Social Justice Report 2003: Appendix two: The Council of Australian Governments’ whole-of-government community trials initiative

Social Justice Report 2003

Appendix two: The Council of Australian Governments' whole-of-government community trials initiative

This appendix provides a summary of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) whole-of-government community trials initiative and its implementation in each state and territory. [1]

1. Background

In its communique of November 2000, COAG agreed on a reconciliation framework through which governments would work in partnership to advance reconciliation. The communique recognises that all levels of government have a responsibility to progress reconciliation and to improve the economic and social wellbeing of Indigenous peoples.

The Reconciliation Framework establishes three priority areas for government action:

• Investing in community leadership initiatives;
• Reviewing and re-engineering programmes and services to ensure they deliver practical measures that support families, children and young people. In particular, governments agreed to look at measures for tackling family violence, drug and alcohol dependency and other symptoms of community dysfunction; and

• Forging greater links between the business sector and indigenous communities to help promote economic independence. [2]

At its April 2002 meeting, COAG reaffirmed its November 2000 commitment to advance reconciliation and agreed to trial a whole-of-government cooperative approach in up to ten communities or regions across Australia:

The aim of these trials will be to improve the way governments interact with each other and with communities to deliver more effective responses to the needs of indigenous Australians. The lessons learnt from these cooperative approaches will be able to be applied more broadly. This approach will be flexible in order to reflect the needs of specific communities, build on existing work and improve the compatibility of different State, Territory and Commonwealth approaches to achieve better outcomes. [3]

It was subsequently agreed that there would be eight trial sites. The sites, and the Australian Government department that is leading each trial, are listed below:

1. Murdi Paaki Region (New South Wales ): Department of Education, Science and Training;

2. Wadeye (Northern Territory) : Department of Family and Community Services;

3. Shepparton (Victoria) : Department of Employment and Workplace Relations;

4. Cape York (Queensland): Department of Employment and Workplace Relations;

5. Anangu Pitjantjatjara Lands (South Australia): Department of Health & Ageing;

6. East Kimberley region (Western Australia): Department of Transport and Regional Services;

7. Northern Tasmania : Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; and

8. The Australian Capital Territory : Department of Environment and Heritage.

Within State and Territory jurisdictions, leadership of the trials rests with Premier and Cabinet (or Chief Minister's) departments and the portfolios with responsibility for Indigenous affairs except in NSW where the Department of Education and Training has head agency responsibility.

ATSIC is strongly supportive of the trials, and states that:

they provide a significant opportunity to identify more responsive and flexible ways in which governments can respond to the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples .... and [an] opportunity to examine the development of effective governance structures and processes, and to support and develop local leadership and build community capacity. [4]

2. Government coordination mechanisms for the trials

Overall coordination of the trials is done through the COAG Senior Officials Meeting (which consists of CEOs of Premiers and Chief Minister's Departments, and is chaired by the Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet). There are regular progress reports to this body.

At the federal level, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs has overall responsibility for the trials. Federal government progress in the trials is advanced through four main government processes:

• First, meetings of Australian Government Ministers with program and policy responsibilities for Indigenous affairs;
• Second, meetings of Australian Government departmental secretaries (the Secretaries Group);
• Third, the Indigenous Communities Coordination Taskforce (ICCT) which implements the directives of the Secretaries Group; and
• Fourth, lead agencies, where Secretaries and their agencies' champion individual trial sites.

The Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Immigration Affairs chairs the meeting of Australian Government Ministers. This group leads the whole-of-government process. The Secretaries Group meets once a month to oversee progress in the trial sites. The group promotes greater whole of government coordination across Australian government agencies and develops linkages with the State and Territory governments to improve service delivery to Indigenous communities. [5]

The Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs chairs this group. It includes membership from the following Australian Government agencies:

• Department of Education, Science and Training;
• Department of Health and Ageing;
• Department of Family and Community Services;
• Department of Employment and Workplace Relations;
• Department of Transport and Regional Services;
• Department of Environment and Heritage;
• Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet; and

• ATSIC. [6]

Reports are provided to the Prime Minister on the progress in the trials, in addition to reports to the Ministers. [7]

The Indigenous Communities Coordination Taskforce (ICCT) has been established to support the Secretaries Group and federal government agencies involved in the eight trials. The ICCT is located within the Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and is staffed by officers seconded from the various Commonwealth agencies involved in the initiative. The ICCT administers a Flexible Funding Pool (FFP) with a budget of $6 million over two years (from the 2003-04 Federal Budget) to facilitate projects within the trial sites. In supporting the Secretaries Group, the ICCT are involved in implementing the COAG initiative within Australian government agencies, working with State and Territory governments, monitoring performance , and providing feedback to and from Indigenous communities on the implementation of the initiative. [8]

For each trial site, a lead Australian government agency has also been selected. The lead agency has day-to-day accountability for progress in each of the trial sites. ATSIS does not have lead agency status in any of the eight regions. Instead it is designated partner agency status and plays a vital role in guiding and supporting activity in all of the trial sites. [9] The ICCT has noted that:

The ATSIC Regional Councils should be a really important part of these trials. In some areas they are at the centre; in others, they are more of a support mechanism; but everywhere they are keen to be involved and to get more involved. [10]

The ICCT states that the commitment of government bureaucracies to the COAG initiative also differs from previous attempts to deliver more effective responses to Indigenous people given the governments high-level visibility and increased accountability to Indigenous people:

What ... is different at the bureaucratic level this time is the commitment across the board in a large number of key agencies of people at the top. There is a continuing and really strong commitment. People see that, because it is very visible. Secretaries have sort of put themselves on the line, I suppose, with communities in terms of being the person identified as their champion. [11]

ATSIC's approach has been to promote the Regional Councils as the pre-eminent source of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander advice in all trial sites. This is easier in regions where Regional Councils are the main source of leadership but has proved difficult where other organisations compete for the role, or where the trial site boundary differs from the Regional Council boundary.

ATSIC has stated that one the roles it has fulfilled is providing introductions between communities and government partners, and supporting these relationships. In some regions, it has set the framework from within which the trial has proceeded as a critical 'insider' (for example, Murdi Paaki and Cape York). ATSIC's role is made easier by the fact that in general the trials are being rolled out in an environment where there are already a number of agreement frameworks between ATSIC and state or territory governments. [12]

Within State and Territory bureaucracies, a variety of mechanisms have been established to support the trials. Some are similar to the Australian Government arrangements, for example:

• In Queensland, the Premier established a CEO's Steering Committee to progress the reform process in Cape York through the Queensland Government's Meeting Challenges, Making Choices initiative which the COAG trial has built on. The CEO's Steering Committee also comprised senior Indigenous leadership from Cape York and, once the COAG trial started, the Australian Government. CEO's of Queensland government departments also act as champions for individual communities within Cape York.

• In Western Australia, an Indigenous Affairs Advisory Committee (IAAC) had been established to better coordinate Indigenous business across the State with membership from WA Government department CEO's and Chairs of ATSIC Regional Councils. After agreement on a COAG trial site, the Australian Government was also invited to be a member of the Committee. .

• In the Northern Territory, the Chief Minister's Department coordinates across Territory agencies through regular meetings at the senior level. A tripartite steering committee of Australian Government and NT Government officials and representatives of the Thamarrurr Council from the Wadeye trial site has also been established to oversee progress in the trial site.

3. Improving government coordination and the 'Shared Responsibility' approach

The COAG Communique of April 2002 recognised that outcomes and management processes in Indigenous policy and service delivery need to be improved. The COAG initiative is intended to trial a different approach as current and past approaches have not always achieved the desired outcomes. A twofold method is proposed under the COAG initiative:

• governments must work together better at all levels and across all departments and agencies; and

• Indigenous communities and governments must work in partnership and share responsibility for achieving outcomes and building the capacity of people in communities to manage their own affairs. [13]

As stated by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs:

Put simply, COAG instructed the bureaucrats to get their act together and coordinate their efforts. In return, the Indigenous people were given more of a say and more responsibility for what happens in their communities. [14]

The trials recognise the need for a different type of engagement and relationship to be developed between government and Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders, with partnerships based on community-determined priorities. As stated by the ICCT the whole-of-government initiative supports:

• Different engagement between government and community; and

• Redefining the relationship between government and Indigenous communities based on what communities are saying. [15]

The objectives of the COAG trials set out a number of practical areas for government to reform its current operations. The objectives of the COAG trial are to:

• tailor government action to identified community needs and aspirations; coordinate government programmes and services where this will improve service delivery outcomes;
• encourage innovative approaches traversing new territory;
• cut through blockages and red tape to resolve issues quickly;
• work with Indigenous communities to build the capacity of people in those communities to negotiate as genuine partners with government;
• negotiate agreed outcomes, benchmarks for measuring progress and management of responsibilities for achieving those outcomes with the relevant people in Indigenous communities; and

• build the capacity of government employees to be able to meet the challenges of working in this new way with Indigenous communities. [16]

It is anticipated that the trials will encourage governments to modify the way they conduct their program and service delivery responsibilities, including by encouraging the pooling of funding, breaking down internal administrative barriers and improving the way government manage and award contracts. [17] The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has stated that:

The whole-of-government initiative, which flows from an agreement at COAG last year, is designed to tackle this problem of the fragmentation of service delivery. In areas where the whole-of-government initiative is operating, one federal portfolio is coordinating the delivery of all federal services to Indigenous peoples in that area and it is working in close partnership with one state portfolio which is similarly coordinating the delivery of all state services to Indigenous people. [18]

The ICCT have noted that there is a lot of work to be done to improve coordination between the federal, state and territory governments in order to make them flexible and effective to community-identified needs. [19] The COAG whole of government approach is still in its early stages. It should not be assumed that existing Australian and State/Territory government funding parameters and restrictions have already been addressed under the COAG initiative.

The initial stage of the COAG initiative has been dedicated in part to developing, building or re-establishing effective networks and relationships between Indigenous people and government. The ICCT describes this stage as critical and building 'relationships of trust' between governments and Indigenous communities are essential to developing sustainable structures to support the initiatives. [20]

COAG's policy framework that underpins the trials is based on shared responsibility and partnership. The ICCT has stated that the 'Shared Responsibility approach will involve communities negotiating as equal parties with government' [21] and asserts that the wellbeing of Indigenous communities is shared by individuals, families, communities and government. All parties must work together and build their capacity to support a different approach for the economic, social and cultural development of Indigenous peoples.

One mechanism for formalising the partnership approach is through the negotiation of a Shared Responsibility Agreement (SRA) between government and Indigenous peoples. The purpose of the agreement is threefold. It:

• Sets out priorities identified with communities and agreed outcomes and benchmarks;
• Establishes partnership arrangements and describe each party's responsibilities; and

• Supports local governance and decision-making. [22]

A template of an SRA has been developed which could potentially be adapted to the circumstances of the Indigenous people in each trial site. The agreement outlines the parties to the agreement, objectives, local outcomes and priorities, agreed performance measurement and evaluation framework (including agreed benchmarks), access to data, dispute settling arrangements, processes for reviewing progress and the duration and variation provisions to the agreement. [23]

Three Shared Responsibility Agreements were finalised in 2003, with negotiations ongoing in relation to the remaining five trial sites. The current status of these agreements in each trial site is discussed later in this appendix.

4. Performance Monitoring Framework for the trials

Australian Government and State and Territory officials have worked together to develop a broad framework for monitoring performance in the COAG trials. The framework, entitled 'National Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Framework', was finalised in November 2003. It is intended to capture information at the community/regional level, national level and within government bureaucracies. The information to be collected at each level includes the following.

• Community and/or Regional Level Monitoring

Performance data collected at the community and/or regional level will be negotiated between government and Indigenous peoples and collected against agreed priorities, outcomes and benchmarks. An integral element of data collection at this level involves two-way communication between government and Indigenous people and the development of specific site indicators will be dependent on the negotiation and implementation of the Shared Responsibility Agreement in each of COAG trial sites.

• National Level Monitoring

The local-level information will be aggregated to feed into the national level analysis, and if possible, will be aligned to the COAG Framework for Reporting on Indigenous Disadvantage. In addition to reporting under the headline and strategic change indicators developed by the Steering Committee for the Provision of Government Services, the monitoring framework will attempt to compare data against existing portfolio budget statements and other cross-government frameworks at the national level.

• "Government Level Monitoring

By monitoring the performance within the government bureaucracies, the initiative will identify whether the necessary structural changes are occurring to support greater flexibility and better coordination across and between the different levels of government. Agreed benchmarks will be established for the Commonwealth agencies involved in the trials to measure performance and the cost-effectiveness of operational and structural reform between the different levels of government.

In addition, the Australian Government intends to evaluate its own performance in the trials at 2 and 5 years. In a number of trial sites, plans are developing for site evaluation involving the Australian, State and Territory governments and community representatives.

Evaluation of the trials will be used to assess whether the COAG trials have lead to improved social and economic circumstances for Indigenous peoples and will inform decisions as to the potential of the approach being adopted more widely. [24] The ICCT is also developing a data tracking system, with a baseline data set and protocols. This 'Indigenous Communities Coordination Taskforce Database' will contain local-level performance and monitoring information across the eight trial sites.

5. Progress in each COAG whole-of-government community trial site

To date, the following seven trial sites have been publicly announced:

• Murdi Paaki region in New South Wales;
• Wadeye (Port Keats) in the Northern Territory;
• Shepparton in Victoria;
• Cape York in Queensland;
• Anangu Pitjantjatjara (AP) Lands in South Australia;
• East Kimberley in Western Australia; and
• Northern Tasmania.

There is one final trial site, to cover the entire Australian Capital Territory, which has yet to be publicly announced. The details of this site are expected to be made public in early 2004.

Initial Shared Responsibility Agreements have been negotiated and finalized in Murdi Paaki (New South Wales) and Wadeye (Northern Territory) during 2003. In Victoria, an agreement, called a Compact has been negotiated to underpin the trial in Shepparton. The next stage for these sites involves developing action plans, performance measures and benchmarks to implement the agreement. Negotiations on Shared Responsibility Agreements are continuing in the remaining five COAG sites.

There are significant variations between each of the COAG trial sites. They vary geographically across urban, regional and remote areas of Australia; and through the method of participation of Indigenous communities in the trials. The differences between sites are also reflected in different structures and processes for each trial site (with unique design, delivery and monitoring measures developed for each of the eight regions).

A summary of the progress in each of the eight COAG trial sites is provided below (commencing with the three trial sites which have signed agreements or compacts).

a) Murdi Paaki region (New South Wales)

The COAG trial site in NSW is the region comprising the ATSIC Murdi Paaki Regional Council. This is an area of 300 000 square km, covering one-third of NSW. It includes the communities of Bourke, Brewarrina, Broken Hill, Cobar, Collarenebri, Coonamble, Dareton, Enngonia, Goodooga, Gulargambone, Ivanhoe, Lightning Ridge, Menindee, Quambone, Tibooburra, Walgett, Weilmoringle and Wilcannia. [25]

A Shared Responsibility Agreement was signed by the ATSIC Murdi Paaki Regional Council, the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of New South Wales in August 2003.

The Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) is the lead agency for the Australian government, and a dedicated officer is located in Dubbo to work closely with regional staff and have greater access to the region. DEST reports that the early planning and negotiation stages of the COAG whole of government initiative has resulted in the capacity development of government and Indigenous peoples in the region. [26] The lead agency for the NSW government is the Department of Education and Training. Although structural policy and procedural changes have not occurred at this stage, the NSW government expects the community planning process to identify better ways of providing services which will be implemented under the COAG initiative as it develops. [27]

Under the agreement, the ATSIC Murdi Paaki Regional Council and the Community Working Parties (CWPs) it has established are recognised as the primary contact points for Indigenous peoples in the region. The Community Working Parties are the primary governance structure in the communities, with each comprised of a broad cross section of the local Indigenous community. To ensure these working parties are as representative as possible, the Murdi Paaki Regional Council is currently facilitating 'refresher' elections. [28]

All parties to the Shared Responsibility Agreement have committed to four key regional priorities. These are:

• Improving the health and wellbeing of children and young people;
• Improving educational attainment and school retention;
• Helping families to raise healthy children; and

• Strengthening community and regional governance structures. [29]

The establishment of effective local governance structures is seen as essential to the sustainability of any initiatives under the COAG trial. The Shared Responsibility Agreement details how the ATSIC Regional Council, Australian and New South Wales (NSW) governments will support the sixteen Community Working Parties (CWPs). The Agreement details the benchmarks, reporting arrangements and short and long term outcomes to provide secretariat and administrative support to the CWPs. This includes assistance from the Australian and state government to provide additional funding and training support to Community Development Employment Program (CDEP) workers to provide Secretariat services to each of the CWPs participating in the COAG trial.

In addition to building governance structures, supporting children at schools has been identified as the critical priority in the region. Discussions are currently underway to identify one to three schools to be involved in a joint approach between the community, Australian government and NSW government to work together to focus on strengthening families, school retention and providing family support to children. [30]

The Shared Responsibility Agreement is a regional agreement. It is anticipated that individual shared responsibility agreements will be negotiated with each of the 16 Community Working Parties and the Government. A staged approach has been adopted to negotiating these agreements to account for the different capacities of each of the working parties. Six communities (Enngonia, Collarenebri, Goodooga, Ivanhoe, Weilmoringle and Wilcannia) have been selected to develop local agreements in the first instance. [31]

A number of structures have been established to facilitate the whole-of-government trial. A steering committee has been established with members from the ATSIC Murdi Paaki Regional Council, DEST, the ICCT, and NSW Government Cabinet Office, and the Department of Employment and Training. The Steering Committee is responsible for progressing regional priorities, addressing barriers and improving the delivery of services. [32] The Steering Committee is supported by a group of field officers who work across all levels of government and negotiate directly with the Community Working Parties. An Evaluation Framework Committee has also been established to facilitate the collection of baseline data and discus how the trial will be evaluated. [33]

b) Wadeye (Northern Territory)

The Wadeye whole of government trial site was announced in November 2002. Wadeye is the sixth largest town in the Northern Territory, approximately 420 kms south-west of Darwin, and is one of the largest Aboriginal communities in the Territory. [34] The Shared Responsibility Agreement (SRA) for the trial was signed on 21 March 2003 between the Commonwealth of Australia, the Northern Territory Government and the Thamarrurr Regional Council.

The Thamarrurr Regional Council was endorsed under the Local Government Act of the Northern Territory in early 2003 by the Northern Territory Parliament, and is the result of over six years of work by the land-owning groups to develop the unique governance structure of Thamarrurr. [35] The Thamarrurr region covers approximately 5000 kilometres and 20 land-owning groups are included within the area, including Rak Diminin (referred to as Kardu Diminin) who are the traditional landowners of the Wadeye township. [36]

The Department of Family and Community Services is the lead agency for the Australian Government and the Office of Indigenous Policy (within the Department of the Chief Minister) leading the trial on behalf of the Northern Territory government. At this stage, the COAG trial has highlighted the need for stronger collaborative efforts between governments by encouraging funds pooling based on needs-based planning models and administrative reforms for alternative models of service delivery to reduce bureaucratic processes. [37]

The Northern Territory government has identified governance as the critical starting point in the whole-of-government initiative. They see the major challenge facing Indigenous communities in North Australia as how to bring together contemporary governance arrangements with culturally based systems of authority and decision-making. [38]

As stated by the Northern Territory Government:

Previous [government] policies have resulted in largely imposed localized structures that have been designed for 'governing for dependence'. Without effective governing institutions, leaders who have cultural legitimacy and the ability for Indigenous institutions to exercise real decision making powers, the aims of ...[the COAG trial] ...will simply not be sustainable or of any long term social or economic benefit. [39]

In the trial, the Thamarrurr Regional Council has a government to government relationship with the Australian and Northern Territory governments. All three parties are given equal standing in the SRA, the key principles of which are based on cultural respect and the beliefs of the Thamarrurr. [40] Notwithstanding the mutual responsibilities of all governments (Australian, Northern Territory and Thamarrurr), Indigenous peoples have insisted that it wants the Australian and Northern Territory governments to 'take responsibility for its responsibilities'. [41] The Northern Territory government has stated that:

Community leaders tell us that Governments often arbitrarily shove problems off onto community people to solve. They have made it clear they want Government field staff to offer options that involve practical solutions not just more problems. [42]

The Shared Responsibility Agreement outlines the three key regional priorities for the region. These are women and families; youth; and housing and construction. As stated in the agreement, education, training and enterprise development are intrinsically linked to advancing the three regional priorities, and these needs will be central to any strategies developed in pursuit of the regional priorities. The importance of tackling issues in manageable components has been identified by all partners in Wadeye.

As stated by the Northern Territory government:

The partners recognise up front the pressure to spread effort too thinly. The decision to focus on a common community chosen theme 'Give every kid a chance', tackle issues in biteable chunks and avoid trying to fix everything has proven to be the correct strategy. [43]

As advised by the ICCT, a number of local projects have been initiated under the three regional priorities, including the family program activities conducted by the Women's Centre, the employment and training of local people in the region [44] and the Economic Education Project. The 'Local Jobs for Local People Plan' strategy forms the blueprint for all future training and employment activity at Wadeye and the Economic Education Project provides information and resources on a range of issues to assist the Thamarrurr understand economic and money matters that impact on their daily lives. [45]

The governance structure to oversight and manage the COAG initiative comprises a Tri-partite Steering Committee. This committee was involved in the negotiations of the Shared Responsibility Agreement and will develop an appropriate evaluation methodology. Representatives from the three tiers of government are members on the Tripartite Steering Committee and Priority Working Groups have been established under the committee to concentrate on the three regional priority issues. As stated by the ICCT, the Priority Working Groups are developing action plans for the identified priorities outlined in the Shared Responsibility Agreement and the community members are using these groups to drive reforms and seek innovative ways to deal with community issues. [46]

The Priority Working Group action plans will specify the responsibilities of all level of governments, agreed performance indicators and benchmarks, and establish specific feedback and monitoring mechanisms. The action plans will be attached as schedules to the Shared Responsibility Agreement and endorsed by the Tripartite Steering Committee.

The Northern Territory government's approach to the trial is based on their Stronger Regions - Stronger Futures Strategy which was released in 2003. [47] This outlines strategies for a focused collaborative approach between Indigenous peoples and government for the development of sustainable regional economies. A key component of the strategy is the Northern Territory government's commitment to the negotiation of Partnership Agreements and the establishment of Regional Authorities where existing community councils agree to amalgamate. Under this strategy, and aligning with the COAG whole-of-government initiative, the Northern Territory government has recognised the need to expand its skill base to support regional social and economic development. To achieve this, Northern Territory government officers will undertake training and development in community development skills and their future recruitment strategy will reflect this requirement. [48]

The Australian Department of Family and Community Services shares this view and believes that capacity building skills are needed within government:

The pilot has also revealed a need for a deliberate approach to the fostering of community development, and community capacity building skills across government agencies. FaCS is attempting to get this issue on the national agenda. [49]

c) Shepparton (Victoria)

The Greater Shepparton region of Victoria was announced as a COAG trial site in July 2003. The region covers approximately 2,422 square kilometres of the Goulbourn Valley in mid-north Victoria. It is the fourth largest provincial centre in Victoria. [50]

A Compact was signed in September 2003 between the Aboriginal Community Facilitation Group (on behalf of the Aboriginal community of greater Shepparton), the Australian and Victorian governments, the Greater Shepparton City Council and the ATSIC Binjirru Council. [51] The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) is the lead Australian government agency for Shepparton, and a dedicated on-the-ground DEWR position has been appointed to lead its involvement in the initiative. [52]

The Department of Victorian Communities is the lead agency for the Victorian government and believes the trials align closely with the Victorian Government's broad agenda to strengthen communities and deliver better services to all Victorians. [53] The Victorian government describes the COAG whole-of-government initiative as an evolutionary model and structures and processes will change as understanding develops about what constitutes an effective working relationship between Indigenous peoples and governments. [54]

The objectives and guiding principles of the Compact are based on developing an equal partnership between Indigenous peoples and government, which recognises the need for innovative changes and capacity development within all levels of government and community to support sustainable and long-term improvements in government and community practice. [55] This involves changes to the current planning, service delivery and monitoring approaches afforded to Indigenous peoples in the past by government agencies.

As stated by the Victorian Premier:

We're committed to working closely with the Koori community so that Government services fit around their needs and their priorities. This is a radical change from the community having to organize itself around Government programs. [56]

Extensive community consultation occurred in Shepparton to identify the following community priorities and strategic areas for action in the Compact:

• Strengthening families;
• Governance;
• Strategic planning;
• Leadership strategy;
• Pride, image, social connectedness and respect strategy;
• Cultural enhancement;
• Education and Training strategy;
• Job strategy;
• Economic development strategy;
• Justice strategy;
• Community health strategy; and

• Housing strategy. [57]

The first priority - strengthening families - is central to all strategic areas. The next stage for the whole of government initiative in Shepparton involves developing action plans for each of these eleven priority action areas. [58] The action plans will form part of the Compact and will include performance measures, benchmarks and an evaluation framework for each of the priority areas. These will be jointly developed by all partners to the Compact. Additional performance measures and benchmarks will be developed to measure and monitor community-government collaboration; improvements in community and government capacity to identify and respond to local issues; and improvements in Aboriginal community's social, economic and cultural sustainability. [59]

A number of community and government structures have been established to support the COAG whole of Government initiative. These include the Aboriginal Community Facilitation Group and the Steering Group. The Aboriginal Community Facilitation Group represents the Indigenous people of Shepparton and is consulting with the wider community about the initiative and is developing a community plan and longer-term community structures for greater representation and involvement . [60] A community facilitator has been employed to assist in establishing the partnership, and works directly to the Aboriginal Community Facilitation Group. It is proposed that the position will be supported by a project team with seconded officers from the Victorian government, DEWR and the Aboriginal Community Facilitation Group. The Victorian government has financially committed to support the community's participation in the Whole of government Shared Responsibility Agreement (SRA) with $500 000 over three years to support the community's participation in the project.

The Steering Group consists of representatives from the Aboriginal Community Facilitation Group, the ATSIC Binjirru Chair and the Victorian, federal and local government (with government representation at Secretary/CEO level). The Steering Group will meet regularly to negotiate and implement policy, program and service delivery in response to the community-identified priorities and monitor progress.

Three broad (and overlapping) stages have been identified in the Compact for the trial to be achieved over a three year timeframe. [61] These stages are:

• Phase 1: Development . Focused on developing the community-government partnership and processes to manage the trial, and has included ways to ensure wide community participation and community engagement.

• Phase 2: Initiation . Focused on establishing new approaches and reshaping existing services in the context of the community's strategies and priorities.

• Phase 3: Consolidation . Focused on ensuring ongoing community-government collaboration for identifying and responding to Indigenous needs, aspirations and interests. [62]

d) Cape York region (Queensland)

The Cape York region was the first COAG trial site to be announced, in September 2002. A Shared Responsibility Agreement is still being negotiated for the trial. The trial area covers approximately 150,000 square kilometres in Far North Queensland and includes the communities of Aurukun, Lockhart River, Mapoon (Old Mapoon - Marpuna), New Mapoon, Wujal Wujal, Coen, Hope Vale, Injinoo, Kowanyama, Laura, Napranum, Pormpuraaw and Umagico. [63]

The lead Commonwealth agency for the trial is the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) which has two dedicated DEWR officers have been located in Cairns to work with the Queensland government and Indigenous leaders, organisations and communities in the Cape. The DEWR positions have a brokerage role across Federal government agencies and will coordinate and facilitate appropriate programs and services to meet agreed community and regional priorities.

The lead Queensland government agency is the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy (DATSIP). The trial is being closely aligned with the implementation of the Queensland Government's Meeting Challenges Making Choices (Herein Meeting Challenges). [64] Meeting Challenges was released in April 2002 and is the Queensland Government's response to the Cape York Justice Study. [65] Meeting Challenges has eight key priority areas: alcohol and substance abuse and rehabilitation; governance; crime and justice; children, youth and families; health; education and training; economic development; and land and sustainable resources.

Under Meeting Challenges , the Queensland government is supporting a number of community-owned mechanisms to inform government policy and service delivery. The first of these was the development of Alcohol Management Plans and associated intervention measures by Community Justice Groups to reduce the instances of alcohol abuse and violence. [66] Alcohol management plans are currently in place in Aurukun, Bamaga, and Napranum and are being implemented in Lockhart River and Wujual Wujal. [67]

The Queensland strategy is supported by a number of high-level government structures, with the 'government champions' concept a central component. Each region under Meeting Challenges has been assigned a 'government champion' (a Chief Executive Officer of a Queensland government department) and their role is to manage negotiations at the highest executive level, streamline agency initiatives and formally support negotiation table participants. [68]

In addition to the government champions concept, the Cape York CEO Steering Committee was established in November 2001 to coordinate public sector policy and program reform in response to the Cape York Justice Study. [69] DEWR, ATSIS and the Indigenous Communities Coordination Taskforce (ICCT) represented the federal government at the Cape York CEO Steering Committee. This has since been replaced with the Meeting Challenges, Making Choices CEO Steering Committee. [70]

These State-level structures are mirrored at the regional level and the Queensland Government's Cape York Strategy Unit (CYSU) in Cairns is staffed by various Queensland Government agencies and its aim is to better align resources and efforts across Queensland government agencies and work directly with Indigenous communities in the Peninsula. [71] The Queensland government describes the CYSU structure as unique in forging partnerships with agencies, regional bodies, government and community leaders in a new context of reciprocity and cooperation. [72] A strong relationship has developed between the DEWR, ATSIS and the CYSU (with DEWR having located a senior staff member within the CYSU) [73] and a number of whole-of-government forums have been established to support collaborative arrangements between the federal and Queensland governments.

Through the COAG trial, governments are working both with Indigenous leaders at the regional level and with individual communities.

Discussions are continuing about the COAG whole of government regional priorities and a number of key issues have been identified. These include health and wellbeing (with a focus on substance abuse and family violence); education and economic development; home and community environment and; linking education, training and employment outcomes. [74] DEWR advises that progress is being made in developing a common understanding of what shared responsibility means in practical terms, improving governance arrangements in communities, identifying community priorities and implementing local-level strategies to address issues such as employment, education, economic development, health and money management. [75]

Aside from discussions about regional priorities it is likely that community-level Shared Responsibility Agreements will be developed through the Queensland government's 'negotiation table' process. [76] The 'negotiation table' concept is a key policy platform of the Queensland Government's Meeting Challenges strategy, and involves a process of negotiation between Indigenous communities and government to identify community priorities and establish agreed strategies to respond to these issues. The negotiation table process commenced in late 2003 and the federal government participated on these community-government processes.

In addition to the Meeting Challenges strategy, there are a number of significant Australian Government and Queensland Government initiatives in the Cape York region which are compatible with the identified priorities of the COAG trial. These include the Primary Health Care Access Program (PHCAP) being run through Apunipima Cape York Health Council and the Cape York Partnerships Institute for Policy and Leadership (an academic centre developed between Cape York Indigenous organisations and Griffith University, and jointly funded by the Australian and Queensland Governments). [77]

e) Anangu Pitjantjatjara Lands (South Australia)

The Anangu Pitjantjatjara Lands (the AP Lands) were announced as the South Australian trial site in May 2003. The AP Lands cover approximately 103,000 square kilometres in the far north-west of South Australia and are protected under the Pitjantjatjara Lands Rights Act 1981(SA) . The AP Lands are part of a larger cross-border region which covers some 350,000 square kilometres of South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, and which is the traditional lands of the Ngaanyatjara, Pitjantjatjara and Yankunytjatjara (NPY) peoples. [78]

The Department of Health and Ageing is the lead Australian Goverment agency for the initiative. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation is the agency for the South Australian government.

Community consultations have occurred to determine the priorities for a regional Shared Responsibility Agreement. [79] The identified priorities include health and wellbeing with focus on substance misuse and the supply of healthy food, education, training and employment opportunities; better access to services such as banking and Centrelink, essential services and housing; and strengthening community governance.

To provide the overall direction to the AP Lands trial a joint COAG Steering Committee was established in early 2003. Its membership comprises representatives from the community, Australian and State governments and ATSIS. This Committee oversees the COAG agenda, and works in close cooperation with the Tier One group where common priorities are being addressed.

The draft SRA has been endorsed by the COAG Steering Committee and circulated for signing. Two projects addressing identified priorities have been agreed - the implementation of Mai Wiru , the regional stores policy, which seeks to address issues of pricing, nutrition and stores management training and the establishment of rural transaction centres.

The AP Lands Inter-government Inter-agency Collaboration Committee (APLIICC) between the Commonwealth, South Australian government, ATSIS and Anangu Pitjantjatjara Council is known as the Tier One group and was established in 1999 to better coordinate the delivery of services to the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (APY) communities. [80] The committee was supported by a second tier of working groups composed of senior policy and project officers (the Tier Two working groups) and has recently been replaced with a number of 'task forces'. These taskforces implement the directives of the APLIICC and focus on a range of issues, including community health and wellbeing; arts and culture; economic and resources; community cohesion and safety; education and training; income support and infrastructure. Tier One now focuses on coordinating State government activities and links in with the COAG Steering Committee work. An Allocation Committee has been established and the fifteen-member committee has membership from Community Councils, Homelands Groups, Nganampa Health and the APY Women's Council. The group assists in the disbursement of new SA government funding for AP Lands and its establishment ensures all stakeholders have a clear understanding of funding available for the AP Lands and are involved in its distribution.

Further information about the AP Lands COAG trial is contained in Chapter 4 of this report on the responsive of governments to issues of petrol sniffing on the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Lands.

f) East Kimberley region (Western Australia)

The Western Australian COAG trial (formerly known as the Tjurabalan trial site) was announced in July 2003. It is situated in the east Kimberley region and encompasses the communities of Balgo, Bililuna, Mulan, Ringers Soak and Yagga Yagga. [81] The lead Australian government agency is the Department of Transport and Regional Services (DoTARS). Other partners in the trial include the Tjurabalan Native Title Land Aboriginal Corporation, ATSIC Wunan Regional Council, the local government Shire of Halls Creek and the communities of Billiluna, Yakka Yakka, Balgo, Kundat Djaru and Mulan. The Department of Indigenous Affairs is the lead agency for the WA government and a partner in the trial. The Halls Creek Shire Council is also a key partner and the local government involved in the trial.

The initial focus of the trial has been on establishing governance structures through which the parties can interact and to identify community consulting agents to help engage local communities. The Munjurla Reference Group was established to drive the trial, with support provided by an on-the-ground Secretariat. The reference group consists of two representatives from each community, traditional owners the ATSIC Wunan Regional Council and representatives from Australian, State and local governments at Secretary or CEO level.

The group has agreed on its roles and responsibilities, the establishment of a basic administration centre in the region, and series of activities for the Justice Participation Project. [82]

A working group has been established under the Munjurla Reference Group to progress decisions, and the first task has been to ensure effective communication channels are established and maintained between the Munjurla Reference Group and existing Community Councils. [83] The working group secretariat is comprised of a Community Initiatives Coordinator (jointly funded between DoTARS and the Department of Family and Community Services), an ATSIS-funded COAG officer and a WA state government officer.

A scoping study has also commenced (the Munjurla Scoping Study) to gather baseline data to provide a 'road map' for negotiating an agreement with the communities. It has been commissioned by ATSIS. A joint fund has been established under the auspice of the Halls Creek Shire Council to support consultations about the scoping study. In addition to the scoping study, this fund supports broader community engagement with government and reference group meetings with contributions made by the federal and Western Federal governments, and provides a vehicle for private sector contributions. [84]

A draft Shared Responsibility Agreement has been provided by the two lead agencies - the Department of Transport and Regional Services and the WA Department of Indigenous Affairs to all partners through the Munjurla Reference Group in December 2003. Further consultations will be held with local communities and partners to the trial to finalise an SRA. Some issues have already been identified for negotiation under the SRA, including the need for activities for children and young people; better education options; improved health services; improved policing; improved housing and transport infrastructure and amelioration of substance abuse. [85] Alcohol, substance abuse and community safety have been raised consistently as major areas for concern within communities. [86] Other issues in the region include the development of economic opportunities in mining, land care and tourism that have arisen from the native title consent determination in August 2001. [87]

The need to change existing government processes and service delivery arrangements has been recognised by DoTARS:

A new level of 'bureaucratic awareness' is also necessary - a way of looking beyond the boundaries of the existing envelope of government processes and seizing opportunities to make a difference for Indigenous communities in innovative ways. [88]

DoTARS states that while it is difficult to describe success in terms of real changes to the social and economic wellbeing of communities, there are anumber of early successes from the COAG trial. These successes focus on the relationship between Indigenous people and government. As stated by the Department:

The successes to date have been about engaging the communities and governments to try things differently. This has meant building new relationships and developing a shared understanding of what it means to work together. [89]

The key lessons DoTARS have identified from the trial have focused on the need to build effective relationships with Indigenous peoples and ensure communities are supported in developing their capacities:

Successful engagement with remote Indigenous communities requires a realistic and long-term approach, and for activities to occur at a pace the communities are comfortable with. Introducing change in severely disadvantaged communities requires that we first assist the communities to develop their capacity to engage. Time for this process needs to be factored into any planning. [90]

g) Northern Region of Tasmania

The Northern region of Tasmania was announced as the Tasmanian site for the COAG trial in August 2003. The region is a mix of urban and rural areas and covers Launceston, the Furneaux Islands group and the northern midlands covering Deloraine to the far west and Bicheno in the south. The Tasmanian Government's Aboriginal Family Violence Working Group has agreed in principle to the northern geographical region and the initiative is in the early stages of development. [91]

The Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) is the lead Australian government agency and a dedicated full-time officer was appointed to manage the initiative in June 2003. [92] The Department of Premier and Cabinet is the lead agency for the Tasmanian government, and an interim Commonwealth/State Steering Committee has been formed to improve coordination between the different levels of government and scope existing government funded services in the trial area to identify resources and areas of need. [93] Both levels of government are exploring ways agencies can coordinate their efforts to better meet the needs and interests of Indigenous peoples, and due to being in the early stages of the trial, no legislative or administrative amendments have been identified for implementation by the Tasmanian government. [94]

There were a number of reasons for the selection of the Northern region as the whole-of-government trial site. These included:

• Based on available data it has one of the highest incidences/reporting rates of domestic violence in the State (of all cultural groups);
• Currently no government funded Aboriginal specific family violence services exist in the region;
• The region has a supportive and well-connected Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal community organisation network; and

• There is a good geographical mix of urban and rural areas. [95]

Family violence and safety issues have been identified as themes for the trial and discussions are continuing between Indigenous people and the Australian and Tasmanian government about a shared responsibility agreement.

Early discussions indicate the COAG whole of government initiative will build on the initiatives of the Tasmanian government report on family violence - ya pulingina kani - Good to See You Talk and the criminal justice options paper on family violence, Safe at Home. [96]

Under the 'shared responsibility' concept a partnership model will be developed between government and Indigenous people, and the current consultation process in the Northern region in Tasmania will determine the model of Indigenous governance that will lead the community component of the trial.

h) Australian Capital Territory

The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) has not yet been announced publicly as a COAG trial site. It is expected that it will be formally announced in early 2004.

The Department of Environment and Heritage is the lead Australian government agency for the initiative. The trial will be implemented across the entire region of the ACT. The Chief Minister's Department is the lead agency for the ACT government.

Indigenous community consultations and negotiations have been undertaken for the trial, which culminated in a two day workshop held in September 2003. Forty Indigenous leaders and representatives from Indigenous community organisations attended.

The September 2003 meeting obtained Indigenous community endorsement for the trial and the themes to be progressed under the shared responsibility approach. [97] The initial proposed focus of the trial on youth issues and education have evolved through the consultation process to an holistic approach being pursued under the concept of 'The Living Web - Keeping the Web Alive'. This framework is multifaceted and encompasses justice, employment, youth, culture, education, housing, health and aged care. Three overarching themes have emerged from these discussions: social and emotional well being; culture and learning; and capacity building for all. [98]

It was agreed at the September 2003 workshop that a federation of Indigenous community organisations would constitute the community governance model in the ACT. An Indigenous working group has been established as an executive group to the community federation model and will represent the community interests in negotiating the Shared Responsibility Agreement. [99]

A shared responsibility agreement is expected to be finalised during 2004 and will outline the agreed responsibilities between the Indigenous Working Group, Australian and ACT government and ATSIC. The Minister for Environment and Heritage states that close working relationships have been developed between the two tiers of government and both Governments have established closer relationships with the Indigenous communities in the ACT. [100]

A monitoring and evaluation framework for the trial is currently being drafted, and will align with the national reporting measures set by the Ministerial Council for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (MCATSIA) and the Productivity Commission. [101]

1. For further details, see the Indigenous Communities Coordination Taskforce website: www.icc.gov.au .

2. Council of Australian Governments, Communique, 3 November 2000, , (4 December 2003).

3. Council of Australian Governments, Comminque, 5 April 2002, , (12 December 2003).

4. Quartermaine, L, Correspondence from ATSIC with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner , January 2004, p1.

5. Indigenous Communities Coordination Taskforce, Who We Are , Online at (10 December 2003).

6. ICCT, Shared Responsibility, Shared future , DIMIA, Canberra 2003, Attachment 1.

7. ibid. , p5.

8. ibid. , p2.

9. Richardson, G, Hansard , House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, 13 October 2003, p1304.

10. Hawgood, D, Hansard , House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, 13 October 2003, p1305.

11. ibid, p1300.

12. Quartermaine, L, op.cit. , p2.

13. ICCT, Shared Responsibility, Shared future , op.cit, p2.

14. Vanstone, A, (Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs), Very Encouraging Signs From Indigenous Pilots , Media Release, 8 October 2003.

15. Indigenous Communities Coordination Taskforce, Imagine What Could Happen If We Worked Together: Shared Responsibility and a Whole of Governments Approach, Conference paper - The Native Title Conference, Alice Springs, 3 June 2003, , (24 December 2003).

16. Indigenous Communities Coordination Taskforce, Trial Objectives , online at: www.icc.gov.au/communities/objectives/ , (29 October 2003).

17. Indigenous Communities Coordination Taskforce, Imagine What Could Happen if we Worked Together: Shared Responsibility and a Whole of Governments Approach, op.cit.

18. Abbott, T, Hansard , House of Representatives, 8 September 2003, p18892.

19. Hawgood, D, Hansard , Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, 4 November 2003, p10.

20. Hawgood, D, Hansard , House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, 13 October 2003, p1294.

21. ibid .

22. Indigenous Communities Coordination Taskforce, Imagine What Could Happen if we Worked Together: Shared Responsibility and a Whole of Governments Approach, op.cit.

23. Indigenous Communities Coordination Taskforce, Shared Responsibility Agreements , online at: , (4 December 2003).

24. ICCT, Shared Responsibility, Shared future , op.cit , p3.

25. Indigenous Communities Coordination Taskforce, Murdi Paaki trial site (NSW) , online at , 10 December 2003.

26. Minister for Education, Science and Training (Cth), Correspondence with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner , November 2003.

27. Director General, New South Wales Department of Education and Training, Correspondence with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner , 28 October 2003.

28. Minister for Education, Science and Training (Cth), op.cit .

29. Shared Responsibility Agreement Between the Murdi Paaki Regional Council, the Commonwealth of Australia (through the Department of Education, Science and Training) and the State of New South Wales (through the Department of Education and Training), August 2003, p2, available online at www.icc.gov.au/communities/locations/murdi_paaki , accessed 10 December 2003.

30. Hawgood, D, Hansard , House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, 13 October 2003, p1298.

31. Minister for Education, Science and Training (Cth), op.cit .; Director General, New South Wales Department of Education and Training, op.cit.

32. Minister for Education, Science and Training (Cth), op.cit .

33. ibid.

34. Indigenous Communities Coordination Taskforce, Wadeye Trial site (NT), online at: , (10 December 2003).

35. Minister for Family and Community Services (Cth), Correspondence with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner , December 2003. Since approximately 1996 the Northern Territory government and Wadeye community leaders have working towards the establishment of Thamarrurr as the regional governance authority for the Wadeye region.

36. ibid .

37. Office of Indigenous Policy, Department of the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Correspondence with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, 14 November 2003, (Herein: Office of Indigenous Policy (NT), Correspondence ) .

38. ibid.

39. ibid.

40. Shared Responsibility Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia through the Department of Family and Community Services, the Northern Territory Government through the Department of Chief Minister Indigenous Policy Unit and the Thamarrurr Regional Council, 21 March 2003, p2.

41. Office of Indigenous Policy (NT), Correspondence, op.cit.

42. ibid. .

43. Westbury, N, The Indigenous Community Coordination Pilot Trial: The Leadership Challenge for Governments in supporting Indigenous Governance , Conference paper: Building Effective Indigenous Governance Conference, Jabiru, November 2003, p6, online at , (5 December 2003).

44. Indigenous Communities Coordination Taskforce, Council of Australian Governments - Indigenous Whole of Governments Initiative, Report - September 2003 , op.cit, p2.

45. Hunter, S, The COAG Trial: The Leadership Challenge for Governments in Supporting Indigenous Governance , Conference paper: Building Effective Indigenous Governance Conference, Jabiru, November 2003, p6, online at , (4 December 2003).

46. Indigenous Communities Coordination Taskforce, Council of Australian Governments - Indigenous Whole of Governments Initiative, Report - September 2003 , op.cit , p2.

47. Department of Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs, Building Stronger Regions Stronger Futures, Northern Territory Government, Darwin 2003.

48. Office of Indigenous Policy (NT), Correspondence, op.cit.

49. Hunter, S, The COAG Trial: The Leadership Challenge for Governments in Supporting Indigenous Governance , op.cit , p4.

50. Indigenous Communities Coordination Taskforce, Shepparton trial site (VIC ), online at , 10 December 2003.

51. Compact Outlining a New Collaboration Between the Aboriginal Community Facilitation Group on behalf of the Aboriginal Community of Greater Shepparton, The Federal government through the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, The Victorian Government, The Greater Shepparton City Council and the ATSIC Binjirru Council , 4 September 2003, online at www.icc.gov.au/_data/page/13/Shepparton_Compact_-_final.pdf (Herein, Shepparton Compact ).

52. Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service (Cth), Correspondence with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner , November 2003.

53. Secretary, Department for Victorian Communities, Correspondence with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner , November 2003.

54. ibid.

55. Shepparton Compact , op.cit, p1.

56. Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations (Cth), Premier of Victoria, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Vic) and Shepparton Indigenous Community Facilitation Group, Shepparton's Indigenous Community Joins COAG Trial, Joint Media Release, July 2003.

57. Shepparton Compact , op.cit , p7.

58. Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Correspondence with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner , November 2003.

59. Shepparton Compact , op.cit , p5.

60. Secretary, Department for Victorian Communities, op.cit .

61. Shepparton Compact , op.cit , p8.

62. Secretary, Department for Victorian Communities, op.cit .

63. Indigenous Communities Coordination Taskforce, Cape York trial site (Qld ), online at , accessed 10 December 2003

64. Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Correspondence with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner , November 2003 (Herein Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Correspondence) .

65. The Cape York Justice Study was commissioned by the Queensland Government and released in November 2001. The CYJS recommends a number of strategies to address factors contributing to breaches of the law in Cape York communities, with a particular focus on strategies that target alcohol and substance abuse.

66. In the 2003-2004 Queensland Government budget $2.9 million was allocated for 34 community justice groups (CJGs) to established across Queensland. These CJGs will be located in Deed of Grant in Trust (DOGIT) communities and other non-DOGIT regions.

67. Director-General, Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy (Qld), Correspondence with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, November 2003.

68. ibid .

69. The Steering Committee is chaired by The Hon Steve Bredhauer , Queensland Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads and is attended by the Chief Executive Officers of Queensland Government agencies. The Steering Committee provides a forum for collaboration between agencies and information exchange on the progress of Meeting Challenges initiatives.

70. Discussions with Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, 20 January 2004.

71. Director-General, Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy, op.cit .

72. ibid .

73. Discussions with Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, 20 January 2004.

74. Indigenous Communities Coordination Taskforce, Council of Australian Governments - Indigenous Whole of Governments Initiative, Report - September 2003 .

75. Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Correspondence, op.cit .

76. ibid .

77. ibid .

78. Indigenous Communities Coordination Taskforce, Anangu Pitjantjatjara (AP) Lands (SA) , online at , accessed 12 December 2003.

79. Indigenous Communities Coordination Taskforce, Council of Australian Governments - Indigenous Whole of Governments Initiative, Report - September 2003 .

80. Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Correctional Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Environment and Conservation (SA), Correspondence with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, November 2003.

81. Indigenous Communities Coordination Taskforce, WA COAG trial site , online at , accessed 11 December 2003.

82. Secretary, Department of Transport and Regional Services, Correspondence with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner , 25 November 2003.

83. ibid .

84. ibid .

85. Indigenous Communities Coordination Taskforce, Council of Australian Governments - Indigenous Whole of Governments Initiative, Report - September 2003 .

86. Secretary, Department of Transport and Regional Services, op.cit .

87. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services (Cth), President Halls Creek Shire Council, Minister for Indigenous Affairs (WA), Chair of the Tjurabalan Native Title Land Aboriginal Corporation and Chair ATSIC Wunan Regional Council, Tjurabalan and Region Indigenous Communities Join COAG Trial , Joint Media release, July 2003.

88. Secretary, Department of Transport and Regional Services, op.cit .

89. ibid .

90. ibid .

91. Secretary, Department of Premier and Cabinet (Tas), Correspondence with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner , November 2003.

92. Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (Cth), Correspondence with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, November 2003.

93. Secretary, Department of Premier and Cabinet (Tas), op.cit .

94. ibid .

95. ibid .

96. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (Cth) and Premier of Tasmania, Aboriginal People in Northern Region of Tasmania to join COAG Trials , Joint Media Release, 28 August 2003.

97. Chief Executive, Chief Ministers Department (ACT), Correspondence with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, October 2003.

98. ibid .

99. Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Cth), Correspondence with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, November 2003.

100. Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Cth), op.cit.

101. ibid .