Social Justice Report 2003: Appendix two: The Council of Australian Governments’ whole-of-government community trials initiative
Social Justice Report 2003
Appendix two: The Council of Australian Governments’ whole-of-government community trials initiative
This appendix provides a summary of the
Council of Australian Governments (COAG) whole-of-government community
trials initiative and its implementation in each state and territory. [1]
1. Background
In its communique of November 2000, COAG
agreed on a reconciliation framework through which governments would work
in partnership to advance reconciliation. The communique recognises that
all levels of government have a responsibility to progress reconciliation
and to improve the economic and social wellbeing of Indigenous peoples.
The Reconciliation Framework establishes
three priority areas for government action:
- Investing in community leadership initiatives;
- Reviewing and re-engineering programmes and services
to ensure they deliver practical measures that support families, children
and young people. In particular, governments agreed to look at measures
for tackling family violence, drug and alcohol dependency and other
symptoms of community dysfunction; and - Forging greater links between the business sector and
indigenous communities to help promote economic independence. [2]
At its April 2002 meeting, COAG reaffirmed its November
2000 commitment to advance reconciliation and agreed to trial a whole-of-government
cooperative approach in up to ten communities or regions across Australia:
The aim of these trials will be to improve the way
governments interact with each other and with communities to deliver
more effective responses to the needs of indigenous Australians. The
lessons learnt from these cooperative approaches will be able to be
applied more broadly. This approach will be flexible in order to reflect
the needs of specific communities, build on existing work and improve
the compatibility of different State, Territory and Commonwealth approaches
to achieve better outcomes. [3]
It was subsequently agreed that there would be eight
trial sites. The sites, and the Australian Government department that
is leading each trial, are listed below:
1. Murdi Paaki Region (New South Wales): Department
of Education, Science and Training;2. Wadeye (Northern Territory): Department of Family
and Community Services;3. Shepparton (Victoria): Department of Employment
and Workplace Relations;4. Cape York (Queensland): Department of Employment
and Workplace Relations;5. Anangu Pitjantjatjara Lands (South Australia): Department of Health & Ageing;
6. East Kimberley region (Western Australia): Department
of Transport and Regional Services;7. Northern Tasmania: Department of Immigration,
Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; and8. The Australian Capital Territory: Department
of Environment and Heritage.
Within State and Territory jurisdictions, leadership
of the trials rests with Premier and Cabinet (or Chief Minister's) departments
and the portfolios with responsibility for Indigenous affairs except in
NSW where the Department of Education and Training has head agency responsibility.
ATSIC is strongly supportive of the trials, and states
that:
they provide a significant opportunity to identify
more responsive and flexible ways in which governments can respond to
the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples .... and [an]
opportunity to examine the development of effective governance structures
and processes, and to support and develop local leadership and build
community capacity. [4]
2. Government coordination mechanisms for the trials
Overall coordination of the trials is done through the
COAG Senior Officials Meeting (which consists of CEOs of Premiers and
Chief Minister's Departments, and is chaired by the Secretary of the Department
of Prime Minister and Cabinet). There are regular progress reports to
this body.
At the federal level, the Minister for Immigration and
Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs has overall responsibility for the
trials. Federal government progress in the trials is advanced through
four main government processes:
- First, meetings of Australian Government Ministers with
program and policy responsibilities for Indigenous affairs; - Second, meetings of Australian Government departmental
secretaries (the Secretaries Group); - Third, the Indigenous Communities Coordination Taskforce
(ICCT) which implements the directives of the Secretaries Group; and - Fourth, lead agencies, where Secretaries and their agencies’
champion individual trial sites.
The Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Immigration
Affairs chairs the meeting of Australian Government Ministers. This group
leads the whole-of-government process. The Secretaries Group meets once
a month to oversee progress in the trial sites. The group promotes greater
whole of government coordination across Australian government agencies
and develops linkages with the State and Territory governments to improve
service delivery to Indigenous communities. [5]
The Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous
Affairs chairs this group. It includes membership from the following Australian
Government agencies:
- Department of Education, Science and Training;
- Department of Health and Ageing;
- Department of Family and Community Services;
- Department of Employment and Workplace Relations;
- Department of Transport and Regional Services;
- Department of Environment and Heritage;
- Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet; and
- ATSIC. [6]
Reports are provided to the Prime Minister on the progress
in the trials, in addition to reports to the Ministers. [7]
The Indigenous Communities Coordination Taskforce (ICCT)
has been established to support the Secretaries Group and federal government
agencies involved in the eight trials. The ICCT is located within the
Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and is
staffed by officers seconded from the various Commonwealth agencies involved
in the initiative. The ICCT administers a Flexible Funding Pool (FFP)
with a budget of $6 million over two years (from the 2003-04 Federal Budget)
to facilitate projects within the trial sites. In supporting the Secretaries
Group, the ICCT are involved in implementing the COAG initiative within
Australian government agencies, working with State and Territory governments,
monitoring performance , and providing feedback to and from Indigenous
communities on the implementation of the initiative. [8]
For each trial site, a lead Australian government agency
has also been selected. The lead agency has day-to-day accountability
for progress in each of the trial sites. ATSIS does not have lead agency
status in any of the eight regions. Instead it is designated partner agency
status and plays a vital role in guiding and supporting activity in all
of the trial sites. [9] The ICCT has noted
that:
The ATSIC Regional Councils should be a really important
part of these trials. In some areas they are at the centre; in others,
they are more of a support mechanism; but everywhere they are keen to
be involved and to get more involved. [10]
The ICCT states that the commitment of government bureaucracies
to the COAG initiative also differs from previous attempts to deliver
more effective responses to Indigenous people given the governments high-level
visibility and increased accountability to Indigenous people:
What ... is different at the bureaucratic level this
time is the commitment across the board in a large number of key agencies
of people at the top. There is a continuing and really strong commitment.
People see that, because it is very visible. Secretaries have sort of
put themselves on the line, I suppose, with communities in terms of
being the person identified as their champion. [11]
ATSIC's approach has been to promote the Regional Councils
as the pre-eminent source of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander advice
in all trial sites. This is easier in regions where Regional Councils
are the main source of leadership but has proved difficult where other
organisations compete for the role, or where the trial site boundary differs
from the Regional Council boundary.
ATSIC has stated that one the roles it has fulfilled
is providing introductions between communities and government partners,
and supporting these relationships. In some regions, it has set the framework
from within which the trial has proceeded as a critical 'insider' (for
example, Murdi Paaki and Cape York). ATSIC's role is made easier by the
fact that in general the trials are being rolled out in an environment
where there are already a number of agreement frameworks between ATSIC
and state or territory governments. [12]
Within State and Territory bureaucracies, a variety of
mechanisms have been established to support the trials. Some are similar
to the Australian Government arrangements, for example:
-
In Queensland, the Premier established a CEO's Steering Committee
to progress the reform process in Cape York through the Queensland
Government's Meeting Challenges, Making Choices initiative
which the COAG trial has built on. The CEO's Steering Committee
also comprised senior Indigenous leadership from Cape York and,
once the COAG trial started, the Australian Government. CEO's of
Queensland government departments also act as champions for individual
communities within Cape York.
-
In Western Australia, an Indigenous Affairs Advisory Committee
(IAAC) had been established to better coordinate Indigenous business
across the State with membership from WA Government department CEO's
and Chairs of ATSIC Regional Councils. After agreement on a COAG
trial site, the Australian Government was also invited to be a member
of the Committee. .
-
In the Northern Territory, the Chief Minister's
Department coordinates across Territory agencies through regular meetings
at the senior level. A tripartite steering committee of Australian
Government and NT Government officials and representatives of the
Thamarrurr Council from the Wadeye trial site has also been established
to oversee progress in the trial site.
3. Improving government coordination and the 'Shared
Responsibility' approach
The COAG Communique of April 2002 recognised that outcomes and management
processes in Indigenous policy and service delivery need to be improved.
The COAG initiative is intended to trial a different approach as current
and past approaches have not always achieved the desired outcomes. A twofold
method is proposed under the COAG initiative:
- governments must work together better at all levels and
across all departments and agencies; and - Indigenous communities and governments must work in partnership
and share responsibility for achieving outcomes and building the capacity
of people in communities to manage their own affairs. [13]
As stated by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural
and Indigenous Affairs:
Put simply, COAG instructed the bureaucrats
to get their act together and coordinate their efforts. In return, the
Indigenous people were given more of a say and more responsibility for
what happens in their communities. [14]
The trials recognise the need for a different
type of engagement and relationship to be developed between government
and Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders, with partnerships
based on community-determined priorities. As stated by the ICCT the whole-of-government
initiative supports:
- Different engagement between government and community;
and - Redefining the relationship between government and Indigenous
communities based on what communities are saying. [15]
The objectives of the COAG trials set out
a number of practical areas for government to reform its current operations.
The objectives of the COAG trial are to:
- tailor government action to identified community
needs and aspirations; coordinate government programmes and services
where this will improve service delivery outcomes; - encourage innovative approaches traversing new territory;
- cut through blockages and red tape to resolve issues
quickly; - work with Indigenous communities to build the capacity
of people in those communities to negotiate as genuine partners with
government; - negotiate agreed outcomes, benchmarks for measuring progress
and management of responsibilities for achieving those outcomes with
the relevant people in Indigenous communities; and - build the capacity of government employees to be able
to meet the challenges of working in this new way with Indigenous communities. [16]
It is anticipated that the trials will encourage
governments to modify the way they conduct their program and service delivery
responsibilities, including by encouraging the pooling of funding, breaking
down internal administrative barriers and improving the way government
manage and award contracts. [17] The Minister
for Employment and Workplace Relations has stated that:
The whole-of-government initiative, which
flows from an agreement at COAG last year, is designed to tackle this
problem of the fragmentation of service delivery. In areas where the
whole-of-government initiative is operating, one federal portfolio is
coordinating the delivery of all federal services to Indigenous peoples
in that area and it is working in close partnership with one state portfolio
which is similarly coordinating the delivery of all state services to
Indigenous people. [18]
The ICCT have noted that there is a lot
of work to be done to improve coordination between the federal, state
and territory governments in order to make them flexible and effective
to community-identified needs. [19] The COAG
whole of government approach is still in its early stages. It should not
be assumed that existing Australian and State/Territory government funding
parameters and restrictions have already been addressed under the COAG
initiative.
The initial stage of the COAG initiative
has been dedicated in part to developing, building or re-establishing
effective networks and relationships between Indigenous people and government.
The ICCT describes this stage as critical and building 'relationships
of trust' between governments and Indigenous communities are essential
to developing sustainable structures to support the initiatives.[20]
COAG's policy framework that underpins the
trials is based on shared responsibility and partnership. The ICCT has
stated that the 'Shared Responsibility approach will involve communities
negotiating as equal parties with government' [21] and asserts that the wellbeing of Indigenous communities is shared by
individuals, families, communities and government. All parties must work
together and build their capacity to support a different approach for
the economic, social and cultural development of Indigenous peoples.
One mechanism for formalising the partnership
approach is through the negotiation of a Shared Responsibility Agreement (SRA) between government and Indigenous peoples. The purpose of the agreement
is threefold. It:
- Sets out priorities identified with communities and agreed
outcomes and benchmarks; - Establishes partnership arrangements and describe each
party's responsibilities; and - Supports local governance and decision-making. [22]
A template of an SRA has been developed
which could potentially be adapted to the circumstances of the Indigenous
people in each trial site. The agreement outlines the parties to the agreement,
objectives, local outcomes and priorities, agreed performance measurement
and evaluation framework (including agreed benchmarks), access to data,
dispute settling arrangements, processes for reviewing progress and the
duration and variation provisions to the agreement.[23]
Three Shared Responsibility Agreements were
finalised in 2003, with negotiations ongoing in relation to the remaining
five trial sites. The current status of these agreements in each trial
site is discussed later in this appendix.
4. Performance Monitoring Framework for the trials
Australian Government and State and Territory
officials have worked together to develop a broad framework for monitoring
performance in the COAG trials. The framework, entitled 'National Performance
Monitoring and Evaluation Framework', was finalised in November 2003.
It is intended to capture information at the community/regional level,
national level and within government bureaucracies. The information to
be collected at each level includes the following.
-
Community and/or Regional Level Monitoring
Performance data collected at the community
and/or regional level will be negotiated between government and Indigenous
peoples and collected against agreed priorities, outcomes and benchmarks.
An integral element of data collection at this level involves two-way
communication between government and Indigenous people and the development
of specific site indicators will be dependent on the negotiation and
implementation of the Shared Responsibility Agreement in each
of COAG trial sites.
-
National Level Monitoring
The local-level information will be aggregated
to feed into the national level analysis, and if possible, will be aligned
to the COAG Framework for Reporting on Indigenous Disadvantage. In addition
to reporting under the headline and strategic change indicators developed
by the Steering Committee for the Provision of Government Services,
the monitoring framework will attempt to compare data against existing
portfolio budget statements and other cross-government frameworks at
the national level.
- " Government Level Monitoring
By monitoring the performance within the
government bureaucracies, the initiative will identify whether the necessary
structural changes are occurring to support greater flexibility and
better coordination across and between the different levels of government.
Agreed benchmarks will be established for the Commonwealth agencies
involved in the trials to measure performance and the cost-effectiveness
of operational and structural reform between the different levels of
government.
In addition, the Australian Government intends
to evaluate its own performance in the trials at 2 and 5 years. In a number
of trial sites, plans are developing for site evaluation involving the
Australian, State and Territory governments and community representatives.
Evaluation of the trials will be used to
assess whether the COAG trials have lead to improved social and economic
circumstances for Indigenous peoples and will inform decisions as to the
potential of the approach being adopted more widely. [24] The ICCT is also developing a data tracking system, with a baseline data
set and protocols. This 'Indigenous Communities Coordination Taskforce
Database' will contain local-level performance and monitoring information
across the eight trial sites.
5. Progress in each COAG whole-of-government community
trial site
To date, the following seven trial sites have been publicly
announced:
- Murdi Paaki region in New South Wales;
- Wadeye (Port Keats) in the Northern Territory;
- Shepparton in Victoria;
- Cape York in Queensland;
- Anangu Pitjantjatjara (AP) Lands in South Australia;
- East Kimberley in Western Australia; and
- Northern Tasmania.
There is one final trial site, to cover
the entire Australian Capital Territory, which has yet to be publicly
announced. The details of this site are expected to be made public in
early 2004.
Initial Shared Responsibility Agreements
have been negotiated and finalized in Murdi Paaki (New South Wales) and
Wadeye (Northern Territory) during 2003. In Victoria, an agreement, called
a Compact has been negotiated to underpin the trial in Shepparton. The
next stage for these sites involves developing action plans, performance
measures and benchmarks to implement the agreement. Negotiations on Shared
Responsibility Agreements are continuing in the remaining five COAG sites.
There are significant variations between
each of the COAG trial sites. They vary geographically across urban, regional
and remote areas of Australia; and through the method of participation
of Indigenous communities in the trials. The differences between sites
are also reflected in different structures and processes for each trial
site (with unique design, delivery and monitoring measures developed for
each of the eight regions).
A summary of the progress in each of the
eight COAG trial sites is provided below (commencing with the three trial
sites which have signed agreements or compacts).
a) Murdi Paaki region (New South Wales)
The COAG trial site in NSW is the region
comprising the ATSIC Murdi Paaki Regional Council. This is an area of
300 000 square km, covering one-third of NSW. It includes the communities
of Bourke, Brewarrina, Broken Hill, Cobar, Collarenebri, Coonamble, Dareton,
Enngonia, Goodooga, Gulargambone, Ivanhoe, Lightning Ridge, Menindee,
Quambone, Tibooburra, Walgett, Weilmoringle and Wilcannia. [25]
A Shared Responsibility Agreement was signed
by the ATSIC Murdi Paaki Regional Council, the Commonwealth of Australia
and the Government of New South Wales in August 2003.
The Department of Education, Science and
Training (DEST) is the lead agency for the Australian government, and
a dedicated officer is located in Dubbo to work closely with regional
staff and have greater access to the region. DEST reports that the early
planning and negotiation stages of the COAG whole of government initiative
has resulted in the capacity development of government and Indigenous
peoples in the region. [26] The lead agency
for the NSW government is the Department of Education and Training. Although
structural policy and procedural changes have not occurred at this stage,
the NSW government expects the community planning process to identify
better ways of providing services which will be implemented under the
COAG initiative as it develops. [27]
Under the agreement, the ATSIC Murdi Paaki
Regional Council and the Community Working Parties (CWPs) it has established
are recognised as the primary contact points for Indigenous peoples in
the region. The Community Working Parties are the primary governance structure
in the communities, with each comprised of a broad cross section of the
local Indigenous community. To ensure these working parties are as representative
as possible, the Murdi Paaki Regional Council is currently facilitating
'refresher' elections. [28]
All parties to the Shared Responsibility
Agreement have committed to four key regional priorities. These are:
- Improving the health and wellbeing of children
and young people; - Improving educational attainment and school retention;
- Helping families to raise healthy children; and
- Strengthening community and regional governance structures. [29]
The establishment of effective local governance
structures is seen as essential to the sustainability of any initiatives
under the COAG trial. The Shared Responsibility Agreement details how
the ATSIC Regional Council, Australian and New South Wales (NSW) governments
will support the sixteen Community Working Parties (CWPs). The Agreement
details the benchmarks, reporting arrangements and short and long term
outcomes to provide secretariat and administrative support to the CWPs.
This includes assistance from the Australian and state government to provide
additional funding and training support to Community Development Employment
Program (CDEP) workers to provide Secretariat services to each of the
CWPs participating in the COAG trial.
In addition to building governance structures,
supporting children at schools has been identified as the critical priority
in the region. Discussions are currently underway to identify one to three
schools to be involved in a joint approach between the community, Australian
government and NSW government to work together to focus on strengthening
families, school retention and providing family support to children. [30]
The Shared Responsibility Agreement is a
regional agreement. It is anticipated that individual shared responsibility
agreements will be negotiated with each of the 16 Community Working Parties
and the Government. A staged approach has been adopted to negotiating
these agreements to account for the different capacities of each of the
working parties. Six communities (Enngonia,
Collarenebri, Goodooga, Ivanhoe, Weilmoringle and Wilcannia) have been
selected to develop local agreements in the first instance. [31]
A number of structures have been established
to facilitate the whole-of-government trial. A steering committee has
been established with members from the ATSIC Murdi Paaki Regional Council,
DEST, the ICCT, and NSW Government Cabinet Office, and the Department
of Employment and Training. The Steering Committee is responsible for
progressing regional priorities, addressing barriers and improving the
delivery of services. [32] The Steering Committee
is supported by a group of field officers who work across all levels of
government and negotiate directly with the Community Working Parties.
An Evaluation Framework Committee has also been established to facilitate
the collection of baseline data and discus how the trial will be evaluated. [33]
b) Wadeye (Northern Territory)
The Wadeye whole of government trial site
was announced in November 2002. Wadeye is the sixth largest town in the
Northern Territory, approximately 420 kms south-west of Darwin, and is
one of the largest Aboriginal communities in the Territory. [34] The Shared Responsibility Agreement (SRA) for the trial was signed
on 21 March 2003 between the Commonwealth of Australia, the Northern Territory
Government and the Thamarrurr Regional Council.
The Thamarrurr Regional Council was endorsed
under the Local Government Act of the Northern Territory in early 2003
by the Northern Territory Parliament, and is the result of over six years
of work by the land-owning groups to develop the unique governance structure
of Thamarrurr. [35] The Thamarrurr region
covers approximately 5000 kilometres and 20 land-owning groups are included
within the area, including Rak Diminin (referred to as Kardu Diminin)
who are the traditional landowners of the Wadeye township. [36]
The Department of Family and Community Services
is the lead agency for the Australian Government and the Office of Indigenous
Policy (within the Department of the Chief Minister) leading the trial
on behalf of the Northern Territory government. At this stage, the COAG
trial has highlighted the need for stronger collaborative efforts between
governments by encouraging funds pooling based on needs-based planning
models and administrative reforms for alternative models of service delivery
to reduce bureaucratic processes. [37]
The Northern Territory government has identified
governance as the critical starting point in the whole-of-government initiative.
They see the major challenge facing Indigenous communities in North Australia
as how to bring together contemporary governance arrangements with culturally
based systems of authority and decision-making. [38]
As stated by the Northern Territory Government:
Previous [government] policies have resulted
in largely imposed localized structures that have been designed for
'governing for dependence'. Without effective governing institutions,
leaders who have cultural legitimacy and the ability for Indigenous
institutions to exercise real decision making powers, the aims of ...[the
COAG trial] ...will simply not be sustainable or of any long term social
or economic benefit. [39]
In the trial, the Thamarrurr Regional Council
has a government to government relationship with the Australian and Northern
Territory governments. All three parties are given equal standing in the
SRA, the key principles of which are based on cultural respect and the
beliefs of the Thamarrurr. [40] Notwithstanding
the mutual responsibilities of all governments (Australian, Northern Territory
and Thamarrurr), Indigenous peoples have insisted that it wants the Australian
and Northern Territory governments to 'take responsibility for its responsibilities'. [41] The Northern Territory government has
stated that:
Community leaders tell us that Governments
often arbitrarily shove problems off onto community people to solve.
They have made it clear they want Government field staff to offer options
that involve practical solutions not just more problems. [42]
The Shared Responsibility Agreement outlines the three key regional priorities for the region. These are women
and families; youth; and housing and construction. As stated in the agreement,
education, training and enterprise development are intrinsically linked
to advancing the three regional priorities, and these needs will be central
to any strategies developed in pursuit of the regional priorities. The
importance of tackling issues in manageable components has been identified
by all partners in Wadeye.
As stated by the Northern Territory government:
The partners recognise up front the pressure
to spread effort too thinly. The decision to focus on a common community
chosen theme 'Give every kid a chance', tackle issues in biteable chunks
and avoid trying to fix everything has proven to be the correct strategy. [43]
As advised by the ICCT, a number of local
projects have been initiated under the three regional priorities, including
the family program activities conducted by the Women's Centre, the employment
and training of local people in the region [44] and the Economic
Education Project. The 'Local Jobs for Local People Plan' strategy forms
the blueprint for all future training and employment activity at Wadeye
and the Economic Education Project provides information and resources
on a range of issues to assist the Thamarrurr understand economic and
money matters that impact on their daily lives.[45]
The governance structure to oversight and
manage the COAG initiative comprises a Tri-partite Steering Committee.
This committee was involved in the negotiations of the Shared Responsibility
Agreement and will develop an appropriate evaluation methodology.
Representatives from the three tiers of government are members on the
Tripartite Steering Committee and Priority Working Groups have been established
under the committee to concentrate on the three regional priority issues.
As stated by the ICCT, the Priority Working Groups are developing action
plans for the identified priorities outlined in the Shared Responsibility
Agreement and the community members are using these groups to drive
reforms and seek innovative ways to deal with community issues. [46]
The Priority Working Group action plans
will specify the responsibilities of all level of governments, agreed
performance indicators and benchmarks, and establish specific feedback
and monitoring mechanisms. The action plans will be attached as schedules
to the Shared Responsibility Agreement and endorsed by the
Tripartite Steering Committee.
The Northern Territory government's approach
to the trial is based on their Stronger Regions - Stronger Futures
Strategy which was released in 2003. [47] This outlines strategies for a focused collaborative approach between
Indigenous peoples and government for the development of sustainable regional
economies. A key component of the strategy is the Northern Territory government's
commitment to the negotiation of Partnership Agreements and the establishment
of Regional Authorities where existing community councils agree to amalgamate.
Under this strategy, and aligning with the COAG whole-of-government initiative,
the Northern Territory government has recognised the need to expand its
skill base to support regional social and economic development. To achieve
this, Northern Territory government officers will undertake training and
development in community development skills and their future recruitment
strategy will reflect this requirement. [48]
The Australian Department of Family and
Community Services shares this view and believes that capacity building
skills are needed within government:
The pilot has also revealed a need for
a deliberate approach to the fostering of community development, and
community capacity building skills across government agencies. FaCS
is attempting to get this issue on the national agenda. [49]
c) Shepparton (Victoria)
The Greater Shepparton region of Victoria
was announced as a COAG trial site in July 2003. The region covers approximately
2,422 square kilometres of the Goulbourn Valley in mid-north Victoria.
It is the fourth largest provincial centre in Victoria. [50]
A Compact was signed in September 2003 between
the Aboriginal Community Facilitation Group (on behalf of the Aboriginal
community of greater Shepparton), the Australian and Victorian governments,
the Greater Shepparton City Council and the ATSIC Binjirru Council. [51] The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) is the lead
Australian government agency for Shepparton, and a dedicated on-the-ground
DEWR position has been appointed to lead its involvement in the initiative. [52]
The Department of Victorian Communities
is the lead agency for the Victorian government and believes the trials
align closely with the Victorian Government's broad agenda to strengthen
communities and deliver better services to all Victorians. [53] The Victorian government describes the COAG whole-of-government initiative
as an evolutionary model and structures and processes will change as understanding
develops about what constitutes an effective working relationship between
Indigenous peoples and governments. [54]
The objectives and guiding principles of
the Compact are based on developing an equal partnership between Indigenous
peoples and government, which recognises the need for innovative changes
and capacity development within all levels of government and community
to support sustainable and long-term improvements in government and community
practice. [55] This involves changes to the
current planning, service delivery and monitoring approaches afforded
to Indigenous peoples in the past by government agencies.
As stated by the Victorian Premier:
We're committed to working closely with
the Koori community so that Government services fit around their needs
and their priorities. This is a radical change from the community having
to organize itself around Government programs. [56]
Extensive community consultation occurred
in Shepparton to identify the following community priorities and strategic
areas for action in the Compact:
- Strengthening families;
- Governance;
- Strategic planning;
- Leadership strategy;
- Pride, image, social connectedness and respect strategy;
- Cultural enhancement;
- Education and Training strategy;
- Job strategy;
- Economic development strategy;
- Justice strategy;
- Community health strategy; and
- Housing strategy. [57]
The first priority - strengthening families
- is central to all strategic areas. The next stage for the whole of government
initiative in Shepparton involves developing action plans for each of
these eleven priority action areas. [58] The action plans will form part of the Compact and will include performance
measures, benchmarks and an evaluation framework for each of the priority
areas. These will be jointly developed by all partners to the Compact.
Additional performance measures and benchmarks will be developed to measure
and monitor community-government collaboration; improvements in community
and government capacity to identify and respond to local issues; and improvements
in Aboriginal community's social, economic and cultural sustainability. [59]
A number of community and government structures
have been established to support the COAG whole of Government initiative.
These include the Aboriginal Community Facilitation Group and the Steering
Group. The Aboriginal Community Facilitation Group represents the Indigenous
people of Shepparton and is consulting with the wider community about
the initiative and is developing a community plan and longer-term community
structures for greater representation and involvement .[60] A community facilitator has been employed to assist in establishing the
partnership, and works directly to the Aboriginal Community Facilitation
Group. It is proposed that the position will be supported by a project
team with seconded officers from the Victorian government, DEWR and the
Aboriginal Community Facilitation Group. The Victorian government has
financially committed to support the community's participation in the
Whole of government Shared Responsibility Agreement (SRA) with $500 000
over three years to support the community's participation in the project.
The Steering Group consists of representatives
from the Aboriginal Community Facilitation Group, the ATSIC Binjirru Chair
and the Victorian, federal and local government (with government representation
at Secretary/CEO level). The Steering Group will meet regularly to negotiate
and implement policy, program and service delivery in response to the
community-identified priorities and monitor progress.
Three broad (and overlapping) stages have
been identified in the Compact for the trial to be achieved over a three
year timeframe. [61] These stages are:
- Phase 1: Development. Focused on developing
the community-government partnership and processes to manage the trial,
and has included ways to ensure wide community participation and community
engagement. - Phase 2: Initiation. Focused on establishing new
approaches and reshaping existing services in the context of the community's
strategies and priorities. - Phase 3: Consolidation. Focused on ensuring ongoing
community-government collaboration for identifying and responding to
Indigenous needs, aspirations and interests. [62]
d) Cape York region (Queensland)
The Cape York region was the first COAG
trial site to be announced, in September 2002. A Shared Responsibility
Agreement is still being negotiated for the trial. The trial area covers
approximately 150,000 square kilometres in Far North Queensland and includes
the communities of Aurukun, Lockhart River, Mapoon (Old Mapoon - Marpuna),
New Mapoon, Wujal Wujal, Coen, Hope Vale, Injinoo, Kowanyama, Laura, Napranum,
Pormpuraaw and Umagico. [63]
The lead Commonwealth agency for the trial
is the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) which has
two dedicated DEWR officers have been located in Cairns to work with the
Queensland government and Indigenous leaders, organisations and communities
in the Cape. The DEWR positions have a brokerage role across Federal government
agencies and will coordinate and facilitate appropriate programs and services
to meet agreed community and regional priorities.
The lead Queensland government agency is
the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy (DATSIP).
The trial is being closely aligned with the implementation of the Queensland
Government's Meeting Challenges Making Choices (Herein Meeting
Challenges). [64] Meeting Challenges was released in April 2002 and is the Queensland Government's response
to the Cape York Justice Study. [65] Meeting
Challenges has eight key priority areas: alcohol and substance abuse
and rehabilitation; governance; crime and justice; children, youth and
families; health; education and training; economic development; and land
and sustainable resources.
Under Meeting Challenges, the Queensland
government is supporting a number of community-owned mechanisms to inform
government policy and service delivery. The first of these was the development
of Alcohol Management Plans and associated intervention measures by Community
Justice Groups to reduce the instances of alcohol abuse and violence. [66] Alcohol management plans are currently
in place in Aurukun, Bamaga, and Napranum and are being implemented in
Lockhart River and Wujual Wujal. [67]
The Queensland strategy is supported by
a number of high-level government structures, with the 'government champions'
concept a central component. Each region under Meeting Challenges has been assigned a 'government champion' (a Chief Executive Officer of
a Queensland government department) and their role is to manage negotiations
at the highest executive level, streamline agency initiatives and formally
support negotiation table participants. [68]
In addition to the government champions
concept, the Cape York CEO Steering Committee was established in November
2001 to coordinate public sector policy and program reform in response
to the Cape York Justice Study. [69] DEWR,
ATSIS and the Indigenous Communities Coordination Taskforce (ICCT) represented
the federal government at the Cape York CEO Steering Committee. This has
since been replaced with the Meeting Challenges, Making Choices CEO Steering
Committee. [70]
These State-level structures are mirrored
at the regional level and the Queensland Government's Cape York Strategy
Unit (CYSU) in Cairns is staffed by various Queensland Government agencies
and its aim is to better align resources and efforts across Queensland
government agencies and work directly with Indigenous communities in the
Peninsula. [71] The Queensland government
describes the CYSU structure as unique in forging partnerships with agencies,
regional bodies, government and community leaders in a new context of
reciprocity and cooperation. [72] A strong
relationship has developed between the DEWR, ATSIS and the CYSU (with
DEWR having located a senior staff member within the CYSU) [73] and a number of whole-of-government forums have been established to support
collaborative arrangements between the federal and Queensland governments.
Through the COAG trial, governments are
working both with Indigenous leaders at the regional level and with individual
communities.
Discussions are continuing about the COAG
whole of government regional priorities and a number of key issues have
been identified. These include health and wellbeing (with a focus on substance
abuse and family violence); education and economic development; home and
community environment and; linking education, training and employment
outcomes. [74] DEWR advises that progress
is being made in developing a common understanding of what shared responsibility
means in practical terms, improving governance arrangements in communities,
identifying community priorities and implementing local-level strategies
to address issues such as employment, education, economic development,
health and money management. [75]
Aside from discussions about regional priorities
it is likely that community-level Shared Responsibility Agreements will
be developed through the Queensland government's 'negotiation table' process. [76] The 'negotiation table' concept is a
key policy platform of the Queensland Government's Meeting Challenges strategy, and involves a process of negotiation between Indigenous communities
and government to identify community priorities and establish agreed strategies
to respond to these issues. The negotiation table process commenced in
late 2003 and the federal government participated on these community-government
processes.
In addition to the Meeting Challenges strategy, there are a number of significant Australian Government and
Queensland Government initiatives in the Cape York region which are compatible
with the identified priorities of the COAG trial. These include the Primary
Health Care Access Program (PHCAP) being run through Apunipima Cape York
Health Council and the Cape York Partnerships Institute for Policy and
Leadership (an academic centre developed between Cape York Indigenous
organisations and Griffith University, and jointly funded by the Australian
and Queensland Governments). [77]
e) Anangu Pitjantjatjara Lands (South Australia)
The Anangu Pitjantjatjara Lands (the AP
Lands) were announced as the South Australian trial site in May 2003.
The AP Lands cover approximately 103,000 square kilometres in the far
north-west of South Australia and are protected under the Pitjantjatjara
Lands Rights Act 1981(SA). The AP Lands are part of a larger cross-border
region which covers some 350,000 square kilometres of South Australia,
Western Australia and the Northern Territory, and which is the traditional
lands of the Ngaanyatjara, Pitjantjatjara and Yankunytjatjara (NPY) peoples. [78]
The Department of Health and Ageing is the
lead Australian Goverment agency for the initiative. The Department of
Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation is the agency for the South Australian
government.
Community consultations have occurred to
determine the priorities for a regional Shared Responsibility Agreement. [79] The identified priorities include health
and wellbeing with focus on substance misuse and the supply of healthy
food, education, training and employment opportunities; better access
to services such as banking and Centrelink, essential services and housing;
and strengthening community governance.
To provide the overall direction to the
AP Lands trial a joint COAG Steering Committee was established in early
2003. Its membership comprises representatives from the community, Australian
and State governments and ATSIS. This Committee oversees the COAG agenda,
and works in close cooperation with the Tier One group where common priorities
are being addressed.
The draft SRA has been endorsed by the COAG
Steering Committee and circulated for signing. Two projects addressing
identified priorities have been agreed - the implementation of Mai
Wiru, the regional stores policy, which seeks to address issues of
pricing, nutrition and stores management training and the establishment
of rural transaction centres.
The AP Lands Inter-government Inter-agency
Collaboration Committee (APLIICC) between the Commonwealth, South Australian
government, ATSIS and Anangu Pitjantjatjara Council is known as the Tier
One group and was established in 1999 to better coordinate the delivery
of services to the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (APY) communities. [80] The committee was supported by a second
tier of working groups composed of senior policy and project officers
(the Tier Two working groups) and has recently been replaced with a number
of 'task forces'. These taskforces implement the directives of the APLIICC
and focus on a range of issues, including community health and wellbeing;
arts and culture; economic and resources; community cohesion and safety;
education and training; income support and infrastructure. Tier One now
focuses on coordinating State government activities and links in with
the COAG Steering Committee work. An Allocation Committee has been established
and the fifteen-member committee has membership from Community Councils,
Homelands Groups, Nganampa Health and the APY Women's Council. The group
assists in the disbursement of new SA government funding for AP Lands
and its establishment ensures all stakeholders have a clear understanding
of funding available for the AP Lands and are involved in its distribution.
Further information about the AP Lands COAG
trial is contained in Chapter 4 of this report on the responsive of governments
to issues of petrol sniffing on the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Lands.
f) East Kimberley region (Western Australia)
The Western Australian COAG trial (formerly
known as the Tjurabalan trial site) was announced in July 2003. It is
situated in the east Kimberley region and encompasses the communities
of Balgo, Bililuna, Mulan, Ringers Soak and Yagga Yagga. [81] The lead Australian government agency is the Department of Transport and
Regional Services (DoTARS). Other partners in the trial include the Tjurabalan
Native Title Land Aboriginal Corporation, ATSIC Wunan Regional Council,
the local government Shire of Halls Creek and the communities of Billiluna,
Yakka Yakka, Balgo, Kundat Djaru and Mulan. The Department of Indigenous
Affairs is the lead agency for the WA government and a partner in the
trial. The Halls Creek Shire Council is also a key partner and the local
government involved in the trial.
The initial focus of the trial has been
on establishing governance structures through which the parties can interact
and to identify community consulting agents to help engage local communities.
The Munjurla Reference Group was established to drive the trial, with
support provided by an on-the-ground Secretariat. The reference group
consists of two representatives from each community, traditional owners
the ATSIC Wunan Regional Council and representatives from Australian,
State and local governments at Secretary or CEO level.
The group has agreed on its roles and responsibilities,
the establishment of a basic administration centre in the region, and
series of activities for the Justice Participation Project. [82]
A working group has been established under
the Munjurla Reference Group to progress decisions, and the first task
has been to ensure effective communication channels are established and
maintained between the Munjurla Reference Group and existing Community
Councils. [83] The working group secretariat
is comprised of a Community Initiatives Coordinator (jointly funded between
DoTARS and the Department of Family and Community Services), an ATSIS-funded
COAG officer and a WA state government officer.
A scoping study has also commenced (the
Munjurla Scoping Study) to gather baseline data to provide a 'road map'
for negotiating an agreement with the communities. It has been commissioned
by ATSIS. A joint fund has been established under the auspice of the Halls
Creek Shire Council to support consultations about the scoping study.
In addition to the scoping study, this fund supports broader community
engagement with government and reference group meetings with contributions
made by the federal and Western Federal governments, and provides a vehicle
for private sector contributions. [84]
A draft Shared Responsibility Agreement
has been provided by the two lead agencies - the Department of Transport
and Regional Services and the WA Department of Indigenous Affairs to all
partners through the Munjurla Reference Group in December 2003. Further
consultations will be held with local communities and partners to the
trial to finalise an SRA. Some issues have already been identified for
negotiation under the SRA, including the need for activities for children
and young people; better education options; improved health services;
improved policing; improved housing and transport infrastructure and amelioration
of substance abuse. [85] Alcohol, substance
abuse and community safety have been raised consistently as major areas
for concern within communities. [86] Other
issues in the region include the development of economic opportunities
in mining, land care and tourism that have arisen from the native title
consent determination in August 2001. [87]
The need to change existing government processes
and service delivery arrangements has been recognised by DoTARS:
A new level of 'bureaucratic awareness'
is also necessary - a way of looking beyond the boundaries of the existing
envelope of government processes and seizing opportunities to make a
difference for Indigenous communities in innovative ways. [88]
DoTARS states that while it is difficult
to describe success in terms of real changes to the social and economic
wellbeing of communities, there are anumber of early successes from the
COAG trial. These successes focus on the relationship between Indigenous
people and government. As stated by the Department:
The successes to date have been about
engaging the communities and governments to try things differently.
This has meant building new relationships and developing a shared understanding
of what it means to work together. [89]
The key lessons DoTARS have identified from
the trial have focused on the need to build effective relationships with
Indigenous peoples and ensure communities are supported in developing
their capacities:
Successful engagement with remote Indigenous
communities requires a realistic and long-term approach, and for activities
to occur at a pace the communities are comfortable with. Introducing
change in severely disadvantaged communities requires that we first
assist the communities to develop their capacity to engage. Time for
this process needs to be factored into any planning. [90]
g) Northern Region of Tasmania
The Northern region of Tasmania was announced
as the Tasmanian site for the COAG trial in August 2003. The region is
a mix of urban and rural areas and covers Launceston, the Furneaux Islands
group and the northern midlands covering Deloraine to the far west and
Bicheno in the south. The Tasmanian Government's Aboriginal Family Violence
Working Group has agreed in principle to the northern geographical region
and the initiative is in the early stages of development. [91]
The Department of Immigration and Multicultural
and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) is the lead Australian government agency
and a dedicated full-time officer was appointed to manage the initiative
in June 2003. [92] The Department of Premier
and Cabinet is the lead agency for the Tasmanian government, and an interim
Commonwealth/State Steering Committee has been formed to improve coordination
between the different levels of government and scope existing government
funded services in the trial area to identify resources and areas of need. [93] Both levels of government are exploring
ways agencies can coordinate their efforts to better meet the needs and
interests of Indigenous peoples, and due to being in the early stages
of the trial, no legislative or administrative amendments have been identified
for implementation by the Tasmanian government. [94]
There were a number of reasons for the selection
of the Northern region as the whole-of-government trial site. These included:
- Based on available data it has one of the highest incidences/reporting
rates of domestic violence in the State (of all cultural groups); - Currently no government funded Aboriginal specific family
violence services exist in the region; - The region has a supportive and well-connected Aboriginal
and non-Aboriginal community organisation network; and - There is a good geographical mix of urban and rural areas. [95]
Family violence and safety issues have been
identified as themes for the trial and discussions are continuing between
Indigenous people and the Australian and Tasmanian government about a
shared responsibility agreement.
Early discussions indicate the COAG whole
of government initiative will build on the initiatives of the Tasmanian
government report on family violence - ya pulingina kani - Good to
See You Talk and the criminal justice options paper on family violence, Safe at Home. [96]
Under the 'shared responsibility' concept
a partnership model will be developed between government and Indigenous
people, and the current consultation process in the Northern region in
Tasmania will determine the model of Indigenous governance that will lead
the community component of the trial.
h) Australian Capital Territory
The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) has
not yet been announced publicly as a COAG trial site. It is expected that
it will be formally announced in early 2004.
The Department of Environment and Heritage
is the lead Australian government agency for the initiative. The trial
will be implemented across the entire region of the ACT. The Chief Minister's
Department is the lead agency for the ACT government.
Indigenous community consultations and negotiations
have been undertaken for the trial, which culminated in a two day workshop
held in September 2003. Forty Indigenous leaders and representatives from
Indigenous community organisations attended.
The September 2003 meeting obtained Indigenous
community endorsement for the trial and the themes to be progressed under
the shared responsibility approach. [97] The initial proposed focus of the trial on youth issues and education
have evolved through the consultation process to an holistic approach
being pursued under the concept of 'The Living Web - Keeping the Web Alive'.
This framework is multifaceted and encompasses justice, employment, youth,
culture, education, housing, health and aged care. Three overarching themes
have emerged from these discussions: social and emotional well being;
culture and learning; and capacity building for all. [98]
It was agreed at the September 2003 workshop
that a federation of Indigenous community organisations would constitute
the community governance model in the ACT. An Indigenous working group
has been established as an executive group to the community federation
model and will represent the community interests in negotiating the Shared
Responsibility Agreement. [99]
A shared responsibility agreement is expected
to be finalised during 2004 and will outline the agreed responsibilities
between the Indigenous Working Group, Australian and ACT government and
ATSIC. The Minister for Environment and Heritage states that close working
relationships have been developed between the two tiers of government
and both Governments have established closer relationships with the Indigenous
communities in the ACT. [100]
A monitoring and evaluation framework for
the trial is currently being drafted, and will align with the national
reporting measures set by the Ministerial Council for Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Affairs (MCATSIA) and the Productivity Commission. [101]
1. For further details, see
the Indigenous Communities Coordination Taskforce website: www.icc.gov.au.
2. Council of Australian Governments, Communique, 3 November 2000,
,
(4 December 2003).
3. Council of Australian Governments, Comminque,5 April 2002,
, (12
December 2003).
4. Quartermaine, L, Correspondence
from ATSIC with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner,
January 2004, p1.
5. Indigenous Communities Coordination
Taskforce, Who We Are, Online at
(10
December 2003).
6. ICCT, Shared Responsibility,
Shared future, DIMIA, Canberra 2003, Attachment 1.
9. Richardson, G, Hansard,
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Affairs, 13 October 2003, p1304.
10. Hawgood, D, Hansard,
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Affairs, 13 October 2003, p1305.
12. Quartermaine, L, op.cit.,
p2.
13. ICCT, Shared Responsibility,
Shared future, op.cit, p2.
14. Vanstone, A, (Minister
for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs), Very Encouraging
Signs From Indigenous Pilots, Media Release, 8 October 2003.
15. Indigenous Communities
Coordination Taskforce, Imagine What Could Happen If We Worked Together:
Shared Responsibility and a Whole of Governments Approach, Conference
paper - The Native Title Conference, Alice Springs, 3 June 2003,
,
(24 December 2003).
16. Indigenous Communities
Coordination Taskforce, Trial Objectives, online at: www.icc.gov.au/communities/objectives/,
(29 October 2003).
17. Indigenous Communities
Coordination Taskforce, Imagine What Could Happen if we Worked Together:
Shared Responsibility and a Whole of Governments Approach, op.cit.
18. Abbott, T, Hansard,
House of Representatives, 8 September 2003, p18892.
19. Hawgood, D, Hansard, Legal
and Constitutional Legislation Committee, 4 November 2003, p10.
20. Hawgood, D, Hansard, House
of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Affairs, 13 October 2003, p1294.
22. Indigenous Communities Coordination
Taskforce, Imagine What Could Happen if we Worked Together: Shared
Responsibility and a Whole of Governments Approach, op.cit.
23. Indigenous Communities Coordination
Taskforce, Shared Responsibility Agreements, online at:
,
(4 December 2003).
24. ICCT, Shared Responsibility,
Shared future, op.cit, p3.
25. Indigenous Communities Coordination
Taskforce, Murdi Paaki trial site (NSW), online at
,
10 December 2003.
26. Minister for Education, Science
and Training (Cth), Correspondence with Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Social Justice Commissioner, November 2003.
27. Director General, New South Wales
Department of Education and Training, Correspondence with Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, 28 October
2003.
28. Minister for Education, Science
and Training (Cth), op.cit.
29. Shared Responsibility Agreement
Between the Murdi Paaki Regional Council, the Commonwealth of Australia
(through the Department of Education, Science and Training) and the State
of New South Wales (through the Department of Education and Training),August
2003, p2, available online at www.icc.gov.au/communities/locations/murdi_paaki,
accessed 10 December 2003.
30. Hawgood, D, Hansard, House
of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Affairs, 13 October 2003, p1298.
31. Minister for Education, Science
and Training (Cth), op.cit.; Director General, New South Wales
Department of Education and Training, op.cit.
32. Minister for Education, Science
and Training (Cth), op.cit.
34. Indigenous Communities Coordination
Taskforce, Wadeye Trial site (NT),online at:
,
(10 December 2003).
35. Minister for Family and Community
Services (Cth), Correspondence with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Social Justice Commissioner, December 2003. Since approximately 1996
the Northern Territory government and Wadeye community leaders have working
towards the establishment of Thamarrurr as the regional governance authority
for the Wadeye region.
37. Office of Indigenous Policy, Department
of the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Correspondence with
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, 14 November 2003, (Herein: Office of Indigenous Policy (NT), Correspondence)
.
40. Shared Responsibility Agreement
between the Commonwealth of Australia through the Department of Family
and Community Services, the Northern Territory Government through the
Department of Chief Minister Indigenous Policy Unit and the Thamarrurr
Regional Council, 21 March 2003, p2.
41. Office of Indigenous Policy (NT), Correspondence, op.cit.
43. Westbury, N, The Indigenous
Community Coordination Pilot Trial: The Leadership Challenge for Governments
in supporting Indigenous Governance, Conference paper: Building Effective
Indigenous Governance Conference, Jabiru, November 2003, p6, online at
, (5 December
2003).
44. Indigenous Communities Coordination
Taskforce, Council of Australian Governments - Indigenous Whole of
Governments Initiative, Report - September 2003, op.cit, p2.
45. Hunter, S, The COAG Trial:
The Leadership Challenge for Governments in Supporting Indigenous Governance,
Conference paper: Building Effective Indigenous Governance Conference,
Jabiru, November 2003, p6, online at
,
(4 December 2003).
46. Indigenous Communities Coordination
Taskforce, Council of Australian Governments - Indigenous Whole of
Governments Initiative, Report - September 2003, op.cit, p2.
47. Department of Community Development,
Sport and Cultural Affairs, Building Stronger Regions Stronger Futures, Northern Territory Government, Darwin 2003.
48. Office of Indigenous Policy (NT), Correspondence, op.cit.
49. Hunter, S, The COAG Trial:
The Leadership Challenge for Governments in Supporting Indigenous Governance, op.cit, p4.
50. Indigenous Communities Coordination
Taskforce, Shepparton trial site (VIC), online at
,
10 December 2003.
51. Compact Outlining a New Collaboration
Between the Aboriginal Community Facilitation Group on behalf of the Aboriginal
Community of Greater Shepparton, The Federal government through the Department
of Employment and Workplace Relations, The Victorian Government, The Greater
Shepparton City Council and the ATSIC Binjirru Council, 4 September
2003, online at www.icc.gov.au/_data/page/13/Shepparton_Compact_-_final.pdf (Herein, Shepparton Compact).
52. Minister for Employment and Workplace
Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service
(Cth), Correspondence with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social
Justice Commissioner, November 2003.
53. Secretary, Department for Victorian
Communities, Correspondence with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Social Justice Commissioner, November 2003.
55. Shepparton Compact, op.cit, p1.
56. Minister for Employment and Workplace
Relations (Cth), Premier of Victoria, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs
(Vic) and Shepparton Indigenous Community Facilitation Group, Shepparton's
Indigenous Community Joins COAG Trial, Joint Media Release, July 2003.
57. Shepparton Compact, op.cit,
p7.
58. Minister for Employment and Workplace
Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Correspondence with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice
Commissioner, November 2003.
59. Shepparton Compact, op.cit,
p5.
60. Secretary, Department for Victorian
Communities, op.cit.
61. Shepparton Compact, op.cit,
p8.
62. Secretary, Department for Victorian
Communities, op.cit.
63. Indigenous Communities
Coordination Taskforce, Cape York trial site (Qld), online at
,
accessed 10 December 2003
64. Minister for Employment and Workplace
Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Correspondence with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice
Commissioner, November 2003 (Herein Minister for Employment and Workplace
Relations, Correspondence).
65. The Cape York Justice Study was
commissioned by the Queensland Government and released in November 2001.
The CYJS recommends a number of strategies to address factors contributing
to breaches of the law in Cape York communities, with a particular focus
on strategies that target alcohol and substance abuse.
66. In the 2003-2004 Queensland Government
budget $2.9 million was allocated for 34 community justice groups (CJGs)
to established across Queensland. These CJGs will be located in Deed of
Grant in Trust (DOGIT) communities and other non-DOGIT regions.
67. Director-General, Department of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy (Qld), Correspondence
with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, November 2003.
69. The Steering Committee is chaired
by The Hon Steve Bredhauer , Queensland Minister for Transport and Minister
for Main Roads and is attended by the Chief Executive Officers of Queensland
Government agencies. The Steering Committee provides a forum for collaboration
between agencies and information exchange on the progress of Meeting
Challenges initiatives.
70. Discussions with Department of
Employment and Workplace Relations, 20 January 2004.
71. Director-General, Department of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy, op.cit.
73. Discussions with Department of
Employment and Workplace Relations, 20 January 2004.
74. Indigenous Communities Coordination
Taskforce, Council of Australian Governments - Indigenous Whole of
Governments Initiative, Report - September 2003.
75. Minister for Employment and Workplace
Relations, Correspondence, op.cit.
78. Indigenous Communities Coordination
Taskforce, Anangu Pitjantjatjara (AP) Lands (SA), online at
,
accessed 12 December 2003.
79. Indigenous Communities Coordination
Taskforce, Council of Australian Governments - Indigenous Whole of
Governments Initiative, Report - September 2003.
80. Minister for Aboriginal Affairs
and Reconciliation, Minister for Correctional Services and Minister Assisting
the Minister for Environment and Conservation (SA), Correspondence
with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, November 2003.
81. Indigenous Communities Coordination
Taskforce, WA COAG trial site, online at
,
accessed 11 December 2003.
82. Secretary, Department of Transport
and Regional Services, Correspondence with Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Social Justice Commissioner, 25 November 2003.
85. Indigenous Communities Coordination
Taskforce, Council of Australian Governments - Indigenous Whole of
Governments Initiative, Report - September 2003.
86. Secretary, Department of Transport
and Regional Services, op.cit.
87. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
for Transport and Regional Services (Cth), President Halls Creek Shire
Council, Minister for Indigenous Affairs (WA), Chair of the Tjurabalan
Native Title Land Aboriginal Corporation and Chair ATSIC Wunan Regional
Council, Tjurabalan and Region Indigenous Communities Join COAG Trial,
Joint Media release, July 2003.
88. Secretary, Department of Transport
and Regional Services, op.cit.
91. Secretary, Department of Premier
and Cabinet (Tas), Correspondence with Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Social Justice Commissioner, November 2003.
92. Office of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Affairs. Department of Immigration and Multicultural and
Indigenous Affairs (Cth), Correspondence with Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, November 2003.
93. Secretary, Department of Premier
and Cabinet (Tas), op.cit.
96. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural
and Indigenous Affairs (Cth) and Premier of Tasmania, Aboriginal People
in Northern Region of Tasmania to join COAG Trials, Joint Media Release,
28 August 2003.
97. Chief Executive, Chief Ministers
Department (ACT), Correspondence with Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Social Justice Commissioner, October 2003.
99. Minister for the Environment and
Heritage (Cth), Correspondence with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Social Justice Commissioner, November 2003.
100. Minister for the Environment
and Heritage (Cth), op.cit.
