education roundtable involving Indigenous education innovators to discuss solutions to school attendance and education engagement issues, including what works and how this might be better reflected in Local Implementation Plans.
The roundtable (page 24) identified a number of elements key to achieving results in engagement and attendance in priority schools. These were:
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.
This report recommends better coordination and funding across governments, as well as increased support for communities to develop holistic Youth Action Plans (Recommendation 3, page 51).
Community safety is a vital precondition to achieving COAG's targets and is a fundamental basis for community development. Broader building block initiatives will have a limited impact if they are introduced into a dysfunctional environment. Previous reports have raised issues relating to policing, alcohol and substance misuse, child-safe communities and community safety planning. While there has been some progress in all these areas, again I am not satisfied that the activity is sufficiently focussed to achieve the gains required.
At a broad level, this report recommends that governments must agree on the priority issues that need to be addressed, on effective legislative frameworks relating to alcohol, juvenile justice and violence and a means to support communities who are ready and willing to show leadership on community safety at a local level (Recommendation 5, page 60 and Recommendation 6, page 75).
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.
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 are being developed but as yet are not robust enough to accurately report progress in each jurisdiction and location.
This report recommends that greater attention be given by all parties to strengthening the accountability mechanisms for meeting commitments under Local Implementation Plans and to providing more transparency about the expenditure of the funding allocated under the National Partnership (Recommendation 1, page 30).
My overall assessment is that, while some reform is being achieved, a greater focus on key areas of systemic reform is required. Key issues that have been raised in previous reports are reforms to land management and funding.
Land reform will enable progress in economic development, community housing and staff housing. Too often infrastructure and construction projects that will benefit a community and enable service provision are held up because of complex land tenure and a lack of land use planning. This is a long-standing issue, and a number of Local Implementation Plan actions are currently delayed by land issues.
This report recommends that changes to land tenure should recognise the range of issues, including service delivery, land use planning and economic opportunities as well as ensuring effective asset management into the future (Recommendation 4, page 58).
My previous reports have noted that a number of issues hinder the ability of remote service providers to successfully deliver the services for which they are funded. Such issues include a real or perceived lack of flexibility of government programs to be tailored to local circumstances, short term funding and the myriad of contractual and reporting requirements placed on service providers.
This report recommends that governments develop better incentives for whole-of-government collaboration and drive reforms to funding arrangements for remote Indigenous service providers to better align and streamline funding agreements and, where possible, extend funding periods (Recommendation 7, page 81).
As noted in previous reports, a flexible funding pool was established to allow the Australian Government to quickly respond to high-priority projects. This was an important step in the development of more flexible and locally targeted funding solutions.
I believe that more attention needs to be paid to funding innovative and/or locally identified projects or initiatives involving the development of social and human capital.
This report recommends that governance structures of the flexible funding pool are strengthened and that initiatives which contribute to the Closing the Gap targets are prioritised (Recommendation 8, page 83).
It is essential that the Australian, State and Northern Territory governments strive to maintain long-term relationships with Indigenous communities to build trust and a sense of continuity for service delivery. One of the strengths of the Remote Service Delivery approach is the provision of a strong and permanent presence in Indigenous communities which allows the building of long-term relationships with community members.
This report recommends the development of a long-term strategy for the Remote Service Delivery approach (Recommendation 9, page 87.