We are now nearly halfway through the five-year term of the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Service Delivery. Experience shows that this midterm point in major policy implementation is where energy often falters.
The National Partnership Agreement on Remote Service Delivery is a significant reform that creates challenges for governments, how governments and communities work together and the way services are delivered. It is not just about services as there are three inter linked core elements: Improved Engagement; Better Service Systems; and Stronger Communities.
Through the development of the Regional Operations Centres and the process of creating Local Implementation Plans, we have put the architecture in place that will allow us to tackle the bigger challenges. But it is important at this midpoint to review our progress and our next steps. It is essential that we refocus our energies as we move into the next iteration of the Local Implementation Plans, and into the second half of this reform process.
I have been hearing across jurisdictions that there is a need for refocusing and re-engaging with the work we have all committed to. I am aware that all governments are under political and budgetary pressures to do more with less. Nonetheless, we need to engage and refocus in this current challenging context and at this point in its implementation.
It is critical that we remove ambiguity and uncertainty so that Remote Service Delivery priorities and projects are implemented in an authoritative and accountable way. We need to have an agreed mechanism for getting the best out of the Remote Service Delivery model.
It is important that we are open to challenging the many assumptions we have all made about our roles and that we are genuinely focussed on the same outcomes if we are to achieve the goals we have set for the next two-and-a-half years.
The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in collaboration with my Office, has been facilitating a number of discussions with key stakeholders about the strategic intent of Remote Service Delivery. The approach is to look at the policy framework as an organisation rather than a series of services, individuals and agencies. By its very nature, the Remote Service Delivery model is based on a collaborative, multi-agency approach that is reliant on relationships at national, state, regional and local levels.
Improving our accountability systems is also critical to this assessment process and the overall Remote Service Delivery initiative. Program and/or project management is also critical. Accountability mechanisms supporting Local Implementation Plans must ensure that agencies, and where appropriate individuals, are accountable and do what they say they will do. We need to also move more quickly to ensure that local communities have a greater role in the accountability systems. Accessible community-specific data and a meaningful role for local communities in the evaluation of the approach are critical.
It is also important to identify strategic issues which contribute to progress. Cross-cutting issues that need to be addressed include: building community capacity and positive social norms (governance and leadership); staff housing; land tenure; infrastructure; better linkages to mainstream programs; and methods for measuring vibrant communities.
This work will be important in informing the strategic priorities for the next iterations of Local Implementation Plans.
In this report I have identified six key areas for focussed attention and as the basis for further development in the coming months:
Building on the context above, the further development and implementation of these initiatives will require tight program and/or project management.
I have also made a number of recommendations in key areas, as well as review progress with previous recommendations and issues raised.
Many of these recommendations and issues have been echoed in other strategic reviews and reports, as indeed they reflect issues that have been previously raised many times.
Stakeholders, particularly at the community level, want governments to deliver on their promises and change the way they work at all levels. It is time that governments – at the agency and political levels – give the serious attention required to the structural and systemic change required to bring about improvements in the life chances of residents in the 29 Remote Service Delivery communities.
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 that allows the building of long-term relationships with community members.
The Single Government Interface approach is working and showing some positive results. l have previously emphasised the critical role of Government Business Managers in building these essential relationships. However, it is equally important that key staff, such as teachers, health workers and police, also develop relationships of trust with communities.
Recruitment and turnover of staff in remote areas is a longstanding issue with many challenges that cannot be underestimated. A high turnover is not conducive to developing and maintaining the relationships needed to deliver the outcomes required under the National Partnership. I am particularly concerned about the turnover of Government Business Managers and the need to develop a career path for Indigenous Engagement Officers. I do not underestimate the complexity of the issues involved, and am aware of the significant funding implications. However, serious effort needs to be applied, especially for Government Business Managers whose effectiveness requires the development of long-term relationships at the community level.
I would like serious consideration given to revisiting the specification of roles to support the community development approach as outlined in my third report. The respective roles of government agencies and non-government organisations in implementing a developmental approach need careful consideration. For example, the role of Government Business Manager may require redefining to a Government Engagement and Coordination Officers. This title reflects more precisely the Remote Service Delivery approach which focuses on engagement and coordination. It adopts the nomenclature used in Mornington Island and Doomadgee, where officers have been successfully in place for a long time.
I would also like to see governments starting the conversation about whether a long-term presence can be maintained and how best to support and sustain that presence. Succession planning arrangements should be systematically introduced to ensure staff gaps are minimised.
It is recommended that by the end of 2011, governments commence consideration on the future of the Remote Service Delivery strategy after the completion of the existing National Partnership Agreement in 2014.