Presentation to the Australian Social Policy Conference 2011 – Social Policy in a Complex World

1. Putting Indigenous Communities at the heart of service design? How governments are implementing the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Service Delivery Presentation to the Australian Social Policy Conference 2011 – Social Policy in a Complex World

2. Indigenous reforms - Urban/Regional & Remote • About 75% of Indigenous people live in urban and regional areas. • Indigenous urban and regional strategy is being developed. • Emphasis on ensuring mainstream services meet needs of Indigenous clients. • About 25% of Indigenous people live in remote areas. • Indigenous people are mobile, but predominantly temporary mobility to access services in regional centres. • National Partnership Agreement on Remote Service Delivery was developed and signed in January 2008. • Emphasis on ensuring comparable service availability, service accessibility and co-design.

3. The policy environment

4. Remote Service Delivery: a new paradigm? Improved engagement … Better service systems … Stronger communities Governments working differently by themselves and together looking at places rather than programs and levels of government Governments and communities working differently together ] a proper partnership with joint decisions about what will be done and how is done Communities working differently being properly informed, making decisions, holding governments and service providers accountable

5. RSD Priority Communities

6. Key elements • Evidence base – needs, services & comparisons. • Comprehensive place based agreements by governments and communities – Local Implementation Plans. • Human capability development (focus on education and health). • Networks and partnerships (local, regional and central). • Community governance and governance of governments. • Accountability mechanisms at various levels. BUT – is there an overarching policy narrative?

7. (Thereare) … three interdependent foundations to Indigenous disadvantage: poor economic and social incentives; underdevelopment of human capability; and an absence of effective engagement of Indigenous Australians in the design of policy frameworks that might improve those incentives and capabilities Henry, Ken 2007. Creating the Right Incentives for Indigenous Development Address to the Cape York Institute Conference Strong Foundations – Rebuilding Social Norms in Indigenous Communities, Cairns 26 June 2007.

8. The Coordinator General for Remote Indigenous Services (CGRIS) Statutory officer established under the Coordinator General for Remote Indigenous Services Act 2009

9. What is the role CGRIS? • key element of the new model • independent • drive reform • accountability and reporting “ we need to convince communities that this is a new way of working and not just a new way of describing what we have always done” CGRIS second six monthly report

10. Some of the challenges facing governments • Structural and organisational solutions are no longer (if they ever where) sufficient to address wicked problems associated with Indigenous disadvantage – coordination and integration models are not holy grails or silver bullets. • The limits of `place’ – national and state level action still necessary – but what are the levers to link local, regional, state and national actions?   • Mindsets, behaviours, traditions of stakeholders. • Getting government driven results versus community development approach (and control). • Personal responsibility agenda (welfare reforms) can/should it coexist with a service focus and community development models, or are we mixing our models too much? • Policy (and people) churn/short term focus (hinders community governance development).

11. RSD draws from … • What works and what doesn’t. • Spatial approaches. • Social capital theory/ social inclusion. • Community strengthening. • COAG trials. • Shared Responsibility Agreements/Regional Partnership Agreements. • Indigenous Coordination Centres. • Cape York Welfare Reform Trials.

12. Key lessons from previous approaches… • Building effective relationships with communities and organisations - community ownership through real engagement. • Building shared understandings across and within governments and with communities. • Flexibility to respond to local priorities, including flexible funding. • Building the capacity of staff and communities. BUT - have they been picked up in the implementation of RSD?

13. Relationships…. • There is a strong emphasis on tailoring government action to identified community needs and aspirations, involving “partnerships” and whole of government approaches and coordination. • In contrast to previous “stop-start” approaches, it is a long term commitment of at least 5 years. • The Single Government Interface Model builds on the positive aspects of the ICC model with regional offices to coordinate all government activity in the communities, but also with strong government presence in each community. • Government Business Managers and Indigenous Engagement Officers are located within each community to act as conduits between governments and communities. • Increasing recognition of the need for a community development approach

14. Shared understandings …. • The high level commitment through COAG is important for whole-of-government initiatives. • The establishment of joint machinery in each jurisdiction (Board of Management or similar) and State and Northern Territory Coordinators General to drive issues across their own governments should address the issues of ownership. • The service delivery principles provide the framework to guide government actions. • Recognises the need for evidence based planning, through the commitment to baseline mapping and collecting and sharing “what works”. • Local Implementation Plans provide a transparent means of recording the commitments of all parties in each of the 29 priority locations and an agreed basis for future action.

15. Local flexibility…. • Backed by additional funding of $291 million for key elements. • Potential to streamline funding arrangements through Local Implementation Plans. • Establishment of the $46 million flexible funding pool also has the potential to contribute to the long standing issues identified above of reducing red tape and simplifying funding arrangements. • Systemic issues with program design remain. • It arguably does not pay sufficient attention to both aspects of service delivery. While there is considerable emphasis on the supply of services, there is less thought given to demand and to how individuals in these communities take up opportunities and responsibilities.

16. Building capacity…. • Recognises the need to build the capacity of local Indigenous organisations to “deliver government services that meet relevant legislative requirements and are accountable to their constituents and funding bodies” (s16(c)). • Less emphasis on the critical need to diversify the service delivery base to include more local and regional non-government service providers. • Some recognition of the need to develop the capacity of government officers through cultural competence training and funding for interpreters. • Under-estimates the capacity gap for government officers working in this complex environment. • Little evidence of systematic efforts to provide training and supportive environments to develop the skills involved in development work, capacity building, partnerships and community change.

17. CGRIS areas of focus Thematic focus areas: • Governance/ developing capacity – 2 way • Addressing infrastructure gaps • School attendance/ education strategies • Youth • Community safety (including child safe communities) We also focus attention on: • Structural impediments – (eg continued absence of a community safety NP) • Integrated approaches/ wog collaboration and planning – new ways of working • Using evidence (and assisting communities to make informed decisions) • Inflexible funding/program focus (including use of the flexible funding pool)

18. Questions? The question should not be, ‘why do women not accept the service that we offer?’ BUT ‘Why do we not offer a service that women will accept?’ World Health Organization 2005