Chapter 3 Audit Report No.43 2011–12 National Partnership Agreement on
Remote Service Delivery
Introduction
3.1
The National Partnership Agreement on Remote Service Delivery (NPARSD)
was signed in January 2009 by the Commonwealth Government and the governments
of New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and the
Northern Territory. The objectives of the partnership were to:
- improve the access of
Indigenous families to a full range of suitable and culturally inclusive
services;
- raise the standard
and range of services delivered to Indigenous families to be broadly consistent
with those provided to other Australians in similar sized and located
communities;
- improve the level of
governance and leadership within Indigenous communities and Indigenous
community organisations;
- provide simpler
access and better coordinated government services for Indigenous people in
identified communities; and
- increase economic and
social participation wherever possible, and promote personal responsibility,
engagements and behaviours consistent with positive social norms.[1]
3.2
The NPARSD commits $291.2 million over six financial years, of which
$187.7 million is funded by the Commonwealth. The Department of Families,
Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA), as the lead
agency for Indigenous affairs, receives the full Commonwealth contribution.[2]
3.3
The 29 priority communities identified for the initial implementation of
the NPARSD (Figure 3.1 below) are home to approximately 25 000 Indigenous
people, representing around 19 per cent of the remote Indigenous population and
five per cent of the total Indigenous population. While not designed as a
trial, the current NPARSD implementation was intended to inform a roll out to
an ‘additional tranche of priority communities’ in the future.[3]
Figure 3.1 The NPARSD priority communities
Source Coordinator
General for Remote Indigenous Services
3.4
The four main elements of NPARSD model are:
- bilateral
plans between the Australian Government and each relevant state or territory,
which identify priority communities, milestones, performance benchmarks and
indicators for services;
- baseline
mapping of social and economic indicators, government investments, services and
service gaps in each community;
- the development of
Local Implementation Plans to identify the service delivery priorities agreed
to by each community and governments; and
- the establishment of
a Single Government Interface to coordinate services and simplify community
engagement with government representatives.[4]
3.5
The Single Government Interface consists of six Regional Operations
Centres that support Government Business Managers and Indigenous Engagement
Officers in each of the 29 priority communities. These staff are responsible
for coordinating the delivery of services committed to in Local Implementation
Plans. At a jurisdictional level, the delivery of NPARSD activities is managed
by Boards of Management, comprising senior representatives from both
Commonwealth and state and territory government agencies.[5]
3.6
The NPARSD also includes a range of community support measures including
the provision of cultural awareness training; programs to improve governance
and leadership within communities; the supply and use of interpreter and
translator services; and changes to land tenure to enable economic development.[6]
3.7
In 2009, Mr Brian Gleeson was appointed by the Government as the Coordinator
General for Remote Indigenous Services (the Coordinator General). The
Coordinator General is a statutory officer whose role is to ‘monitor, assess,
advise in relation to, and drive’ reforms and improvements to government
service delivery and progress towards achieving the Closing the Gap targets in
the 29 NPARSD remote communities. The Coordinator General reports to the
Government on a six-monthly basis.[7] In cooperation with state
and territory equivalents, the position was intended to:
… remove bureaucratic blockages and ensure commitments by
government agencies are delivered on time by monitoring requirements under the
National Partnership Agreement on Remote Service Delivery and other COAG
reforms, assessing progress and advising government where there are gaps, slow
progress, or where improvements need to be made’.[8]
Audit objective and scope
3.8
The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of FaHCSIA’s management
of the Australian Government’s responsibilities under the NPARSD. In this
respect the Australian National Audit Officer (ANAO) considered whether:
- planning processes
enabled effective establishment of the remote service delivery model;
- implementation of the
key elements of the remote service delivery model effectively addressed the
quality and timing requirements of the NPARSD; and
- performance
measurement systems were developed to enable the parties to the agreement to
assess whether the NPARSD objectives are being met.[9]
Audit conclusion
3.9
The ANAO’s audit found that, overall, FaHCSIA was effective in
establishing a government presence in the designated communities, but other
elements of the partnership had not yet been implemented as planned and the
overall impact on services was not being assessed in a structured way.[10]
3.10
The audit’s key findings were in the following areas:
- governance and coordination
arrangements for cross-jurisdictional implementation
- cross-jurisdictional
and local level implementation planning and priority setting
- developing service
delivery in communities
- performance
assessment and reporting.
3.11
Noting the complex cross-jurisdictional nature of the NPARSD, the ANAO
found that FaHCSIA gave early attention to the establishment of a government
presence in communities. Through the Single Government Interface, a sizeable
presence was established in each of the 29 communities. Arrangements to
coordinate and set priorities at the jurisdictional level were also put in
place.[11]
3.12
However, attention to the development of internal management
arrangements got off to a slow start. The ANAO found that FaHCSIA did not
finalise program management documentation until almost halfway through the
initiative’s lifespan.[12]
3.13
At the time of the audit report, cultural awareness training, community
governance and leadership development and the national interpreter framework
had yet to be implemented as envisaged.[13]
3.14
Performance information was not well developed and baseline mapping had
not been implemented in the intended timeframes. Instead, Local Implementation
Plans were negotiated using draft baseline information. The ANAO noted that the
robustness of the plans had been dependent on completion of baseline mapping.[14]
3.15
On top of the late finalisation, more than half of the action items in
Local Implementation Plans were ‘process’ related, whereas only a third were
‘concrete deliverables’. FaHCSIA had not developed structured arrangements to
assess whether NPARSD activities had caused government services to increase in
number, standard, coordination or accessibility.[15]
3.16
Overall, the ANAO considered that the current NPARSD objectives and
outcomes ‘will be challenging to meet’ and suggested any future expansion
‘would benefit from greater consideration of how these more aspirational
objectives could be more directly addressed, or alternatively, whether there is
a case for some revision to the program objectives’.[16]
ANAO recommendations
The audit report made one
recommendation aimed at FaHCSIA improving its performance monitoring.
Table 3.1 ANAO recommendation, Audit Report No.43 2011–12
1.
|
In order to assess whether
the range, standard and accessibility of services has improved, and to obtain
greater benefit from the investment made to date in baseline mapping, the
ANAO recommends that FaHCSIA further develop its performance measurement approach
to examine changes in the provision of services at agreed intervals.
FaHCSIA’s response: Agreed
|
The Committee’s review
3.17
The Committee’s public hearing on 6 February 2013 included discussion on
the NPARSD by the Coordinator General for Remote Indigenous Services and by
FaHCSIA.
3.18
The Coordinator General gave the Committee an overview of his role and
responsibilities. He informed the Committee that, since being appointed in June
2009, he had made over 100 visits to the 29 communities and that the overall
objective and focus of his work was to ‘facilitate a positive change’ for
Indigenous Australians living in those communities by ‘changing the way
governments work with them’. He explained that the Coordinator-General for
Remote Indigenous Services Act 2009 gave him a clear mandate to comment on
government policies, programs and progress in the 29 remote service delivery
priority communities, but that he did not have a mandate to make comments about
broader government policies and activities.[17]
3.19
The Coordinator General provided the Committee with comments in relation
to the importance of FaHCSIA’s leadership role; and on the issue of organisational
capacity and its impact on service delivery.[18] These issues are
discussed in Chapters 2 and 4 respectively.
3.20
Other evidence received by the Committee primarily focused on:
- local engagement in
service delivery and planning; and
- the measurement of
outcomes.
Local engagement in service delivery and planning
3.21
In his evidence before the Committee, the Coordinator General advised
that the issues highlighted in the Auditor-General’s reports were not new and
that changes may be required to the way services are delivered where outcomes
are not being achieved. Particularly for remote communities, he emphasised
that:
… top-down coordination will never beat bottom-up
collaboration with those people who will have to live with the consequences of
the decisions made.[19]
3.22
In response to a question, the Coordinator General elaborated on this by
pointing to the ‘place-based’ approach used by the NPARSD, which was emerging
as a useful model for government interactions with Indigenous communities.
3.23
Firstly, he noted that each of the 29 priority communities had a
community-owned local reference group. These representative groups were
mandated specifically to coordinate the priority needs of their communities and
to ‘engage with them about what they want’.[20]
3.24
Additionally, each of the NPARSD priority communities had a local
implementation plan that had been ‘worked up’ within the community, with the
support of government. The plans outlined each community’s priorities and needs
over a three to five year period.[21]
3.25
Finally, each of the priority communities had a local government person
residing in the community and an Indigenous engagement officer appointed from within
the community. This arrangement promoted interaction and engagement by
providing ‘a locally based government resource to interact with, living in the
community and working with the community’, and also provided a public
accountability mechanism.[22]
3.26
Responding to a suggestion from the Committee regarding services in less
remote communities, FaHCSIA advised that place-based approaches like those being
delivered in remote areas under the NPARSD could also have a role to play in service
delivery in urban and regional areas.[23]
Measurement of outcomes
3.27
The ANAO’s findings largely centred on the need for better measurement
and monitoring of the outcomes of the NPARSD: in particular, whether the number,
standard, coordination or accessibility of services were improving. The report
suggested that the objectives and outcomes of the NPARSD would be ‘challenging
to meet’, and recommended that FaHCSIA ’further develop its performance
measurement approach to examine changes in the provision of services at agreed
intervals’.[24]
3.28
In its written submission, the National Congress of Australia’s First
Peoples supported the ANAO’s recommendation and informed the Committee that ‘accountability
to ensure that Government expenditure and policies lead to improved outcomes in
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities’ was part of its Policy
Platform. There was a need for:
… stronger governance structures, including mechanisms for
accountability and evaluation, performance monitoring and reporting, attached
to Government programs and service delivery.[25]
3.29
At the public hearing, the Coordinator General for Remote Indigenous
Services also agreed with the ANAO’s finding that ‘insufficient attention has
been given to ensuring we can assess whether services are improving as
envisaged in the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Service Delivery’. He
suggested that this shortcoming was:
… a symptom of the focus on ticking the boxes rather than
remembering we are trying to achieve all this through collective activity. I
think there is of course a common failing across governments and all
organisations, if we are to be honest, and that working together is a very
important asset in achieving these results and is something I have addressed in
my first report.[26]
3.30
The Coordinator General noted, however, that progress was being made on
this issue.[27]
3.31
At the public hearing, FaHCSIA provided the Committee with an update on
the implementation of the ANAO’s recommendation:
We have basically accepted the recommendation and we have a
whole range of work in place. At the moment we have mid-term progress reports
for each remote service delivery community and they are virtually completed.
They will be published in early 2013. We have a mid-term implementation review.
It has been drafted and we are negotiating with the states for its release this
year, and there is a final evaluation due at the end of this year.[28]
3.32
The Coordinator General also noted that the baseline mapping of each
community that took place under the NPARSD had been useful for identifying gaps
in service delivery outcomes, which had been included in plans for addressing
local priority issues. This had been leading to noticeable improvements being
made in each of the communities.[29]
3.33
More broadly, at the hearing on 13 March 2013, the Auditor-General spoke
about the ANAO’s ongoing calls for a stronger focus on outcomes—that is,
focusing on the impacts of government programs, not just their outputs
or deliverables. The Auditor-General explained that the issues concerned:
… the way government can drive its dollar, its scarce
resources, further is by better targeting of programs and more efficient
delivery of programs. So we all need to be a bit more focused on the
performance indicators which help us to manage these programs to get the impact
we are trying to achieve.
I think we would all agree there is room for improvement.[30]
3.34
In relation to Indigenous service delivery, the Auditor-General called
for FaHCSIA to take the leadership role,
… because they have got the expertise and to spread the
expertise—what works well, what does not work so well—so that we can improve
the delivery performance to reach these objectives we all agree are very
admirable and desirable.[31]
Committee comment
3.35
The Committee welcomes the Auditor-General’s report and endorses his
findings in relation to the implementation of the National Partnership
Agreement on Remote Service Delivery.
3.36
While the Committee is interested in seeing progress being made towards reducing
disadvantage for all Indigenous Australians, not just those in remote areas (as
noted in Chapter 2), the Committee recognises the special circumstances and
challenges facing remote Indigenous communities and the need for a specific
focus on these communities to continue, in addition to enhanced ‘mainstream’
initiatives.
3.37
Although it is clear from the ANAO report and reports of the Coordinator
General that there have been some initial problems and ongoing challenges in
implementing the NPARSD, it is also clear that the partnership is making a large
positive difference to the 29 ‘priority’ communities that are included.
3.38
Critical to the partnership’s success appears to have been the high
level of local engagement in identifying priorities, developing plans and
implementing action items. This finding validates the effectiveness of
‘place-based’ models for Indigenous service delivery, and also supports the
calls by the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples and the Social
Justice Commissioner for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs for
increased participation by Indigenous people in decisions about the issues that
affect them, as was discussed in Chapter 2.
3.39
The Committee notes, however, that regardless of its success, the
partnership’s broader impact on Closing the Gap will be very limited due to its
focus on only 29 communities in remote areas, representing just five per cent
of the total Indigenous population.[32] There is a need for
governments to provide clarity and certainty in regards to how the remote
service delivery model will be implemented beyond the current six year
partnership, including any plans for expansion into other remote communities,
or indeed, into urban and regional Indigenous communities.
3.40
Effective measurement of outcomes is essential for evaluating whether
programs are achieving their desired results, and therefore whether value for
money is being achieved. The Committee recognises that work currently underway
through FaHCSIA, as the ANAO recommended, to assess the extent to which the
range, standard and accessibility of services has improved in the priority
communities will have a clear impact on any decisions to expand the current
model into more communities.
3.41
The Committee is interested to see the results of these efforts, and
therefore makes the following recommendation:
Recommendation 4 |
|
The Committee recommends that the Department of Families,
Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs provide an update within six
months on its progress towards implementing the Auditor-General’s
recommendation that it further develop its performance measurement approach
to assess whether services have improved in the priority communities, and the
results of this assessment to date. The update should include any decisions
or other progress that has been made in regard to the future of the remote
service delivery model, including any proposals to expand the model into
other communities or into urban or regional areas. |