Complaints

Review Of The 1994 Water Report (2001)

Race Discrimination

REVIEW OF THE 1994 WATER REPORT (2001)

Water Tower

REVIEW OF THE 1994 WATER REPORT

A review commissioned in accordance with Recommendation 7 of the 1994 'Water Report':

That the Race Discrimination Commissioner review progress made in the wake of this Report in the light of the recommendations, the Government's response to the Report, and the state of water and sanitation services in the ten case study communities; and that this review commence in one year's time.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner and Acting Race Discrimination Commissioner, 2001

© Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission 2001

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research in this review was undertaken by a team led by Dr Bruce Walker, Director of the Centre for Appropriate Technology (CAT) in Alice Springs. Ms Allison Adams, Research Officer, prepared the comprehensive case studies and was responsible for the high level inputs from individuals, agencies and the case study communities. Thanks also to Robyn Grey-Gardner, Water Transfer Technical Officer of the Cooperative Research Centre for Water Quality Treatment, who is based with CAT. Dr Christopher Kenna contributed to the analysis and policy implications of the case study findings. Ms Chitra Majumdar, Information Officer of the National Technology Transfer Clearinghouse assisted with research and information resources.

The research was undertaken between June and November 1999 but reflects, more broadly, CAT's ongoing involvement in the Indigenous water supply sector since the release of the 1994 Water Report.

The team undertaking the research were encouraged by members of the case study communities, Aboriginal organisations, and many others who contributed willingly to increasing understanding of how things have changed during the past five years. The CAT team offers its thanks to all these contributors.

Dr Bruce Walker also wishes to acknowledge a number of individuals and agencies who have been particularly helpful including:

Peter Taylor of ATSIC; John Tsoukas of Ove Arup; Alan Morton of Morton Consulting; Tony Black of the Torres Strait Island Coordinating Council; Liam Stallard, DNR, Cairns; DOSAA, Adelaide; Burns Aldis Engineering and Community Development Project Managers, Sydney; the Project Officers of ATSIC Regional Offices of Ceduna, Bourke, South Hedland, Mt Isa, Kalgoorlie and Tamworth; Ingkerreke Resource Centre Management; the 19th Chief Engineer Works, Royal Australian Engineers; Mark Moran and numerous other engineers who work with companies such as: Ove Arup, PPK, HGM, Maunsell McIntyre, GHD and CARDNO MBK.

Dr Jonas wishes to thank Bruce Walker and Lionel Turner of the Ingkerreke Resource Management Centre for accompanying him and his team to the Mpweringe-Arnapipe communities near Alice Springs in July 2000.

This report was prepared and edited by Annette Bastaja of the Race Discrimination Unit.

FOREWORD

In 1994 the federal Race Discrimination Commissioner released the Water Report, containing the findings of a comprehensive inquiry into the provision of water and sanitation services to Australia's remote Indigenous communities. The inquiry focussed specifically on eight remote communities on mainland Australia and two island communities in the Torres Strait. Its conclusions questioned many of the fundamental assumptions that informed policies and processes of the day in the area of service delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, and made a series of recommendations.

In 1999, in accordance with Recommendation 7 of the Water Report, the Commission undertook to review those same ten communities to assess developments over the past five years. Dr Bruce Walker, of the Centre for Appropriate Technology (CAT) in Alice Springs, was appointed to undertake the research. Dr Walker, who worked on the original report, was asked to assess a range of issues using the original Water Report as a benchmark.

Specifically, CAT was asked to compare the situation in 1994 with the situation in 1999, with particular reference to

  • the effectiveness of contractors and authorities
  • Indigenous involvement in decision-making
  • Indigenous training and employment opportunities and
  • technical compliance, efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability.

This review summarises CAT's findings. While it does not claim to provide a comprehensive analysis of the type contained in the 1994 Water Report, it does provide a 'snapshot' of where communities stand some five years later. In doing so, it examines some of the major water and sanitation policy and program initiatives of the last five years, reports on changes, identifies activities that have been successful and flags areas of ongoing concern.

Clearly, significant expenditure and effort has been applied to water and sanitation infrastructure in remote communities during this period. While it was not possible for CAT to personally consult with the full range of Indigenous community stakeholders (as was the case with the Water Report), it has been possible to discern general trends from national programs, reports and infrastructure planning documents for each community.

The views expressed in this review reflect the perceptions of the individuals interviewed, the availability of technical reports on the water and sanitation infrastructure projects and a desktop study of community developments. CAT visited three of the communities, and reported sufficient interest from other communities in future visits by the Commission. The review reflects issues that are pertinent to remote Indigenous communities rather than the concerns of Indigenous people living in urban and peri-urban settings. It highlights issues that are relevant in communities with 'priority needs'. In addition, CAT's involvement in international water supply projects allows for the assessment of trends in the Australian water and sanitation sector against international best practice.

This review is intended to contribute to policy and program development within Government, between the various jurisdictions and within the broader community, including among Indigenous leaders and community members. It would not have been possible without significant contributions from a range of stakeholders. In particular I would like to acknowledge remote community staff; ATSIC; the state agencies; contracted program and project managers; and project managers responsible for ATSIC and Torres Strait major infrastructure projects.

I am grateful to Dr Bruce Walker and his team in Alice Springs for their invaluable work and commitment. I look forward to their ongoing contribution to this vital area of work.

 

Dr William Jonas
AM Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner
Acting Race Discrimination Commissioner

INTRODUCTION

Indigenous Settlement

The geographic dispersal of Indigenous people in Australia, often in remote rural locations, has clear implications for social policy. Australia's population is highly urbanized, with around 85 per cent of Australians living in settlements with populations of 10,000 or more. The remaining 15 per cent live in small country towns, on farms, or in remote settlements. Australia's largest settlements occupy less than one per cent of the nation's land area(1). Given these realities, many Australians have limited experience or appreciation of what is required to deliver sustainable services in remote settlements.

Policy determination and service delivery in Indigenous communities is affected by size and location. The number of remote Indigenous communities has grown over the last 20 years, largely due to the outstation movement. In 1992, 65% of a total Indigenous population of 265,378 lived in rural and remote areas of Australia. Indigenous people represented almost 20 per cent of the remote population at that time.

In 1999, as part of the Community Housing and Infrastructure Needs Survey (CHINS), the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) identified a total of 1,291 discrete Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander communities throughout Australia. Of these communities, 81 communities were discrete areas within a larger non-Indigenous population and 1,210 communities were geographically separate from other population centres(2).

Click on the image above to see Endnote (3)

As can be seen, population statistics are inconsistent. CHINS identified 943 communities with less than 50 people and 149 communities with 200 people or more. A recent CAT study(4) revealed 1031 discrete Indigenous communities (92% of all Indigenous communities) had populations less than 200 people. While around 36% of the total remote Indigenous population lived in communities of up to 200, 64% of Indigenous people in remote areas lived in communities larger than 200 people.

The small size and high levels of mobility in many of these regional communities, combined with a lack of access to specialised services, low levels of technical training and formal skills and small community budgets, make provision of services extremely challenging.

The ABS(5), Australian Medical Association(6)and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare(7) record many other characteristics, as well as the significant differences of the populations of these small settlements in comparison to national norms. Studies by Healthabitat(8) have demonstrated features of living in housing which challenge conventional service delivery concepts such as 'user pays'.

In a community with twelve houses, three family groups accessed three houses each, five family groups accessed two houses each and one family had been in five houses over a thirteen month period. Only two family groups enjoyed uninterrupted occupancy(9).

While this profile of remote Indigenous communities is not exhaustive it is obvious that mainstream delivery of services is likely to be severely taxed in such communities. It is also apparent that services that require high levels of technical or other specialisation may be less than appropriate to meeting the long-term needs of small communities.

Factors in Settlement Formation

It is useful to consider the historical emergence and decline of settlements and the processes which contribute to their sustainability. Human societies have developed a range of social, intellectual, economic and technical responses to diverse environmental conditions and impacts from other social groups. To generalise, different societies have depended on hunting and gathering, herding, agriculture, manufacturing and/or trade as the dominant economic activity in their settlement. Technical innovations in areas such as water use, food production, communications, building, transportation and materials production have made possible larger and more diverse human settlements.

It is possible to draw some broad conclusions.

  • First, the benefits available in a specialised industrial context have partly depended on activities carried out by large congregations of people. As settlement size increases certain benefits and disbenefits accrue and the level of specialisation increases. As settlement size increases the type and diversity of work and economic activity also increases.
  • Secondly, different cultural groups and geographical groups require, develop and sustain different technologies that are appropriate to their circumstances. Groups may develop technology that makes possible new work functions within the settlement.
  • Thirdly, change has partly depended on new technologies being developed, accessed and controlled in ways which provide social benefit. Inequality within and between societies has partly resulted from differential control of and access to the products of environment and technology.

In short, the capacity of a settlement to deal with a dynamic external environment may be affected by its size and location. The large cities of industrialised countries devise options for service delivery, housing and development which may be more or less satisfactory.

In contrast to approaches developed for large cities, small settlements such as remote Australian Indigenous communities require substantially different solutions. There is a very direct link between the places where people have formed settlements and their access to resources, including water, in the determination of the settlement location. Technological advances and wealth, however, have made it possible to position settlements away from resources such as potable water and arable land.

To generalise, traditional communities around the world have, to varying degrees, maintained distinctive cultural practices and economies in keeping with their culture and environment. The majority of Australians have an attachment to place affected by factors such as family ties, personal preference and economic opportunity. In the main, however, Australia's remote Indigenous people have a very different link with their land.

Chapter One

The 1994 Water Report

On the 16th May 1994 the federal Race Discrimination Commissioner submitted the Water Report(10) to the Commonwealth Attorney-General. The aims of the report were to

  • provide an overview of the provision of water to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities
  • document the situation in ten case study communities
  • identify the factors and constraints that hindered or helped in the provision of water and sanitation services and recommend action, and
  • initiate a process whereby Aboriginal communities might work through the solution to their problems and where technical options might be suggested and addressed by communities, local and state governments.

The report recognised the significant economic and technical problems involved in providing any remote community with a quantity and quality of water supply that is comparable to urban communities. It adopted two overriding principles of investigation

  • that the issues in the provision of water were not primarily technical in nature, but rather social and political, and
  • that the involvement of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who were to be served by the project was paramount to the success of any water provision project irrespective of technical expertise.

The Water Report provided a comprehensive overview and history of factors influencing the provision of water and sanitation to remote Indigenous settings. The findings of the report called into question many of the fundamental assumptions that informed the policies and processes of the day in the area of service delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, specifically that

  • provision of 'equal' services would inevitably lead to equality of outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
  • existing methods of consultation and negotiation provided opportunities for self determination, and
  • modern technology would provide solutions to quality of life issues in Indigenous communities.

Importantly, the report provided examples of situations where unsatisfactory outcomes had resulted from initiatives based on these assumptions.

Water Report Recommendations

The Water Report did not presume to provide specific solutions to local problems, nor did it ignore the practical difficulties associated with the provision of adequate water services to remote communities. It acknowledged that government departments and agencies had made efforts to achieve acceptable levels of service provision.

The report did, however, highlight key issues working against those efforts and concluded that no significant improvement in Aboriginal living conditions would be achieved unless and until these key issues were fully understood. The report made recommendations in six key strategic areas which, if addressed, would have the effect of building the capacity of communities of Indigenous people to respond to continuing water and sanitation needs as they arose over time. These recommendations were

1. Community Control: That Government at all levels recognise the vital element of community control in the effective provision of services and review relevant legislation and structures to provide for the establishment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander service provision authorities.

2. Equality and Discrimination: That Government at all levels actively promote a broader community understanding of equity and equality based on recognition of differences between cultures. Evaluation should be on the basis of equitable outcomes, not similarity of inputs.

3. Indigenous People's Rights: That the Federal Government, as a matter of urgency, prepare a national statement of Indigenous Peoples Rights.

4. Technical Advice: That ATSIC continue to consider and address the means by which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities receive and respond to scientific and technical advice; and assess the need for independent community-controlled review of options prior to endorsement of projects, consultants and policies.

5. Sustainable Development: That peak Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups consider the implications of the prevailing technology-led control-oriented development paradigm (based principally on sameness of service) in terms of its appropriateness for longer-term sustainable development of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, particularly in small remote locations.

6. Concomitant Changes: That the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner determine if changes or augmentation of Government policies and programs are required to give effect to issues of standards, values, equality and self-determination identified in the Report.

7. Monitoring and Review: That the Race Discrimination Commissioner review progress made in the wake of this Report in the light of the recommendations, the Government's response to the Report, and the state of water and sanitation services in the ten case study communities; and that this review commence in one year's time.

A full explanation of each recommendation can be found at Annex 2.

The 1994 Case Study Communities

The Water Report examined ten communities from around Australia to demonstrate the complexity and diversity of circumstances in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Each case study documented the condition of water and sanitation services in that community and highlighted specific areas of concern. The following provides a brief introduction to the communities under review.

Punmu

Punmu is in the western desert near Lake Dora in the central northern area of Western Australia. It was established as a permanent camp at the Rawa site in 1981. People were very mobile, and they consider the traditional lands around them as their home. The Martu people have been the custodians of rain-making sites in the region. The estimated population in 1994 was 250 people (150 in 1999).

Coonana

Coonana is in Western Australia, approximately 160 km east of Kalgoorlie and 4 km south of the Trans-Australia railway line. The people of Coonana were moved there from Cundalee in 1985-6, following the purchase of the Coonana pastoral lease in 1982. Incentives offered to the Wangki people as a trade off for moving to Coonana from Cundalee included pastoral enterprise, horticultural enterprise, market gardens and a grassed oval. Lack of water resources has severely hampered development at Coonana. In 1994 the population was estimated at 300 (250 in 1999).

Yalata

Yalata is a community of Pitjantjatjara people situated at the top of the Great Australian Bight in South Australia. In 1994 it had a population of 400 people (350 Aboriginal (400 in 1999) and 50 non-Aboriginal). Half of the community were under 25 years old. The land, covering 4,560sq kilometres, was purchased by the South Australian Government in 1952. Yalata is situated on a karst plain. There is a lack of surface features and poor drainage.

Oak Valley/Maralinga

Oak Valley is an Aboriginal community in the southern portion of the Great Victoria Desert of South Australia, approximately 140 km south of Maralinga. The settlement was originally classified as a series of outstations. Maralinga is about one and a half hours by road on a reasonable bush track. The Aboriginal inhabitants of Oak Valley are highly mobile. Oak Valley residents were likely to spend considerable periods away from Oak Valley, none being present all the year. The people emphasise traditional values rather than contemporary values. The population in 1994 was estimated at 65 (90 in 1999).

Mpweringe-Arnapipe

Mpweringe-Arnapipe is an association of six family groups living 46-75 km north of Alice Springs. At the time of the Water Report survey(11) people were living on unused stock routes although they would have preferred to live on other land which was proposed for excision from surrounding pastoral leases. A 1986 CLC survey indicated a family population of 184 (115 in 1999) with an average of 38 people resident in the communities. There were seasonal and other population variations.

Dareton

Dareton is a small town on the Murray River in New South Wales. The main group of people lived on a small reserve just outside Dareton with another small camp existing a few kilometres away. Dareton's population in 1994 was 900. Namatjira Avenue and the reserve population were estimated at an average of 150-200 (250 in 1999). The community layout was not just in one location: 20% of people lived in Dareton itself in State Housing Commission houses; 10-20% lived at Merrinee; and 60-70% lived at Namatjira Avenue and the surrounding Reserve area about 3 km east of Dareton.

Tingha

Tingha is a rural village situated 70 km north-west of Guyra and 25 km south-east of Inverell in NSW. It is located within the boundaries of Guyra Shire Council. Tingha is an old tin mining town located on poor quality agricultural land, and surrounded by grazing properties. The total population was about 850-1000 people, of whom approximately 25% (estimated 240 in 1994; 250 in 1999) were Aboriginal people.

Doomadgee

Doomadgee is about 119 km south of the Gulf of Carpentaria, and is approximately 87 km east of the Queensland-Northern Territory border. The nearest major town is Mt Isa, which is 480 km by road. Doomadgee land includes 30 km of the Nicholson River. Doomadgee's population in 1976 was 600 people. In 1994 the population was 922 (estimated 1200 in 1999).

The Torres Strait

The two islands studied demonstrated the dramatic differences in culture between Torres Strait Islanders and Aborigines of the mainland. The conditions on the islands were less desirable in water and sanitation services, yet there were fewer complaints. There were also fewer non Torres Strait Islanders living in the communities than for equivalent sized mainland communities.

Boigu Island

This mud island is only 4 km from Papua New Guinea (PNG). People have very little land available for settlement and their foreshores are subject to tidal surge and inundation by sea water. In 1994 the population of Boigu Island was 330 (340 in 1999) and there were 29 houses.

Coconut Island

Coconut Island is 1900 metres long and 300 metres wide and is located at the NW end of a large reef flat in the central eastern group of the Torres Strait. The village is 6-7 metres above sea level. The island is reasonably flat and most of the island is between 5 and 7 metres above sea level, except on the southern side where sand dunes rise to 12 metres. There were 30 houses on Coconut Island and a population of approximately 150 in 1994 (188 in 1999).

Chapter Two

Developments since the Water Report

Measures adopted to improve the provision of water and sanitation invariably target 'improved health' as their primary goal. Therefore the desire to improve the health status of Australia's Indigenous peoples has been the most significant catalyst of change over the last five years.

The 1994 Water Report reinforced that the right to water was implied through the right to health. It said

...as satisfactory health is a precondition of the full enjoyment of almost all human rights and fundamental freedoms, water is crucial in a chain of factors affecting the fulfillment of other human rights, and the right to water is implied throughout many of the more wide ranging provisions of the various instruments.(12)

Since 1994 there have been a raft of significant federal, state and territory government policies, programs and initiatives designed to address persistent indicators of relatively poor Indigenous health. Comprehensive explanation of each of these initiatives is provided at Annex 4. They include

  • Community Housing and Infrastructure Program (CHIP), ATSIC
  • Health Infrastructure Priority Projects (HIPP), ATSIC
  • National Aboriginal Health Strategy (NAHS), ATSIC
  • ATSIC-Army Community Assistance Program (AACAP)
  • National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Survey 1994, ABS
  • Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Benchmarking Workshop
  • Revision of the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, Joint Committee of the Agricultural Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council
  • Western Water Study, Australian Geological Survey Organisation
  • The Water Book, Water Industry Training Advisory Board, Australian National Training Authority
  • Commonwealth-State Working Group on Indigenous Housing
  • Remote Area Essential Services Program, WA government
  • Environmental Health Survey, WA government
  • Total Management Plans (TMP), Queensland government
  • Aboriginal Environmental Health Infrastructure Forum, NSW government
  • Aboriginal Community Development Program, NSW government
  • NSW Survey of Water Supply and Sanitation Infrastructure, NSW government
  • Aboriginal Housing Office, NSW government
  • Indigenous Housing Authority of the Northern Territory (IHANT)/federal government
  • Remote Areas Essential Services Program, South Australian government
  • Housing for Health Initiative
  • Pitjantjatjara Rockhole Project, Pitjantjatjara Council, Australian Nature Conservation Agency
  • Rainwater Harvesting, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies
  • National Technology Transfer Clearinghouse, Centre for Appropriate Technology, Central Australian, North Queensland, NW Western Australia

The following tables summarise total funding allocated by ATSIC to HIPP and NAHS projects between 1995/96 to 2002/03(13) and infrastructure programs and sanitation upgrades in the ten case study communities during the past five years.

The following table identifies NAHS program funding across all states and the Northern Territory from 1995/96 until 1999/2000. One criterion for selection of a NAHS project was that the estimated cost should be greater than $300,000. In practice, the majority of projects approved had budgets of between $1-2m. Funding was also available to ATSIC Regional Councils for local projects to supplement the larger NAHS projects.

Click on the table above for Endnotes (14) and (15). Click on the table below for Endnote (16).

Chapter Three

Findings in the Ten Case Study Communities

In light of the range of new policies and programs outlined in Chapter 2, CAT compiled brief status reports comparing the situation in the case study communities in 1999 against findings in 1994. The Aboriginal Perspectives on Water workshop, convened in 1996, also provided CAT with an opportunity to enquire about developments in the case study communities.

The analysis undertaken by CAT in this chapter is based on

  • interviews conducted with project and program managers
  • a review of literature relevant to each community
  • numerous phone conversations, and
  • three site visits (to Coconut Island, Doomadgee and Mpweringe-Arnapipe).

Ideally, the status of water supply and sanitation in each community needs to be confirmed with a program of visits and much more detailed discussion with Indigenous residents. However, a comprehensive exercise of this nature was not within the scope of this review. It is therefore necessary to qualify statements in the status reports. It was not possible within the short timeframe to seek feedback from all parties involved in contributing to the status reports, to ensure that details provided reflect the situation appropriately. Taken as a group, the status reports provide a clear indication of some of the positive changes and general trends, as well as areas where there has been less progress. It would not be wise to use the status reports to do more than this.

PUNMU

This remote community, situated in the western desert of Western Australia, still retained many traditional practices. The case study demonstrated the value of water (including salty water) to Aboriginal people as a means of sustaining physical and spiritual life. Brackish and salty water was highly regarded, valued and protected for its medicinal and ceremonial purposes. The people of Punmu articulated a need for water across their country, not just in their village. Their movement patterns and practice of culture was hindered by a lack of access to water along their new movement tracks, dictated by the pattern of roads rather than traditional walking paths. Their ability to respond to these changing aspects of their life and culture was hindered by the processes and procedures of water provision which focus on house and settlement, rather than a large tract of country.

1994

At the time of the Water Report there were 4 old two bedroom houses, and 4 three room twin units. There were no shower, toilet or laundry facilities to the houses since the mains water supply was not connected to the house. There were 3 VIP toilets in the community.

  • Water supplies to each of the 3 camps were completely independent from each other and were drawn from shallow aquifers. At Yilyarra there was a bore with a windmill and a standby diesel generator . The water was distributed to 7 families via 2 standpipes. At Tuutuu bore water was pumped by a solar pump and a standpipe by the tank.
  • At Rawa there were two bores, and the supply was accessed by means of a ring reticulated system with 8 standpipes. Some houses were connected by temporary plumbing, and these leaked. Standpipes were not to standard. Despite leaks the supply appeared to be adequate in quantity. Inappropriate connection to houses created a number of problems. Residents did not have a clear picture of how the system worked.
  • A water quality report in March 1990 revealed the level of salts and bacteria was acceptable for drinking water, but as there was no chlorination or any other form of disinfection at Rawa and Yilyarra the water occasionally became contaminated.
  • Solid waste was disposed at a rubbish tip west of Rawa. There was rubbish in and around the community. VIP toilets were only used occasionally. It was possible that waste water would contaminate the water supply source.

1999

Very little information was obtained on Punmu. The community were enthusiastic to participate in the study and to have the team visit, but this was not undertaken on this occasion. The population in 1999 was estimated at 150 people.

  • Punmu received a grant of $1,500,000 from HIPP1 funding for the reconstruction and upgrade of household septic tanks; the construction of an effluent disposal system; rationalisation of the internal road system including landscaping (dust control) and stormwater drainage; repair of water services and house connections, concreting 3 verandahs; and construction of communal ablution and shelter facilities. All construction works were completed within the project budget. There was also Homeswest funding for minor building works to existing houses.
    • Indigenous employment and training for the above project comprised backhoe hire from the community (61 hours), backhoe operators and labourers (approximately 15 person days), and labourers for roadworks (approximately 8 person days).
       
  • Inspections of the water supply and sanitation systems during July 1998 indicated leaks in the ultraviolet water disinfection system; bores were soon to be fenced off by the community to stop burning out of pumps due to tampering; grass and rubbish around the disinfection room (which was a fire hazard); holes in the roof of the UV shed because it had been jumped on.
    • The sewerage system evaporation pond was overflowing, and gates were open and without padlocks or chains. The system itself was reported to be working well.
       
  • The 1999 NAHS/EHP survey for Round 2 recommended funding for the water supply in order to purchase and install a new ground water tank; a new transfer pump to pump water from the ground tank to the high tank; and replacement of the telemetry.
    • The primary concern was said to be vulnerability in the dry season. Although the community does not generally run out of water a new tank is required because the current tank has holes which could be a source of contamination. The existing tank was 50 or 100 kL, and the team recommended replacement with a 225 kL tank. The consultant also reported that the water system was not being managed properly because the telemetry was dysfunctional. Water is more likely to be wasted because the supply had to be turned off manually when the tank was full. Water is tested fortnightly.
       
  • The August 1999 NAHS team visit indicated that the sewerage system was still functioning well. The ponds are still subject to overflowing.

At present the community has no other projects scheduled. There was no Community Development Employment Program (CDEP) or Essential Services Officer (ESO). The systems are serviced by a Regional Service Provider who is responsible for regular, planned and unplanned maintenance services.

COONANA

Coonana is situated just south of the Trans-Australia railway line 200km from Kalgoorlie in Western Australia. The people of Coonana moved from Cundelee (a mission north of the railway line) to obtain better water supply, better job prospects for young people, and a cattle station. Planning documentation for the move described an elaborate system of ground tanks and roaded catchments as a secure water supply. However, only a fraction of the planned works were completed and the water supply is not greatly improved over that of Cundelee. People at Coonana were the first of a number of communities to demonstrate their own strategies for ensuring water supply irrespective of the formal water supply system.

1994

Groundwater prospects were poor. There was no obvious potable water in adjoining areas, and the closest source was 30km away. It was thought that even water of stock quality may have been unobtainable locally.

  • The community's water supply consisted of Round dam, a 20,000 cubic metre, roofed dam installed using the homestead catchment area which was adjacent to the Square Homestead dam of 40,000 cubic metres capacity. Water could be pumped into the round dam. A contour line was cut, and a bituminised runway preceded the dams. Flow into these dams only occurred after long, heavy rain. Oak dam water, 6 km to the south was connected to Homestead dam by a 90 mm pipe linked to a diesel driven pump.
    • Water from Round dam was pumped to an elevated storage tank with a connected ring main. Water was chlorinated with sodium hypochlorite through a dosing pump at the exit from an elevated tank. At the time of the survey the system of chlorination was not running smoothly, partly due to staff turnover. As at 1990, water was bacteriologically satisfactory and water quality exceeded National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC) guidelines.
       
  • Each house had one or two 7,000L rainwater tanks which generally supplied enough water for drinking needs. Rainwater tanks were not regularly maintained and there were no strainers to prevent inflow of potential pollutants. There were no records of disinfection of rainwater tanks or microbiological testing. Children and cattle had access to the catchment dams.
     
  • Until 1990 there had been constant problems with the sewerage and waste disposal system. Septic tank effluent discharged into the main sewer pipe leading to a system of 3 evaporation ponds.
    • At times, up to 100 campers had no ablution facilities and used the surrounding bush or relatives' houses for water, toilets, shower and laundry.

It was thought that further developments of the water supply system were needed in order to maintain the integrity of the original proposal to move people from Cundelee.

1999

There were approximately 250 people living at Coonana. The population tends to rise between November and March because of cultural business. A survey recently found 18 uninhabited houses which were in a very run down condition.

The existing potable water supply was still sourced from four sizeable dams with local water catchment. There were still no groundwater sources, as water was too saline.

  • The supply of adequate quantities of potable water has been an ongoing problem. Water shortages still typically occurred in drought years where low rainfall resulted in little runoff into the water supply dams. 1998 was a low rainfall year. The water supply dams were low and water was carted from another station dam by a community prime mover and tanker. Before Cyclone Vance in 1999, the community had 30 days supply left. There is now enough supply for between 1-2 years.
     
  • Funding for 2000/2001 includes the installation of plumbing and a pumping system to pump water from Oak and Quick dams to Round dam. An upgrade of Quick dam is also scheduled during that time.
     
  • Sewerage lagoons are now in place and are fenced. Sewerage reticulation extensions were also completed as part of HIPP2. A survey in 1998 indicated that the ponds were full but had not yet overflowed. The boundary fence required repair at that stage.

YALATA

Situated on the South Australian coast at the top of the Great Australian Bight, Yalata is equipped with three large reverse osmosis water treatment (desalination) units. The water supply at Yalata represented the most technologically sophisticated of the case studies. The study found that the provision of elaborate technology and resultant treated water had not automatically contributed to improved quality of life or improved health. In fact, many of the people from Yalata were attempting to move back inland to communities where there were less adequate water supplies than at Yalata. The study demonstrated the dominance of technology over community choices. Many people complained they became sick from the treated supply and therefore preferred rainwater. This reliance led to social problems in times of low rainfall as they attempted to obtain water from other people's rainwater tanks. Rainwater tanks were predominantly located at houses, the majority of which were occupied by non-Aboriginal people, thus working against healthy relationships at Yalata.

1994

At the time of the Water Report there were 65 residential structures, including the Yalata road house area, and the four homelands. 22% of housing was unoccupied. Yalata staff (24% of whom were Aboriginal) accounted for 57% of the occupied houses. Non-Aboriginal people occupied 43% of the houses.

A desalinated water supply was produced by reverse osmosis at a rate of 20 L/min (29 kL/day). There were 2 backup plants. If these were harnessed they could provide an additional 40 L/min. Desalinated water was stored in 3 steel reservoirs and pumped to a 9,000L header tank for reticulation of water to the community. There was a dual reticulated supply at each house which made use of saline water to toilets. Desalinated water was used for washing, showering and cooking. To prevent wastage there were no taps outside the houses. The quality of the desalinated water was comparable to that of several major SA domestic supplies. The Total Dissolved Solids levels were about twice, and the sodium chloride level about three times that of Adelaide water. Many people did not think the water suitable for drinking (some people commented that it made them sick).

  • The facilities to collect rainwater at Yalata varied widely. Rainwater from roofs of all residences could have supplied 5-8 L/d. The total theoretical rainwater catchment was 1,961,000L. Inefficiencies meant that this potential could not be realised. A review of functional rainwater tanks showed that Yalata Community Council (YCC), Yalata Maralinga Health Service (YMHS) and education staff did well from rainwater tanks. Aboriginal people living in community houses did not fare nearly as well, with only 25% of these houses having functional rainwater tanks. Rainwater was the drinking water of choice however the store also sold quantities of bottled water at $2.30 per 1.5L bottle.
    • The only easily accessible public taps for drinking water were at the school. Basin taps in the public toilets (an unhygienic solution) were the only other source of water. No other public taps were in Yalata.
       
  • A 100 gallon tanker carted water on Monday, Wednesday and Friday to people living around the community. It was filled from an overhead standpipe with desalinated water which most people preferred not to use. People commented that they did not like to have rainwater mixed with desalinated water in their tanks because it made their tanks taste salty.

1999

Yalata has administrative offices, a health centre, store, education facilities and a roadhouse. The population varies, but is now estimated at 350 (Department of State Aboriginal Affairs, DOSAA). In1999 there were 593 people on the Health Service Register (in 1994 there were 467).

There are 30 living units for community residents at Yalata plus 4 under construction and 3 more were planned for 1999. Six of these 30 units were reportedly unoccupied and three were derelict and beyond repair. It was estimated(17) that major works were required in many of the houses. For example, plumbing (13), major electrical (30); earth leakage (17); smoke detectors (30); asbestos (16).(18)

  • The health centre was connected to the town supply. Health centre staff reported that the major categories of illness remained the same. Also that the men's section of the clinic, and the toilet and showering facilities were unused, and shower heads broken. New washing facilities had also been recently constructed for children at the school.
     
  • DOSAA carry out the Project Management for essential services upgrades. Yalata has received considerable funding through ATSIC and DOSAA for upgrading and maintenance of water and sanitation since the Water Report was published. DOSAA fund an ESO who is permanently stationed in Yalata. Services provision falls under the 10 year State/ATSIC agreement for infrastructure. According to a number of verbal reports Yalata water supply is functioning well. The main source of problems appears to be within the houses themselves.
     
  • The community water supply is drawn from two bores (Tallowan 2 and Tallowan 3). Radio control systems were installed in 1996 to provide a fully automated pumping system. Bore water is pumped to six 145kL (each) reinforced concrete ground storage tanks. Potable water is produced by a reverse osmosis water treatment plant and stored in three 450kL (each) welded steel ground tanks and pumped to a 9kL header tank on a 15 metre tower.
    • The three 450 kL water storage tanks had undergone repairs and maintenance during mid 1999. They had been cleaned and coated with an epoxy lining in 1999/00 to enhance their life expectancy. The rising main from the bores to the concrete storage tanks (six tanks) was replaced in 1996. Total water storage capacity was 2230kL (1360kL potable water and 870kL bore water).
       
  • Reticulation of the water throughout the community is via a dual underground PVC system to isolating valves at each consumer point. Generally potable water is supplied to all but the toilet cisterns and external garden watering standpipes within this community. There were still no taps outside any of the community houses. The estimated cost of desalinated water was $4.50 per kL.
     
  • The community's essential services (power, water and effluent disposal) are maintained by DOSAA. The health centre promotes the desalinated water as safe for drinking and advise the public to boil rainwater. The health centre reported that since July 1999 the South Australian Health Commission have tested the water every 2 weeks for microbiological contamination. They test the water at two sources - at the tank, and at the school.
    • No individual water use is monitored in the community. The Essential Services Officer noted that a number of people still drink rainwater even though the town water supply is now of much better quality than it was when desalination was first introduced. More details were unavailable.
       
  • The sanitation system consists of discrete septic systems for individual dwellings. These overflow to a common, reticulated, gravity effluent drainage system. The effluent drains to a pond via one collection well and pumping station. Community buildings and public ablution blocks also connect to the reticulated common effluent system. Two earth banked effluent ponds and one large evaporation pan are used to treat and evaporate the effluent. The reticulation system and lagoons were constructed in approximately 1987 and are reported by DOSAA to be in good condition. However the ponds are scheduled to be moved further away from the community. The Effluent Pump Station was fully upgraded/replaced in 1998/99. The YMHS reported that septic tanks had not been pumped out for over three years and some systems were overflowing.
    • The ESO also takes care of the sewerage system (not septic tanks). He has been in the community for a long time and is completely familiar with the work. Another local person is currently in training at the community's instigation, recognising the difficulties which would emerge if the current ESO left the community. The new trainee fills in for the ESO when he is on leave.
       
  • Yalata is one of 19 communities in South Australia for which DOSAA is responsible through a State/ATSIC bilateral agreement. In many cases DOSAA is responsible for both the design and construction of infrastructure and maintenance of systems. DOSAA's preference is to standardise infrastructure design and specification wherever possible. The NAHS/EHP delivery model requires DOSAA to negotiate its requirements with project managers, thus DOSAA does not have direct control over the types of systems which are installed or the types of materials used, yet they still may be obliged to maintain them (as in the case of Oak Valley).
    • Standardisation can potentially lower costs and streamline training and skills transfer, however, it can also come at the expense of innovation and individual community needs may be easily overlooked.
    • In general there is a tension between stakeholders over the use of standardised centralised processes of service delivery (and the associated asset management responsibilities) and community based initiatives.

It appears that the community could benefit from improved communication between the various stakeholders who have interests in the living conditions and health of people in Yalata.

OAK VALLEY

The people of Oak Valley are a relatively mobile community group moving in the area north of the Trans-Australia Railway in South Australia. Many were people from Yalata moving back into their traditional lands. They had chosen a level of service that was very different to other locations. Having adopted a lifestyle in which they moved from place to place, they selected a water supply system which followed them (mobile tanker) or collected water while they were absent from the site (rainwater harvesting). The Oak Valley case study represented a solution generated in support of their lifestyle and required the application of standards, values and engineering skills relevant to that lifestyle. It presented many headaches for service providers who were set up to provide services premised on a sedentary lifestyle rather than for people who were mobile.

1994

In 1992 discussions were underway for construction of a store and some houses. There was a lack of sanitation, serviceable showers, water for washing or ablutions. Only highly saline water was available near Oak Valley. To the west, very small supplies of low salinity water were found beneath the depressions. There was thought to be limited prospect for developing moderate supplies in the area.

There was a continuing reliance on rock holes, soakages and vegetation for opportunistic water supply. There had been 7 rainwater harvesting shed tanks erected in the Oak Valley area, each of which had two 36,000L tanks. Water was carted to family trailer tankers from the shed tanks or from the supply at Watson Siding. Shed tanks are spread out over a wide area to catch rainfall resulting from isolated thunderstorms and to provide decentralised sources of water so people can camp at various locations in the surrounding lands (decentralised systems caused logistical problems). In 1989 the shed tanks supplied the total consumption needs of the community. Maximum use was not made of the rainfall. In 1990 five low-salinity bores were equipped with pumps, three with handpumps and two with solar pumps and tanks.

1999

The population in Oak valley still fluctuates. The population noted in the Oak Valley Army evaluation report was 90 people. People living in the community estimate that the population generally fluctuates between 80-220 people depending on the time of year and what is happening. Oak Valley is a place that people pass through on their way to Yalata. Structural improvements commenced in 1995. A shed tank had been built 1km north of the community. This was the most significant supply of water (70,000L when full) and others were in use to the west, along the Maralinga road. In March 1995 ATSIC Ceduna constructed a prefabricated steel ablution block which was later incorporated into the clinic.

  • In 1995 a comprehensive water survey and drilling program was undertaken by the then Department of Mines and Energy Resources, South Australia, at the request of the HIPP project manager.
    • Ten bores were sunk. Only 2 yielded reasonable quantities of water but these were high in levels of minerals and salts. The drilling program was extended and in 1996. 3 potable water bores were located 28km to the west and were equipped with solar pumps and reticulated to a new 35kL tank located beneath an existing shed tank.
    • In mid 1996 the Department of Mines and Energy Resources (DME) undertook an extensive geophysical survey of the region, and state money was used to grade tracks to make access to bores easier.
    • Also in 1996, a specially designed tanker was purchased by the community. It was capable of carrying 27,000L of water in a single trip.
       
  • Oak Valley was part of HIPP Round 1 funding. The community received approximately $700,000 (excluding administration) for a power supply upgrade, repairs to the water truck, new bores/bore rig, bore equipping (and overhead tanks), a new water truck, potable water storage tanks and a power station upgrade. Review of performance indicators for HIPP1 indicated that:
    • Total employment days on the project were 33 man days (but no local people expressed interest in the offer by the consultants to train people to assist with the water truck/tanker commissioning and initial use, or for general basic plumbing works). " No formal training of community members eventuated.
    • Approximately 90 people benefited from the project.
    • There were significant contributions made from other agencies (an additional $1.9m of funding was secured).
       
  • As part of the original HIPP program, a 250,000L tank was installed for central water storage for ablution water and 60,000L tank for drinking water (enough to last the community for 30 days). A reticulated system was installed with dual piping to each house and a significant community facility constructed.
    • A roof was constructed over the central water storage (funded by ATSIC). The roof was graded to allow the installation of solar panels for hybrid power generation at a later date. For purposes of security the area is fully fenced. The enclosure also contained the community's power generation facility.
    • Water was supplied periodically by an ESO who opened appropriate valves which were locked when the tanks were full. This meant that levels of use could be monitored and controlled.
       
  • Every new structure was fitted with a rainwater tank of at least 13,000L. The total community storage was approximately 680,000L. An approximate consumption of 70 L/p/d (including ablutions) would suggest the community could hold 90 days supply for a population of 100, for any given time when all tanks were full.(19)
     
  • The initial funding for HIPP was a catalyst for the development of an additional $1.9m of funding for housing and infrastructure over the same period. The HIPP Project Manager also oversaw these projects.
    • This work included the Oak Valley Health Centre (YMHS), additional housing (ATSIC CHIP); essential infrastructure services (ATSIC State Grants); airstrip upgrade; flares and safety equipment; undergrounding of fuel tanks; dust and dog control; community house (ATSIC Ceduna); community store extensions; mechanics workshop; recreation hall; playground equipment (Maralinga Tjarutja); 2 community houses (SAHT/AHU); 2 teachers houses (DECS) and CDEP coordinator's house (SAHT).
       
  • The Oak Valley Community agreed to the involvement of the Army as part of the subsequent AACAP program in the Oak Valley Infrastructure Project at a meeting during May 1997.
    • Stage 1 involved the refurbishment of the airstrip (as a temporary emergency measure), grading of roads (as a temporary repair), construction of a new rubbish tip and the erection of two shed tanks (1997); and a duplex for nurses' accommodation.
    • Stage 2 involved rebuilding the airstrip, construction of roads, landscaping and tasks of opportunity (1998).
    • Stage 3 involved the construction of three extra community houses and engaging a contractor through the South Australian Housing Trust (SAHT).
       
  • Prior to engaging SAHT to provide an additional 3 houses for the community the Army engaged a consultant to conduct a study into existing water resources within the community(20). The aim of the study was to determine water usage and resources within the community, and assess the impact of additional housing. The study noted
    • Nine shed tanks at varying distances up to 110 km from Oak Valley. With roof catchment of 600sqm and a combined capacity of 50,000L which could be used as a standby source. It noted that annual rainfall was 2.7 times the available storage which could be lost to overflow if the system was not managed.
    • Each building and house was equipped with two 5000L tanks and a total of 30 tanks in town providing a catchment of 150,000L. Annual rainfall was estimated at 6 times the storage capacity of each house however one of the two tanks at each house is dedicated to bore supply and its level is maintained to 80% by a float valve, so that the volume of rainwater storage at each house was effectively reduced to 5000L, plus the other space left at any time in the other tank. The two tanks were interconnected and rainwater ran into the bore water tank.
    • "Little use is made of the rainwater and the tanks are mostly kept full, roof catchment from useful rainfall in August is almost entirely lost to overflow". "The rainwater tank has one tap on a separate line from the rest of the house plumbing. The little use made of the available rainwater is apparently due to the position of the tap in the house, which is located under the sink in the kitchen and is inconvenient to reach".
    • "An attempt has been made to assess the current water consumption by Oak Valley community. The assessment is made difficult by the scarcity of records and by uncertainty regarding population numbers. The latter have been variably estimated between 60 and 100 people". The report concluded that the construction of 3 additional houses would have little or no impact on water consumption provided the population did not increase.
       
  • While the water supply infrastructure (including the water trucks) provided under HIPP was adequate to support the population in 1997, if properly managed, the situation was still very marginal during very dry periods. It was noted that any expansion of community housing would require rigorous management of existing water supply sources.
    • Unfortunately, there was little evidence that Oak Valley was properly managing the water supply (as at the time of the Water Report). Successful drilling remained critical to significant expansion of the community.
       
  • Under the NAHS guidelines the Army was required to facilitate improved training and employment outcomes for the Oak Valley Community as an element of the delivery process. The Army deployed a training team to provide training to the community in environmental health, articulated truck driving and plant operation. The Army also provided health support to the Oak Valley Community during the construction phase through preventative medicine, dental and veterinarian deployments.
    • Additional works requested by the community during the inception and subsequent meetings were modification to the taps on rainwater tanks on existing housing stock; construction of an Australian Rules football field; installation of lights in the children's play area; conversion of a hand operated bore pump to solar power; and installation of security lighting for the workshops, community store and the CDEP buildings.
       
  • ATSIC Ceduna noted in correspondence dated July 1999. "There is still a lack of water". Except for the rainwater at the houses, water is carted, especially during the dry, warmer months.
     
  • The sanitation system in the community relies on 40 pit latrines which have been constructed around the community (they have a life expectancy of 10 years). Due to water shortage no flush toilets had been installed.
     
  • Several other measures have also been taken to conserve water with varying degrees of success. Accessibility to drinking water within the house was restricted by putting drinking water taps inside the cupboard under the sink. Also, outside tank taps were placed low to the ground thereby reducing people's ability to place larger containers directly under them.
    • These interventions, intended to conserve drinking water, have apparently increased usage of bore water and restricted rainwater use.
       
  • Development of centralised infrastructure at Oak Valley has resulted from an increased number of permanent residents and extensive community meetings. The Water Report noted the possibility of a decentralised approach to education and health care which would have been more in line with the traditional lifestyle people were pursuing at that time.
    • It is not clear whether this change has resulted from the more extensive processes of consultation and planning with the community or whether people have recognised and attempted to resolve the balance between the centralising tendency of technology and the mobility of Indigenous people.
       
  • In September 1997 Oak Valley was added to the list of communities covered in the ATSIC/State Bilateral Agreement for maintenance of power, water and waste water treatment. Where agencies or organisations who design and implement capital projects are not the same as those who have responsibility for recurrent maintenance there is a need for greater communication and engagement. DOSAA have indicated their unhappiness with the slightly different design philosophy involved in HIPP systems, although project records indicate they did not respond to opportunities for comment. Consequences can include higher recurrent costs in the long-term.
     
  • At Oak valley utilities are fully subsidised. There are almost as many houses for non-Aboriginal staff as for community members at Oak Valley.

MPWERINGE - ARNAPIPE

This case study documented the activities of an Aboriginal association representing a group of families wishing to settle on a strip of land north of Alice Springs in the Northern Territory. The situation with regard to small excisions was different to those of Aboriginal people settled on large tracts of land. The study emphasised that Aboriginal rights might not be protected if the same mechanisms and processes were applied to achieve the provision of water and sanitation on these small stock route excisions as those applied to lands held under different Aboriginal land title.

The study argued that seen as a totality the minor delays and bureaucratic procedures added up to a significant interruption to the ability of Aboriginal people to pursue their economic and cultural development. The study considered current and potential outcomes resulting from a protracted negotiation process.

Negotiations for tenure had been stalled for some time. Government agencies were reluctant to provide basic infrastructure to people who did not have legal tenure. Residents generally lived in a "number of two room metal clad shelters with breezeways". Temporary tin shed structures had also been erected and a number of basic ablution facilities and pit latrines were in place. Portable generators and extension leads provided limited power. There were no other services.

1994

Water was in short supply. The Ingkerreke Resource Centre first started carting water to the area in 1985. Trucks were hired at $60-100/day. The cost of cartage was borne by stock route dwellers. The water quality was questionable since the drums in which the water was carted had internal rusting, residues from detergents and fuel. People were supplied with 14 L/p/d. Following the purchase of a new vehicle this figure increased to 20 L/p/d.

In the period 1986-1989 four thousand eight hundred 200L drums were lifted on and off trucks. 1 ML of water was carted to 6 outstations for a population of 38-45 people. The actual cost of water was estimated to be between 22 and 120 times the cost of town water. This indicated the level of commitment that people had to living on the outstations.

The Water Report calculated that the actual cost of water was more like 237 times the cost of town water or $4.23 per 200L drum of water. Ingkerreke established that people could live comfortably with 200 L/p/d. A number of relatively successful bores had recently been drilled but most areas were found to be unsuitable.

The sanitation 'system' consisted of dry latrines. Ablution and laundry facilities were very basic and fed directly into a surface leach drain. When Ingkerreke acquired the new truck in 1987, overhead tanks supplying showers at two outstations were filled for the first time.

1999

There are currently 115 people resident in 18 houses and 17 sheds located in 7 small outstations. Populations vary considerably and there is a lot of movement between the outstations and Alice Springs.

The resident population seems to have increased but some people are still reluctant to live in the area permanently because there are no basic services such as schools, health services, recreational facilities, a store or an air strip available on site.

  • Black Tank
    There were 4 regular inhabitants living in two brick houses and 2 tin sheds. They have a fairly reliable bore. The water quality was reported to be quite good. Water is rarely carted now. The pump has only had problems twice in the past 2 years. The two houses have reticulated water and in-house plumbing. Ingkerreke are about to shift one of the tanks closer to the house since the house is highset and the tank is below the level of the house. This outstation is very well set up with solar payphone, street lighting, air conditioners on one house, a radio tower, and a solar/diesel hybrid power supply.
     
  • Burt Creek
    Approximately 25 people live in 5 tin sheds and one new house. The group interviewed has moved to three different sites during the past 10 years due to sorry business. The water quality was reported to be "as good as rainwater" and is potable, but the quantity is very low. Ingkerreke Outstation Resource Service reported Burt Creek had received about six 6000L loads of carted water in the last 12 months. The new house has reticulated water and the sheds have standpipes outside each dwelling. Water is carted very occasionally if a lot of people visit. People commented that they were happy with the outside ablution blocks and pit latrines. The community access 240 volt power from a solar/diesel hybrid system.
     
  • Sandy Bore
    There are an average of 20 people living all the time in 5 houses with reticulated water, and 2 tin sheds. The outstation has 2 bores which produce a good volume of water. Concerning the first bore, Ingkerreke commented that "the water is not too bad, not flash, but they drink it" and that it "doesn't taste good but it doesn't make people sick". The second bore produced water which is brackish and high in nitrates (not suitable for drinking). A new, elevated tank stand is being constructed close to the houses to provide increased water pressure so that the solar hot water heaters which have been installed for some time, can be used. Each house has a flush toilet connected to a septic system. There are also three pit latrines in the community which are still in use. The septic systems required pumping at the time of the survey. The community has a wind/solar/diesel generator and 'street' illumination. The outstation has no phone. They used to have a radio but "someone took it away to repair it and never brought it back".
     
  • Harry Creek
    (West and East) Approximately 25-30 people live at the outstation all the time. The outstation is comparatively large with a variety of dwellings of various standards. There are 4 three-bedroom brick houses, one two-bedroom house and 3 tin sheds. Harry Creek has very little water.
    • Water to Harry Creek West is at the present reticulated from the other side of the highway from an old roads bore. They have secured funding for drilling for additional water within a 5-10km radius. If suitable water is found then a dual supply is being considered. Because of the sacredness of the area there is no digging permitted so the pipe may have to be laid above ground and covered if a source is located. However residents commented that "This isn't a good area for finding water". Four new rainwater tanks are to be installed, and 2 dwellings will be modified to fit facia and guttering. Harry Creek West has a solar/diesel hybrid power supply and a public phone.
    • Harry Creek East is situated in the railway corridor some distance from the bore that also supplies Harry Creek West. There are 3 tin houses in the railway corridor and a house. There has been talk about shifting these to another area. There are tapstands outside the tin sheds.
       
  • Yambah (Snake well)
    Approximately 18 people are resident in two 3 bedroom houses and 2 tin sheds. This group is still waiting on legal tenure. Service provision has slowed because of this.

    The bore produces a reasonably good supply for the number of people who live there. However the water is high in nitrates and it is said to be not good for drinking. People drink rainwater or carted water. When the tanks become low water is carted from the bore to tanks near the houses. In the last 12 months they have received carted water about 6 times. (6000L each time). Residents currently do not pay for water.
     

  • Gillen Bore
    There are approximately 8 regular residents. The population fluctuates and "there could be up to 30 people out the back". There are 3 brick houses (one 4 bedroom, one 3 bedroom and one 2 bedroom) and no tin sheds.

    The outstation has a reverse osmosis (RO) unit which has been in operation for the past five years. Detailed records of its functioning were not available at the time of the study. One local company reported that it had been asked to repair the system 2-3 times during the past three years due to systems failure. There is no established routine cyclical maintenance program. During the first CAT visit during October 1999 the system was working well. At the time of the second visit in August 2000 the system was not functioning. The outstation is sometimes occupied and sometimes not. At the time of the first visit people on site seemed unaware of the workings of the water system, they thought that they were drinking rainwater. The RO system was functioning at the time. Outside ablution blocks and pit latrines are used on the outstation.
     

  • Mpweringe-Arnapipe in general
    The outstations are all serviced by the Ingkerreke Outstation Resource Centre. The community has received a lot of assistance with water supply, sanitation and housing since the time of the Water Report. All families except Yambah now have legal title to land. Wherever possible water has been reticulated inside houses and tin sheds have stand pipes outside. Bringing water as close as possible seems to have been a primary focus. The amount of water carting to the outstations has decreased dramatically.

    A grant of $700,000 was approved by ATSIC for upgrades and installation of power and water infrastructure and hardware during 2 years from 1999-2000. As of September 1999 funding had not been received.

    It seems that the land which has been granted has very limited supplies of ground water. Because only stock route tenure has been granted, commercial ventures relating to land-use or which require significant portions of land or quantities of water, cannot be explored. People appear to rely on proximity to town and government support to make their lifestyle viable.

    • Despite this, people now seem to have a stronger sense of place since land titles were granted and infrastructure improved. Due to better infrastructure more people are now moving back to the outstations. It was reported by Ingkerreke, however, that this is putting more pressure on existing infrastructure in some cases.
       
    • Children take a daily school bus to Alice Springs and Central Australian Congress do a weekly medical run to the area. A DEETYA funded on-site primary health care training program is being organised by Ingkerreke.
    • Although people are much better established and catered for there may have been very little overall, systematic development planning either for the present or the future. Development has generally taken place in response to availability of one-off grants. No study has attempted to determine the maximum number of houses that each outstation can sustain given the available water supplies.
       
  • The water supply situation is much improved and the need to transport water to the area is greatly diminished. It is thought that water will be a significant problem in the future if there are population increases. Water quality testing costs $250 per sample and Ingkerreke says that it just has not had the budget to do it. Maintenance funding for water supplies was said to have been very limited.

    Maintenance is a problem due to the large variety of infrastructure and the lack of common parts.

    • A recent IHANT survey for the entire area serviced by Ingkerreke ascertained that water supplies were inadequate in both quantity and quality. The IHANT team estimated that $800,000 would be required for water supply upgrades and $100,000 for septic tank upgrades.

DARETON

The study presented the effects of a large infrastructure program on the social and organisational capacity of the community. The Water Report questioned the expectation that voluntary people can coordinate all the inputs for a million dollar project without technical assistance. The ability of Aboriginal people to maximise their control and involvement in these circumstances was critical to the ongoing success or sustainability of the investment in infrastructure. The study indicated little planning for long-term sustainability in this type of 'catch up' infrastructure program.

1994

Dareton's water supply was drawn from the Murray River and was chlorinated. There was no water treatment so the physical and chemical quality of the water was the same as river water. In Dareton turbidity was often high, at 20-150 Nephelometic Turbidity Units (NTUs). Rainwater was used for water for cooking and drinking. People complained about the build up of mud and sediment in hot water services.

The raw water supply to Namatjira Avenue and the Reserve was an extension of the Dareton town supply. There were rainwater tanks in houses at Namatjira Avenue but not at the shelters constructed by the people on the Reserve. Houses were not metered separately so household consumption was not recorded. The water pressure at Namatjira community was high.

At Old Merrinee, people had been camping for 10 years without water supply, solid and liquid waste disposal, or electricity supply, which had been partly due to uncertainty of land tenure.

  • Most dwellings had their own water tanks, and some residents had attempted to link roof-runoff to their water tanks. Two large tanks were filled from the nearby irrigation channel for 7 months of the year, and at other times the community organised water to be carted from some kilometres away, but this water was not of drinking quality.

In 1950 many families moved to an area east of the Reserve at Namatjira known as New Merrinee. In 1993 there was no connection to the Dareton water supply, and no other services of any kind were provided at New Merrinee. New Merrinee had no sewage disposal facilities other than a few pit toilets made by the community people themselves.

Dareton had a deep sewerage system which appeared to be working well for all residents. A gravity sewerage system was commissioned for Namatjira community in 1990.

  • There appeared to have been little community consultation about water and sanitation upgrades or community education. The sewerage system was constructed by the Shire and completely paid for by ATSIC. Despite this, Namatjira sewerage rates were higher than for Dareton and needed to be reviewed.

1999

The 1996 HIPP/AEHIP Infrastructure survey indicated a population of 254 at Namatjira with 91% of households having lived there for at least a year, and 87% for 5 years. The unemployment rate was 46% male and 14% female, and the workforce participation rate was 73% male and 25% female.

In Dareton itself, water supply is no longer considered a problem. New Merrinee now has a dual reticulated supply to the new houses, with filtered water from the Silver City Highway mains and unfiltered water from the old system. Filtered water is used inside houses and unfiltered outside and for flushing of toilets. The tin sheds are being gradually replaced, and people living in tin sheds use filtered water from standpipes.

  • For various reasons, the filtered main was layed adjacent to the northern boundary of the road reserve and the Shire Council did not supply filtered water to Namatjira. Although the Tripartite Program (TRIP) built a further 3 houses in Namatjira, a filtered water ring main, constructed as part of the project, serviced only these 3 of the 30 existing houses.

There have been ongoing disagreements with Wentworth Shire. In February 1999 there were high levels of blue-green algal blooms in the water supply, and the water was unfit for contact and drinking. After some interventions the Shire installed a filtered water hydrant at the community. The community still uses the hydrant for drinking water.

The Namatjira Working Party have now been granted $135,000 through the Aboriginal Community Development Program (ACDP) for potable water to the unserviced houses. During the latter part of 1999 the filtered water main was due to be laid to all existing houses.

Namatjira and New Merrinee currently have bulk water supply meters. After the completion of the ACDP water project all houses will have individual water meters permitting monitoring of excess usage. The majority of houses at all sites are now connected to a gravity sewerage system. Some houses at New Merrinee are still using pit latrines but this will change when the new houses are completed.

  • Other projects
    Dareton was one of the 3 project communities to receive funding through the Environmental Health Infrastructure Forum (AEHIF), which was formed in 1996. The AEHIF project was a pilot for interagency cooperation. Dareton was allocated $1m towards projects which the community identified. An 18 weeks clean up of Namatjira was funded using CDEP participants. 140 car bodies were collected, and then picked up by a recycling company. Now there is a crew of 6 CDEP workers under full time supervision to collect rubbish and remove bins, and this has made a big difference to the amount of rubbish around the community.

    The HIPP budget was $3.4m. The amount of available funding has now grown to about $6.5m (including administration fees).

    • The current budget includes an allocation for the construction of 15 houses at New Merrinee (under construction), and ACDP has given funding for another 5, bringing the total to 20 new houses (which meet the priorities of the Namatjira Working Party). Complete management of housing stock was due to be taken over by the Murdi Paaki Regional Housing Corporation in August 1999.
    • Other developments have also taken place in the area. For example, Namatjira now has a sports oval and basketball courts. Also included was funding through ACDP for defect inspections for all houses and a follow up study through the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning.
       

    Approximately $600,000 was allocated by the Department of Employment Workplace Relations and Small Business (DEWRSB) as a wage subsidy and the NSW Department of Education contributed to the cost of four full time TAFE trainers. These trainers are supervised by a community-based training provider, MADEC which is based in Mildura.

    • There are currently 20 apprentices remaining out of the 25 who started at the beginning of the course. Half of the trainees' wages are paid through the CDEP and half through DEWRSB.
    • Training is delivered on site so that people do not have to travel.
    • In Dareton the training program is reported to be working very well except for usual challenges.
    • Trainees are engaged in carpentry, bricklaying, and other activities including landscaping, revegetation and construction of sport facilities.
    • They built the depot for works at the beginning of the project, planted a vegetable garden and landscaped the works compound.

    In summary, water supply and sanitation services have been greatly improved due to major infrastructure projects undertaken in the area and a high degree of community and intersectoral input through the Namatjira Working Party. This Working Party is part of a broader, regional working party initiative, which falls under an ATSIC Regional Council/State Government agreement.

    The Murdi Paaki ATSIC Regional Council have been described as "visionary and creative" and their initiatives may be unique in the Australian context. They have a Regional Agreement with State Government for the funding of infrastructure and housing, and they negotiate with Government agencies using this agreement. The Murdi Paaki Housing and Infrastructure Regional Agreement is a high level agreement made between the Regional Council and the NSW Government in 1996. It is a joint agreement for delivery of housing and environmental health infrastructure services to all Aboriginal communities in the Region.

    "A Regional Council initiative, the Agreement integrates ATSIC, State, Local Government and other relevant agencies in a partnership approach to the delivery of these services." The regional agreement "brings participation to the grass-roots level, making significant steps towards achieving self-determination, self management and self sufficiency."(21)

The approach used has been to engage a single project manager for each community so that all projects within the community are integrated according to a comprehensive Community Housing and Environmental Health Plan. There are currently 12 projects funded in the Murdi Paaki Region through HIPP, ACDP, AHO, and NAHS.

  • The Regional Council has also set up a Regional Environmental Health Steering Committee, the Murdi Paaki Regional Housing Corporation and a Working Party Structure across the Murdi Paaki Region. The Namatjira Working Party in Dareton is a part of this structure and the extensive works undertaken in and around Dareton during the past 4 years come largely as a result of its activities. Improvement has not been limited to housing and infrastructure but subject to Working Party vision, extends to social and cultural initiatives.
    • An outcome from the Murdi Paaki Housing and Infrastructure Regional Agreement has been that the Regional Council has drawn $70m to the region over the last 3 years.
    • Another outcome has been that the Community Working Party approach has combined a whole of community with a whole of government approach.
    • The Community Working Party may have decreased factionalism partly by drawing together youth and leaders.
       
  • The Regional Council has established the Murdi Paaki Housing Corporation to manage community housing stock which housing Associations volunteer to hand over to the Corporation for a period of 5 years. They have also purchased a number of other houses from liquidated stock.
    • In August 1999 they were managing 500 houses in the region and collecting 96% of rents.
       
  • The Regional Council, with community support, is moving away from the usual application approach to funding, which is thought to have resulted in uncoordinated community development.
    • Through the Regional Agreement, holistic community plans, and strong Community Working Group input there has been some success with funding and management arrangements, including a move away from single year funding to integrated, longer-term, planned approaches based on demonstrated need.

TINGHA

Near Inverell in the Northern Tablelands of New South Wales, Tingha is not an Aboriginal community but a small town with a significant Aboriginal population within and around it. The study examined the type of consultation process and decisions taken by engineers and state and local government officers in planning a water supply network. The study demonstrated a local water supply strategy and looked at the ability of residents to pay for and cope with an improved level of service as proposed in documentation of the impending town water supply pipeline from Copeton Dam.

1994

In 1994 28 houses were occupied by Aboriginal people, dispersed throughout the residential area. Of the 28 households visited by the Water Report survey team, 6 houses needed major structural repairs. Occupants during the survey numbered 184, with a housing occupancy rate of around 6.4 (with 2-15 people per household). Some people lived in temporary shelters and structures further out of town.

At that time Tingha was the largest town in NSW without a water supply. When supplies of rainwater were scarce people purchased or carted water in their own drums from various sources around town. People had a well-defined water strategy although the quality was sometimes in question. Water was recycled, and was used for washing people, clothes and then to flush the toilet. Washing and personal hygiene was said to be inhibited by lack of water. Children could shower at school.

There was no attempt to identify the quality of the water that was being used by the residents (rainwater or carted water). The quality of this water was questionable. Water from old mining cuts was often polluted with bi-products of the mining process (such as arsenic). Maintenance practices on tanks and guttering were minimal.

When residents had to pay for carted water they paid approximately $50 per kL and used about 100 litres per person per day. Findings indicated that of the 28 houses surveyed, 4 houses were out of water; 13 households showered less because of restrictions, 8 took showers at the caravan park, 16 either carted water or brought it from a carrier, 9 mixed carted water with rainwater, 5 never ran out of water, and 2 refused to cart water.

Sanitation was identified as a problem, 11 houses with septic systems had problems with toilets. Toilets were flushed using left over water. There were also problems with toilets in times of heavy rain, when the soil did not absorb the water from the leach drains and the drains were seen to overflow and saturate the surrounding ground.

1999

In 1999 the population of Tingha was 730, 25% of whom were Aboriginal (approximately 183 people). The housing occupancy rate was 6-7 people per house, with some houses shared by 2 families. It had slightly increased since 1994.

  • When surveyed in 1997 housing was found to be of two types. Older style cottages up to 45 years old, and modern brick veneer houses less than 2 years old. In some cases local people complained of the standard of construction of some of the newer dwellings and commented that they felt they were given too little choice in the selection of a builder. Overcrowding was still a problem in the older houses and unhygienic conditions were found to exist in kitchens and bathroom areas. The 1997 Works Australia survey suggested that additional housing was a priority. Repairs and maintenance were also required in many houses.
     
  • A reticulated town water supply was installed in 1996. To make the system affordable a 150mm trunk main was installed between Inverell and the storage reservoir for Tingha. The line is 27kms long. The properties in the inner part of Tingha now have an 'instantaneous flow system' which provides normal water pressure and volume. All other consumers connected to the system have a 'constant flow system'. This means that each house has a rainwater tank which is also connected to the reticulated supply. When supplies of rainwater are low each household can top-up their tank by turning on a valve. Water is delivered over time at a low volume. A basic water rate is payable plus another fee for volume used. Water quality was described as 'generally satisfactory' and is checked monthly.
     
  • The initial visit report for NAHS undertaken by Works Australia in 1997 indicated the community had no common sewerage system and relied on 3 different solutions. Most of the town relied on septic tanks and absorption trenches for sewage disposal. However, the sandy soil and rock substrate are inherently unsuitable for septic systems and sewage overflows and seepage were common.
    • The problems had worsened since town water was connected. Surcharging of septic systems is almost continual. Aboriginal households were particularly affected due to overcrowding.
    • The shire council has been working on matters relating to the installation of a new system for the past 3 years.
       
  • There were 2 systems of the transpiration type, with one already at capacity and there was some seepage into the local creek. The other, at the hospital also included an irrigation system. 40 houses in Tingha were served by the Council pan service (including some Tingha Aboriginal Corporation houses).
     
  • In 1999 there were approximately 25 houses occupied by Aboriginal people. Other houses had been demolished or were too damaged to live in. Anecdotal information confirmed that people were happy with their water system but also suggested that most people still prefer to drink rainwater.
    • There had been continuing problems with effluent disposal from a total of 25 septic tanks in Tingha (around 10% of households). In general the problem related to house lots of less than the recommended 1000 cubic metre minimum area located in the village.
       
  • Even though the sewerage system is a problem at present, work on a new system was scheduled to begin during 1999. The sanitation project has then been 3 years in development, and it has reportedly been difficult to secure funding.
    • The Tingha Sewerage Scheme will be jointly funded as follows: 66% from the DLWC, 25% from ATSIC, and 9% from DAA/ACDP. ATSIC has approved a 100% grant to include connection of Aboriginal Houses to the common effluent system.

DOOMADGEE

A Deed of Grant of Land in Trust (DOGIT) community in the Queensland gulf country north of Mt Isa, Doomadgee was the largest community studied. It had experienced a high degree of social trauma in the past. The study examined the anomalies of a policy of Aboriginal control and self management when used among a large population base. The level of service and support required to maintain water and sanitation infrastructure in a community of this size was shown to work directly against goals of Aboriginal self-determination and self-management. Increasing amounts of community budgets were devoted to maintaining higher levels of service with subsequent loss in other areas of community activity.

1994

In 1988 there were 155 houses and 4 tin shacks in Doomadgee. 120 houses were considered habitable and 12 unfit for living. The housing occupancy rate was 6.4 officially and 9.4 per household by CAT survey calculations. Four outstations were resourced in the Nicholson area.

Water was pumped from the Nicholson river at an outlet located upstream, and adjacent to the airport. A second inlet from a weir on the river was 700 metres downstream of the settlement. Water was drawn from natural waterholes by means of a screened intake across the main river channel at the base of the river sands. The intakes were connected to reinforced concrete pump wells on the northern bank of the river from where water was pumped to the township. At the township the raw water was aerated, clarified and chlorinated and then pumped into a 2ML capacity ground level storage tank. The water was then pumped into a 275kL capacity elevated tank. At the time of the first Water Report survey a weir had been proposed. The council had adopted a policy to fit rainwater tanks to each house. Water quality tests showed high levels of manganese and iron.

A common effluent system was constructed in 1991. Household liquid wastes were disposed of into individual septic tanks and there was some concern that septic effluent may seep into the water storage.

1999

The population in 1999 is estimated at approximately 1200 people. There were 138 habitable houses in 1997/98. Of a total 117 houses at June 1999, there were 87 in good condition, 20 requiring major renovation, and 10 requiring demolition. There was an estimated housing need of 30 new houses. There is still little or no maintenance of health hardware inside the houses. The Council proposes to continue developing community housing on the outstations using other funding sources.

  • The weir was constructed in 1992. The water supply is reported to be working well and is overseen by an Essential Services Officer, a Council employee, who was appointed in 1993.
    • Water quality is tested monthly. Water is pumped from the weir through a filtration plant to a 50,000L tank. A duplicate water treatment plant is being installed in 1999 by DATSIPAD at a cost of approximately $680,000. The weir is not fenced. Although the current system is operating well the disposal of stormwater is still a problem which needs to be addressed.
    • Storm water discharges directly into the weir from which the town draws its water. Effective litter traps and a management program for them should be considered. Stormwater traps were reported to be blocked by rubbish. The ESO commented that stormwater erosion of the river bank had escalated during the past year and was approaching the rising main and the underground power supply.
    • The weir was silting up with dirt as anticipated, however this did not appear to affect the water quality because the intakes are approximately 5 metres below the river sand level. However, water filtration systems have to work harder as a result of the high silt content.
    • The ESO had been operating and maintaining the system for 6 years. He had no local counterpart. A new system was about to be installed so that the system can be monitored remotely. This method will work by means of phone and computer. The system relies on one person to run and maintain it.
       
  • There were no water meters to individual houses in Doomadgee. No-one in Doomadgee pays for water. Water usage was estimated by the ESO as approximately 1.2mL per day. (1000l/p/d)
     
  • The community sewerage system is reported to be working well. The system design eliminated grease traps and was reported to have been operating well without them. The system is Council maintained.
     
  • It was noted that many people cannot afford electricity.
     
  • Scheduled projects included
    • Under NAHS-EHP of ATSIC for 1998/99, $6.6m was allocated for provision of additional housing, renovations and some supporting infrastructure.
    • DPW&H were to provide 8 houses in 1997/98 worth $0.7m, with 3 on outstations.
    • DATSIPAD are providing a duplicating water treatment plant and remedial works valued at $680,000.
       
  • The water supply and sanitation systems were much improved since the 1994 Water Report. Although the systems were functioning well there were some points of concern.
    • There was no-one else within the community who has the technical expertise to manage the systems, and if the current ESO leaves there could be problems with continuity and standard of service.
       
  • Individual household use was not monitored. The systems being introduced were fully subsidised, no-one pays for water, sewerage or electricity, and it is questionable whether many households could afford to do so.
     
  • Housing survey figures indicate that the number of habitable houses has dropped(22). Rental collection and housing maintenance and management appears to be an ongoing problem.
    • It is questionable whether continuing to construct new houses and repair old ones will improve the situation in the long-term unless the underlying causes of housing deterioration and lack of maintenance and management are addressed.
       
  • Despite significant improvement in the living environment at Doomadgee there was clearly a level of social dysfunction which has to be addressed concurrently with the overcrowding and pressure on housing which currently results in reduced lifespan and more rapid deterioration of housing.

BOIGU ISLAND

This 'mud' island is only 4km from Papua New Guinea (PNG). The case study demonstrated the different culture of Islanders and their need for separate consideration in technical decisions, particularly where people have very little land available for settlement and where their foreshores are subject to tidal surge and inundation by salt water. A lack of water supply options, combined with technical responses which dismissed rainwater as a real option, limited the development options for Boigu.

1994

The primary water storage facilities were three excavated earth storage tanks (only two were in use). Tank #1 and tank #3 were filled by runoff from the north of the airstrip and school area, and some of the adjoining land. The system storage also included a 90kL elevated storage tank and an old twin 9kL ground level tank (18kL). Additional water was stored in individual household tanks (total additional 112 kL). Overall storage capacity was therefore 220kL.

The supply design was based on supply level a minimum of 250L/p/d irrespective of a wet or dry year and a desirable level of 500 L/p/d. There was no monitoring of water use. Given the population of 330 and the total volume of water consumed each day it was estimated that 180L/p/d was used. It was estimated that if consumption increased from 180-250L/p/d then tank #2 would need to be bought into action and 70% of the airstrip used as catchment rather than 40%.

Water disinfection was by means of a solution prepared from calcium hypochlorite powder which was dispensed into the discharge main in quantities that were supposed to match the actual volume of water being pumped. The community indicated that the chlorinator had only worked for 2 weeks since it was installed in late 1987. Despite the closeness of living and storage areas water quality had not been tested this was attributed to logistical problems related to remoteness. There was still a heavy preference for household rainwater for drinking and cooking purposes.

One problem identified with the system was that the two sets of pumps (one solar driven, the other diesel driven) had a number of controls attached that tended to malfunction.

For sewage disposal the majority of homes used pans. Sewage was disposed of between tides on the beaches. The new school had septic tanks which were discharged into a holding tank. Effluent was pumped into absorption trenches west of the village. All houses were planned to have flush toilets with septic tanks. It was anticipated that the subsequent increased water demand would create some pressure on the current water resource size and reliability.

1999

In 1999 the population of Boigu was 340 people. 1997 was the driest year on record due to the combination of a very poor rainfall and population increase. The water supplies on Boigu, Kubin, St Pauls and Murray Islands all failed and other islands experienced significant shortages. Island Councils and DNR organised and funded transportation of water by barge to these communities.

  • During 1998 GHD compiled the Planning Reports for Boigu on water supply, sanitation and solid waste disposal. The work on the water supply augmentation is now underway (as part of Stage 2 Torres Strait Water Upgrade) and was due for completion by Christmas 1999. A new storage dam was under construction, that is, Lagoon #3 was being enlarged to 20ML (6 months supply), lined and covered. During construction the community was getting by with an open storage system
     
  • A $340,000 desalination plant was approved and was scheduled for installation during 1999. The desalination plant will be able to produce 180 kL/day. Water will be drawn from the sea by a submersible pump hung from the end of the pier. Desalinated water will be pumped into the covered storage dam. The total system was estimated to cost $2.8 million.
    • The desalination plant will be used when the top 3 or 4ML of water has been used out of the excavated tank. The plant will then be operated for 2-3 months. If this system is followed and the plant breaks down there should still be close to 12ML of storage (or 4 months supply) at any time. Residues from the desalination plant will either go back out to the creek on the other side of the island, east of the airstrip, or out to the sea.
    • Options were still under consideration. The desalination facility manager will possibly be a DNR employee, based within the proposed Facilities Management Unit on Thursday Island or alternatively a contractor will maintain the plant for the first 2 years from completion of works.
    • The plant will be designed and installed to make sure that no one needs to be there to operate it all the time. The system will be controlled and monitored remotely by DNR from Thursday Island and the plant manufacturer. A weekly inspection would be required and basic daily checks undertaken. The machinery can be serviced on a monthly basis. This frequency of servicing falls within the life of the chemicals to be used.
       
  • A desalination plant had been in operation on Yam Island for 4 years. This was the sole source of water on the island. It was run by local Water Officers with support from DNR Technical staff. The unit generally produced the required volumes, however quality has been variable. DNR believe that the new system at Boigu will benefit from the lessons learnt on Yam.
     
  • Boigu Island's sewage disposal system remains very much as it was. Government houses now comprise 10% of the community (these are for teachers and other government staff). These houses have septic systems with absorption trenches however they have proven to be problematic, especially during the wet season.
    • Other community houses still have the pan system. Pans are still being emptied on the beach. Much of the sewage is washed back up on the shore due to the nature of prevailing currents in the area.
       
  • Construction was scheduled to start on the sewerage system in Boigu in 2000 as part of the Torres Strait Major Infrastructure Program, and be completed by June 2000.
    • A full reticulated system with a central pumping station directed to primary and secondary sewerage lagoons was the option recommended by the Project Manager however, there were.
    • immediate financial constraints" and competing priorities for Major Infrastructure Program funding. " Treatment ponds are claimed to be easier to manage, maintain and have lower operating costs than a package treatment plant, however they represent a higher capital investment. It was estimated that the treatment pond option would cost approximately $6m due to the amount of swamp land reclamation that would be necessary.
    • The package treatment plant option is estimated at $2.4m. Although the package treatment plants are more viable in terms of initial capital outlay, should be noted that the plants being considered may not have been used in remote Indigenous settings in the past and there are some concerns about reliability.
  • Community consultation appears to be improving and community education is now a part of project design. For complex systems, it seems that maintenance will be provided by a combination of remote monitoring, and external visits by qualified technicians. This point is significant, and issues relating to community control and participation in the short and medium term need to be considered.
     
  • Maintenance funding has not yet been secured for the assets generated by this phase of the Torres Strait Major Infrastructure Program. At present there does not appear to be an Islander qualified to take on the management and maintenance of a desalination and package sewerage treatment plant as proposed for Boigu Island. The present water and sanitation systems operating in the Straits are currently maintained by the Islanders themselves (with various levels of backup assistance from DNR).
     
  • Package sewerage treatment plants are more complex and maintenance needs will probably be higher. A decision has not yet been made regarding the disposal of sludge and no environmental impact study has been completed. Should the treatment plant fail at any time it has been emphasised that the community will not come directly in touch with raw sewage.

COCONUT ISLAND

This island is in the central eastern group of islands beside the main shipping route through the Torres Strait. The people on Coconut Island presented very clearly their dependence on the sea water for the maintenance of their culture. Their interpretation of water rights included access to marine waters, without which their culture dies. The other pertinent issue raised at Coconut Island was the limiting effect of Aboriginal Affairs policy on Islanders. The case study demonstrated the need to consider the nature of future appropriate policies once programs designed to redress disadvantage have achieved their purpose. It was clear that for Coconut Islanders there was not a strong sense of disadvantage, even though they were still able to access programs which were largely 'special measures' designed to redress disadvantage. It was clear, however, that mainstream policies would not adequately support the maintenance of a separate cultural identity which continued to express itself through different values and practices on Coconut Island.

In addition to this philosophical question, there were practical problems concerning contamination of the community water supply and periodic episodes of sickness related to the local method of night soil disposal into the sea.

1994

A photovoltaic solar array was located within the water supply catchment compound and produced electricity which charges the battery bank in the adjacent building. The airstrip takes up 1/3 of the island and 360kL of water was required over the 4 month dry period to water the grass.

The water system was originally constructed in 1987. The water system catchment was approximately 14,000 sq metres of bituminised catchment. Break up of the bituminised catchment surface was reducing efficiency of the system and there was a suspected leak.

There were two 5ML excavated ground storage tanks (lined and covered). Runoff from the bitumen surfaced catchment area was channelled through inlet chambers which were designed to collect grit and organic matter before water storage. Rainfall collected on top of the cover was pumped into the catchment but was often used to water the airstrip. The pump was inadequate, the water on the roof of the dam was often stagnant and thought to be a possible source of contamination.

There were also a number of other reservoirs. Water was pumped to a 60kL storage tank elevated 12m above the ground then reticulated to a 4,500 litre fibreglass tank at each dwelling (62kL total). The top half of the household tank was supposed to be filled by rainwater runoff from the roof. Two other 40kL ground level reservoirs had also been constructed. Therefore the total storage (exclusive of the main storage reservoir) was 202kL. It was estimated at that time that the current town water storage available in the reservoirs and the house tanks should be adequate for at least a further five years and to the year 2000. The design of the system was based on a desirable supply level of 250L/p/d.

The water disinfection process used chlorine solution dispensed by an automatic chlorinator. There was no system for regular water testing. Most people had by-passed their rainwater tank with the town supply because they felt safer drinking the unmixed rainwater supply and did not want to risk contamination from the town supply.

The sewerage system was based mainly on the pan system for disposal of toilet wastes. The Island Council generally provided a twice weekly collection service and sewage was disposed of between tides on the beach at the western end of the island. Kitchen, bathroom and laundry wastes (sullage) were generally disposed of on the ground adjacent to each dwelling.

1999

The population in 1999 was 188 people. The Island Council had received numerous requests from people wishing to return and the population was still primarily affected by the level of available housing and land, and the level of services provided. There are now 45 occupied residences on the island (there were 30 at the time of the Water Report). Also located within the community were support facilities, council offices, medical aid, post, church and store.

  • The Coconut Island water supply was upgraded and refurbished in 1995. The dam was relined, and a new geomembrane cover fitted. The system could supply 37.5 kL per day for a population of 150 people. Rain which falls onto the floating covers was pumped underneath via two cover pumps. The water was pumped from the storages to an elevated 60 kL reservoir. Water was then reticulated from the elevated storage to the community. (as at the time of the Water report).
     
  • Each house had at least two rainwater tanks of at least 10kL each (the households capacity to store rainwater had been increased) and five 120kL fibreglass tanks were situated throughout the community to collect stormwater runoff from other buildings. If these tanks were full then the water can be (and is) pumped from the tanks into the fire hydrants and back to the dam. There were approximately 80 new 10kL tanks in total. The town also had eight 10ML tanks which are filled from rooves or pumped from the dam to the tanks or the tanks to the dam depending on the amount of rainfall. There was adequate volume of water provided seasonal rains were reliable and water use remained within limits.
     
  • Water use had increased since 1996, it was around the 250-300L/p/d mark. Although rainfall in 1999 was better than in past years, DNR reported that there was an over-consumption problem at the moment and they were helping Council to manage it.
    • Island Water Officers send figures to DNR who analyse and feed information back to community for action. At the time of interview, engineers were concerned that they may not have enough water to last until the rainy season.
    • Reasons for over consumption may include plumbing leaks, visitors etc.
       
  • The amount of water available to the people on Coconut Island is limited. It is a finely tuned system . With a population of 188 the usage required to make sure that there is enough water is 250 L/p/d. If consumption creeps up to say 400L/p/d there will be problems.
    • For comparison, the average usage in Queensland is 800 L/p/d. DNR sent the 'Water Wise' program over to the islands several times over the past 12 months. There had to be very stringent consumption monitoring. There was a full time, active and experienced IWO who receives regular support and backup from Thursday Island/DNR. Getting to the island is expensive, however, and seating availability on planes is limited.
       
  • Chlorine dosing was undertaken at the pump building. The water was treated with Sodium hypochlorite dosing and filtration by sand/anthracite filter. The water was premium quality and meets NH&MRC guidelines. DNR recently did 60-70 samples over 6-8 months. Samples were taken from 5 different places in the town supply and 1 from a tank each time.
    • 99% of the water from the rainwater tanks was dirty and yet people still seem to prefer to drink it. Most houses still use this water for drinking even though the town supply is of much better quality.
    • It appears that people do not like the smell or taste of chlorine even when chlorine levels are acceptable.
       
  • In 1996 approximately 50% of the dwellings were still serviced by the pan sanitation system. There were 23 septic installations and 27 pan systems operating. There was a three times weekly emptying service.
    • At the time of the Water Report there were only 3-4 households had septic systems and pans were collected twice weekly.
    • The Total Management Plan for the Island noted that the pan system still constituted a major public health problem. The system was "poorly regarded by the community".
       
  • Pans were still being emptied into trenches by the beach. Coconut Island did not have a funding allocation for improvements. The Major Infrastructure Program was committed to the goal of providing flush toilets to all Torres Strait Islands by 2001.
    • This will initially entail completion of septics to all houses, with reticulated sewerage programmed for later once funds are available.
    • The increase in water use as a result will have to be closely monitored. If a sewerage system incorporating flush toilets were introduced then the system would be undersized by 10-15 %.
       
  • All the alternative water supply augmentation options have been discussed but they are limited. The leasing of a desalination plant was being investigated.
    • It was intended that the desalination unit will be a mobile unit that will be shared between about four islands when there was insufficient water to see the communities through the dry season. In order to cut costs the Island will only utilise the unit when absolutely necessary.
    • They would have a trained operator with it to obviate the need for ongoing maintenance costs as well as capital outlay. A supplier was being approached to provide 50-60kL per day.
    • The actual cost of desalination water is estimated at between 0.25 to 0.5 cents per litre (but the figures provided varied and have not been validated).
    • Supporting the Island Water Officers is often difficult because of remoteness and due to limitations of funding, lack of availability of transport, and limited formal education.
       
  • It was reported in the Coconut Island Total Management Plan(23) that people still prefer to drink rainwater than the treated supply even though the treated supply meets all quality standards.

It appears that increased availability of technological solutions and major infrastructure funding programs combined with an active program of needs assessment based on reduction of comparative disadvantage, have all contributed to a heightened level of community expectation which was not necessarily matched by logistic feasibility, human capacity or expressed community preference.

Chapter Four

Comparative Assessment of Services in the Ten Case Study Communities

This chapter provides a comparative assessment between case study communities focussing on

  • the effectiveness of contractors
  • Indigenous involvement
  • training and employment
  • technical compliance and quality indicators
  • sustainability of supply
  • health outcomes, and
  • client satisfaction.

The main sources of information for the majority of communities were interviews with key stakeholders, and review of a range of program and project documentation including design and planning reports, evaluations (of HIPP, NAHS and other programs) and individual project records. Documentation was made available by various program and project managers, government agencies and other stakeholders.(24)

This review provided an opportunity to consider positive trends relating to water and sanitation facilities (hardware) and social processes in a general sense. Such an assessment could be made against criteria such as whether:

  • communities and outstations have improved access to water of sufficient quality and quantity to meet their needs
  • communities have access to technologically robust, appropriate water supply and sanitation
  • water and sanitation systems are affordable within the constraints of disposable income at the household level, and external funding at the community and outstation level
  • current/planned water and sanitation systems are environmentally sustainable in the medium and longer term, and
  • planning, operational and management processes provide opportunities for Indigenous supervision, employment, training and choice.

Effectiveness Of Contractors And Relevant Authorities

Program management initiatives through such programs as the HIPP, NAHS-EHP, the State/Murdi Paaki Regional Council Agreement in NSW, the Torres Strait Water Upgrade Program, and the Western Water Study in the NT, have all made positive contributions to the delivery of water and sanitation services in Indigenous communities.

The NAHS program managers and project managers working on other similar programs (such as the Torres Strait Major Infrastructure Program) have provided communities and Government with

  • increased assurance regarding project management
  • more clearly defined contractual obligations
  • increased technical supervision at all levels
  • improved observance of regulations and standards, and
  • more robust technical design and regular project reporting and financial accountability.

The amount of written documentation and reporting on projects conducted under this framework is impressive.

Although the positive outcomes noted above have been verified in evaluation reports, some concerns have been expressed at the matrix of responsibility between the program manager, the project manager, the project contractor (possibly sub-contractors) and the community itself. Potential negative effects include

  • increased overall program administration costs
  • an increased number of players, and
  • complexity of coordination.

In such circumstances it is more difficult to ensure community participation in decision-making at all levels. In terms of local empowerment, the project manager/program manager approach appears to have worked well where communities have strongly established local management in place. In these situations successful projects can serve to reinforce existing structures through experience gained in designing and managing projects.

In less well organised communities however, there is a tendency for project managers to control projects more fully, leaving communities with less opportunity to participate in management or develop local capacity and management skills. The success of a project rests more with project managers and less with the community itself. In the past five years there has been a targetting/prioritising of response to need and overall 'relief of disadvantage' through large scale health infrastructure projects. These projects have been largely aimed at catching up on a priority list of essential 'emergency' works.

There are a number of good examples of close working relationships between consultants and communities. While it is still evolving, the work undertaken at Dareton to date indicates a much stronger community voice and involvement in planning of projects than existed at the time of the 1994 Water Report.

Clearly, the NAHS projects have enabled a greater number of consultants and contractors to develop their skills in working with Indigenous communities. This in turn provides a greater pool of experienced technical people whom Indigenous communities can call upon. It should be noted, however, that in a couple of cases it was difficult for communities and project managers to find suitable, willing contractors to undertake the work.

It is encouraging that approaches to the work are changing. For example organisations are more likely to require their employees to attend cultural awareness training or employ a cultural adviser. However, performance of project managers still varies and some are more equipped to take on this multi-faceted task than others. Several participants noted that success was related to very specific individual communication skills, attitudes and understanding.

In a couple of case study areas there were issues of concern where local government or shire structures were also involved. There were examples where relationships had been inclusive and cooperative and others where ongoing communication problems had hindered progress.

The use of the private sector as project and program managers has brought professional management, quality systems and financial and technical accountability to projects. While time is money and projects are of short-term duration, commercial firms may be less likely to develop long-term relationships with a community. Lack of continuity of relationship is often a problem for communities when solutions to long-term needs are approached through short-term contracts. Long-term issues of sustainability depend on the degree to which support services become institutionalised. Current methods of project delivery may not address this adequately. In the past it was presumed that public sector agencies could provide this institutional support however, early outcomes of the national competition policy suggest this may no longer be the case in remote parts of Australia.

The ATSIC/Army Community Assistance Program has the capacity to work at the margins of a commercial project delivery framework. The involvement of the Army presents a new opportunity and there is evidence that the opportunistic work they have conducted at Oak Valley has been significant in developing positive relationships with the community.

Some state government employees have expressed concerns with outsourced program management. It is not unusual for state government to have responsibility for the design and installation, as well as for operation and maintenance of infrastructure. For example, the Department of Natural Resources in Queensland has joint responsibility for the multi-million dollar Torres Strait Water Upgrade and DOSAA has ongoing responsibility for infrastructure development and maintenance in 19 communities in South Australia.

Where state or territory agencies are required to provide ongoing maintenance of systems there can be increased potential for negative impacts in the long-term if they are not engaged in the design and specification stage of the project. For example, technology choices may differ, materials and equipment used may be incompatible with other systems in the region, there is the potential for over specification or less emphasis may be placed on recurrent costs when choosing technologies. This can lead to increased recurrent operational and maintenance costs. This was not found to be an issue where agencies were involved more intensively in project planning (PAWA in the Northern Territory was cited as an example).

Contracted program and project managers are not funded to provide an institutionalised response to the long-term infrastructure needs of communities. They are working on immediate priority needs. As long as their responsibility ceases at the end of the defects liability period or their contractual term it will be difficult to maintain long-term support of asset management.

It would be useful for ATSIC to revisit its relationship with long-term Regional Service Providers to determine the impact of short-term projects on their operations. It may also be useful for ATSIC to evaluate the effectiveness of current ATSIC/state infrastructure maintenance agreements in order to assess their overall effectiveness, the benefits that have resulted, and the constraints that limit their effectiveness.

Indigenous Involvement

Recommendation 1 of the 1994 Water Report stated

Community Control: That Government at all levels recognise the vital element of community control in the effective provision of services and review relevant legislation and structures to provide for the establishment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander service provision authorities.

The NAHS guidelines and contractual arrangements called for increased levels of consultation with Indigenous people. The CNPM records an average number of visits to communities by project managers during planning and implementation of over 9 per project compared with 5 previously.

Community involvement has largely been through the Community Councils (or equivalent) or elected representatives at the community level. It was not clear whether program and project managers have tested levels of increased community awareness and involvement beyond the Community Councils. Councils have competing and varied demands placed upon them. It is questionable to what extent they can be expected to take on the role of community facilitator and educator for issues that are outside their area of expertise.

One example of improved broad consultation was on Boigu Island in the Torres Strait and throughout the islands more generally. Photographs of sewage systems similar to those being installed are used to explain options to the Islanders and maps have been placed around the Island to stimulate discussion about appropriate positioning of pipelines. These aids were used as part of an ongoing communication process.

In larger scale infrastructure programs, such as HIPP and NAHS, iterative planning is generally focussed at the community level. ATSIC Regional Councils and their respective Regional Plans are consulted at the pre-planning stage before individual community assessments are undertaken. During project implementation Regional Councils are sent monthly or bi-monthly progress reports and are briefed on request. It was noted that not all Regional Councils demonstrated interest in being involved. The CNPM also had a responsibility to work with State and Territory agencies to ensure projects were integrated or compatible with state/territory works programs.

It has been difficult to sustain meaningful community involvement within a project delivery framework which is not linked to longer-term institutional or strong local or regional frameworks. Projects have also been undertaken in a number of cases where funding for long-term maintenance is not assured. Projects can be one-off, isolated interventions instead of being one stage in a longer process of community development and planning. Resources revolve around the project, community involvement becomes an event within the project rather than one part of a strategic, long-term process for community improvement.

One balancing factor has been the move towards holistic community planning in a number of cases. For example, the Aboriginal Community Development Program in NSW requires the undertaking of comprehensive community survey work prior to commencement of work. Information is drawn from all sectors and active community participation is part of the overall approach. Similar comprehensive planning approaches are also being undertaken in the Murdi Paaki region of NSW and in the Torres Strait, with the formulation of the Total Management Plan for the Torres Strait.

Training, Employment And Support For Indigenous People

There have been work opportunities generated by various projects. The CNPM recorded 19,000 person days of employment to June 1998 on all NAHS projects. The ATSIC evaluation points out that there is no indication what this means for Indigenous people beyond the life of the project. It would certainly be valuable to visit communities two years after project completion to understand how the employment may have been useful.

Performance indicators for large-scale infrastructure programs currently include job creation as a measure of program success. Overall, however, it can be said that few Aboriginal people are employed during the implementation of water supply and sanitation projects specifically. Employment is more likely to be generated through housing projects and even here, figures generally remain low for these types of projects, though there are examples of successful initiatives.

Large scale infrastructure programs currently being implemented in Australia are different from international community-based public works programs. The use of machinery, the existence of the social welfare net, and CDEP, have a significant impact on project design possibilities in this country.

Training provision has been one of the most difficult elements of the NAHS projects thus far. Caught between the need to deliver project inputs on time and within budget, opportunities are limited. There is unambiguous public pressure to 'fix' glaring deficiencies in living conditions of Indigenous people. There is a clear contradiction between the types of employment opportunities that arise from the NAHS type projects, and the type of training support offered through formal technical training and the commonwealth and state funding for training.

This is real chicken and egg problem. Should one train to be job ready when the job arrives or should one train when there is something meaningful to do. ATSIC have identified training as a concern for the next round of NAHS projects. In these projects they have agreed to target training for ongoing maintenance and management of operations as a matter of priority.

In the Oak Valley project the Army training corps invested considerable resources in course development and implementation. The project Design Report cited skills transfer training as one of its 'critical success factors'. Formal training included training in environmental health, plant operation and water truck operation. Plant operation training was 'mildly successful' as only two community members attended. Both trainees passed the theoretical test, but only one passed the practical test, and both were disqualified from driving at the time. The training in water truck operation was more successful, four community members attended and four passed the training. Two of these obtained licences. The other two were disqualified from driving at the time. The environmental health training was 'not successful' with only two community members attending for any significant length of time. 'These members attended for a maximum of 10 hours which was not enough to convey the necessary information'.(25)

Despite these outcomes, the Army project was flexible enough to accommodate a number of opportunity tasks which assisted the community more broadly. It remains difficult to generate long-term employment from projects with limited timeframes. Sustainability may require career pathways to be strengthened. For example, the Environmental Health Worker and Island Water Officer positions which are currently being strengthened and supported to varying extents in the Torres Strait.

The project at Dareton and the proposed work structure in the Torres Strait provide best practice examples where a regional response has enabled people to more appropriately address training and employment issues over a number of projects across a region. The Murdi Paaki Housing Company has also taken over management of some 500 houses in the region. This means that employment prospects for the trainees can be meaningful beyond the life of the project. At the time of the 1994 Report there were 4 Indigenous members who were building trades people and none of them were involved in projects at that time.

The Torres Strait is clearly planning for the future through the training of Island Water Officers (IWOs). Although a number of IWOs are successful and very capable of fulfilling current job requirements, their current level of training and technical competence limits the level and type of technology that can be sustained using local employment. Clearly the choice of complex technology will do little to enhance employment options in the water sector in the region unless a program of recruitment and training for increased levels of technical competence is initiated.

Technical Compliance And Quality Indicators

Recommendation 4 of the 1994 Water Report stated

Technical Advice: That ATSIC continue to consider and address the means by which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities receive and respond to scientific and technical advice; and assess the need for independent community-controlled review of options prior to endorsement of projects, consultants and policies.

The system of program management introduced by ATSIC in the NAHS-EHP model has dramatically improved the technical compliance and quality indicators of projects. While there are intermittent problems on some sites, the quality and quantity of water available at Coconut Island, Boigu Island, Tingha, Dareton, Yalata and Mpweringe-Arnapipe is on the whole better and more consistent than it was in 1994.

Equally, the jurisdictions have developed much higher levels of collaboration, largely as a result of the CNPM and Project Managers moving between State and Commonwealth and the communities.

The model that has emerged with the Murdi Paaki Regional Council and the developments at Dareton deserve further examination.

The 'Housing for Health' methodology has had considerable influence in both government and non-government sectors. The result has been on the whole, an improvement in design standards and specifications for a range of health hardware. This work has increased awareness of the importance of maintaining environmental health hardware and the link between hardware and health. Many jurisdictions have responded to these messages by regulating performance guidelines and design standards. For example, the Environmental Health Standards for Remote Communities in the Northern Territory (1998) were influenced by the approach and various housing surveys undertaken throughout Australia are modelled on the concept.

It remains to be seen whether prescriptive design standards and levels of regulation increase the lifecycle and reduce the failure rates of new health hardware. Complex technologies and inappropriate design standards can make it difficult for Indigenous people to take an active part in operating and maintaining systems after project completion. They can also make it more difficult for Aboriginal people to build structures which they believe are appropriate to their situation.

Emerging regulations require higher orders of skill to complete tasks or construct work to the required standard or specification. This increase in standards, regulation and supervision has also increased the overall costs of infrastructure provision, although it is argued that extended life and improved system performance will offset this investment.

For example, there are requirements for two septic tanks per house in Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. It is possible that the decision to adopt such a standard has been partly driven by an inability to address the underlying problems associated with household water leaks, high household occupancy rates, over consumption of water or the lack of a long-term solutions for pumping out septic tanks. While providing a fail-safe design the standard only adds to the initial cost without necessarily addressing the cause of the problem.

At Oak Valley, new houses were fitted with septic tanks in order to comply with South Australian standards, even though there were no flush toilets in the community.

It was reported that the water supply at Punmu was not working properly because the telemetry had broken down. Valves to the tanks had to be activated locally and manually. Increasing numbers of water systems (Punmu, Coonana, Boigu Island [scheduled], and Doomadgee) rely on remote or external interventions for monitoring of system performance and operating and maintaining the systems. This option is partly related to the complexity of the systems being introduced and to other factors such as ease of maintenance, reduction of costs or lack of skills and ongoing dedicated human resources.

These technological advances have both positive and negative impacts on communities. The negatives are often not apparent to communities at the time of consultation.

Efficiency, Effectiveness and Sustainability Of Supply

Recommendation 5 of the 1994 Water Report stated

Sustainable Development: That peak Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups consider the implications of the prevailing technology-led control-oriented development paradigm (based principally on sameness of service) in terms of its appropriateness for longer-term sustainable development of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, particularly in small remote locations.

It is argued that in almost all case study communities the technical efficiency would be such that there was sufficient quantity and quality of water to allow people to effectively improve their personal health and hygiene if the housing and living conditions were adequate. It is also clear that as moves towards cost recovery or user contribution are imposed on communities these efficient systems may well become less effective. Although user pays options are being considered in some cases, systems are not generally being installed with client affordability as a significant design parameter. Systems still rely on continuous, external funding support in most cases.

There is evidence of increased ongoing costs associated with the operation and maintenance of improved water supplies. Conversely, there is little evidence or analysis of how and why simpler, lower cost or more labour intensive systems have failed or been replaced.

There is evidence of increased levels of dependency on outside resources, human and financial, as increasingly complex or larger scale systems are introduced. The water treatment system at Doomadgee works well because it is operated by a long standing ESO. The water treatment at Yalata is said to work well now because it is maintained by the DOSAA. Increased sophistication of technologies (particularly water quality treatment systems) has certainly led to greater centralisation of control and authority over systems. This is a logical consequence of increasingly complex levels of infrastructure.

The signs to date are that the increased complexity of infrastructure creates greater community dependency on outside assistance and funding. Until there is willingness and opportunity for Indigenous skills to meet these needs, perhaps within a regional framework if necessary, there will be more work and an ongoing need for people who generally come from outside the community.

Other studies by CAT indicate that in some communities around 30% of hot water services are not working because people cannot pay for power. The consequence is that they are unable to access hot water which has an immediate and direct influence on healthy living practices in arid areas.

Both the HIPP evaluation and NAHS performance audit highlight sustainability of systems, in terms of community capacity and financial resources, as an important but elusive outcome. It seems that more emphasis on demand-responsive delivery may enhance sustainability. Implicit in this paradigm shift is the substitution of the notion of 'beneficiaries' of services with that of 'consumers' of services. Where services are consumer driven, demand is more sophisticated than just an expression of need or desire. Effective demand implies the establishment of significant public appreciation of the value of different service options and an understanding by consumers of what they can and cannot afford, how the services they select work, and how their providers and managers are performing. This does not imply that the level of need does not justify a particular range of options to be considered.

The Torres Strait has plans to introduce leased, mobile reverse osmosis equipment. The concept may be technically feasible although the option is potentially expensive and currently would require external contractors to operate and maintain the technology. It also may be difficult to sustain without a considerable external subsidy committed for the long-term.

Boigu Island could not access sufficient funding to build the recommended sewerage system. Instead, they have had to look at a less expensive package treatment plant which potentially has higher operating and maintenance costs and has not been tried in the Torres Strait or a remote Indigenous environment previously.

In Doomadgee there appears to have been a net loss of houses over the past 10 years despite the injection of project funds to improve housing and infrastructure. The review also notes that people could not afford electricity in Doomadgee at the time and were disconnecting in some instances.

Health Outcomes Relating To Water And Sanitation

Many pages of the HIPP and NAHS evaluations have been devoted to relative measures of health outcomes. Correlations are very hard to identify. Health does not depend only on clean water being delivered to fencelines, or even into the house. Technical improvements do not automatically sweep away poverty or improve health. Other basic needs at many levels remain unmet.

Underlying factors influencing health are diverse, complex and not easily segregated from each other. Short-term health improvements (such as the reduction in the number of cases of diarrhoea recorded at a local clinic) which come as a result of interventions such as housing upgrades, are more easily measured but their long-term impact is more of an unknown.

International literature indicates that specialists have now abandoned pursuit of improved health alone, and now target goals of human development and poverty alleviation. While primary health is an important part of these programs, they are amenable to a broader evaluation of success. Significantly the literature identifies changes in health-related behaviour as a critical response to new and improved infrastructure. Few, if any, of the projects in the case study communities had credible goals for behavioural change and assessment negotiated during consultations.

Client Satisfaction With Water And Sanitation Services

While it was not possible to visit all communities it was clear that at Boigu Island, Coconut Island, Tingha, Dareton, Yalata, Doomadgee and Mpweringe-Arnapipe levels of satisfaction appeared higher than they were in 1994. This conclusion is based on what has been recorded and on limited telephone contact.

While there may be some individual complaints about process and occasional breakdowns, there are few recorded concerns regarding the outcome of projects to date. This does not mean people are likely to be satisfied into the future, particularly if issues of funding for ongoing operation and maintenance are not resolved and resourced. Similarly, people are not likely to be impressed if they are required to contribute levies for services about which they were not consulted, and with which they may not have agreed in the first instance.

There is no clear mechanism by which satisfaction with services can be gauged. If a new water supply or sewerage scheme is installed at no cost and is managed externally, then people are likely to be more satisfied than if they were paying a charge that reflected the actual cost or a part of the real cost of supply.

Chapter Five

Conclusions

This review documents significant advances and initiatives that have taken place over the past five years. At a national program level and in at least seven of the ten individual case study communities, the trend has been toward increased investment in water and sanitation infrastructure by the Commonwealth and States, and increased involvement by the States and the commercial sector in ongoing systems operation, management and maintenance.

In particular, the NAHS-EHP model of program and project management has been a specific response to earlier claims of poor technical design and execution of projects. Projects generally appear to be more accountable financially and technically with increased emphasis on consultation, design documentation, project planning, supervision, management, reporting, monitoring and evaluation.

There also appear to be a greater number of qualified project managers and contractors who are now willing and experienced in working with and in Indigenous communities. This statement is not intended to imply that the sector is saturated or that approaches are entirely adequate. What can be said is that there are noticeable improvements at a number of levels. It is clear that remote communities have greater access to a range of services than they had 10 years ago. Also, the involvement of the Army in a small number of communities has provided a slightly different delivery model to meet a backlog of infrastructure needs.

In such a complex and diverse field it will always be possible to find one or two situations which run against or ahead of the trend. Similarly, despite significant expenditure it is clear there is a large backlog of unmet need still to be addressed.

Generally, funding for maintenance of systems appears to be more difficult to secure than funding for capital works. The case studies clearly indicate a level of reinvestment in replacing infrastructure and in some cases, increased maintenance costs due to increased complexity or capacity of systems. Systems maintenance and sustainability remains a major issue. Long-term assurance of funding still needs to be addressed by and between the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments.

The 1994 Water Report called for the provision of better independent technical advice. A mix of activities through direct project funding and support for technical resource agencies has increased capacity to supply independent technical advice. It was not within the scope of this report to assess the extent to which communities themselves have accessed this advice, nor to what extent advice and information has been appropriately delivered, understood and engaged.

The case studies have revealed some Indigenous initiatives that have responded to water needs into the future. The proposed Torres Strait Regional Water Authority and the work instigated by Murdi Paaki Regional Council are two examples of actual or proposed increased community control.

Overall, a number of major findings emerged from the review of case study communities and developments of the past five years:

1. There has been a serious effort to address the water and sanitation needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. These efforts include increased consultation with communities and greater levels of intersectoral collaboration and cooperation.

2. The delivery of infrastructure has benefited from improved competence in program and project management and professional services. Modified program guidelines have resulted from review and evaluation of performance. There appears to be increased capacity in commercial and government systems to meet demand.

3. The trend has been to improved water and sanitation services and greater access to technical options and service providers. The trend has also been towards more complex solutions with a greater degree of centralised monitoring and control of systems, largely due to concerns to ensure efficient asset management, operational performance and sustainability.

4. The increased investment and improved technical delivery of water and sanitation systems has only been sustained in situations where a state agency or regional service provider has an ongoing role. There are implications regarding opportunities for community participation and control of water services if this is the only model of sustainable service delivery.

(a). In the majority of case study communities, there was no apparent indication that communities are now more responsible for management and operation of completed systems than they were five years ago, although generally there has been an increased emphasis placed upon inclusive community planning processes.

(b). Reports examined and case studies reviewed indicate that assessment of health outcomes remains problematic for a variety of reasons. Employment outcomes have also been generally difficult to demonstrate beyond the life of a project, particularly within the scope of water and sanitation projects. These areas warrant further investigation as it may be asking too much to directly link employment and health programs to what is in most cases a turn-key infrastructure project.

5. There is evidence from the review of international experience (see Annex 6) and the many background papers in the native title debates and reconciliation agenda that sustainable solutions may still be difficult to achieve through the prevailing service delivery models.

Issues that impact on sustainable outcomes are

  • human and other resources, and the institutional capacity and willingness to support interventions both physically and financially in the long-term
     
  • the relative lack of specialised services in the majority of small remote Indigenous communities and the difficulty in accessing specialist expertise
     
  • the weakness of a 'market' per se in small remote Indigenous communities and the limitations of the 'market or competition model' for service delivery, and
     
  • flexibility and an emphasis on equitable outcomes in the design of the basic infrastructure necessary for human development.

This review finds that while technical delivery and issues of consultation and cultural understanding have improved over the past five years, many of the core issues and recommendations identified in the 1994 Water Report remain valid and still require a response before remote Indigenous people can have confidence that their water and sanitation services will be sustainable.

The review also finds that, as with international experience, programs delivering infrastructure development mainly in response to poor health, disadvantage and system failure, can foster a supply paradigm of service delivery. Internationally such service delivery models are found to be locally unsustainable without maximum Indigenous participation, and levels of investment matched to local willingness and ability to pay for and manage the level of services provided.

Government has a responsibility to facilitate services that directly address disadvantage and poor health through programs that enhance human capacity and well-being. While there is always pressure to address or relieve immediate and obvious disadvantage, such a rationale for major infrastructure works has been questioned in international experience.

While there are significant differences between the international and the Australian experience there is sufficient evidence to warrant further examination of the implications of the current direction of service delivery for remote Indigenous communities and the rights that members of those communities may seek to exercise.

To move to the question of the rights which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people require as citizens of a just society, three core issues require examination: the principle of non-discrimination; the principle of distinct status; and group as distinct from individual rights.(26)

Presumably the argument for continued resourcing for remote settlements would need to be consistent with these three issues. These factors are more closely linked with recognition and respect for another culture rather than providing access to conventional market opportunities. The challenge is to meet distinct group needs (households and communities) on Indigenous land, through delivery mechanisms which are cost-effective, demand driven and sustainable.

Overseas experience has shown that programs have more chance of succeeding when infrastructure, service levels and cost are matched to local consumer realities. Sustainable solutions take account of the economic, social and human development of the community, including skills, knowledge and organisational capacity. The success of these processes directly influences whether services are used, sustainable and have an impact on quality of life and health.(27)

Such a process is only beginning to become a reality in Australia today. Many solutions currently 'applied' continue to view recipients as beneficiaries, often using urban or peri-urban solutions and standards without holistic consideration of remote social, economic and environmental realities and resources. To move towards sustainable development, a conceptual shift needs to take place whereby the notion of 'beneficiaries' is replaced by that of 'consumers of services'. When services are 'consumer driven', demand has reached a point where there is significant appreciation and understanding from consumers about what they can and cannot afford, and how the system they have chosen works.

As with the Water Report, this review concludes it is imperative that the design and implementation of systems that deliver water to Australia's Indigenous communities reflects a cooperative process of negotiation, community education, forward planning and cultural awareness. Factors influencing the process might include affordability, technical appropriateness, current service delivery structures and the level of skills and resources available in the community. Clearly the involvement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait people as 'empowered consumers' is paramount to sustainable water provision, regardless of the capital outlay or the necessity for external technical expertise.

ENDNOTES

1. Commonwealth of Australia, Australia: State of the Environment 1996, CSIRO Publishing, 1996, p3-4.

2. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Housing and Infrastructure in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities, ABS 1999, Canberra, p11.

3. As above, p11.

4. Glen Marshall and Bob Lloyd (Ed), Sewerage Systems in Remote Indigenous Communities, Report, Centre for Appropriate Technology, Alice Springs, 1998.

5. Australian Bureau of Statistics, National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Survey 1994, ABS Cat. No.:4190.0.

6. Australian Medical Association, "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Submission", [Online, accessed 26 Aug 1998] URL:http://domino.ama.com.au/

7. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Health Differentials among Adult Australians Aged 25 - 64 years, Colin Mathers (Ed), Health Monitoring Series Number 1, AGPS, Canberra.

8. Pholeros P., Rainow R. and Torzillo P., Housing for Health: Towards a Healthy Living Environment for Aboriginal Australia, Healthabitat, 1993.

9. Pholeros P., Rainow R. and Torzillo P., 1993, p26.

10. Water Report: A Report on the Provision of Water and Sanitation in Remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities, AGPS, Canberra,1994, p3.

11. cited in the Water Report, 1994.

12. Water Report, p94.

13. Figures from: Australian National Audit Office, National Aboriginal Health Strategy - Delivery of Housing and Infrastructure to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities, Audit Number 39, Canberra, 1999, p30.

14. WS&S - Water supply and santitation.

15. Torres Strait Water Upgrade program, stages 1 and 2, and the Torres Strait Major Infrastructure Program.

16. Australian National Audit Office, National Aboriginal Health Strategy - Delivery of Housing and Infrastructure to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities, Audit Number 39, Canberra, 1999, p97.

17. Correspondence to CAT from Yalata Maralinga Health Service, February 1999.

18. As above.

19. Australian Property Group, Oak Valley South Australia, Progress Report , March 1997.

20. Oak Valley Water Supply Assessment, Woodward-Clyde, 1997.

21. Dareton HIPP/AEHIP Housing and Environmental Health Plan, Final Draft Report, Burns Aldis, p 3.

22. NAHS-EHP, Environmental Health Impact Assessments - 200/1 to 20002/3 Funding, Supporting Documentation, Volume 2: Individual Community Assessments, Doomadgee, June 1999.

23. Department of Natural Resources, Total Management Plan for Water and Transport Infrastructure, Coconut Island, 1996.

24. The participation of community members was inhibited by use of the telephone as the primary medium of discussion. Assessment is limited when it does not include face-to-face discussion with community members. From the available evidence a number of general issues and trends have emerged.

25. Extract from 'Oak Valley Completion Report', 19th Chief Engineer Works.

26. Speech by Michael Dodson on 20 August 1993, HREOC website, http:// www.humanrights.gov.au

27. Black, M. 1998, Learning What Works: A 20 Year Retrospective View on International Water and Sanitation Cooperation

 

Annex 1

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

AACAP-ATSIC Army Community Assistance Project
AAD- Aboriginal Affairs Department
ABS- Australian Bureau of Statistics
ACDP- Aboriginal Community Development Program
ACSIP- Aboriginal Community Strategic Investment Program
ACTEW -Australian Capital Territory Electricity and Water
AEHIF- Aboriginal Environmental Health Infrastructure Forum
AGPS- Australian Government Publishing Service
AHO- Aboriginal Housing Office (NSW)
AHU- Aboriginal Housing Unit
AIATSIS- Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies
AMA- Australian Medical Association
ANAO- Australian National Audit Office
APG- Australian Property Group
ATSIC- Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission
ATSIIP- Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Infrastructure Program

CAEPR- Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research
CDEP- Community Development Employment Program
CAT- Centre for Appropriate Technology
CEDAW- Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women
CERD- Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
CHIP- Community Housing Infrastructure Program
CLC- Central Land Council
CNPM- Contracted National Program Manager
CRC- Cooperative Research Centre
CSIRO- Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

DAA- Department of Aboriginal Affairs
DATSIPAD- Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy and Development
DECS- Department of Education and Community Services
DEWRSB- Department of Employment, Work Relations and Small Business
DHFS- Department of Health and Family Services
DLGP- Department of Local Government and Planning
DLPE- Department Of Lands, Planning and Environment
DLWC- Department of Land and Water Conservation
DME- Department of Mines and Energy Resources (SA)
DNR- Department of Natural Resources
DOGIT- Deed of Grant in Trust
DOSAA- Department of State Aboriginal Affairs (SA)
DPW&H- Department of Public Works and Housing

EPA- Environmental Protection Authority
ESO- Essential Services Officer

FRDC- Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner

GHD- Gutteridge Haskins and Davey (Pty Ltd)
GIS- Geographic Information Systems

HDWA- Health Department of Western Australia
HINS- Housing and Infrastructure Needs Survey
HIPP- Health Infrastructure Priority Projects
HOR- House occupancy rate
HREOC- Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission

ICCPR- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
IHANT- Indigenous Housing Authority of the Northern Territory
ICC- Island Coordinating Council
IWO- Island Water Office

L- Litre
L/p/d- Litres per person per day
L/min- Litres per minute

ML- Megalitre
M- Million
Mm- Millilitre

NAHS- National Aboriginal Health Strategy
NAHS- EHP National Aboriginal Health Strategy - Environmental Health Program
NH&MRC- National Health and Medical Research Council
NIWC- National Indigenous Working Committee
NGO- Non Government Organisation
NTRC- National Technology Research Centre (CAT)
NTTC- National Technology Transfer Clearinghouse
NTU- Northern Territory University

OATSIH- Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health
OVMI- Oak Valley Maralinga Incorporated

PAWA- Power and Water Authority (NT)
PVC- Poly Vinyl Chloride

RAESP- Remote Area Essential Service Provider
RDA- Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)
RO- Reverse osmosis

SAHT- South Australian Housing Trust
SCAG- Standing Committee of Attorneys General

TAC- Tingha Aboriginal Corporation
TDS- Total dissolved solids
THS- Territory Health Services (NT)
TS- Torres Strait
TSRA- Torres Strait Regional Authority

WAWA- Western Australian Water Authority

UNDP- United Nations Development Programme
UNICEF- United Nations Children's Fund

VIP- Ventilated improved pit

WHO- World Health Organisation

YMHS- Yalata Maralinga Health Service
YCC- Yalata Community Council

Annex 2

1994 Water Report Recommendations

The 1994 Water Report challenged the assumptions underlying the provision of services in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. While it did not set out to provide specific solutions to local problems, it was able to demonstrate the practical difficulties associated with the provision of adequate water services to remote communities. In doing so, it acknowledged that Government departments and agencies had made efforts to achieve acceptable levels of service provision, but highlighted key issues working against these efforts. It concluded that no significant improvement in Aboriginal living conditions would be achieved unless and until these key issues were fully understood.

In conclusion, the report identified recommendations in six key strategic areas which, if addressed, would have the effect of building the capacity of communities of Indigenous people to respond to continuing water and sanitation needs as they arose over time. The seventh recommendation provided for ongoing review of developments in this area.

Recommendation 1: Community Control

That Government at all levels recognise the vital element of community control in the effective provision of services and review relevant legislation and structures to provide for the establishment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander service provision authorities.

The Report asserted that community involvement, self-determination and control of projects, so vital to the long-term success of service provision, was inadequately addressed in service provision to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. It urged Federal and State Governments to create options whereby local water districts based on local or regional groupings of communities may be established to facilitate the formation of local service authorities who would regulate and control the provision of services at these locations if people so chose.

Such an approach would require block funding for service provision to these communities and they would need to be resourced to adequately cope with the increase in responsibilities and administrative loads that accompany this transfer of responsibility. Guidelines could be negotiated to assist communities who choose to proceed with this option.

A move to independent community-controlled Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander service provision would enhance the development of local service delivery strategies and implementation targets. Such moves would return control to the community but would not debar them from amalgamation with others in time to form service delivery networks.

Recommendation 2: Equality and Discrimination

That Government at all levels actively promote a broader community understanding of equity and equality based on recognition of differences between cultures. Evaluation should be on the basis of equitable outcomes, not similarity of inputs.

The Report revealed misconception and misunderstanding of the human rights provisions observed in Australia, leading to poor outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. These misunderstandings have found their way into the approaches used in service provision in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The widespread nature of the limited views of equality which persist signifies that a much broader systemic response is required before beneficial change can occur. Politicians and bureaucrats would be well advised to revisit approaches and styles of intervention in the pursuit of solutions to problems.

The Report concludes it is unlikely there will be a lasting response or improvement in service provision until these issues are addressed and a community mind shift obtained that will support local initiatives aimed at supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander aspirations. Promotional activities should reflect the need for a shift in the communities understanding of equality and the need to evaluate outcomes not inputs. A successful campaign would carry the message that a significant factor in the provision of relevant and appropriate services is a perception of equality that is not culturally biased and is appropriate in the context of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander aspirations and goals.

A useful outcome from promotion of the mind shift would be commonsense guidelines for the application of concepts of equity, including an outline of consultation processes which could be adopted in determining the basis of equality of service and in preparing outcome statements.

Recommendation 3: Indigenous Peoples' Rights

That the Federal Government, as a matter of urgency, prepares a national statement of Indigenous Peoples' Rights

This Report found that existing human rights instruments, particularly the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (RDA), are inadequate mechanisms for ensuring the service provision rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Again a systemic response is required to handle the wide ranging nature of the reforms required. The Report argues that to proceed with responses to significant service provision issues through constant modification of and recourse to the RDA is inappropriate and will provide inadequate outcomes. There appears to be no other legislation, including the provisions of the Australian Constitution, which will provide for an adequate response to Indigenous needs. At a practical economic level the case studies detailed the problems which constantly recur, through failure to correct this fundamental structural issue.

Recommendation 4: Technical Advice

That ATSIC continue to consider and address the means by which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities receive and respond to scientific and technical advice; and assess the need for independent community-controlled review of options prior to endorsement of projects, consultants and policies.

The case study participants all identified a lack of independent technical advice and a feeling of inadequacy when dealing with external agents to the community on a technical level. The Report shows that technical advice given outside the context of the affected community is often flawed and has led to sub-optimal outcomes for communities. In many instances when alternatives were discussed, people complained they had not had options presented at the time of making decisions. They also raised concerns over the time frames of consultancies and the brief visits they received from technical personnel.

ATSIC and concerned community councils may find it useful to impose, as a condition of employment of contractors and consultants by or for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, that a code of ethics, negotiation protocol and record of consultation be maintained as a contractual obligation, along with a record of the assumptions made by individual consultants in planning projects.

For these strategies to be successful a network of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander controlled technical non-Government organisations would need to be fostered to provide access to independent advice; and to review commercial and community projects for the appropriateness and sustainability of proposals having regard for cultural, social, health, education and employment outcomes of such proposals.

These organisations would need to be resourced to investigate alternative options on behalf of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities as it has been found that the unique circumstances faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are rarely taken into account in technical research and development.

Another or additional option would be the formation of a mobile negotiating team with a high level of cross-cultural skills, prepared to live with a community before and during the process of technological decision making. This team would establish protocols and facilitate real communication between communities and technologists.

Recommendation 5: Sustainable Development

That peak Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups consider the implications of the prevailing technology-led control-oriented development paradigm (based principally on sameness of service) in terms of its appropriateness for longer-term sustainable development of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, particularly in small remote locations.

The Report chronicles aspects of the development of case study communities and raises a number of issues emanating from the recent impact of technology on the development of these communities. While there are strong arguments in support of these developments, the Report presents some cause for reflection on technical interventions that arise as a result of inadequate consultation and negotiation processes.

The Report also probes the validity of the prevailing development paradigm in the context of sustainable development in remote isolated communities. It argues for an holistic evaluation of community goals that encompasses economic, technical, social, political and cultural outcomes. The findings suggest there is an urgent need to review the rhetoric of development in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to recognise longer term sustainable development objectives that provide for the ongoing human rights and fundamental freedoms of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

A review of this nature might consider a nationally-endorsed protocol for technical consultation with communities including a document of ethics, objectives and principles leading to viable futures for community services provision and a process of accountability of service providers over a longer term.

Recommendation 6: Concomitant Changes

That the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner determine if changes or augmentation of Government policies and programs are required to give effect to issues of standards, values, equality and self-determination identified in the Report.

The nature of the mind shifts and structural reforms required to support the provision of water and sanitation are such that if Governments fail to address them little change will occur. To balance any tendency to inaction it is considered essential that an independent evaluation of progress is made on a regular basis. The issues raised in relation to water and sanitation are typical of many of the social justice and equity issues that pervade work in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The findings of previous reports as well as existing programs of a number of Government departments may well need re-appraisal as a result of the analysis projected in this Report. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner appears to be best placed to provide this independent assessment of factors which might indicate a shift in community attitudes to problems that arise as a result of service provision.

Further it may be appropriate that the Social Justice Commissioner investigate the ethics of promoting intensive capital developments in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities when the recurrent cost implications are not identified or made clear to communities at the outset. This issue is particularly relevant where government-initiated policy changes that devolve responsibilities - after committing communities to significant asset maintenance costs.

Recommendation 7: Monitoring and Review

That the Race Discrimination Commissioner review progress made in the wake of this Report in the light of the recommendations, the Government's response to the Report, and the state of water and sanitation services in the ten case study communities; and that this review commence in one year's time.

This recommendation records an on-going interest by the Race Discrimination Commissioner in the ten communities and the range of problems and challenges that they face in common with other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. It also recognises the ongoing nature of the issues raised in the Report and signals the need for all parties to pledge themselves to a long-term commitment to the issues.

Annex 3

Responses to the 1994 Water Report

Australian Parliament

The Water Report was tabled in the Federal Parliament by Senator Bolkus on 1 June 1994. This review has been unable to find any evidence of any formal response within the Parliament on the recommendations of the Report nor, in general terms, on the Report as a whole. Hansard records mention of the document by Senators Lees, Chamarette, Woodley and Bolkus, however the Report was not raised again in the Senate after the 2 June 1994.

Following tabling in the Senate, the Report was referred to the Standing Committee of the Attorneys General (SCAG).

The Report was mentioned in the House of Representatives on three days in June 1994. Mrs Gallus mentioned and drew data from the Report when speaking on the Appropriation Bill. Mr Mack referred to the Report during a question without notice to Mr Tickner and the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Mrs Gallus again referred to the Report in support of a case for amendment during the second reading of the ATSIC Amendment Bill.

Hansard indicates the Report was listed five times on the agenda of the SCAG, but no further reference was made to the Report after 25 June 1996. This review has been unable to determine whether the report was discussed by SCAG on any of the occasions it appeared as an agenda item as the minutes of these meetings are confidential.

Commonwealth Agencies

There is evidence that various Commonwealth Departments have adjusted program and policy areas in accordance with some of the issues raised in the Report.

Response by Indigenous People

A national forum 'Aboriginal Perspectives on Water: Improving Community Health' was convened by the CRC for Water Quality and Treatment and ATSIC in 1996. The 1994 Water Report was reviewed and responded to at that meeting.

Annex 4

Program Initiatives over the Past Five Years

ATSIC - Community Housing and Infrastructure Program (CHIP)

Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers for Health and Aboriginal Affairs met in December 1987 to develop a National Aboriginal Health Strategy (NAHS). In June 1990, the Ministers agreed to cooperative arrangements. In December 1990 the Commonwealth Government approved provisional funding to June 1995. ATSIC was allocated $232 million over the first 5 years for implementation of NAHS primary health and environmental health programs. The bulk of this allocation, $171 million (around 80%) was directed to housing and infrastructure services through ATSIC's Community Housing and Infrastructure Program (CHIP).

From 1990-91 to 1993-94 NAHS funds were allocated largely on the basis of ATSIC's Regional Council recommendations in the same way most other CHIP funding was distributed. More than 500 grants totalling $101 million were made to Indigenous organisations. Of the $101 million approximately $61 million was allocated to infrastructure and $40 million to housing. At the same time $561 million of other CHIP funding was allocated, with 65% going to infrastructure, including municipal services.

A review of this approach recommended that ATSIC consider the use of external program managers to enhance the level of input of technical expertise, project management, and quality of outcomes.

ATSIC - Health Infrastructure Priority Projects (HIPP)

The HIPP scheme was established by the ATSIC Board of Commissioners in 1994 as an element of the NAHS under ATSIC's CHIP program. A major NAHS objective has been to improve environmental health in Indigenous communities through the construction of housing and the provision of water, sewerage and related systems.

HIPP was a housing and infrastructure program which aimed to address nationally identified priorities of large scale health related infrastructure that was too large to be met by ATSIC Regional Council budgets. HIPP was a supplementary source of funding for housing/infrastructure to Indigenous communities, as the main responsibility for such provision lies with the State/Territory and Local governments.

The major innovation of HIPP was the use of an outsourced Contracted National Program Manager (CNPM) to manage the HIPP projects. The CNPM was to

  • assess the scope and suitability of HIPP projects for funding
  • consult with HIPP funded communities and ATSIC administrative and elected staff at all stages of the project
  • liaise and consult with government and other agencies in contributing to the design, operation and maintenance of HIPP projects and to training and employment of community members
  • assist in the selection and monitor performance of project managers
  • administer a trust fund and make payments; and
  • monitor progress of projects and report as required.

This new innovation recognised the need for

  • transparency in funding allocation
  • expert knowledge and supervision
  • community consultation
  • holistic approaches, and
  • financial accountability.

The objectives of HIPP using this new approach to program delivery were to:

  • improve environmental health in Aboriginal communities in greatest need of assistance by providing upgrading or providing new infrastructure
  • secure increased commitment from State, Territory and Local Governments on environmental health infrastructure projects in Indigenous communities
  • provide opportunity for ATSIC to pilot best practice in project planning and delivery; and
  • provide employment and training opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Under the first round of HIPP, 31 projects worth approximately $60 million were approved in 1994-95. In HIPP Round 2, 28 projects worth $80.3 million were endorsed by the ATSIC Board in February 1996. ATSIC has extended the program delivery arrangements piloted under HIPP to the NAHS program.

An audit of HIPP by the ATSIC Office of Evaluation and Audit concluded that the HIPP program was clearly successful in improving the delivery of housing and infrastructure to Indigenous communities and that it was an important initiative to be supported in its holistic and challenging approach to ensuring long-term benefits. The report noted 15 communities received improved water supplies and 14 received upgraded sewerage systems. The report also noted the validation problems posed by an empirical lack of a significant link between health hardware items and health. Problems were experienced in cost and time overruns. Approximately 70% of the projects required expanded budgets.

Despite outcomes achieved in contributions from other agencies and in the provision of training and employment, the CNPM continued to experience many problems in eliciting full cooperation from the agencies involved. The report noted serious delays in project completion when training was included. The report considered that:

At the individual community level, however, all indications are that sustainability of HIPP benefits remain a major problem. Where HIPP items have broken down or have been damaged, most are not being fixed. There is a marked absence of personal responsibility among community members even for repairs to the houses they live in, and most expect ATSIC to assume responsibility for repairs and operation of HIPP upgrades. Until serious measures are taken to alter the supporting environment and this mind set, the sustainability issue is likely to ultimately militate against the success of HIPP.

It could be argued that this Audit analysis is itself symptomatic of the pervasive supply driven model of service delivery. That is, where uptake is slow or non- existent the focus automatically moves to a lack of beneficiary responsibility, rather than failure to undertake a consumer driven contingent valuation of the project at the outset.

ATSIC - National Aboriginal Health Strategy (NAHS)

In November 1995, the ATSIC Board endorsed the NAHS environmental health project (NAHS-EHP). Round 1 of NAHS-EHP was originally for the period 1996-97 to 1998-99, later it was extended to 1999-2000. The strategy included the extension of the contracted program manager management model to the full NAHS component of CHIP.

Following a competitive tendering process ATSIC appointed three private sector construction, engineering or architectural firms as contracted state program managers (CSPM). One firm was to program manage NAHS in Queensland and the Northern Territory, another firm was appointed for Western Australia, South Australia and Victoria and a third firm was to manage projects in NSW.

NAHS is a rolling program of substantial capital upgrades of community housing and related infrastructure. Currently around 150 major projects in communities across Australia are benefiting from improved water, power and sewerage systems as well as additional housing to reduce the high level of overcrowding in many communities. The relatively large scale of each environmental health project - around $2.5m - provides a strong focus for community planning and training.

Communities have benefited from around 19,000 person days of employment and around 16,000 days of training in projects delivered to the end of June 1998. As well as developing the employability of community members, each project aims to generate a local pool of maintenance skills.

The recent audit report of the NAHS program (ANAO,1999) confirmed the finding of the earlier HIPP evaluation in relation to the success of the outsourced program delivery model. While budget variations were still observed the report recommended ATSIC benchmark its program management arrangements in order to assess the cost effectiveness of its greater reliance on the private sector to deliver individual projects.

The report observed that for ATSIC and the Department of Employment, Work Relations and Small Business (DEWRSB) the kinds of employment and training possible on individual projects were not the highest priority. For ATSIC there can be a trade off between rapid construction of housing and infrastructure and the longer time necessary to train community members in construction and maintenance skills. Some communities give a higher priority to rapid construction while others place greater weight on skills development and are willing to accept extended construction periods.

The Audit report concluded that NAHS project management arrangements should give greater weight to agreement during project planning by all relevant stakeholders of employment and training to be undertaken as part of project implementation. It is clear from the evaluation report that training and employment opportunities, maintenance of infrastructure and sustainability of project outcomes is still a major hurdle.

In 1998 ATSIC commissioned a study of operating and maintenance costs of NAHS projects. The operating and maintenance costs included in the study were broad estimates based on the product of population and average rates calculated from a wide variety of data sources. The estimates were not based on actual expenditure as this information was not readily available. It was estimated that $66 million per annum was required to adequately operate and maintain essential services of water, sewerage and power systems in completed NAHS projects.

The estimate of known funding sources for operation and maintenance in the States and the Northern Territory for 1997-98 were $42.5 million, including $36 million from State/Territory agencies. This projected an annual shortfall of $23.5 million for operation and maintenance which is currently unbudgetted. If these figures are realistic, the annual maintenance cost represents between 20 and 25 percent of the amount of money allocated to HIPP/NAHS projects since they began in 1994/95.

The total funding which ATSIC allocated to HIPP and NAHS projects between 1995/96 to 2002/03 is summarised in the table below.


 

ATSIC - Army Community Assistance Program (AACAP)

Members of the Council for Reconciliation met with the Prime Minister on 23 October 1996 to raise concerns about the poor primary health situation of Indigenous Australians. As a consequence, the Ministers for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Defence, and Health and Family Services met with the Prime Minister on 5 November 1996 and agreed, in the absence of additional resources, that the Australian Army would assist with infrastructure improvements in a number of communities identified by ATSIC for priority assistance. The initiative is known as the ATSIC/Army Community Assistance Program (AACAP).

AACAP has operated since 1997 in seven remote Indigenous communities. The 1999-2000 Budget provided for an extension of AACAP worth $41.2 million over 4 years. It appears to provide some significant opportunities over commercial project delivery, principally in the area of in-kind personnel costs and equipment and the Army ability to tackle difficult to access sites.

AACAP is a cooperative initiative established between ATSIC, Army and DFHS (now the Department of Health and Aged Care) to provide assistance to a number of remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to improve community environmental health and living conditions. It was proposed that Army expertise and resources would assist development and upgrade of infrastructure in 5-10 projects located in northern and central Australia. Capital for these projects was restricted to water supplies and reticulation systems, waste water management and sewerage systems, housing, power generation and reticulation systems, transport infrastructure, upgrades where necessary of existing health clinics and any specific recurrent costs to the successful completion of capital works. Planning and delivery of capital works was to provide training and employment opportunities in the construction and maintenance of infrastructure for participating communities. Where possible Army doctors, dentists and veterinarians servicing Army personnel working on AACAP would provide limited health care services to participating communities in conjunction with existing health services and authorities.

Among the criteria for AACAP involvement was a targeting of remote and discrete communities, a strong focus on water supply and waste water management and agreement of the community to participate in AACAP. The standard contracts used in the implementation of ATSIC's HIPP and NAHS programs provide the basis for AACAP service delivery.

ATSIC and DHFS contributed capital ($10 million) and the Army contribution was in kind (salary costs, capital depreciation, fuel, rations and travel costs). The Army has been able to apply a diverse range of skills (construction and mechanical, medical, dental, veterinarian, and training etc.) as inputs to individual projects. While they do not operate under the same commercial pressures as private consultancies, they have responded to the CNPM in accordance with the requirements for any project manager, and if labour costs were included total project costs appear similar or slightly dearer than the private sector delivery.

It is difficult on the limited evidence to argue that broader community development goals are further advanced under this method of infrastructure provision. As a means of delivering targeted assistance it appears to be a useful program but the scale of Army involvement is so small by comparison with the overall NAHS program that it can have little impact in reality without a significant increase in activity.

The AACAP program has been reviewed however the report was not available at the time of writing.

ABS - National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Survey

Recommendation 49 of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody proposed a special national survey of the Aboriginal population. It is only in the last few years that more reliable statistics on a range of criteria have been collected systematically.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) released a series of collections of its own as well as in conjunction with the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare relating to the Health and Welfare of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the Housing Characteristics and Conditions, and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Survey 1994.

The purpose of the latter survey was to provide Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments with necessary statistics across a range of social, demographic, health and economic areas. It provides a stronger information base for planning for the empowerment of Australia's Indigenous peoples and for measuring progress in meeting their objectives, aspirations and needs. One section of the survey concentrated on household water. It found that 12% of Aboriginal households in rural areas had inadequate bathing facilities, although across Australia 96% of Aboriginal households living in private dwellings were connected to running water. Nine per cent of private rural dwellings had no toilet.

Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation - Benchmarking Workshop

Established in 1991, the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation has sought to promote reconciliation with, and better understanding of, Indigenous culture and achievement. The Council convened a Benchmarking Workshop which was held in Canberra during 18-19 November 1998. The objectives of the workshop were to consider ways to ensure greater accountability and effectiveness of outcomes in the delivery of services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the areas of health, housing, education, employment and community justice, including adoption by the new millennium of

  • agreed and measurable targets (within specific time frames) for addressing Indigenous needs in health, housing, education, employment and community justice that are informed by cultural and geographic realities, and
  • best practice to achieve targets for service delivery for Indigenous Australians.

The session dealing with housing and infrastructure covered a range of significant issues. Speakers pointed to an important policy issue: how ATSIC, the States and the Commonwealth might reach some consensus on the economics of providing essential services for remote areas. Benchmarks would not be a reality unless bureaucrats could reach agreement about this. One speaker pointed out: "The issues involved relate to human and Indigenous rights to basic services, the level of services justified under government's community services obligations, the extent to which remote communities want to self-manage services locally, and in some cases the financial and logistical capacity of local governments to provide services to remote areas."

Revision of the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines

These guidelines were prepared by a joint committee of the Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. The new guidelines will supersede the 1987 NHMRC/AWRC Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality in Australia.

While water quality in Australia is essentially a State responsibility, the purpose of the guidelines is to provide water authorities, health officials and consumers with guideline values for drinking water quality, the attainment of which should be accepted as an important national objective.

The guideline values are based on the latest WHO recommendations. The guidelines do not set mandatory standards and are not legally enforceable. Rather, they may be used directly as agreed levels of service, or they may form the basis for preparing or negotiating regional levels of service. They provide a framework for identifying acceptable water quality and focus on risk assessment and community involvement in establishing service levels.

The guidelines encourage communities to participate in policy-making and the decision-making processes of water authorities. More specifically, the guidelines advise that water authorities should consult the community on such matters as

  • the establishment of levels of service
  • maintenance programs
  • the improvement of water quality
  • existing water reticulation problems and,
  • options for future expenditure.

Under the circumstances agreed levels of service should be based on estimates of risk and cost, as well as on local knowledge of the source water.

It is anticipated that consumer needs and expectations will influence the extent to which each community will adopt the guidelines. The guidelines also stress that decisions about drinking water quality cannot be isolated from other aspects of water supply that influence financial decisions such as the levels of service to be adopted, and the time frame within which those levels can be achieved.

Major water suppliers and health authorities have the knowledge and expertise to determine the significance of the guideline values in terms of health and consumer acceptance. Often, however, this type of expertise is lacking in remote areas

Recognising this fact, the Australian CRC for Water Quality and Treatment has established a position for a Technical Transfer Officer through the Australian National University and the Centre for Appropriate Technology. The existence of this position will increase the ability of Indigenous communities to access relevant advice in relation to their water supply.

Australian Geological Survey Organisation - Western Water Study

The Western Water Study 1994-1997 was a collaborative project between the Central Land Council, the Northern Territory Department of Land, Planning and Environment, the Australian Geological Survey Organisation and ATSIC. The study area overlies 68,000 square kilometres of central Australia. The main objectives of the study were to

  • improve access to ground water information for Aboriginal people on their land
  • enhance environmental health
  • ensure equity in access to acceptable safe water, especially in remote and arid areas, and
  • develop a rapid methodology that will provide these objectives.

The project evaluation concluded the study had assembled a geographic information system (GIS) comprised of geological, hydrological and other pertinent data relating to water and the social and geographic environment. The material was accessible on CD ROM and available to assist Aboriginal communities in decisions about water. The information was also of assistance to land councils and local governments in their planning for improved access for Aboriginal groups to water. Significant efforts were directed to consultation and discussion with Aboriginal groups in the area about information needs in water. The project brought technical considerations into some balance with social, political and cultural aspirations, and pointed a way forward for thinking and acting about water as a contributor to health and well being of Aboriginal groups in remote areas.

The GIS system provides important and useful information that has been incorporated into thinking about water quality as well as structures and power relationships related to water in the region. Discussions took place with Aboriginal communities in the region and the available data about water sources, water quality and future potential for habitation, survival and agriculture in the areas remains in the hands of local decision makers.

Cooperative Research Centre for Water Quality and Treatment

The CRC for Water Quality and Treatment was established in 1996 to address Australia's significant water quality and treatment issues. The CRC has been keen to address issues in Aboriginal water supplies.

In March 1996 the CRC for Water Quality and Treatment, the Australian Health and Water Research Consortium and ATSIC co-sponsored a national conference following concerns by the CRC that Aboriginal perspectives on water and health needed to be considered by the new CRC, and that there had been little discernible action on the Water Report.

Indigenous community representatives were invited from around Australia along with a small group of technical experts on water and health. Following considerable input from Indigenous people the technical group found that

  • States appeared to be opting out of their responsibilities to provide adequate water supplies to remote communities leaving ATSIC the unreasonable responsibility to try and make unworkable systems deliver unachievable water quality guidelines
  • extensive training needs had to be met urgently if there was to be an effective technology transfer
  • it was unclear on available evidence that there was a precise link between water and premature mortality in Aboriginal communities
  • water development in Aboriginal communities was haphazard and lacked a coherent strategy for its development
  • the advent of the new Australian Drinking Water Guidelines was imposing added pressures towards high tech solutions with expenditures which could be out of proportion to the potential benefits
  • it was not clear where priorities were set for service levels
  • there was a potential role for the CRC in research education and training in technology transfer and in exploring the likely links between health and water quality, and
  • it was unrealistic to presume that it was feasible to deliver unlimited volumes of high quality water to all outstations regardless of water sources.

In reviewing the findings and recommendations of the 1994 Water Report the meeting noted that two years after tabling of this report there had been no discernible government response to it. The meeting affirmed the recommendations of the report and condemned Federal, State and Territory Governments for their failure to respond to its recommendations. The meeting posed the question, " ... if ATSIC was not involved as an advocate, would states more readily accept the responsibility to provide water?"

The meeting concluded

  • proposed drinking water quality guidelines were inappropriate for remote Indigenous communities and not consistent with the principles of self determination
  • there was considerable uncertainty that total conformity to these guidelines would improve life expectancy
  • there were more major issues that could improve health through water management and increased quantities of appropriate water quality, not necessarily the high quality water defined in the guidelines, and
  • conformity with national guidelines would impose significant cost burdens that were currently not being picked up by State governments.

Water Technology Transfer Officer (TTO)

The CRC for Water Quality and Treatment has funded a TTO position to work with and for remote and rural Indigenous communities on water issues. The program is being implemented in cooperation with the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health (NCEPH) at the Australian National University and is based at the Centre for Appropriate Technology in Alice Springs. The Officer is developing relationships with Indigenous communities, service providers and water professionals in order to assist in decision making through actively providing information and advice about water systems and water quality. These activities are being carried out in conjunction with the implementation of a number of targeted research projects.

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL TRAINING AUTHORITY (ANTA) - WATER INDUSTRY TRAINING ADVISORY BOARD

Water Book

The National Water Industry Training Advisory Board developed a suite of competency standards applicable to operational employees in the Water Industry. Subsequently, Certificate level 2 and 3 courses were developed in water operations.

In consideration of how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people might access these programs, the water industry received support from ANTA to develop a resource package to provide an entry point for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people into the water industry.

The Water Book is a resource intended to raise awareness of water and waste water in Aboriginal communities and the related training and employment opportunities that have been available in each jurisdiction. Particular emphasis is placed on the situation in remote communities and the linkage with health outcomes in order that people could appreciate the community benefit of work in the water and waste water industry. The Water Book developed for the water industry is intended for use by resource agencies and community leaders. The Water Book will be published by Rio Tinto with the cooperation of ANTA.

COMMONWEALTH-STATE WORKING GROUP ON INDIGENOUS HOUSING

A meeting of Commonwealth and State Housing Ministers in September 1996 agreed that a working group of Commonwealth (including ATSIC), and State/Territory officials be established to develop practical strategies to address the impediments to improvements in Indigenous housing outcomes. The working group has developed a strategic focus which covered four main areas

  • identifying and addressing outstanding housing needs of Indigenous people
  • improving the viability of Indigenous housing organisations
  • establishing safe, healthy and sustainable housing for Indigenous people, especially in rural and remote communities, and
  • establishing a national framework for the development and delivery of improved housing outcomes to Indigenous people by States and Territories and community sector providers.

Bilateral agreements aimed at streamlining service delivery arrangements have been signed in order to achieve better outcomes for Indigenous people. Housing agreements have been signed with the NT, NSW and WA governments, with ongoing negotiations with other jurisdictions. Infrastructure/Essential Service agreements are in place in NSW, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia.

STATE AND TERRITORY INITIATIVES

The nature of the delivery of the NAHS/HIPP program with major infrastructure and housing projects managed by private sector program managers in each State and the Northern Territory has placed a focus on the development of cooperative relationships with State/Territory government agencies. New program initiatives related to water and sanitation are described below.

Western Australia

In WA ATSIC's relationship with stakeholders has been maintained at two levels - the Inter-governmental Environmental Health Needs Coordinating Committee (established in 1995) and the Inter-Governmental Working Group on Environmental Health.

The Remote Area Essential Services Program

In Western Australia the State Government has maintained responsibility for costs associated with the repairs and maintenance of power, water and sewerage services in 48 large Aboriginal communities since 1986. Up until 1997-98, the WA Aboriginal Affairs Department (AAD) engaged two State utilities, The Water Corporation of WA and Western Power, to provide these services.

At the same time, ATSIC has been funding the capital works for power, water and sewerage under its Remote Areas Essential Services Program (RAESP) for the same 48 comminutes, as well as some smaller communities. ATSIC also engaged the same two State utilities named above to deliver part of its capital program, and a large amount of work was managed by the HIPP and NAHS Contracted Program Managers.

A consultancy was undertaken in 1996-97 to assess options on alternative methods of program delivery. As a result, an agreement was reached to engage a single Program Manager for the AAD repairs and maintenance program and ATSIC's capital works program. The consultancy also recommended dividing the State into three regions for repairs and maintenance contracts, to be known as Regional Service Providers. Kimberley, Pilbara-Murchison Gascoyne, and Central Reserves-Goldfields RAESP tenders were called early in 1998. "The appointment of a Program Manager from October 1997 until the end of the 1999-2000 financial year resulted in a 75% reduction in program management fees and improved delivery arrangements". The 1997/8 report noted that RAESP program in Western Australia has benefited about 6000 people in 59 communities.

Environmental Health Survey

In 1997 key WA Government agencies combined with ATSIC to undertake a wide-ranging survey of housing and infrastructure needs across 260 remote communities. A comprehensive report was published in 1998. A housing and environmental health infrastructure standard has been developed and a joint ATSIC-WA Government town planning project is in progress in 30 communities.

The WA Government has implemented an Aboriginal Communities Strategic Investment Program (ACSIP) which involves several demonstration projects. Baseline health audits have been taken to ensure it is possible to monitor and measure improvements in living conditions and health outcomes of residents.

Queensland

Total Management Plans

The Queensland Government Department of Primary Industries acknowledged in 1995 that some of the infrastructure in the 34 DOGIT communities was inadequate or required significant rehabilitation. The limitations of the infrastructure was impacting on the public health and standard of living of the residents of the communities. The Department commissioned a series of Total Management Plans (TMPs) for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The aim was to assess existing community infrastructure in each community and to make available succinct, reliable information on water, sewerage, solid waste disposal and roads in order to improve the health and well-being of communities through availability of appropriate infrastructure. The TMPs also were to enable effective and objective allocation of funding in the short and medium term for infrastructure augmentation, ongoing planning, rehabilitation, asset management and training related activities. The reports were prepared in a relatively short period of time.

The Queensland Government Chief Executive Officers' Steering Committee on Social Development endorsed the implementation of a strategy for Indigenous Communities Infrastructure Coordination. The foundation of this strategy was the development of Community Infrastructure Plans.

The Department of Local Government and Planning was funded in 1997/98 to develop demonstration projects in 3 to 4 communities to consolidate the future planning and to assist in the systematic addressing of infrastructure and non infrastructure issues confronting indigenous communities. It was expected that the resulting infrastructure plans would provide a better, more informed basis for evaluating budget bids and provide a comprehensive framework for assessing how each bid contributes to the broader objectives of improving the quality of life and health standards in these communities. Government initiated a series of major planning projects to prepare communities for investment in infrastructure in significant communities of Queensland.

In 1997/98 these plans were complimented by additional Total Management Plans for a number of established reserve communities in Queensland. Currently a Total Management Plan for infrastructure management and operations is under preparation for the region administered by the Torres Strait Regional Authority.

New South Wales

Aboriginal Environmental Health Infrastructure Forum (AEHIF)

The AEHIF was initiated in late 1995 at the instigation of the Cabinet Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, as part of a two year pilot project which was completed in 1998. About 20 agencies were represented. The role of the forum was to develop and coordinate a staged approach to improving the environmental health infrastructure in Aboriginal communities in NSW. The intention was to provide a holistic consultative approach that attempted to empower local community involvement in the decision making process and seek culturally appropriate standards and innovative low cost solutions.

Aboriginal Community Development Programme (ACDP)

The ACDP is a NSW Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) program which is aimed at improving the overall living standards and health of Aboriginal communities in New south Wales. ACDP documentation pointed out that inadequate water supply and sewerage systems contribute to the high rate of illness and infection, and the lower life expectancy of Aboriginal people.

The NSW Labour government committed $200 million over seven years to be administered by DAA as part of the ACDP. The program is targeting selected communities with large-scale environmental health needs. The program involves addressing a wider range of needs than the NAHS-EHP, including sewerage, water supply, house construction and major housing repairs, recreational and community facilities, culture and heritage.

Projects are targeted at specific communities rather than at the whole State and are based on needs rather than on submissions. Communities are involved at all program stages through Community Working Parties to ensure appropriate consultation and liaison. The ACDP also has an education and training component.

Communities are selected by

  • assessing the community's needs and levels of health, and
  • reviewing existing programs to identify what further work needs to be done.

In order initially to identify the communities most in need, and the infrastructure required by these communities, a national housing and community infrastructure needs survey (HINS) was conducted by ATSIC in 1992. Information provided by this survey has been used by ATSIC and other agencies to assist in the planning of provision of services.

Thirty-five communities have been nominated for ACDP funding after an intensive period of consultation with agencies already involved with NSW Aboriginal communities. These communities face a variety of housing and environmental health problems and have varying degrees of prior assessment and community planning. A draft capital works program has been recommended outlining works (subject to community decision). Projects are currently underway.

NSW survey of water supply and sanitation infrastructure

To assist with improving the health infrastructure of discrete Aboriginal communities living in NSW the Department of Land and Water Conservation undertook a survey of the water and sewerage facilities in 69 communities in 1997. A draft capital works program has been recommended outlining works that would facilitate improving the health of Aboriginal Communities. The need for quality of infrastructure, maintenance, correct operation and operator training were also identified as areas which would contribute to improved infrastructure operation. Funds for the capital works are the $200 million which are being administered by DAA as part of the ACDP (noted above).

The Aboriginal Housing Office

The Aboriginal Housing Office (AHO) was established as a statutory authority in 1998 to plan and develop programs and services to assist Aboriginal people in meeting their housing needs. The AHO has responsibility for delivery and evaluation of programs and services, funding and advice to registered Aboriginal housing organisations and the provision of rental housing and rental subsidies. The AHO compliments the work of the ACDP.

Northern Territory

In the Northern Territory, ATSIC's relationships with stakeholders are maintained at two levels. The Indigenous Housing Authority of the NT (IHANT) was established in September 1995 following the signing of a Bilateral Agreement on Housing And Related Infrastructure between the Commonwealth and Northern Territory Governments. Under the IHANT agreement, funding received by the NT from the Commonwealth under the Aboriginal Rental Housing Program is pooled with the NT Government funding and the housing component of the ATSIC Regional Council budgets in the NT.

Inter-Agency forums were initiated in July 1996 for agencies to learn of NAHS/HIPP's implementation and to further develop coordination processes. Agency advice on construction standards, specific issues in target communities as well as coordination with other projects in the community, were all part of the desired cooperative process.

South Australia

Remote Areas Essential Services Program

An ATSIC/State Essential Services Agreement was signed on 4 September 1997. This agreement gives DOSAA responsibility for the maintenance of essential services (power, water and sewerage) in 19 Aboriginal communities in South Australia (including the case study communities of Oak Valley and Yalata).

The agreement commits ATSIC and the State to provide matching funding of $2.7 million in each of the next three financial years commencing 1997/98. ATSIC is responsible for providing the essential services capital infrastructure, with the State having the recurrent maintenance responsibility. DOSAA is responsible for implementing this recurrent program and undertakes "project management" services for capital projects on a "fee for service" basis for ATSIC State Grants.

Other Initiatives

Housing for Health Initiative

In 1987 an environmental health review, Uwankara Palyanku Kanyintjaku, (The UPK Report) described and quantified a physical environment which prevented the practice of healthy living choices by Aboriginal people in the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Freehold Lands of South Australia. The report also started the process of identifying the specific health problems which were likely to be reduced by changes in the living environment of Aboriginal communities in rural and remote health. The review developed a list of nine healthy living practices and identified three major areas for future work

  • design, supervision and implementation strategies for housing and health hardware infrastructure
  • the development of means by which community management could contribute to health hardware sustainability in communities, and
  • the critical role of maintenance in achieving sustainable health hardware. The Pipalyatjara Project of 1992-93 focussed on maintenance and the development of systems that would lead to sustainable health hardware.

The results of this project were released in a book titled Housing for Health and the work has been central to many of the reforms and program initiatives in housing and environmental health over the past 5 years.

Pitjantjatjara Rockhole Project

The Pitjantjatjara Council has a long history of undertaking culturally-linked land care work. For the past 3-4 years the council has run a rock hole cleaning program utilising funding from the Australian Nature Conservation Agency.

Four principal water sources were recognised by Yankunytjatjara and Pitjantjatjara people

  • wanampitjara or springs - the most reliable source of water, generally salty groundwater that has travelled long distances underground picking up salts along the way
  • kakanpa or the soak - water collected from below a shallow water table at a low point in a small catchment area, in a river bed or soils on the margin of a rock dome
  • tjukula or rock hole - not protected by sand or soil, and usually caused when water infiltrated fissures in rocks, and
  • tjintjira or clay pan - the most transient source of water, a shallow water table over a large surface area subject to evaporation; there is evidence that people in the past created dam structures to prolong the time that water would be available from clay pans.

The program has been based with the Ananguku Pitjantjatjarraku Land Trust and has employed one or two program coordinators over the time it has operated. The coordinators have travelled out to the various homeland centres and taken groups of local people (Anangu) around to do the work. As well as cleaning out the rock holes, the program has recorded details of the names and associated stories for each place. Photographs have been taken and, in many cases, videos have been made of the work. The overall environmental state of each site has been assessed, including any damage due to stock and feral animals, and measures are taken to enclose or cover the rock hole where necessary. Such sites were then available as sources of drinking water. The program has proved particularly successful in helping with the rehabilitation of young people who are suffering the effects of petrol sniffing in the communities.

Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies

Rainwater Harvesting

During 1999 the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) commenced a project on rainwater harvesting under the umbrella of the Summer scholarship program of the CRC for Water Quality and Treatment. The project was co-supervised by the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health and the Australian Capital Territory Electricity and Water (ACTEW) Corporation.

The aim of the research was to use evidence-based computer technology to promote rainwater harvesting as a valuable source of potable water in Indigenous communities. Ten communities throughout Australia agreed to participate in the study. The research has confirmed that rainwater harvesting is a reliable source of potable water in most communities. A joint paper was prepared for the 1999, 9th International Rainwater Catchment Systems Conference. The report concluded that a significant amount of rainwater can be harvested even in the most arid regions of Australia and that, rainwater harvesting can be optimised using computer analysis.

Centre for Appropriate Technology

National Technology Transfer Clearinghouse

In October 1994 ATSIC provided support to CAT to establish and operate a national technology resource centre, more recently known as the National Technology Transfer Clearinghouse. The NTRC was to empower Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to control and use technologies that contribute to sustainable health, housing, employment and technical training outcomes. The national technology transfer clearinghouse provides

  • research and technology evaluation of new and emerging technologies and their appropriateness
  • a clearinghouse for the dissemination of ideas, strategies and options, and
  • policy and technical advice to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander resource and service delivery organisations in the infrastructure, housing, health and technical fields.

It has also sought to initiate relevant training responses, and raise the profile of women in technology through a women's technology network.

This service is offered from CAT offices in Central Australia, North Queensland and the North West of Western Australia.

Annex Five

Water regulation and provision in the States and Northern Territory

Introduction

This Annex provides an overview of the system of water regulation and provision across Australia, specifically from a community operational perspective. The water system includes provision of potable water in an urban situation as well as disposal of waste water.

The system varies significantly on a State by State basis, making generalisations difficult. Even within one State, there will be differences depending on the way in which the community is designated by the State.

The urban water industry is also facing significant reform through National Competition Policy (NCP). This is having a significant impact on major water providers with corporatisation or privatisation being implemented or under active consideration.

The information provided is based on best knowledge at the early part of 1999 and is subject to change as the NCP process proceeds. Comments are provided on implications of NCP in specific situations.

Western Australia

The situation in Western Australia is one of the most complex in Australia. At the present time the lines of responsibility are quite unclear with communities typically being disadvantaged by the way in which service provision is approached.

The main service provider is the Water Corporation of Western Australia. The corporatisation process has already taken place with this body replacing the former Water Authority (AWA). In towns and cities, Water Corporation acts as the service provider on a fee for service basis, although charges are typically standardised across the State rather than being on a direct cost recovery basis per service. This means that some cross-subsidisation is provided from low cost to high cost areas. Water Corporation typically provides both water and waste water systems in towns and cities although there are some exceptions eg. Kalgoorlie sewerage is a local government service and some small towns are serviced by local government for waste water. Water boards also exist at Bunbury and Busselton.

At the community level, Water Corporation is not a direct service provider but is better considered as a contractor. This was effectively the situation with WAWA, with funding for agreed services coming from either ATSIC State Grants or from Aboriginal Affairs Department (AAD). This situation was reviewed in 1997 with the management of the combined ATSIC/AAD Program for water services put to tender. This resulted in a Program Manager and contracted service providers at a regional level under the Remote Area Essential Services Program (RAESP).

The Western Australian situation essentially means that community water services are viewed as private systems and any external service is on a fee for service basis. Because operational and maintenance funding is very limited and not sufficient to maintain assets, community systems tend to run down with communities not having the resources available to directly fund these systems as part of their management systems.

With policies of 'normalisation' being promoted, there will be a view that communities should be able to meet some proportion of the cost of service provision from their own resources. With low incomes at a community level and a priority to maintain housing stock from rents, this may not be a realistic option.

Other agencies are also involved in the water system. Health Department of Western Australia (HDWA) have responsibilities under the Health Act which cover on-site disposal systems (septic systems) as well as in relation to environmental health considerations from waste water treatment systems eg. ponds. Discharge into the environment is also an issue with treatment ponds requiring licensing from the Department of Environment. Consultation with these agencies is therefore essential when establishing any new waste water system. These bodies may also obtain advice from Water Corporation on standards, although Water Corporation as a corporatised service provider body does not have any direct regulatory role. Water bores also require licensing from the Rivers and Water Commission. At a community level these are seen as a private water supply with community responsibility for licensing.

A State Office of Water has been established as a policy level agency with matters such as community service obligations for Water Corporation being within their charter. However, there appears to be no clear picture on this and Water Corporation takes a strong commercial line in any involvement with communities including town reserves.

Water quality testing is normally arranged through the RAESP Service Provider arrangements. However, for those supplies where there is no service provider other than the community, regular water tests may not occur.

Northern Territory

The water system is least complex in the Northern Territory. At the present time, the main service provider is the Power and Water Authority (PAWA). This body does not operate on a corporatised basis and, where service responsibility is assumed at a community level, there is currently no 'user pays' policy in place. Within designated towns and cities, PAWA does levy typical service charges for both water and sewerage services, although this may not necessarily reflect the cost of service provision. In the longer term, as with power supplies, the issue of reasonable payment for service at a community level will arise.

Where PAWA accepts responsibility for service provision (typically major communities), day to day operational responsibility is usually contracted to an agreed service provider. This service provider may be a community council or in some cases a private contractor. The contract usually provides an agreed amount for service and typically funds an Essential Service Operator (ESO) at the community level. PAWA have been reviewing the amount paid for this service and in many cases have been reducing the annual contract amount payable, placing an extra financial burden on the community.

Where PAWA has accepted operational responsibility, major maintenance and capital upgrades are programmed by PAWA on a forward works program which is subject to annual budget funding. This makes it difficult to provide any long term certainty about required capital works.

The situation with minor or emerging communities differs significantly. In some cases PAWA provides operational support although in most cases the services are not seen as the responsibility of PAWA. In these cases, funding support is usually provided by ATSIC, particularly in terms of capital requirements to establish and equip bores. Where new infrastructure is being developed it is important to consult with PAWA on standards and design if the opportunity for longer term operational support is to be available.

Other agencies are also involved in the water cycle. Territory Health Services (THS) have responsibilities under the Health Act and issues such as environmental health arise particularly in terms of waste water treatment, including effluent re-use. Where communities rely on septic tanks for waste water, these must be approved by THS in accordance with the Code of Practice for on-site waste water systems. Discharge into the environment is also an issue and comes within the responsibility of the Department of Lands, Planning and Environment (DLPE). This can have implications in terms of design of treatment ponds and in terms of ongoing operation of treatment systems.

Water quality testing is typically arranged by PAWA for services where they have operational responsibility. Environmental Health Officers also test water. Other supplies may not be tested.

Queensland

The water system in Queensland is dominated by the role of local government as the main service provider. This role of local government includes major headworks (dams) as well as reticulation systems and treatment. The Deed of Grant in Trust (DOGIT) communities in Queensland are regarded as local government and water systems are within their operational responsibility.

In the major urban centres, corporatisation of water services is under consideration by local government as part of NCP. NCP policies in terms of commercialisation of services are generally being applied throughout the urban water industry, eliminating cross-subsidies other than where specific community service obligations are identified and funded. However, in most urban situations in Queensland there will be little apparent change in the nature of the local government service provider.

Without a state-wide service provider, local water systems must operate on a cost recovery system. This means there is no state-wide uniform charge and high cost areas must achieve service income to meet operational costs. Capital works subsidies are available for local water supplies and waste water systems and these assist in achieving economic charges.

For communities not within a DOGIT, the mainstream local government will be the water provider. For a community located close to a main town, connection to town water or sewerage is feasible with standard charges (including headworks) being applied by the local government. Where the community is not located close to a town system, it is unlikely that the local government would directly provide the system or take over operational responsibility, other than on a fee for service basis. For a small community unable to connect to a town supply, a private supply would need to be funded.

For DOGITs, the handover of responsibilities which took place in the 1980s included the ongoing operation of water and sewerage systems. The operational grants provided to each DOGIT from State resources effectively includes a component which related to costs of operating these water systems as well as other local government responsibilities. These are however general purpose funds and the extent to which funds are used on water and sewerage works will depend on the council decisions.

The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) provides some operational support to DOGITs from a unit based in Cairns. This unit has some minor maintenance funding available. The unit also maintains Total Management Plans (TMPs) for DOGITs prepared from funds made available from the Department of Local Government and Planning (DLGP) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Infrastructure Program (ATSIIP). Capital works funds have been made available through ATSIIP ($28 million over 3 years) and this is supplementing ATSIC capital funds in meeting needs identified through the TMPs. This program has now been transferred to the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Planning and Development. (DATSIPAD)

Other agencies also play a role in the water system. Queensland Health has responsibilities under the Health Act and this impacts on on-site disposal (septic) systems and on design and operation of waste water treatment systems. Local Government is the delegate for environmental health aspects of the Health Act. Licensing of sewerage treatment works is required under the Environment Protection Act (EPA), with most local government treatment works currently not meeting EPA requirements. This is placing an additional burden on all communities, including DOGITs in terms of upgrading treatment to licence requirements.

In some situations (eg. Brisbane and Gladstone) a separate statutory Water Board has had responsibility for bulk water supplies. There are also some country town supplies where the bulk water is provided by the Department of Natural Resources from dams constructed primarily for irrigation. Bores need to be licensed by Department of Natural Resources in terms of extraction rights.

Water quality testing is part of the role of each local government service provider. Department of Natural Resources provides support for DOGIT communities in testing of water quality.

New South Wales

In New South Wales, there are a number of different arrangements for water and waste water services. In the metropolitan area, a corporatised Sydney Water provides services on a standard fee for service basis. This covers the area from the Illawarra to south of Wyong. A similar arrangement exists in the Hunter region.

In a number of rural areas, (currently understood to be 3 regions) a County Council (a local government body covering a number of council areas) is the water and waste water provider, again on a fee for service basis. NCP reforms also apply to these bodies with corporatisation or commercialisation being considered in some cases. As for Queensland these arrangements mean that there is no state-wide tariff for water with each scheme being based on charges to meet costs.

In other areas, the local government council is the service provider in the same manner as applies in Queensland (approximately 108 of 177 NSW councils are the water service provider). The local government may provide town services to reserve communities as for other areas of town on fee for service basis. This could require headworks charges for connection. Where connection to a town supply is not feasible, it is unlikely that the local government would provide a service other than on a cost recovery basis. In some cases eg. Dareton, ATSIC funding has provided the main sewerage headworks for a community, with ongoing operation by the council under normal household charging arrangements.

Some subsidies are available for capital works through Department of Land & Water Conservation to assist in achieving an economic service. This was a 50% subsidy on agreed works which were limited to major backlog headworks, although it is understood this funding has been reducing.

The establishment of the NSW Government Pricing Tribunal in 1992 has resulted in external determination of maximum prices for corporatised water bodies. The Pricing Tribunal has also set guidelines for local government water bodies, but does not have a regulatory role. An Office of Water was also established to oversee management of NSW water resources and to integrate arrangements. The NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation provides an overall management of resources while the Environmental Protection Authority has responsibilities with regard to environmental quality and standards. The Health Department has Health Act responsibilities in areas such as environment health standards including standards for on-site disposal systems. At a local level, local government is the delegate for the Health Act.

South Australia

The South Australian water supply system is under substantial reform as a result of NCP implementation. The metropolitan water system was privatised in recent years, leaving non-metropolitan water to SA Water, previously the Engineering and Water Supply Department. SA Water is moving to a corporatised approach for its urban water responsibilities. There is a state-wide tariff, providing some capacity for cross-subsidisation, although the capacity for cross-subsidisation from the more profitable metropolitan sector has been removed.

There are some situations where local government provides a common effluent drainage system. The recent formation of a Water Board under Ceduna City Council to manage the water west of Ceduna, including Koonibba, is an example of potential changes within the total non-metropolitan supply system through the water reform process.

Outside the areas serviced by SA Water as part of mainstream urban water service, the Department of State Aboriginal Affairs (DOSAA) plays a role in operation and maintenance under a bi-lateral agreement with ATSIC (ATSIC capital 60%, State recurrent 40% agreement). Under these arrangements, DOSAA provides funding for ESOs and undertakes recurrent maintenance requirements. This arrangement applies to Aboriginal Lands Trust communities as well as to the AP Lands, and is about to be extended to MT lands for Oak Valley. DOSAA services include water quality testing.

As in other States, the SA Health Commission has responsibilities under the Health Act including environmental health requirements for treatment works and for on-site waste water systems. Discharge to the environment is also controlled through EPA requirements and licensing of treatment works.

Victoria

The situation in Victoria is also being reformed moving from a state-based statutory system to corporatised bodies. In the metropolitan area, Melbourne Water is a corporatised body responsible for water and waste water headworks services. There are also three regional retail units to provide competition by comparison. Many of the services have been contracted-out to private enterprise. The retail units are intended to be privatised.

In non-metropolitan areas, there are approximately 18 corporatised Regional Water bodies. The number of these may reduce further. These bodies provide both headworks and retail services to customers in each area, based on a commercial service approach in terms of pricing.

An Office of Water within the Department of Natural Resources and Environment provides a policy oversight role as well as having responsibility for resource management from a State perspective. Licensing of treatment works is controlled through the Environment Protection Act. Health Act requirements are similar to those in other states.

Tasmania

The situation in Tasmania is similar to Queensland with local government having been the main service provider. However, changes are taking place under NCP with larger corporatised bodies expected to be formed. Some joint arrangements have existed in the past for bulk water provision eg. Hobart Water although individual local governments have been responsible for reticulation and service charges to individual houses.

Some small communities (eg. Cape Barren) are responsible for their own private service because they do not lie within a town service area of the local government.

Annex 6

International Best Practice in Water and Sanitation

The 1994 Water Report reviewed world experience in the International Water Supply and Sanitation Decade. In the last five years this work has been updated through learning from the second decade of international support for improved water and sanitation. Aspects of this experience ultimately impact on how the international community view Australia's performance.

Development thinking in the 1970s recognised that few benefits of the previous decade of economic growth in developing countries had trickled down to poor people. Economic growth alone would not eliminate poverty, and there was a need for measures targeted at the poor to help meet basic needs for water, food, health, education and housing. In 1976 UNICEF adopted an approach focused on basic services, in recognition that health care in developing countries was similar in approach to health delivery in industrialised countries. Many of the poor were effectively outside advanced health care, and suffered from basic illness such as diarrhoea and respiratory disease. Health ministers from developing countries decided at a conference in 1978 to restructure health delivery to primary health care for all.

A series of meetings between the World Bank, UNDP, UNICEF and WHO and bilateral donors convened in the early 1990s to reach a consensus around the key lessons learned about the provision of water and sanitation in the previous 20 years and the principles to be applied in the next decades.

The changes emanating from this consensus emphasised facilitation of access to rather than delivery of services. No longer were water and sanitation services regarded as an unqualified social right.

In 1992 a consensus emerged that water should be seen as an economic good. Not only did this principle encompass the idea that water had an environmental and productive value; it suggested that the basic human need for safe water to drink could no longer be regarded as a sufficient criterion for providing an engineered supply. According to the principle, the need for any system of water provision that placed an engineered construction or technological device between the user and a water source - stream, spring, lake or aquifer - should be expressed in terms of effective demand or 'willingness to pay'. Only if people attached to it a quantifiable value which could be factored into costs would there be any kind of guarantee that an engineered service would be sustainable - and sustained.

For decades survival and health criteria had been the unchallenged justification for the spread of water and sanitation services. The engineering of water supplies, through large and often complex systems of treatment and reticulation, has removed issues relating to water and waste disposal from the household and community and placed them further within the realm of public health administration. Often there has been a gross mismatch between the sophisticated and expensive technology being transferred to many parts of the developing world, and the economic settings in which the technology is expected to function.

The purpose of the first UN water decade had been presented unequivocally as the reduction of water and water-related sickness in poorer parts of the world. However, during the two decades there was considerable debate about whether the provision of water supplies to low income communities actually made any marked impact on their health. In many cases it did not do so, mainly because water related behaviours did not change.

A study of 121 projects in 49 countries concluded that

... sustainability of services, economic benefits, percentage of the target population reached and environmental benefits all increased in proportion to the level of user participation.

The study concluded that participation required a fundamental shift from centralised ownership of systems to local ownership and control. Also that approaches had to cease to be supply-driven and become instead demand-responsive. Flexibility, adaptation and short planning horizons were essential with on-going monitoring and evaluation to help redirect activity when needed.

Accepting the principle that water should be seen as an economic as well as a social good, has required that far more attention be paid to consumer demand in designing and managing services. This has meant that project planners need to establish rules and procedures that enable demand to be expressed and encourage efficient and effective choices to be made.

The provision of services is no longer seen as a construction job to be hired out to the most cost efficient contractor, but as a contribution to the economic, social and human development of people, including their skill, knowledge and organisational capacity. The success of these processes - not the technical perfection of systems - ultimately decides whether services are used, are sustainable, and have an impact on health and quality of life.

The key conceptual shift to have taken place is the substitution of the notion of beneficiaries of services with that of consumers of services. Where services are consumer driven, demand has to have reached a point where there is significant public appreciation of the value of services - for convenience, health and quality of life reasons - an understanding by consumers of what they can and cannot afford, how the services they select work, and how their providers and managers are performing.

The overwhelming challenge in the provision of water and sanitation is how to create demand and match service provision to it in a transparent and accountable fashion, without losing sight of the basic human right to share in a resource conferred by nature.

There are a number of factors that would cause some rethinking of this international learning in the Australian context. Most remote Indigenous communities in Australia do not function within a market economy in the same way as even poor villages in developing countries. Remote Indigenous Australian settlements share few of the elements which have led to the formation of settlements in an international context. Further, the mobility of Indigenous people, generally throughout their regions, is a factor which is less relevant overseas except for herding or hunting communities. Finally, Indigenous people have only limited resources with which to engage in a market economy.

Annex 7

Contacted and/or Participating Agencies

National

Australian Geological Survey Organisation, Canberra; Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra; Attorney General's Department, Human Rights Branch, Canberra; Centre of Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University, Canberra; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra; Department of Land and Water Conservation, Sydney; Gutteridge Haskins Davey, Sydney; ATSIC, Canberra; HealtHabitat, Sydney; Morton Consulting Services, Brisbane; National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Canberra; NSW Aboriginal Housing Office, Sydney; Parliamentary Library, Canberra; Remote Area Development Group (RADG), Perth; Water-Ways Asia-Pacific, Alice Springs; Woodward-Clyde Ltd, Sydney.

International

United Nations Development Program - World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, Washington; University of Loughborough, Water Engineering for Developing Countries; Water Engineering Development Centre, England.

The case study communities

Coonana
Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Goldfields Regional Office; Halpern Glick Maunsell, Perth; Kalgoorlie Regional ATSIC Office, South Australia; Ove Arup, Perth; Upurlupurlila Ngurratja Inc, Kalgoorlie; PPK, Perth.

Dareton
ATSIC, Bourke Regional Office; ATSIC Regional Council, Dareton ; Burns Aldis, Community Development Consultants, Sydney; Coomealla Housing Company, Dareton; Gutteridge Haskins Davey, Sydney; Murdi Paaki Regional Council, Lightning Ridge; Muurdi Paaki Housing Corporation; The Namatjitra Working Party; Ove Arup, Brisbane; Ove Arup, Cairns; Western Aboriginal Health Service; Environmental Health Section.

Doomadgee
ATSIC, Mt Isa Regional Office; Department of Natural Resources, Cairns; Doomadgee Aboriginal Corporation; The Essential Service Officer Doomadgee; Mark Moran Consultant, Cairns; Maunsell Mcintyre Mamic, Mt Isa; Population Health Unit, Queensland Health, Environmental Health Section, Cairns.

Mpweringe-Arnapipe
Alice Springs Regional ATSIC Office, Northern Territory; Central Land Council, Alice Springs; the management and staff of Ingkerreke Outstation Resource Centre, Alice Springs; Mpweringe-Arnapipe outstation residents.

Oak Valley
ATSIC Ceduna Regional Office, Ceduna; 19th Chief Engineer Works, Royal Australian Engineers Randwick, NSW; DOSAA Adelaide; Health Commission, Adelaide; Oak Valley; Maralinga Inc; Ove Arup, Brisbane; South Australian Housing Trust, Adelaide.

Punmu
ATSIC South Hedland Regional Office, South Hedland; Ove Arup, Brisbane; PPK, Adelaide; Punmu Community Council, Punmu.

Tingha
Gutteridge Haskins Davey, Sydney; Guyra Shire Council, NSW; Department of Land and Water Conservation, Tamworth; Mrangalli Aboriginal Corporation, Tingha; NSW Department of Public Works and Services; Tamworth Regional ATSIC Office, NSW.

Torres Strait generally, Coconut Island and Boigu Island
Cardno MBK, Brisbane; Coconut Island and Boigu Island Councils; Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Thursday Island; DNR, Cairns; Environmental Health Services, Tropical Health Unit, Thursday Island; Gutteridge Haskins and Davey, Cairns; Island Coordinating Council, Thursday Island; Maunsell Mcintyre, Cairns; Ove Arup, Cairns; Torres Strait Regional Authority, Thursday Island.

Yalata
Ceduna Regional ATSIC Office, NSW; DOSAA Adelaide; PPK, Adelaide/Perth; DOSAA, Adelaide; HGM, Perth; PPK, Adelaide; SA Health Commission, Adelaide; Yalata Community Council; Yalata-Maralinga Health Service, South Australia.

Annex 8

Case Study references

Torres Strait, Boigu Island and Coconut Island

Edmiston and Taylor 1996, Total Management Plan for Water and Transport Infrastructure, Boigu Island, Department of Natural Resources, Queensland.

Edmiston and Taylor 1996, Total Management Plan for Water and Transport Infrastructure, Coconut Island, Department of Natural Resources, Queensland.

Environmental Health Services, Tropical Health Unit, Primary Health Care Centre, Thursday Island 1999, Environmental Health Worker Position Profile.

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs 1997, Torres Strait Islanders: A New Deal, Report on Greater Autonomy for Torres Strait Islanders, Commonwealth of Australia.

Torres Strait Regional Authority (TSRA) 1999, TSRA News, Nos 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26.

Press Releases and TSRA news [online, accessed 21 June 1999]. TSRA website, http://www.tsra.gov.au.

Torres Strait Community Profile, [online, accessed 27 August 1999]. TSRA website, http://www.tsra.gov.au/Coconut.htm.

Coonana

Halpern, Glick and Maunsell for Upurl Upurlila Ngurratja Incorporated 1999 Coonana Community Water Supply Sources, Report on Options to Improve Reliability of Supply, Remote Area Essential Services Program, Project No. 10WD98, Report No. CW974811A.1.

Remote Area Essential Services Program 1999 Repairs Register, Goldfields/Central Reserves Region", Ngaanyatjarra Services, (10233/20R).

Dareton

Namatjira Working Party 1997, Housing and Environmental Health Plan for the Namatjira Community (Final draft), Burns Aldis, Community Development Consultants, Balgowlah, NSW.

Doomadgee

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), National Environmental Health Strategy-Queensland 1999, Environmental Health Assessments -2000/1 to 2002/3 Funding. Supporting Documentation, vol.2. Individual Community Assets, Ove Arup.

Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey 1996, Summary Document - ATSI Total Management Plan, vol. 1, Doomadgee Aboriginal Community Council, Department of Natural Resources - Water Industry Planning and Development, Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey, NSW.

Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey 1997, Doomadgee Housing and Infrastructure, National Aboriginal Health Scheme (NAHS) Environmental Health Program (EHP) Q073, Design Report", Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey, NSW.

Ove Arup 1999, ATSIC/HIPP NAHS Schedule of Current Housing and Infrastructure Projects, 1998/1999 (prepared for the Project Management Forum).

Mpweringe-Arnapipe

Ingerreke 1998, Funding Application for Infrastructure Development, (prepared originally for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission in December 1997, reworked twice in 1998).

Ove Arup 1999, Field Notes for Alice Springs Ingerreke Outstations, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, National Aboriginal Health Strategy, Environmental Health Project.

Oak Valley

Australian Property Group 1997, Oak Valley, South Australia, Progress Report, Department of Administrative Services.

Australian Army, 19th Chief Engineer Works 1997, Design Report for Oak Valley Housing and Infrastructure Project, Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Defence.

Australian Army 19th Chief Engineer Works 1998, Amendments to the Oak Valley Infrastructure Design Report, Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Defence.

Australian Army, 19th Chief Engineer Works 1999, Oak Valley Completion Report, Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Defence.

Australian Army, 19th Chief Engineer Works 1999, Project Manager Monthly Progress Report, Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Defence.

Dodds, S. 1997, An Assessment of the Ground Water Resources at Lake Maurice Area, Northwest South Australia, for Oak Valley Community, Marilinga Tjarutja Aboriginal Lands, Mines and Energy Resources, South Australia. Ove Arup and Partners 1997, Status of South Australian HIPP Projects Round 1, Ove Arup.

Ove Arup and Partners 1998, ATSIC Health Infrastructure Priority Program (HIPP) Program, Oak Valley, SA Final Project Report, Ove Arup.

Sheenagku Consultancy Services 1998, Monitoring and Evaluation of Round Two Health Infrastructure Priority Program, Aboriginal Health Council of South Australia, Oak Valley/Maralinga Inc.

Woodward-Clyde 1997, Oak Valley Water Supply Assessment, Department of Mines and Energy, AGC Woodward-Clyde Ltd, St Leonards, NSW.

Punmu

Cowell Electric 1999, Water Testing Results at Punmu: 17 November 1997 to 29 June 1999.

Cowell Electric Supply Company 1999, Homewest Emergency Repairs Register- Pilbara /Gascoyne Region, Cowell Electric Supply Company Ltd 27 November 1998 - May 1999. Remote Areas Essential Services Program.

Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey, Initial Inspection Report (extract, no date supplied).

Ove Arup 1999, Health Infrastructure Priority Projects (HIPP) Status Report for January/February 1999, Status of Western Australian Projects - HIPP Round 1: Punmu, Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey, Perth.

Ove Arup 1999, Information for a National Water Supply and Sanitation Follow-Up Study on Punmu and Coonana, prepared for Centre for Appropriate Technology by Ove Arup, Perth.

Tingha

Department of Public Works and Services, NSW (DPS, NSW) 1998 (Draft), Tingha Sewerage Scheme Feasibility Study, prepared for Guyra Shire Council and Department of Land and Water Conservation, DPS, NSW.

Works Australia 1997, Program Management for Capital Works Grants for the National Aboriginal Health Strategy NAHS; Initial Visit Project Evaluation Report, prepared for Mrangalli Aboriginal Corporation Tingha Aboriginal Corporation, ATSIC.

Yalata

Division of State Aboriginal Affairs (DOSAA) 1999, Yalata Aboriginal Community General Information, prepared for CAT by DOSAA, Adelaide.

HealtHabitat Environmental Health and Design 1999, Feasibility Study for a Housing for Health Project at Yatala, South Australia, (Preliminary Draft not for circulation - background reading only), Newport Beach.

Annex 9

References

National, State and Territory Government

Acting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner 1999, Social Justice Report, 1998, Office of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Statistics 1994, National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Survey, ABS, Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australia Now - A Statistical Profile, Population, The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Population, at http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats

Australian Bureau of Statistics 1997, Population Distribution, Indigenous Australians, ABS Catalogue No. 4705.0.

Australian Bureau of Statistics 1998, Australia's Indigenous People, ABS, Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Statistics 1999, The Health and Welfare of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, ABS, Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Statistics 1999, Housing and Infrastructure in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities, ABS, Canberra.

Australian Institute for Health and Welfare 1997, Australia's Welfare 1997, Services and Assistance, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 1998, Australia's Health, 1998: The Sixth Biennial Health Report of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Health Differentials Among Adult Australians Aged 25-64 Years, Colin Mathers (ed.), Health Monitoring Series Number 1, AGPS, Canberra.

Australian National Audit Office 1999, National Aboriginal Health Strategy - Delivery of Housing and Infrastructure to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

'Building Specifications and Contracts' for NAHS, HIPP, Tripartite Program and CHIP. Commonwealth of Australia 1996, Australia: State of the Environment 1996, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Publishing.

Commonwealth of Australia, 2000, Community Housing Infrastructure Needs Survey 1999, produced by ABS on behalf of ATSIC.

Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care, Rural Health Section 1999, Healthy Horizons: A Framework for Improving the Health of Rural, Regional and Remote Australians. A Joint Development of the National Rural Health Policy Forum and the National Rural Health Alliance. (For the Australian Ministers Health Conference), Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

House of Representatives Hansard: 28 February 1995, page 1140; 6 March 1995, page 1647; 7 March 1995, page 1732; 11 May 1995, Question No. 2030; 28 September 1995, Question No. 2570; 25 June 1996, Question No. 91; 6 March 1995, Question No. 1863; 11 May 1995 Question No. 2030, 28September 1995, Question No. 2570; 25 June 1996, Question No. 2730, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs 1997, Torres Strait Islanders: A New Deal, A Report on Greater Autonomy for Torres Strait Islanders, AGPS, Canberra.

Indigenous Policy Branch of the Department of Family and Community Services. (Edited Draft 5.3.99), The National Indigenous Housing Guide, Canberra.

NSW Aboriginal Housing Office 1999, Performance Guidelines for the Provision of Aboriginal Housing, Aboriginal Housing Office, Sydney, Parramatta.

NSW Government 1988, Aboriginal Housing Act 1998, No 47. (An Act to constitute the Aboriginal Housing Office (AHO); to confer functions on the AHO relating to housing assistance for Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander; to amend certain Acts; and for other purposes).

NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLWC) 1998, "Aboriginal Communities in Country NSW, Survey of Water Supply and Sewerage Infrastructure, Management Issues Now and for the Future", Report No HO/44/98 (internal report) DLWC, Sydney.

NTG Environmental Health Task Group, (THS, PAWA, Office of Aboriginal Development and Department of Housing and Local Government) 1998, The NT Environmental Health Standards for Remote Communities in the Northern Territory, Territory Health Services, Darwin.

Senate Hansard, 1 June 1994, pages: 1010, 1121, 1122, 1123; 2 June 1994, page 1153; 7 June 1997, page 1578; 9 June 1994, page 1844; 27 June 1994, page 1994; 6 December 1994, page 4075, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Territory Health Service (THS) 1996, The THS Code of Practice for Small On Site Sewage and Sullage Treatment Systems and the Disposal or Reuse of Effluent, Territory Health Services, Darwin.

Non-Government

Altman J.C., Gillespie D. and Palmer K. 1998, National Review of Outstation Resource Agencies, Confidential Report, ATSIC, Canberra.

ATSIC 1994/5; 1995/6; 1996/7; 1997/8; 1998/9, Chapter 5, 'Land Heritage and Environment', ATSIC Annual Reports, Canberra.

ATSIC 1997, Memorandum of Understanding between ATSIC, Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services, Department of Defence - Australian Army, ATSIC Army Community Assistance Project, Canberra.

ATSIC (Office of Evaluation and Audit) 1999, Evaluation of the Health Infrastructure Priority Projects Program (HIPP), ATSIC, Canberra.

ATSIC 1999, Policy for Outstations, Homelands and New and Emerging Communities, Social and Cultural, ATSIC, Canberra.

ATSIC, Homepage, Australia, Community Housing and Infrastructure Program, [Online accessed August 1999] www.atsic.gov.au/homepage/programs/chip/htm.

ATSIC 1999, National Aboriginal Health Strategy - Delivery of Housing and Infrastructure to Aboriginal Communities, Performance Audit, Australian National Audit Office, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Australian Medical Association, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Submission, [Online, accessed 26 Aug 1998].

Boydell, R. "Making Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Projects Sustainable", Waterlines Vol. 18 No.1 July 1999.

Douglas, R.M. and Adams, A.I. 1997, Review of the Western Water Study, ATSIC. Canberra.

Langton, M. (ed.) Looking at Outcomes Will Help http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsiproject/rsilibrary/car/abr/lang….

Marshall, G. 1998, Sewerage Systems in Remote Indigenous Communities, #cat98/8, Centre for Appropriate Technology, Alice Springs.

Marshall, G. 1998, Sewerage Systems in Remote Indigenous Communities, #cat98/8ex, Executive Summary, Centre for Appropriate Technology, Alice Springs.

Martin, D.F. 1995, Money, Business and Culture: Issues for Aboriginal Economic Policy, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Discussion Paper 101; abstract.

National Indigenous Working Group on Native Title, "Fact Sheets 1 and 5" Web site http://www.faira.org.au/niwg/.

National Rural Health Alliance 1999, Health and Rural Infrastructure: Submission to House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services, Inquiry into Infrastructure and the Development of Australia's Regional Areas, National Rural Health Alliance, Deakin, ACT.

National Rural Health Alliance 1999, A Blueprint for Rural Development, Discussion Paper, Rural Health Information Paper No 5, National Rural Health Alliance, Deakin, ACT.

National Health and Medical Research Council, Promoting the Health of Indigenous Australians: A Review of Infrastructure Support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Advancement - Final Report and Recommendations, Cat. No. 9704051.

National Health and Medical Research Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand 1996, Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, National Water Quality Management Strategy, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Nigam A. and Rasheed S. 1998, Financing of Fresh Water for All: A Rights Based Approach, UNICEF Staff Working Papers, Evaluation, Policy and Planning Series, Number EPP-EVL- 98-003, UNICEF, New York.

Pearson N. and Latham M. 1999, "Hearing" Volume No 4, 26 July 1999, transcript by Computer Reporters (Qld) Pty Ltd, Brisbane.

Pholeros P., Rainow S. and Torzillo P. 1993, Housing for Health: Towards a Healthy Living Environment for Aboriginal Australia, HealtHabitat, Sydney.

Porter D. and Onyach-Olaa, M. 1999, Inclusive Planning and Allocation for Rural Services, Development in Practice Journal, February.

Reddy S. and Vandemoortele J. 1996, User Financing of Basic Social Services: A Review of Theoretical Arguments and Empirical Evidence, Abstract, UNICEF, New York.

Rowse, T. 1998, White Flour, White Power: From Rations to Citizenship in Central Australia, Cambridge University Press.

Sara, J. 1998, 'Giving Communities Choice Is not Enough!', paper presented at the Community Water Supply and Sanitation Conference, 1998, The World Bank, Washington.

Toyne P., Japanangka J. G. and Zimran S. 1996, Toward a Bicultural Regional Water Program in Central Australia - Consultations with Aboriginal Community Groups, Australian Geological Survey Organisation, Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Canberra.

Warby, M. 1997, Past Wrongs, Future Rights, Tasman Institute, Melbourne.

The International Perspective

Black, M. 1998, Learning What Works: A 20 Year Retrospective View on International Water and Sanitation Cooperation, UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, Washington DC.

Franceys, R. 1997, "Private Sector Participation in the Water and Sanitation Sector", Water Resources Occasional Papers No. 3, WEDC, Loughborough University, Delft.

International Research Centre (IRC), 1999, 'Sustainability in Ghana Higher Than in Cameroon', SOURCE Bulletin, Water and Sanitation News Review, No 4., April.

McComon, C.S., Perez, E.A. and Rosensweig, F. 1998, Environmental Health Project Applied Study No 4, Providing Urban Environmental Services for the Poor: Lessons Learned from 3 Pilot Projects, Office of Health and Nutrition, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington DC.

O'Toole, L.J. and Sencer, D.J. 1999, Environmental Health Project Applied Study No 8, Institutional Lessons Learned in Environmental Health Programs, Office of Health and Nutrition, Agency for International Development, Washington DC.

Palmer, I. 1998, 'Mvula Trust: An Independent Approach to Rural Water Supply and Sanitation in South Africa', paper presented at the Community Water Supply and Sanitation Conference, 1998, The World Bank, Washington.

United Nations Development Programme-World Bank, Water and Sanitation Program 1998, Sanitation Cooperation, United Nations Development Programme, Washington.

United Nations Development Programme-World Bank, Water and Sanitation Program 1998, Community Water and Sanitation Conference, 1998, United Nations Development Programme, World Bank, Washington DC.

United Nations Development Programme-World Bank, Water and Sanitation Program 1999, Water and Sanitation Services for the Poor: Innovating Through Field Experience, Program Strategy: 1999-2003, United Nations Development Programme-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, Washington DC.

UNICEF, The State of the World's Children 1996 - http://www.unicef.org version.

Water and Environmental Health at London and Loughborough (WELL) 1998, Guidance Manual on Water Supply and Sanitation Programs, Department For International Development, London.

Annex 10

Relevant Websites

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission http://www.atsic.gov.au

Aboriginal Studies - WWW Virtual Library http://www.jve.com.au/clients/koori

Active Voices: Cultural Survival's Online Activist Forum and Information Center http://www.cs.org/AVoices/

Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Radio National http://www.abc.net.au/rn/

Australian Bureau of Statistics http://www.abs.gov.au

Australian Geological Survey Organisation http://www.agso.gov.au

Australian Government homepage http://www.fed.gov.au

Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies: Native Title Research Unit http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/ntru

Australian Institute of Family Studies http://www.aifs.org.au

Australian Medical Association http://www.ama.com.au

Australian National Audit Office http://www.anao.gov.au

Benchmarking Workshop, Canberra http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/car/abr/

Central Land Council http://www.clc.org.au

Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research http://www.anu.edu.au/caepr

The Centre for Independent Studies http://www.cis.org.au/

Community Water Supply and Sanitation Conference http://www.wsp.org/

Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/orgs/car/council/

Curtin Indigenous Research Centre http://www.gunada.curtin.edu.au/circ/

Department for International Development http://www.dfid.gov.uk

Division of State Aboriginal Affairs http://www.dosaa.sa.gov.au/projects.html

Environmental Health Project http://www.crosslink:net/~ehp/

Global Applied Research Network in Water Supply and Sanitation (GARNET) http://www.lboro.ac.uk/garnet/

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission http://www.humanrights.gov.au

International Development Research Centre http://www.idrc.ca

International Institute for Sustainable Development http://www.iisd.ca/linkages

Intermediate Technology Development Group http://www.itdg.org.pe/

International Arid Lands Consortium http://ag.arizona.edu/OALS/IALC/

International Water and Sanitation Centre, Netherlands (IRC) http://www.irc.nl/

KooriNet http://www.koori.usyd.edu.au/

Lifewater Canada http://www.lifewater.ca

Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs http://www.atsia.gov.au/

National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Clearinghouse http://www.ecu.edu.au/chs/nh/clearinghouse

National Health and Medical Research Council http://www.nhmrc.health.gov.au

National Indigenous Working Group on Native Title http://www.faira.org.au/niwg/

National Rural Health Alliance http://www.ruralhealth.org.au

Northern Land Council http://www.widget.com.au/~nlc95/

NSW Department of Aboriginal Affairs http://www.daa.nsw.gov.au/daa/ACDP.html

Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health http://www.health.gov.au/pubhlth/indig

Power and Water Authority http://coburg.nt.gov.au/pawa

Public Health Association of Australia Inc http://www.phaa.net.au/

Rio Tinto http://www.riotinto.com

Tasman Institute http://www.tasman.com.au

Territory Health Services http://www.nt.gov.au/nths/

Torres Strait Regional Authority http://www.tsra.gov.au

Tropical Savannas CRC http://savanna.ntu.edu.au

United Nations Development Program Water and Sanitation Program (UNDP) http://www.wsp.org

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) http://www.unesco.org

UNESCOMOST - Management of Social Transformations Clearing House http://www.unesco.org/most/

United Nations Children's Fund http://www.unicef.org/

United Nations Development Programme http://www.undp.org

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights http://www.unhchr.ch

Water Engineering Development Centre (WEDC) http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/cv/wedc/index.htm

Water Environment Foundation http://www.wef.org/

Water and Environmental Health at London and Loughborough (WELL) http://www.lboro.ac.uk/well/

Water and Sanitation in Developing Countries (SANDEC) http://www.sandec.ch/

Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council http://www.wsscc.org

World Bank http://www.worldbank.org.

World Health Organisation http://www.who.int

World Water Corporation http://www.worldwater.com

Tags Race Discrimination