Shire of Derby / West Kimberley...Executive summary Background It is widely recognised that the...

Feasibility study of regional local government

1

Shire of Derby / West Kimberley

Feasibility Study for Formation of Regional Local Government to Deliver Remote Area Municipal Services

Final Report

16 January 2008

Feasibility study of regional local government 2

DISCLAIMER The information contained within this report has been compiled from a variety of external sources and has not been subject to an internal independent verification. Although every care has been taken to ensure that the information and opinions are correct, Quantum Consulting Australia Pty Ltd specifically disclaim any responsibility for any errors, mistakes or incorrect facts or interpretation that may occur, and accept no liability on any basis for the findings and recommendations in this report. Findings within this report can be influenced by a number of unforeseen events that may occur outside of our control. Therefore, no assurance can be given that the findings contained within the report will remain as such in the future.


Table of Contents

Abbreviations used in this report...........................................................................4 Executive summary...............................................................................................5

Background .............................................................................................................................5 Purpose...................................................................................................................................5 Methodology............................................................................................................................5 Key findings.............................................................................................................................6 Indicative cost estimates.........................................................................................................8 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................9 Key considerations................................................................................................................10

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................12

1.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................................12 1.2 Background..................................................................................................................12 1.3 Scope and methodology..............................................................................................14 1.4 Data limitations ............................................................................................................16 1.5 Acknowledgements .....................................................................................................17

2. Context ........................................................................................................18

2.1 Literature review ..........................................................................................................18 2.2 Municipal service delivery............................................................................................23

3. Regional local government model................................................................32

3.1 Regional local government model overview................................................................32 3.2 Service delivery standards ..........................................................................................43 3.3 Regional model............................................................................................................61 3.4 Cost of service delivery ...............................................................................................73 3.5 Indicative financial comparison data ...........................................................................81 3.6 Risk assessment..........................................................................................................85 3.7 Establishment process ................................................................................................88

4. Recommendations and key considerations .................................................91

4.1 Recommendations ..........................................................................................................91 4.2 Key considerations..........................................................................................................92

Appendix A – List of stakeholders consulted ......................................................94 Appendix B – Community Service Profiles..........................................................96

Shire of Broome ....................................................................................................................96 Shire of Derby / West Kimberley.........................................................................................115 Shire of Halls Creek ............................................................................................................140 Shire of Wyndham / East Kimberley ...................................................................................165

Appendix C – Regional local government establishment overview...................175 Appendix D – Bibliography................................................................................178


Abbreviations used in this report ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics AEHW Aboriginal Environmental Health Officer ALT Indigenous Lands Trust BRAMS Broome Regional Aboriginal Medical Service CASA Civil Aviation Safety Authority CAT Centre for Appropriate Technology CDEP Community Development and Employment Program CEO Chief Executive Officer CHIP Community Housing and Infrastructure Program COAG Coalition of Australian Government’s DHW Department of Housing and Works DIA Department of Indigenous Affairs DLGRD Department of Local Government and Regional Development EHO Environmental Health Officer FaHCSIA Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous

Affairs FESA Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia GEHA Government Employees’ Housing Authority GNHW Great Northern Highway ICC Indigenous Coordination Centres KRSP Kimberley Regional Service Provider LG Local government LGAB Local Government Advisory Board MRWA Main Roads Western Australia NGO Non-Government Organisation NT Northern Territory PAL Permanent Airport Lighting PVC Polyvinyl chloride RFDS Royal Flying Doctor Service SES State Emergency Service WA Western Australia WALGA Western Australian Local Government Association


Executive summary

Background

It is widely recognised that the initiatives of successive governments to improve the livelihoods of Indigenous Australians, particularly those living with remote communities, have achieved limited success. There has been a stream of reports, inquiries and literature which have highlighted and discussed the limited improvement, and remaining substandard of condition of Indigenous communities. A theme commonly raised, was the duplication of policies or programs across the different levels and agencies of government, and the lack of clarity as to the actions required to be undertaken and by whom. In recognising these themes, the Bilateral Agreement on Indigenous Affairs was signed by the State and Commonwealth Governments in June 2006. The Agreement committed local governments to deliver municipal services where funds and resources are provided to support the concept, and to ‘normalise/regularise’ service provision to Indigenous people in communities. It is acknowledged the local governments were not a party to the Agreement, and details are unknown at this stage as to the financial and resource implications the Agreement will have on the affected local governments.

Purpose

The purpose of this feasibility study was to evaluate the merits of a Regional Local Government approach to improve service delivery to Indigenous communities. This study into the feasibility of a regional local government in the Kimberley region (for the delivery of typical local government services to Indigenous communities) had a particular focus in defining the:

�� existing municipal service delivery, and the municipal service delivery required in each community

�� service delivery standards for each community

�� costings for delivering the services to each community

�� resource requirements to effectively deliver the services through a regional local government service delivery model

�� risks associated with the regional local government service delivery model.

Methodology

The Project methodology undertaken for this feasibility study included a combination of data collection, research and analysis components. This is summarised as follows:

�� Literature review

�� Site visits to a selection of remote communities within the relevant local shires.

�� Consultation with the Australian, State and local government agencies associated with the selected Indigenous communities and/or municipal service delivery.

�� The development of a Community Audit Template


�� The development of individual community profiles that details; - Community demographics - Existing infrastructure and services - Requirements for future infrastructure and services

�� Analysis of community and service data

�� Development of a regional local government model.

Key findings

The proposed regional local government model has been identified as an appropriate model. However, it is noted that there are long-term systemic issues, impediments and risks that may affect the ability to effectively deliver and sustain municipal services. Commentary on the key issues and impediments identified are provided below. Key issues to service delivery Physical constraints The geographic remoteness and the environment create a significant barrier to the delivery of municipal services. The distance between the service centres and the communities presents a significant cost increase due to the travel, time and additional costs associated with delivering services of a comparable standard to that of non-Indigenous communities. The additional financial constraints arising from the physical constraints would exceed the financial capacity of the local governments given the current funding conditions. Environmental constraints The ability to deliver municipal services during the ‘wet’ season is restricted significantly. In relation to several communities, ‘cut-off’ of access by roads for a month or more by flooding can create significant logistical issues. In addition, the actual period of time that a local government would have to deliver services such as road maintenance, can be potentially reduced by up to three months per annum. In cases of ‘flooding’, or in more extreme weather events, the available resources such as graders and bulldozers are required as a priority to assist in re-opening road access to the remote road network for the communities. This therefore has a significant impact on the local government’s ability to services communities’ normal delivery program, which can result in significant delays and additional costs.

Locality and size There is also an “out of sight – out of mind” syndrome that affects many smaller communities throughout the State, where there is at least the perception, that the larger centre(s) receive favourable treatment. Remote Indigenous communities are further disadvantaged from (generally) a lack of direct local representation, not only for immediate problems, but also in the planning, political and budget processes. Listed below are several issues and impediments that potentially impact the ability of local government to deliver municipal services and improve the social and economic fabric of the community:

�� the number and location of remote communities

�� the form of community governance and leadership structures

�� multiple priority community tasks


�� level of funding

�� myriad of stakeholders

�� cost models

�� transparency and accountability

�� service standards

�� existing conditions of infrastructure and services

In order to manage these issues or impediments, it is essential that adequate planning and the development of strategies, is undertaken prior to the commencement of any service delivery.

Current service standards

As part of the feasibility study, consultation was undertaken with key stakeholders and a selection of communities, in order to collect, collate and analyse data on existing municipal service delivery within the communities. The full findings of the data collected for the individual communities are provided in Appendix B. A summary of the overall findings relating to the key municipal services areas are provided below.

Health The health of community members remain a significant problem. In particular, local health issues such as rubbish build up inside of property fence-lines and litter on street verges and vacant land. The current provisions for environmental health services involve a wide range and mix of government, NGO and local government agencies. Service delivery is constrained by time and travel costs associated within visiting remote communities.

Roads and streets The majority of access roads are via the public road system maintained by MRWA or a Shire. The majority of access roads to the communities consist of public roads that are subject to the Shire’s normal road maintenance program and annual requirements and resources. The internal streets of the communities mainly consist of a network of sealed streets with some kerbing. The community streets have a significant problem with the amount of washed sand on the streets.

Waste services The domestic rubbish removal function is a common and fundamental municipal service delivery carried out within the communities as a normal activity. Most communities utilise the SULO type mobile bins. The community landfill sites are generally fenced and in a reasonable condition. The disposal system is a trench and burn regime.

Drainage and sewerage The majority of communities appear to have significant drainage problems which are generally due to natural circumstances. There was little evidence of proper street drainage systems. The majority of communities are serviced by a reticulated sewerage system. However, some community systems remain connected through the old septic tank system.

Dog and animal control Within the communities it was common for households to own multiple dogs. It was noted that there were a large number of dogs wandering the streets, including in and around the community store. Most communities reported that there were no significant dog problems. Shires were already providing a visiting control service through the EHO, AEHW or a


Ranger. Aerodrome management

Most communities are responsible for a local airstrip. There is a regional airstrip located near Lombadina. The airstrip generally is used by the Royal Flying Doctor Service and charter flights. The airstrips in general were of a reasonable condition.

Civic buildings and public toilet maintenance The majority of communities have a range of community facilities, including:

�� Community office

�� Community store

�� Health Clinic

�� Works Depot/Workshop

�� Telecentre

The conditions of the community facilities vary from poor to good condition. Emergency services

A number of communities have been provided with a small slip-on or trailer fire unit. The provision of these units appears to be ad hoc. Some communities had a firebreak system, and a few have fire hydrants.

A complete overview of the service standards and the implications for the regional local government model are provided in Section 3.1, Service delivery standards.

Indicative cost estimates Given the challenges associated with attempting to calculate the recurrent community service delivery cost on a community by community basis, we have developed a tiered approach when calculating indicative costs. The relevant communities can be broadly categorised as:

� Town based � Small remote � Large

The estimated total indicative cost structure for the proposed regional local government model, including establishment costs, is shown below. This does not include a provision for the cyclical replacement of infrastructure. Further particulars of the indicative costs are provided in Section 3.3 of this Report. Particulars $ Establishment cost $ 430,000 Regional local government $ 2,000,000 Additional EHO’s $ 420,000 Expanded AEHW $ 910,000 Recurrent Community Service delivery $10,000,000 Total $13,760,000


Recommendations The following recommendations have been framed within the context of the four Shires and the associated communities. The recommendations have been developed to assist the Shires and other stakeholders to appropriately and effectively deliver municipal services through a regional local government model. The recommendations should be read in conjunction with the key considerations (following the recommendations).

Recommendation 1: A regional local government model for the delivery of solely municipal services to remote communities represents an appropriate model.

The factors that contribute to the appropriateness of the model include:

�� A single and dedicated entity that is focused on representation and municipal service delivery, and which has a uniform approach, rather than four different delivery models (if individual shires delivered the services).

�� The limited capacity of the existing Shires to deliver municipal services to remote communities, and the economies-of-scale that are achieved through the regional approach.

�� Enhanced transparency and accountability as a result of all specific funding, accounting uniformity and reporting being managed through a single entity.

Recommendation 2: A regional local government should be established for an initial three year period.

The regional local government should be established for an initial three year period, and that commitments be provided to ensure an appropriate level of funding indexation occur and that the four participant Shires will remain a member of the regional local government over that period.

Recommendation 3: A consultation framework be developed and implemented (to clearly explain the proposed service delivery arrangements, commitments and approval required with the respective communities) prior to any changes in service delivery arrangements.

The success of a regional local government model is dependent upon establishing and agreeing on the scope, extent and measurement of performance of municipal service delivery with each of the respective communities. This requires the allocation of sufficient time and resources in order to consult and reach agreement with each of the communities.


Key considerations The feasibility of the regional local government model is subject to the service

delivery objectives being fully funded.

The regional local government should be fully funded based on the following:

�� The limited resource capacity of the existing Shires.

�� The service delivery is to be provided to remote communities with special requirements and circumstances, and on land that is not under the control of the Shires.

�� Proposals for an ‘augmentation’ approach to funding are likely to have a detrimental impact on existing service delivery and standards, and rating levels.

Regional local government will require an appropriate level of resourcing for

the development and implementation phase.

The regional local government should be fully funded and resourced in order to negotiate the establishment agreement, liaise with the community councils and senior management, consult with the communities, assist with the set-up and recruitment required to establish the office and develop the individual service delivery plans with each community.

The following considerations should be noted:

�� Recent changes in the Northern Territory involved the negotiation of service plans with individual communities at a cost of some $50,000 each and requiring some 6 months or so.

�� The establishment process will create a considerable additional workload for the existing elected members and senior staff not withstanding the addition of external resources.

�� There is a need to consider all the various transition requirements and to take into account all of the various existing legal agreements, contracts and other formal commitments held by the communities.

Service delivery is contingent on maintaining individual community stability,

and assumes the continuation of senior administration officers (CEO) at the communities.

In particular, it will be essential to have a responsible organisation and locally housed management resources available for representation and local service delivery.

Further negotiation and resolution is required regarding access to property,

uniform existing infrastructure, and transfer ownership of infrastructure.

The following matters will require further attention and resolution:

�� Land tenure and access to property required for municipal service purposes.

�� All community infrastructure be brought up to a uniformed standard in the interest of fairness and equity.


�� The process for transferring existing community infrastructure, where necessary, to regional local government after being brought up to an appropriate standard.


1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the merits of a regional local government approach to improved service delivery for Indigenous communities. This study into the feasibility of a regional local government in the Kimberley region for the delivery of typical local government services to Indigenous communities had a particular focus in defining the:

�� existing municipal service delivery, and the municipal service delivery required in each community

�� service delivery standards for each community

�� costings for delivery the services to each community

�� resource requirements to effectively delivery the services through a Regional local government service delivery model

�� risks associated with the Regional local government service delivery model.

The study was centred upon the four Local Governments located within the region:

�� Shire of Broome

�� Shire of Derby/West Kimberley

�� Shire of Halls Creek

�� Shire of Wyndham/East Kimberley.

1.2 Background

This study has been commissioned and undertaken within a political and social landscape that has recognised the many attempts made by successive Governments to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians, have only achieved marginal improvements. In recognition of this, the Bilateral Agreement on Indigenous Affairs was signed by the State and Commonwealth Governments in June 2006. The Agreement committed local governments to deliver municipal services where funds and resources are provided to support the concept, and to ‘normalise/regularise’ service provision to Indigenous people in communities. Of importance, the local governments were not a party to the agreement, and the affected local governments are still largely uniformed as to the financial and resource impact the agreement will have on them. Furthermore, there is a lack of knowledge of the proposed timeline for implementation, and as such there is a concern as to whether there will be adequate time for the planning and implementing phase to take place in a strategic manner. It is important to note however, that the Bilateral Agreement for 2006 – 2010 has been superceded. As a result, a new Bilateral Agreement will be developed based on the COAG National Agreements and National Partnership Agreements. The impact that the new Bilateral Agreement will have on the proposed regional local government model and municipal service delivery is unknown, until further details of the new


Bilateral Agreement are defined. A proposed approach for addressing this issue is detailed in Section 3.7 of this report. The success of the service provision to the Indigenous communities by local government is entirely contingent upon appropriate planning and organisation. An ad-hoc and premature introduction of a new service delivery model will result in issues and problems that may be somewhat reflective of the issues and problems incurred by previous initiatives. A strategic and thorough approach to planning and organisation will assist in achieving success, and limiting the risk exposure to those groups that are greatest affected, namely:

�� the Indigenous remote communities

�� the local government organisation (both elected and employees)

�� the wider shire communities.

Furthermore, the introduction and development of the bilateral service delivery objectives are taking place within an uncertain and dynamic environment, that have arisen from a range of external factors, particularly in the Kimberley region, including (but not limited to):

�� reports and outcomes from recent Coroner court inquiries

�� investigations and charges arising from child sex attack revelations in remote communities and the corresponding social impacts.

�� the imposition or potential imposition of alcohol controls

�� the Commonwealth government intervention into the Northern Territory

�� the recent change of the State and Commonwealth Government

�� the impact of likely significant resource developments in the region

�� the global economic situation and its flow on impacts on the Commonwealth, State and local governments, and resource companies in Western Australia.

These factors have the potential to, or are influencing the roll-out of municipal service delivery in remote Indigenous communities. The uncertainty due to these factors and the lack of details in relation to the proposed changes restricts the ability for government sectors and remote communities to actively plan or change the provision of municipal services. Two significant factors that are expected to influence the future development of municipal service delivery by local government is the:

�� Lt Gen Sanderson’s Special Adviser Reports, and the recent State Government decision to create a new ‘implementation committee’.

�� The Local Government Advisory Board (LGAB) inquiry into Local Government service delivery to Indigenous Communities.

The Special Adviser Reports developed by Lt. Gen. Sanderson, is expected to include a new approach to a whole of government service delivery process with the objective of achieving noticeable improvements for the remote communities. In particularly, it is envisaged that there will be a regional focus that is likely to involve local government service delivery. The proposed ‘implementation committee’ is expected to have a leading role in implementing proposed changes, and will have the ability to influence the resolution of any structural problems identified in the proposed service delivery models. The Local Government Advisory Board inquiry is anticipated to have a significant impact on local governments’ involvement in the service delivery planning and implementation processes and specifically, the proposed funding model.


The uncertainty and lack of knowledge as to what is being proposed within these two aspects, is a significant deficiency in the development of a regional service delivery model in the Kimberley. The recently completed ACIL Tasman report “Regularising of Local Government Services in the Shire of Halls Creek” however provides an insight into some of the difficulties involved, including the consultation with the community Councils and high turnover of community Chief Executive Officers. A detailed discussion on other key reports and data sets that may impact the municipal service delivery to Indigenous communities is provided in the Section 2.1, Literature Review.

1.3 Scope and methodology

The Project methodology undertaken for this feasibility study included the following:

�� A literature review to identify past and current documentation that establishes the context of the delivery of municipal services to Indigenous communities.

�� Analysis of existing information on the status of municipal service delivery in the selected remote communities.

�� Consultation with Commonwealth, State and local government agencies associated with the selected Indigenous communities and/or municipal service delivery.

�� Site visits to a selection of remote communities within the relevant local shires.

�� The development of key planning considerations that were used to form the framework of the Community Audit Templates developed for the community consultation.

�� The development of individual community profiles that details; - Community demographics - Existing infrastructure and services - Requirements for future infrastructure and services.

The individual Community Service Profiles are provided in Appendix B.

�� The development of a Regional local government model.

The project scope and this report did not include the outstations linked to communities or those communities not listed in Table 1. Additionally it is important to note that the study and associated costings relate to a selection of Aboriginal communities (as listed in Section 1.3), and is not reflective of all Aboriginal communities located within the region.

1.3.1 Community and stakeholder consultation Consultation with stakeholders was undertaken via a combination of one-on-one meetings, teleconferences and video conferencing. A survey instrument was also developed and distributed to the relevant Shires to obtain their feedback on municipal


service delivery to the remote communities (in addition to the feedback collected during site visits). (a) Community visits During October 2008, structured interviews were undertaken with community representatives, service providers, Shire representatives and other government agencies related to municipal service delivery in the selected shires. These interviews were conducted to obtain information on the current municipal service delivery within the selected communities and enabled the development of the community profiles. The full list of stakeholders consulted is provided in Appendix A. A list of the selected communities that were consulted as part of the project is provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Communities consulted

Communities consulted

Shire of Broome Beagle Bay Bidyadanga Djarindjin Lombadina One Arm Point Shire of Derby / West Kimberley Bayulu Junjuwa Looma Mowanjum Wangkatjungka Yakanarra Yungngora-Noonkanbah Shire of Halls Creek Balgo Billiluna Mulan Warmun Mardiwah Loop Ringer Soak Yiyili Shire of Wyndham/East Kimberley Kalumburu Mirima Nulleywah Oombulgurri

The site visits entailed over 5,000 kilometres of travel by 4WD vehicle throughout the Kimberley. A charter flight was used to access the communities of Kalumburu and Oombulgurri.

(b) Consultations with service providers/resource agencies On-site consultations were undertaken with service providers and resource agencies that operate within the Kimberley region.


Table 2. Service Providers / Resource Agencies consulted

Service Providers / Resource Agencies Kimberley Regional Service Provider (KRSP) Centre for Appropriate Technology (CAT) Emama Nguda Winun Ngari Aboriginal Corporation Marra Worra Worra

(c) Consultations with government departments and agencies A mix of face-to-face interviews, teleconferences and videoconferences were used to consult with government departments and agencies to ascertain their views on:

�� Existing municipal service delivery to the remote communities

�� Views on the Regional Local Government approach to delivering municipal services.

Government departments / agencies

Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Department of Local Government and Regional Development Department of Indigenous Affairs Indigenous Coordination Centres

(d) Data collection and analysis

Community Consultation Audit Templates were developed to be collated during the site visits to the communities. The Template was developed based on the following key planning considerations:

�� Community sustainability

�� Population change

�� Existing infrastructure and services (including availability of human services)

�� Demand for local infrastructure and services, including: o Health o Roads and drainage o Access roads o Waste services and litter o Aerodrome management o Dog and animal control o ‘Civic’ buildings and public toilets o Emergency services.

Prior to conducting the community consultation, a review of literature and other sources was undertaken to identify, and where applicable, “populate” the Template for each community to ensure that site visits were efficient and information sought was not a duplication. The primary document used for this purpose was the Community Layout Plans.

1.4 Data limitations

Time constraints: due to competing priorities for community CEO’s, limited time was available to gain comprehensive data from them during consultation. Although there was general cooperation with the project, only limited time was available and it was


common for interviews to be interrupted to deal with immediate community issues and customers.

Record keeping: the ability to readily access financial information and accurate details on the services has been restricted due to either

�� records not existing,

�� records not made available,

�� new or acting CEO’s not having an in-depth local background information

�� specific details do not exist, and/or

�� being held within documents of other agencies/departments.

Cultural and other activities: activities such as a major regional football carnival held at Fitzroy Crossing over the period 10 – 13 October restricted the ability to access CEO’s and community leaders as they were not in the community and/or unavailable for the proposed site visit. Program of visits was amended to cater where possible.

1.5 Acknowledgements

The project team would like to thank the various stakeholders for their input into this important study. In particular we would like to thank the staff from the four Shires involved in this study: Shire of Broome; Shire of Derby/West Kimberley, Shire of Halls Creek; and Shire of Wyndham/East Kimberley. We would also like to thank the individual communities that participated in the study for their hospitality and valuable contribution.


2. Context

2.1 Literature review

The following commentary provides a contextual framework for which the current feasibility study is based. There is a plethora of reports, focus papers, discussion papers and other literature which discuss the current substandard condition of Indigenous communities and the relationship with government policies and programs. The literature often focuses on the service provisions available to the Indigenous communities and the ‘gap’ between Indigenous communities, particularly remote, and non-Indigenous communities. An overarching theme that is explored in the literature, is the role that all levels of government play in the delivery of services and infrastructure. There is repetitive discussion as to the duplication of policies or programs from different levels and areas of government, and the lack of clarity as to the actions needing to be undertaken and by whom. Therefore, it is appropriate that the contextual framework is established through the recent Bilateral Agreement. Background: the Bilateral Agreement It is widely recognised that the initiatives of successive Governments to improve the livelihoods of Indigenous Australians, particularly those living in remote communities, have achieved marginal success. With 274 discrete Indigenous communities in Western Australia, and 45% of Indigenous Western Australians living within remote communities,

1 there are many issues and variables that have hindered the

governments, service providers and other bodies from delivering basic services to the Indigenous communities. The issues facing Indigenous communities and their access to basic services have been ‘characterised by a cycle of review which has led to short term and reactive responses to problems that require long term and sustained efforts’ by all levels of government.

2 In order to actively achieve sustained improvements in the basic

services provided to Indigenous communities in Western Australia, the discussion paper, Services to Discrete Indigenous Communities in Western Australia, identified that ‘there is a need for Commonwealth, State and local governments to accept their responsibilities to provide equitable services to Indigenous people’ and in addition there is;

‘… an urgent need for a significantly increased investment in the physical and social environment in which Indigenous people live in order to address the backlog of need; to put in place sustainable management practices; to address the gaps in the availability of social services and to promote the development of an economic base.’

3

In recognising this theme that has been expressed through many reports and literature, the Bilateral Agreement on Indigenous affairs was signed by the State and Commonwealth Governments in June 2006. The Agreement acknowledged that

1 ABS, Housing and Infrastructure in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities

(CHINS), cat. No. 4710.0, ABS, Canberra, 2002, pp 13-14. 2 Department of Indigenous Affairs, Discussion Paper: Services to Discrete Indigenous

Communities in Western Australia’, 2002, p.2. 3 Ibid.


‘healthy communities are underpinned by adequate and appropriate physical infrastructure, public health services and regulatory standards’, and that together with local governments and Indigenous communities, a collaborative approach will ‘ensure efficient and effective delivery of essential and municipal services and the provision of reliable and sustainable infrastructure’.

4

In addressing the priorities of i) early childhood intervention, ii) safer communities and iii) building Indigenous wealth, employment and entrepreneurial culture, the Agreement achieve to achieve the following key outcome areas:

1. Law and Order and Safe Places for People 2. Skills, Jobs and Opportunities 3. Healthy and Strong People 4. Sustainable Environmental Health and Infrastructure 5. Land, Sea and Culture 6. Strong Leadership and Governance.

However, essentially the Agreement committed the local governments to deliver municipal services where funds and resources are provided to support the concept, and to ‘normalise/regularise’ service provision to Indigenous people in the communities. The normalisation of services to Indigenous communities has been defined previously as:

‘providing and maintaining essential services to Aboriginal communities in the same way as they are provided to a non-Aboriginal town or community’.

5

And a:

‘process that aims to deliver citizenship rights long demanded by Indigenous people and which are taken for granted by non-Indigenous people’.

6

This proposal for the normalisation of municipal services to Indigenous communities, in the status quo, would place local governments in a challenging and potentially unserviceable position. The success of any initiative to delivery ‘normal’ municipal services to Indigenous communities by local government would be entirely contingent upon appropriate planning, organisation and funding. An ad-hoc and premature introduction of a new service delivery model for municipal services would result in issues and problems that would be somewhat reflect of the issues and problems incurred in previous initiatives and agreements. Given this, it is important to note that ‘local government, despite ongoing requests, was not party to the Western Australian Bilateral negotiations’ rather they were represented by the State Department of Local Government and Regional Development.

7

Recently however, the Bilateral Agreement has been super ceded, and a revised/new Bilateral Agreement is being drafted based upon the COAG National Agreements and National Partnership Agreements.

4

5 Chief Executive Office Working Party on Essential Services to Aboriginal Communities.

6 Department of Indigenous Affairs, Discussion Paper: Services to Discrete Indigenous

Communities in Western Australia’, 2002, p.7. 7 WALGA, Interim WALGA Submission – Local Government Advisory Board Inquiry into

Government Service Delivery to Indigenous Communities, July 2008, p.16.


Services to Discrete Indigenous Communities (2002) This discussion paper provides an in-depth analysis of the contextual factors that affect the services delivered to Indigenous communities in Western Australia, and provides proposals and recommendations to stimulate discussion and debate. The overarching theme that is derived from the discussion paper, is that during a ‘time of much change and debate in Indigenous affairs…there is general acknowledgement about that lack of sustainable outcomes in improving the social and economic position of Aboriginal people.’ Importantly, whilst the discussion paper was written in 2002, the theme that ‘there is less agreement about the most effective ways forward and about how governments can best work with communities to improve service outcomes’

8 remains a current issue in 2008.

The overarching theme that is identified in relation to government involvement in Indigenous affairs is the ‘cycle of review’. The paper identifies that there is a ‘plethora of research, reviews, reports and recommendations’ and that despite the good intentions of these investigations, ‘progress has not been satisfactory and Indigenous disadvantage continues.’

9

The diagram that is provided in the discussion paper to describe the pattern of review is provided below.

Source: Department of Indigenous Affairs, Discussion Paper: Services to Discrete Indigenous

Communities in Western Australia’, 2002, p.7.

Of particular importance, the discussion paper suggests ‘practical reasons’ as to why the progress has been slow in developing solutions to the problems facing Indigenous people, and the barriers faced to address the needs of discrete Indigenous communities in Western Australia.

8 Department of Indigenous Affairs, Discussion Paper: Services to Discrete Indigenous

Communities in Western Australia’, 2002, p.1. 9 Department of Indigenous Affairs, Discussion Paper: Services to Discrete Indigenous

Communities in Western Australia’, 2002, p.7.


In particular, the discussion paper explores the role of the local government in service provision, and identifies the following key issues that impact ‘on the limited nature of services provided to Indigenous communities by local governments’

10:

�� Inadequate resources to service remote areas

�� Land tenure and consequential non-rateability of land

�� The ‘private’ nature of Indigenous communities and facilities

�� The availability of services and facilities to remote residents in town centres

�� A history of Federal, State and Indigenous agencies circumventing local government approvals and involvement.

�� The current substandard nature of infrastructure

�� Current legislative impediments to the application of public health laws.

�� A history of acrimony and misunderstanding between the parties. Given these issues, the paper identified that a key success factor that was identified within the Bilateral Agreement, the concept of augmenting the financial income for local governments:

‘Endeavours to improve service delivery therefore need to include measures to augment the current financial capacity of local governments to service these communities. At the same time, however, there needs to be improved accountability in order to ensure an equitable and needs based allocation of available resources by local governments amongst all the competing areas of responsibilities.

11’

In summarising the local government focus of the discussion paper, the following recommendation is particularly relevant to the current context; ‘Government acknowledge the vital role that local governments have in improving services to Indigenous communities…’

12

The Provision of Local Government Services to Aboriginal Communities (1999) The focus paper provides an overview of the ‘recent history and current initiatives’ relating to the delivery of local government services, and the issues and impediments to improving the service delivery to Indigenous communities in Western Australia. The focus paper starts by constructing a context in which local government services to Indigenous communities are limited by issues and impediments. The issues identified in this focus paper, have been largely reproduced in the Services to discrete Indigenous Communities in Western Australia discussion paper. However the additional issues identified included:

�� the Crown is not expressly bound by all provisions of the Health Act, thus limiting the powers of local authorities to enforce health provisions in Aboriginal communities which are located on Crown reserve land under the car, control and management of the ALT

�� the areas in which many Aboriginal communities are located are exempt from building controls and the application of the Building Code of Australia

�� the polarised views of the parties.13

10

Ibid p.14 11

Department of Indigenous Affairs, Discussion Paper: Services to Discrete Indigenous Communities in Western Australia, 2002, p.12. 12

Ibid p.13 13

Department of Indigenous Affairs, Focus Paper: The provision of local government services to aboriginal communities, November 1999, p.3.


One particular theme that is discussed in detail in the focus paper is the level of resourcing available to local government for the provision of service delivery, and provides two suggested approaches to improve the government resourcing. Where from? Where to? A discussion paper on remote Aboriginal Communities (2007) The discussion paper focuses on the debate surrounding funding sources and the application for funding for Aboriginal communities in Western Australia. Additionally, the relationship between the three levels of governments, their associated policies and practices is examined. The discussion paper pays a particular reference to the infrastructure and dynamics of the communities, using a historical perspective to provide a lens to the current context of the Aboriginal communities. The discussion paper identifies two major issues in relation to Aboriginal Communities, i) the need to clarify the funding responsibility and distribution between the three tiers of government; ii) and the need to use evidence based research to determine future development and maintenance of Aboriginal communities. The discussion paper references a Department of Water report that identifies challenges to effective delivery and maintenance of infrastructure. These include distance; lack of technical expertise; circumnavigation of government policies/procedures and ad hoc funding. In addition, original funding has come through Australian Government, but the State Government has not received funding for subsequent maintenance. There has been a decrease of state support over last 5 years despite the number of communities increasing. The Commonwealth contributes $12-15 million per annum for capital works and the State $3.7 million for maintenance; testing; disinfecting and emergency breakdowns. Local government funding is united and as many of the communities do not pay rates, there appears to be culture of not regarding the residents with equal priority of municipal service delivery. A key aspect of the discussion paper is the proposed findings and recommendations which have a particular reference to the current feasibility study. The key finding of relevance to the current feasibility study was:

‘Previously, Commonwealth funding available to remote Aboriginal communities through the Community Development and Employment Program (CDEP) and the Community Housing and Infrastructure Program (CHIP) substantially subsidised the provision of municipal services in those communities’

14

With the proposed associated recommendations:

‘In negotiating new financial arrangements within the terms of the State/Commonwealth Bilateral Agreement for the provision of Housing, Infrastructure and Essential Services for Indigenous People in Western Australia November 2005 - June 2008, the State should be cognisant of the implications of the Commonwealth’s changes to its Community Development and Employment Program (CDEP) and Community Housing and Infrastructure Program (CHIP) and the inequities in the current allocation of Financial Assistance Grants to WA for distribution to local government.’

15

14

Education and Health Standing Committee, Where from Where to A discussion paper on Remote Aboriginal Communities, 2007, p.74. 15

Ibid. p.76


2.2 Municipal service delivery The role of the local government in relation to the delivery of services, both core and municipal is uncertain as described through literature. Clarification as to what services are to be provided by the local government is attempted to be somewhat provided within the SEHISOG Local Government Issues paper. It was suggested that ‘municipal services is a misnomer in that the majority of this program funds power and water, and most of the remainder funds the operation of community Councils and administration.’

16 Additionally as referenced in the Interim WALGA Submission, ‘those

that could be described as Local Government type services – environmental health, internal roads, sport and recreation and social services are in many instances actually delivered by the Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) programme.’

17 This is simply one example of the various classifications relating to

services, and it is explored in detail through the findings of the WALGA Survey (2005). Nevertheless, despite the uncertainty as to the scope of the services to be provided by the local government, the ability to deliver the service is affected by external influences. In the current scenario, the following discussion provides a contextual framework in which the proposed regional local government model (as per Section 3 of this report) will operate.

2.2.1 Issues and impediments

There is no simple solution to overcoming the long term systemic issues and impediments associated with the delivery of municipal services to remote Indigenous communities, despite the past endeavours of successive Federal and State governments. The following commentary provides an overview of key issues and impediments that would impact the ability of governments, particularly the local government, to deliver municipal services. A detailed assessment is provided (in the following subsections of Section 2.2) of issues and impediments relating to:

�� Normalisation of service delivery

�� Rateability of Indigenous communities

�� Accounting and Governance models

�� Funding controls Physical constraints The physical constraints of remoteness and the environment create a significant barrier to the delivery of normal municipal services. The distance between the service centres and the communities presents a significant cost increase due to the travel, time and additional costs associated with delivering services of a commensurate quality to that of non-Indigenous communities. The additional financial constraints driven by the physical constraints would exceed the financial capacity of the local governments given the current funding conditions. Environmental constraints The ability to deliver municipal services during the ‘wet’ season is restricted significantly. In relation to several communities, many may cut-off by road for a month or more by flooding, which can create significant logistical issues. In addition, the

16

SEHISOG , Local Government Issues Paper, released September 2007, p.6 17

WALGA, LGAB Inquiry Indigenous Service Delivery, 2008, p.21


actual period of time that a local government would have to deliver services such as road maintenance, can be potentially reduced by up to three months per twelve-month period. In cases of flooding or in more extreme weather events, the available resources such as graders and bulldozers are required as a priority to assist in re-opening road access to the remote road network for the communities. This therefore has a significant impact on the local government’s ability to service communities’ normal delivery program, which results in significant delays and additional costs.

Locality and size There is also an “out of sight – out of mind” syndrome that affects many smaller communities throughout the State, where there is at least the perception, that the larger centre(s) receive favourable treatment. Remote indigenous communities are further disadvantaged from a lack of direct local representation, not only for immediate problems, but also in the planning, political and budget processes. Listed below are several issues and impediments that potentially impact the ability of local government to deliver municipal services and improve the social and economic fabric of the community:

�� The number and location of remote communities – this adversely impacts on service delivery resources and results in either inefficient economies of scale at a local level, duplications and/or the need for intermittent visiting services.

�� The form of community governance and leadership regimes – communities with varying degrees of capacity and competence in governance and leadership, and the adverse impact of a high turnover of community CEO’s. In addition, the lack of understanding or awareness of how community governance structures operate, and how they inter-relate to service delivery agencies and a master delivery plan.

�� Multiple priority community tasks – the level of understanding of the multiple priority community tasks that are required of the community CEO’s within a complex operating environment.

�� Level of funding – the perception, real or otherwise, that the considerable funding programs from both Federal and State governments are not sufficient to provide normal municipal services to the remote Indigenous communities.

�� Myriad of stakeholders- the problems associated with the delivery of municipal services through a myriad of departments, agencies and service providers. This is coupled with the lack of effective coordination and planning for service delivery between the multiple stakeholders.

�� Cost models - a lack of understanding as to the total funding and total expenditure associated with actual service delivery and overhead costs to all communities.

�� Transparency and accountability – the lack of transparency and accountability for service delivery, created through the numerous and varied funding programs and acquittal processes.


�� Service standards - the complexity of matching the overall service delivery standard with the unique requirements of each community, the level of local capacity, the objective of self-determination and mutual obligation, and the level of strong government leadership, direction, planning and financial commitment.

�� Legalisation - legislative restrictions such as the Health Act 1911 not binding the Crown and restricting local governments’ ability to enforce the Act in remote indigenous communities located on crown land, and where the need is the greatest. In addition, there is potentially a clash between the community by-laws and the local government laws.

�� Existing conditions of infrastructure and services – a lack of understanding as to the current standards of the infrastructure and services, and the associated resource and financial requirements that will be required to normalise the infrastructure and services.

2.2.2 Normalisation

The bilateral objective to achieve the “normalisation/regularisation” of municipal services is a strategy to improve the life of remote indigenous communities including the inhabitants of the numerous remote communities dotted throughout the Kimberley. The four Kimberley local governments recognise the need to achieve better service delivery and support the concept and recognise the local community aspect that exists in their area. In November 2006 the four Shires in the Kimberley Zone agreed to support an investigation into a regional approach to delivery of municipal services due to the commonality of interest. It is notable that the indigenous inhabitants of the remote communities are already part of their local government. They live in the local government district, they are entitled to vote in the local government elections and can be elected to represent their community, and they are included in the Shire statistics for funding, including the Grants Commission annual untied grant paid to each local government. The noteworthy difference between these remote residents and the wider community is the general lack of rating capacity arising from the unique landholding arrangements with the Crown reserves being considered as “private” land. The land tenure arrangements require entry permits. It is true that some other residents of a Shire may also not pay rates, but generally that is on an individual landholding basis, within a gazetted town site, and applies to a minority of the Shire population. These non-rate paying residents are eligible to use all local government facilities and services in the same manner as all ratepayers and those in remote communities. The difference is that remote communities are located remotely from the services and generally on a single parcel(s) of land that is unrateable – but which may contain a relatively large number of residents that occupy individual and separate housing units that are also not-rateable. This recognises the lack of capacity of the residents to pay rates arising from their social and economic disadvantage. The unique status of remote community land tenure creates two significant issues:

1. The lack of fund raising capacity to meet local service demand and/or

normal Shire resources from its non-rateability.


2. The restricted access to “private” land and the inability to expend local government funds.

In most cases the internal roads, and some access roads, are not dedicated public roads as is the normal situation that places responsibility for the care, control and management of the road on the relevant local government, although there is recent legal advice that raises doubts on this situation. The local government controlled roads are eligible for road funding grants, albeit that any increase in eligible road length does not reflect a corresponding increase in the total funds required to meet the additional costs. This situation does not make it particularly attractive for local government to seek to have the non-dedicated roads normalised as it is already battling with insufficient funding to maintain its existing road network. An example is the Shire of Halls Creek and the Tanami and Duncan roads with existing funds being quite inadequate to maintain the existing road network, let alone adding greater lengths of remote road with only a token increase in funding. Together with the lack of rating income, the issue of non dedicated roads is a further disincentive for local governments, and any change in status and responsibility would require consultation with the wider community. Further, the dedication of these roads and streets may not be welcomed by the remote communities themselves as it interferes with and complicates their existing control over the use of the road, including control over entry. Local government is constrained by the Local Government Act 1995 in what it can do on privately owned land, and that is basically the situation with some land controlled by the Aboriginal Land Trust (ALT) and the respective local Aboriginal Corporation. A comparison example is a privately owned Caravan Park where there are a large number of residents occupying individual and separate housing units – but the actual Caravan Park itself is rated and the owner either provides the services or pays the Shire – for example waste disposal. However, the internal road network and other associated infrastructure is the landowner’s responsibility. This anomaly creates a situation where other rate paying residents of the Shire would be required to pay significantly higher rate sums to make up the financial commitments required for normal service and facility provision to remote communities. Such a situation would highlight the need for the wider community to be consulted on any change in service provision involving local government that will result in substantial higher rate imposts and which would have significant impact on existing Shire financial management. It may also create a divisive issue within the community and be counter productive. The option under consideration is that any such change in service delivery would be fully funded by external sources in a manner that has no impact on the wider Shire community. It is also noteworthy that local governments are not required to provide the same services or facilities to all residents (including the ratepayers) of the Shire. The level of service provision is a policy decision of the elected council. What is required is that all residents of the district be provided with equal access to the service or facility that is provided – wherever it is located. It is quite normal for resident ratepayers that are located remotely from a main local government centre to complain at the lack of services or facilities’ and/or their rate level. For example, a pastoralist located on a far remote boundary is expected to pay


the same rate as a similar property adjacent to the main centre and with far greater access to services. The Shire is likely to only grade the remote pastoral station access road once or twice a year (which may or may not cost much more than the actual rate paid). The Shire is also prohibited to account for its funds on a ward basis with the emphasis being on the provision of the needs of the whole district and not separate areas. An example would be the provision of a single library in the main centre funded by ratepayers. The services and facilities including governance and regulatory functions provided by a local government, and funded by rates and general revenue grants, are available for all residents, regardless of where they live. The shires in the Kimberley all experience the affects of large numbers of itinerant visitors to the main centres from the remote communities and these visitors can create unique expenditure requirements such as ranger and litter control. The provision exists for differential and specific area rating for specific purposes but that cannot apply to an area that is not rated in the first place. This lack of rating capacity for the remote communities inhibits the local government in its allocation of its resources and is a major concern of local government with the development of a service delivery model, but the key issue is that rating would not provide the level of funds necessary for the special circumstances that exist. In light of this situation and on the premise that the wider Shire community should not, and would not, take on responsibility for funding additional service provision for remote communities, the basis for such change must be that it will be fully funded by external sources.

2.2.3 Land tenure

The land in which most Indigenous communities are located, is on Crown land under the estate of the Indigenous Lands Trust (ALT). As a result, the land that is under the estate of ALT is governed somewhat by the Indigenous Affairs Planning Authority Act 1972, which means that access to the land is restricted, and that without permission the reserves cannot be entered. This issue can pose a significant barrier to service providers who are required to deliver services to the community. The ALT land is predominately sub-leased to an Indigenous community organisation, which essentially operates the community. The concept of this arrangement is that the provision for the development and maintenance of infrastructure and the delivery of services is the responsibility of the Indigenous community organisation operating on behalf of ALT. In addition, those Indigenous community organisations that are incorporated are constituted to undertake the roles and responsibilities that would normally the responsibility of Local Government, as detailed within The Commonwealth Indigenous Communities and Associations Act.

‘Where 10 adult Indigenous living in a particular area desire that an Indigenous Council be formed in respect of that area …for the constitution of that area as an Indigenous Local Council area with a view to the establishment of an Indigenous Council for that area. (2) (a) The boundaries of the area proposed to be constituted as an Indigenous Council area, (2) (b) the functions of the proposed Indigenous Local Government(3) in reference to (2) (b) a reference to a service relating to any of the following matters: housing, health, sewerage, water supply, electricity, communications, education or training, relief work for unemployed persons, roads and


associated works, garbage collections and disposal, welfare, community amenities. 30 (1) By Laws – subject to this Act an Indigenous Council may make by-laws not inconsistent with any other law in force in the area of the Local Government for purposes connected with its functions 30(2) A by-law may fix a charge for a service provided or made available’

18

This therefore presents a potential legislation issue, whereby the local government, or the proposed regional local government is duplicating [where the land is operated by an incorporated Indigenous community organisation] services that are required to be provided by the Indigenous community organisation.

2.2.4 Rateability The issue of rateability of aboriginal communities is a vexing question that requires clarification and clear understanding of all the parties involved. As it stands there is considerable uncertainty as to what is rateable and what is exempt. The Shire of Ashburton was involved in a test case with the Bindi Bindi community near Onslow which tended to support the case that the social and economic factors associated with such communities reinforced the charity organisation aspect that created the required precedence for exemption. In part the charity status question arises as to whether an activity is based on the betterment of the community through poverty relief, education purposes, religious purposes and other purposes that are deemed to be beneficial to the community. This provides a quite wide basis for possible exemption, particularly where economic activity such as a pastoral station controlled by an Aboriginal corporation where the profit could be seen as either a normal commercial operation or one that provides social and economic development benefits being returned to a community that fit the charitable test. There are also examples of land leases for activities such as commercial tourism ventures (such as on the Dampier Peninsular) and art centres. Currently the situation arises for each local government to weigh up whether a property is rateable or exempt with the determination of the issue requiring an expensive and divisive court determination to test the legality to rate. There are other issues associated with the rating of remote communities. The first of these is the actual capacity to pay. This applies to both the corporation and the individual “house owner”. In the absence of a clear picture of the corporation funding sources and levels, it is unlikely that a community could readily meet a rate bill of, say $25,000 (50 houses @ $500 per annum) without either a corresponding increase in funds or a reduction in expenditure on local service delivery. Similarly, it is unlikely that an individual house occupier on welfare benefits could meet an additional cost of, say, $500 per year. The imposition of such a rate also raises issues such as the valuation on which rates are based, debt collection with no title for security and other rating issues such as differential and specific area rating, ESL levy etc.

18

The Commonwealth Indigenous Communities and Associations Act, Part III, 11.


The payment of rates by aboriginal communities would go someway towards overcoming the conception and misunderstanding held by white communities about the current failure to pay rates, and this would contribute towards the normalisation process. However, the actual payment of rates by aboriginal communities would not resolve the lack of appropriate levels of funding for service delivery, particularly as a result of the special needs and the excessive cost structures involved. The added rate contribution would not assist in a material way towards the backlog of service and infrastructure expenditure or compensate for the extra costs involved, and it raises the question whether it is an appropriate funding source in the circumstances. Rating is an issue that needs to be resolved at a State level to provide certainty for all concerns and not through individual court action by Shires and on a case by case basis. Although it may achieve an element of “normalisation”, there are concerning aspects such as ability to pay and the inadequate increase in required funding compared to expenditure needs.

2.2.5 Accounting model

The unique land “ownership” situation that exists as a result of the remote communities being situated on unrateable land and not a gazetted town-site that is not under the care and control of a local government also creates a peculiar accounting treatment. Although the premise of service provision is based upon “normal” municipal services such as maintenance of community streets and waste collection, these will be unable to be carried out without the prior agreement of the “landowner” – the Corporation and/or ALT. Even simple access by local government employees will require prior approval. Any infrastructure development such as a Works Depot will require considerable consultation and agreement with the concerned parties and differ from normal projects which normally take place on land controlled by the local government. Service provision and local governments’ role and responsibilities will require prior agreement with each of the communities in question. However, the cost of expenditure on a community street or other land not controlled by the Shire will not fit within the normal Shire accounting function. For example, road funding and expenditure are normally treated under Schedule 12 - Transport, which accounts for the local governments transport activities such as road maintenance and construction. As the works are being carried out on “private” land, the income and expenditure associated with a particular activity such as street maintenance will be classified in the Shire’s accounts under Schedule 14 – as private works. Private works is the title given to any activity a local government undertakes on behalf of a person/agency on private land and not for a public local government purpose. Private works accounting is based upon a pre-agreement of the scope of works and on the basis of full cost recovery, including an overhead and profit margin. Each job transaction entails a cost element which is covered by a corresponding income item, with all transactions appearing in the Shire financial reports under the heading of Schedule 14 – Private Works.


This differs from normal Shire activities which are allocated to a series of Schedules such as Schedule 12 for all transport related items. The cost of street maintenance for remote communities would not be disclosed within the total expenditure by the Shire for transport activity. The problem caused by the land “ownership” issue is a difficult one. It should not prevent the actual service delivery as that can be achieved through agreement with the relevant community (or it misses out), but the unique status of the land is most unlikely to change due to the special significance it holds to the community. It is strongly expected that all communities would be most reluctant to cede the land to local government so that “normal” service provision could occur as dedicated town-sites. The question of local government control over specified land such as roads and streets, sewerage ponds, waste disposal sites and depots is an issue that requires attention.

2.2.6 Funding control

The options for service provision are basically:

1. The status quo. 2. Individual local government service provision 3. A regional local government approach

Clearly the status quo option is unacceptable and it is generally recognised and accepted that local government is the best regime to provide service delivery in a transparent and accountable manner - if fully funded to undertake the task. The option of each local government becoming responsible for remote service delivery to its communities appears reasonable and rational. However it is envisaged that this would create some difficulties that are not readily apparent. As outlined above, it is not a case of “normalisation/regularisation” due to the land tenure issue. If the community land status was changed to a normal town-site status and the Shire funded accordingly, it could proceed to provide normal services and account for these within its normal accounting schedules according to the activity. For example waste management, road maintenance, dog control etc In the absence of that normality all activity will be based upon a “private work” basis and accounted for through Schedule 14. A key issue with the single Shire approach will be the requirement to expand the current management structure to service the expanded role of remote service delivery. This is expected to include additional staff, vehicles, plant, housing, IT and office accommodation. The cost of these additional resources will be included and allocated through normal activity schedules as compared to the actual service delivery funding and expenditure which will be allocated to the private works schedule. The additional resource costs (staffing, IT etc) should be recouped via a contribution or grant but the overall financing of the remote service delivery program will be spread throughout the Shire accounts with the risk of a dilution of funds with normal shire activity, or the true costs not being apparent. A further issue would be that each Shire would manage the funds and service delivery separately and differently, as determined by each council,


and similar to the different governance and service delivery regimes that currently apply in each of the four Kimberley shires. A specific purpose regional local government established for the sole purpose of dealing with municipal service delivery for the region will provide a single organisation where the total funds and expenditure relate only to its purpose, with no risk of becoming obscured with other funds and this should provide a far greater transparent and accountable delivery agency.


3. Regional local government model

3.1 Regional local government model overview The statutory requirements for establishing a regional local government are outlined in Appendix C. A major consideration of establishing a regional local government is that it is a voluntary process with the participant councils entering into a formal establishment agreement, which includes the purpose that the regional local government is being formed. However it is important to note that strong commitment is required by the local governments prior to the formation commencing, and additionally it would require at least two local governments to join in order for the regional local government to be formed. Consideration should be made as to whether Local governments that decide to join post-formation may be liable for additional charges. The proposed model is based upon three significant regional purposes:

1. Representation of the interests of the residents of the regions remote indigenous communities.

2. The efficient and effective delivery of defined municipal services to remote indigenous

communities.

3. Monitoring the overall service provision to remote indigenous communities. Representation and Monitoring The regional local government model provides a specific dedicated leadership and governance organisation that exists for the sole purpose of improving the standard of life for the regions most disadvantaged residents. The regional local government can achieve that by acting as the prime agency for representing the interests of the remote communities it represents, including, but not limited to, its annual reporting process. The representation role would cover all aspects of community life and act as the high level community advocate to both the Federal and State governments and agencies. That is a role currently carried out by the individual Shire Councils, but which also acts on behalf of all the Shire residents, whereas the regional local government would provide a single dedicated high level advocacy body to promote the concerns of the remote communities. The regional local government advocacy role would have a key function of monitoring service delivery by all relevant agencies – including State and Federal, and be in a position of strength from local awareness through its function and consultation across the region. It is expected that the recently announced ‘Sanderson Committee’ will have a significant over-arching role in the delivery of services to indigenous people. The regional local government should provide a high level regional conduit for the ‘Sanderson committee’ and provide a one-stop shop for representing the interests of the regional indigenous community. A major role for the regional local government will be seeking the additional funding levels required, particularly as the needs are identified.


The regional local government also offers the opportunity to form and work with a series of specific purpose sub-committees established under the Local Government Act 1995. It is envisaged that these committees would be:

� Individual community advisory committees (most likely the existing Community Council) to provide direct access to each community in respect of providing a local voice, service delivery requirements and issues.

� Specific purpose committees based upon key functions such as health, transport etc

and that is made up of key representatives from the relevant government agencies, NGO’s and service providers.

The representation and advocacy role by such a regional local government has the potential to provide a powerful, influential and potent voice to ensure that the needs and problems of its constituents are being addressed. Service Delivery Issues If the four local governments were to take individual responsibility for municipal service delivery for their remote communities each would be required to recruit additional management staff and other resources. The Shire of Broome has identified the need for a new specific directorate to manage indigenous service delivery with some sixteen additional employees and additional office accommodation, IT/communications and other establishment expenses are estimated to exceed $4m. The ACIL Tasman report for servicing four communities in the Shire of Halls Creek suggests the Shire would require the recruitment of only a single manager and an administrative support officer. These additional resources will be absorbed into the local governments’ structure and this will create some difficulty in providing a transparent and accountable service delivery unit that it is providing value for money that satisfies:

� the remote communities, � funding agencies, � elected Shire representatives, and � the wider community.

It is most likely that such a unit would be accommodated within existing structures and workplaces making the accurate accounting of the time, resources and funds a difficult process - especially for overhead and operational cost allocations. A disadvantage of the individual Shire delivery method is that this will result in four different approaches and four different delivery standards based on four different decision-making and management processes. The strength of the method is that it is “local” local government, but this brings with it considerable duplication of resources and costs without any guarantee of equal service delivery. Alternatively, the proposed regional local government model will have the advantage of being a single organisation where all the resources and funds are dedicated to the one function, and which will allow full and accurate transparency and accountability of the entire unit. All the funds, all the expenditure and all the resources will be subject to 100% transparency and reporting. It is envisaged that, as the overall function is the municipal service delivery role, the accounting function, albeit still basically on a private works basis, can be via the various standard local government schedule arrangement and not just through schedule 14. The total


funds are related solely to the service delivery purpose without any potential for becoming lost or confused within the normal accounts of a Shire. The specific accounting processes for the delivery of municipal service delivery will require further consideration and development by local government, the DLGRD and funding bodies to ensure the accounting and financial reporting processes are robust and meet the expected strict demands of both the funding agency and the community. An important requirement will be that all funding sources are subject to the same accounting and common acquittal processes to provide simplicity and reporting transparency. The regional local government model does create another layer of government, but it is for significant special function within the sheer size of the Kimberley region, the number of remote communities, and the number of varied services involved, as well as the special factors that exist demands a strong, coordinated and exclusive delivery model. A key outcome will be the full cost of service delivery, including governance and management will be contained in a single annual report, including the financial report. Governance Structure With four participant shires in the Kimberley it is proposed that the regional local government consist of eight elected members made up of two members from each local government, of which one will be the respective Shire Presidents. The eight members will elect the regional local government President. It is considered that eight members is adequate representation and provides sufficient scope for achieving a quorum (4) when required. It is proposed that the regional local government will initially be required to meet monthly while the organisational and service delivery functions are being developed, but eventually it is envisaged that, with sound policy, management and delegation structures in place, that quarterly meetings may be sufficient. Due to the significant costs associated with travel, it is also proposed that the regional local government will make maximum use of holding meetings using teleconferencing facilities for up to 50% of its meetings to reduce travelling and costs. Regional Chief Executive Officer The position of Chief Executive Officer to the proposed regional local government will be essential to the success of the model and its service delivery role. There is no spare capacity within the existing four Shire CEO positions to undertake the additional governance duties of the regional local government, or the management of the service delivery structure. Similarly, the existing CEO’s could not be expected to take on local service delivery without appointing additional support resources. The regional local government CEO will require special management skills and experience including dealing with indigenous communities, service delivery and governance roles. The formation of the regional local government and its new and unique function provides an opportunity to put in place a new purpose designed robust and properly resourced management unit that maximises existing resources and new technologies for efficient management opportunities.


The new position and the unique role provides an opportunity for a person with the required skills to take up the challenging position and develop a small but well resourced management structure from a greenfield situation. It is envisaged that an attractive remuneration package would be required to attract the right person and it is possible that the position may not be filled by a local government practitioner but from the public service or commercial fields. The remuneration package should at least be comparable to that of the existing Shire CEO’s. Structure The basic function of the regional local government will be to deliver efficient and effective municipal services to remote communities. It is not envisaged that the regional local government itself will deliver (all) the services but manage service delivery contracts and agreements with one or more of the following as circumstances require:

� The individual local governments � The individual remote communities � External service providers

Therefore the main role of the regional local government management will be to:

� Develop the service standards and needs � Develop the service agreements � Manage the service delivery contracts � Supervise the delivery standards � Liaise with the remote communities and agencies � Monitor the community well being and service delivery � Acquit and report on the operations of the regional local government including

statistical data and the status and health of the remote communities. An example of the proposed structure is provided below:


Where possible every endeavour should be made to use existing local resources such as Shire IT systems and accounting services on a fee for service basis. Similarly, service provision of regulatory services such as health inspections and ranger services should, as far as possible be contracted, on a fee for service basis, from the respective Shires to maximise existing local resources. When or if demand exceeds existing capacity a case could be made to the regional local government for the funding level required to recruit the additional resource(s) required. This funding would be either 100% where that service level is necessary, or proportional to the service commitment and local Shire requirement (such as 50/50) and dependent upon the regional local government being funded accordingly. Other services, such as road and airstrip maintenance, waste removal etc would be delivered by service agreements with a community council where the capacity exists, a local government or an external service provider. This places a strong emphasis on the contract management, community liaison and inspectorial/supervisory role of the regional local government. As far as practicable, the regional local government should avoid becoming engaged in the employment of personnel for actual service delivery, such as EHO’s and Rangers. Where that resource is either unavailable or a local Shire is unwilling or unable to release a local resource the regional local government would have the option of using any other available resource from a neighbouring Shire or bringing in external resources on a consultancy or contract basis. An indicative minimal regional structure is as follows:

Description Min Max Role CEO 150,000 200,000 Governance PA 40,000 60,000 Governance Support Contract Manager 120,000 150,000 Service Agreements/Tenders Finance Manager 120,000 150,000 Financial Management Services Manager 120,000 150,000 Service Delivery Management Finance Officer 40,000 60,000 Finance support and creditors Administration Officer 30,000 50,000 Administration support Administration Officer 30,000 50,000 Administration support Records/Statistics Officer 50,000 70,000 Records management Community Liaison Officers (6) 300,000 420,000 On-site liaison and inspectorial Strategic Planning Officer Note: Remuneration costs only – excludes overheads, housing allowances and vehicle provision Housing An indicative housing allowance (based upon non-provision of employee housing) of between $20,000 and $30,000 per annum for each position is required. The capital cost of a house in the Kimberley is estimated at between $400,000 and $600,000 and beyond the financial capacity of the individual local governments to fund without affecting existing financial management and policy positions concerning the provision of housing. Light Vehicles An indicative requirement for the provision of light vehicles is as follows:


Position Type Min Max CEO 4 WD Executive 50,000 80,000 Managers x (3) 4 WD Prado type 40,000 60,000 Community Liaison Officers x (6) 4 WD (Landcruiser) 40,000 70,000 It is envisaged that all the positions except the six community liaison officer positions would be based at a central location. The six CLO’s would be located across the region (such as Broome, Derby, Fitzroy Crossing, Halls Creek and Kununurra). The capital cost of the required light vehicles (or other funding arrangements) would be identified in the initial regional local government funding package with any additional or replacement vehicles being covered by the funding agreement or future funding applications particularly in regards to new or expanded program delivery. Regional local government Office Accommodation The location of the regional local government office is a difficult matter, both logistically and politically. The sheer size of the Kimberley region creates a significant hurdle in selecting an appropriate site that suits the different shires located considerable distances apart. Both Broome and Kununurra, the two larger towns, are located at the extreme western and eastern ends of the region, whereas Derby and Halls Creek, the other two major shire centres are also situated in the western and eastern sectors respectively. Fitzroy Crossing and Halls Creek are more central than the other locations. There are benefits in selecting either Broome or Kununurra in regards to being more attractive for recruitment purposes, access to other services and agencies and air services. Derby is more central than Broome and has access to regular passenger flights, albeit not daily. On the other hand, either Fitzroy or Halls Creek are more central for both access to the western or eastern sectors and a large number of remote communities, but are both only serviced by light plane charter passenger transit to Broome. The nature and make-up of the regional local government itself does not greatly influence the location of the regional local government management. It is envisaged that the regional local government would be able to hire the use of suitable meeting facilities in each centre when required. Other meetings (up to 50%) would be held by video or teleconferencing means. There is no spare accommodation capacity in any of the existing Shire administration centres to fit the proposed regional local government administration. It is also not proposed that the regional local government would be housed in its own purpose built office complex. If that was the case, it would need to be funded by either a direct capital grant, or annual lease contributions to meet any borrowings. The location of the regional local government administration will probably be determined by the availability of suitable commercial office facilities that are adequate to house the requirements. The following basic office areas are required 4 Executive Offices 1 Reception area 1 General Office x 6 desks 1 Small meeting room 1 Kitchen/ablution area 1 Storage room


Regional local government Establishment Agreement The proposed regional local government will require an establishment agreement that sets out the detail of the arrangements in place to operate as a separate local government entity under the Local Government Act 1995. Apart from the establishment aspect the agreement must also cover the eventuality of it winding up, or of one or more participant councils withdrawing from the regional local government. The key components of an agreement are as follows:

1. The name and the region. 2. The regional purpose 3. The Council 4. Core Functions 5. Services 6. Obligations 7. Winding Up 8. Withdrawal of a participant council 9. Borrowings 10. Dispute Resolution

It is suggested that an appropriate name would be “The Kimberley Regional Local Government”, or KRC. The region would consist of the all of the districts of Broome, Derby West Kimberley, Halls Creek and Wyndham-East Kimberley. The regional purpose would be:

1. To represent the interests of the remote communities. 2. To provide selected municipal services to remote communities. 3. Monitoring the overall service provision to remote indigenous communities.

The Council would consist of eight elected members made up of two appointed by each of the participating Shires. The core function would be to provide specific agreed local government services to selected remote indigenous communities located within the region. The services would be the specific agreed services and detailed in a service plan, such as for:

� Health services � Animal Control services � Access roads and streets maintenance services � Waste services � Airstrip maintenance � Emergency service coordination

The agreement would set out the obligations of the participants, which would bind them to the agreement. This is necessary to provide some degree of certainty for setting up the regional local government and to provide services.


The agreement would set out the process for a council(s) to withdraw from the regional local government and which would require an adequate period of notice. In the case of this proposal it is recommended that the initial agreement would require a commitment for at least a three year period. It is suggested that a review process would be undertaken following the first twelve month period to allow an assessment and further consideration of its operations. At least 12 months notice of withdrawal would be required. A factor that will require consideration is whether the withdrawal of a council from the regional local government will impact upon the remote communities located in that councils district. In view of the full funding concept it is feasible that a reduced regional local government body could continue to provide services to remote communities located in another non-participant Shire. The winding up of a regional local government can occur at the direction of the Minister or in accordance with the establishment agreement, which would require adequate notice and provision for the division of assets and liabilities. The establishment agreement also requires a dispute resolution process. The proposed model does not envisage any contribution from the participant local governments. The establishment agreement can specifically include that Part 6, Division 5, subdivision 3 relating to borrowings is applicable and this would provide the regional local government with the opportunity to fund future infrastructure for remote communities based upon a guaranteed repayment regime. Indigenous Community Councils The ACIL Tasman report makes reference to the difficulties experienced in meeting and consulting with the four community councils in the Halls Creek project. The majority of the remote communities are governed by a community Council that are largely self-managed to varying degrees and depending upon the skills and commitment of the local leaders. The local councils are usually very dependent upon the community CEO and the success of a community can very much depend upon the relationship and attitude of these key personnel. The tenure of community CEO’s is a problem and the constant turn-over creates unacceptable gaps in management control and governance that leads to communities experiencing a roller coaster environment where highs and lows and success and failure are dependent upon a very narrow base. The ACIL Tasman report demonstrates the unacceptably high turnover of Community CEO’s, with some communities having had six different CEO’s in a 28 month period. Remuneration levels, remoteness and lack of support contribute to the high turnover. It is difficult to define a standard community. They vary from large remote communities with populations of 400 or more too quite small remote communities of 100 or so, with many much smaller outstations of less than 50, to communities that are located adjacent to towns. These town based communities basically rely upon, and have access to all normal mainstream services. The remote communities also vary in regards to the actual make-up of the community, with some remaining as a reasonably cohesive family or tribal group, whereas others have been formed through a process of resettlement where groups have been forced off traditional lands and relocated with one or more other groups. This situation can lead towards greater conflict and lack of cohesiveness that inhibits the governance of the community.


Relationship between the Indigenous Community Councils, Local Governments and a regional local government. The proposed model for a regional local government to deliver selected basic municipal services to remote communities relies upon a strong local community council governance structure that provides a representative body and a legal structure for contracting in services. The study has identified that a regional local government model will require local management, supervision, workforce, infrastructure and plant. It is expected that the service delivery model will evolve, including the possible future direct employment of employees, once access to specific purpose infrastructure has been resolved. Community Corporation Councils Most, if not all, the remote communities are currently under the care and control of a community corporation with specified functions (see 2.2.3 Land Tenure). The standard of governance and capacity of the various local community councils varies greatly but they are the current legitimate local governing organisation for their community and will continue to be in place without a meaningful change in the historical approach to managing the local affairs of these communities. Currently ORIC is the responsible agency and the oversight of the current governance structure is not, nor should be; the responsibility of local government or a regional local government, and any future change is outside the scope of this study. Therefore the status quo is presumed. A key consideration is that these community councils are party to a wide variety of existing legal contracts, agreements and partnership arrangements that will need to be considered in the arrangements that need to be made. A major consideration is that each community will require its corporation council to negotiate and reach agreement with a regional local government on service delivery, including access to and use of existing facilities so that the community can receive improved service delivery and the future benefits of a regional delivery model based upon local government. Failure to reach agreement would not only see the status quo remain but potentially result in a disastrous collapse of the community as funding and services declined. Local Government Advisory Committees The proposed regional local government will be responsible for some 25 remote communities distributed over 423,000 sq. kilometres of the Kimberley. Only two communities (Mulan and Billiluna) are presently directly represented on their local government and there is a considerable gap in the voice of the remote local communities into normal local government. The regional local government will require a direct link between it and the communities it will represent. Apart from a legal body to enter into negotiations and service delivery agreements, the local community council should provide a representative voice for its community on the actual service delivery needs and issues, and including the presence of a body to look for accountability from the regional local government to the community.


An essential focus of the regional local government will be the development of robust reporting, monitoring and statistical functions for managing its service delivery task and this will involve making maximum use of the available human resources, both locally based in the community and the regional officers (EHO; AEHW, CSO’s etc) that will visit the communities to ensure regular external oversight and monitoring. Maximum use must be made of these visiting resources to provide a wide scope for oversight of community affairs. The emphasis on the reporting function will provide for the development of improved service delivery focus, transparency and accountability – not only for the regional local government and its funding agencies but also for the remote communities. The current lack of information and statistical data cannot continue and this aspect of the service delivery process demands a high priority. It is proposed that each participant community council (to avoid duplication) will be appointed as a Local (community name) Regional Council Advisory Committee (LRCAC), and that the community council will be required, as part of the establishment agreement, to meet regularly and to include as part of its governance processes a specific agreed local government meeting accord for dealing with relevant issues, including representing its community and service delivery. It is envisaged this will require a set community affairs template approach. This may also require appointing a regional local government employee as a member of a committee. The Local Government Act 1995 (s5.9) provides for the council to appoint committees. The act provides for a wide variety of committees comprising of:

(a) Council members only; (b) Council members and employees; (c) Council members, employees and other persons; (d) Council members and other persons; (e) Employees and other persons; or (f) Other persons only.

Due to the logistical issues involved it is not reasonable for a regional local government or to be expected to be a member of any such advisory committee. However, it is expected that a community based regional local government advisory committee could consist of either regional local government employees and other persons (the community corporation) or just the community corporation itself. It is also possible for the community CEO, another local employee or other relevant person to be appointed to an advisory committee and to assist it with advice and reports, and to liaise with the regional local government management on a day by day basis when required. Care would be necessary to avoid the LRCAC becoming responsible for the wider affairs of the community and particularly other non-core service delivery. The regional local government would receive regular reports and recommendations relating to the affairs of the various committees, and information and statistical data to assist it manage the region communities and to represent those communities at a Federal and State level. A further aspect of the relationship between the regional local government and the community council advisory committees will be the development and implementation of robust accountability measures for the delivery of local services, including financial and performance monitoring and reporting. This will include the methods to be introduced in regards to the control of funding and accounting associated with local service delivery functions, and whether this is carried out locally or remotely.


This recognises the historical difficulty associated with accountability in some communities and the need to ensure that regional service delivery is focussed on effectiveness and accountability. The emphasis must be on the regional local government assuming ultimate responsibility for financial control, either through direct or indirect control. The advisory committees and its members will be subject to the existing range of local government accountability controls and audit. The development of strong management, supervision and accounting control mechanisms should not handicap the capacity of the local on-site manager or supervisor from making day by day expenditure decisions within set levels of authority or delegation. The remoteness factor demands the ability to carry out local repairs etc should not be delayed by excessive bureaucratic red tape and remote decision-making for minor works. Similarly, the remoteness demands strong external monitoring and control of activities and finances. There is a significant need for community CEO’s to receive far greater support and mentoring through an existing association such as the Local Government Managers Association (LGMA) or a specific association developed for that purpose. Specific external funding is required for supporting and improving the capacity of community CEO’s. The practical requirement for local community councils to be involved in the regional local government model as an advisory committee provides an opportunity to initiate the communities into the broader local government system. It will also provide an opportunity for improving the governance capacity of individual corporation councils where required through exposure to modified existing local government training packages and to provide an element of improved accountability. Specific external funding is required for training the community council advisory committee members in a similar manner as that recognised for local government elected members. The regional local government’s annual reporting requirement will not only provide audited financial accounts and service delivery performance measurement, but also the state and health of the various communities. The regional local government model will result in a strong representative voice for remote communities in the region that should lead to improved living standards.


43

3.2 Service delivery standards The following matrix provides a detailed description as to the delivery standards that may be applied to the municipal service areas, to be delivered by the regional local government. In addition, the issues that may be faced in delivering the municipal service have been identified. Considerations should be made by the regional local government to provide additional services to those core services detailed below, e.g. weed control, dust control. The consideration should occur at a point in time whereby the regional local government is delivering core services at appropriate levels, and the internal capacity is sufficient to deliver the additional services.

Municipal Service Area Service Provision Issues

Health

Environmental Health

Environmental Health services are a fundamental regulatory role of local government. Health remains a significant problem in aboriginal communities. Health service delivery involves a wide range and mix of government, NGO and local government agencies. These services are provided through a mix of both local and visiting resources. There are considerable local health issues including rubbish build up inside property fence-lines and litter on street verges and vacant land.

Current Shire inspection services vary across the region according to resources. Service delivery is constrained by normal duties, time and travel costs visiting remote communities. Additional EHO and AEHW resources are required to expand service delivery. Additional resource requirements need to be identified and allocated directly to individual Shires by a regional local government. The regional local government in consultation with the individual Shires, need to identify the programs and resources required to meet the local requirements.



A small number of communities such as Kalumburu sponsor a tidy house program with significant monthly prizes such as white goods.

The EHO type on-site visits provide a valuable resource and contact as a professional officer acting as the “eyes and ears” for local conditions and issues. The EHO site visits also provide opportunities for shared service delivery such as dog control by coordinating site visits, needs and resources. Major community clean-ups should be a high priority at the commencement of any local government service provision. This should involve a mix of Shire, community and resident’s resources to remove built up rubbish from property and vacant land.

Roads and Streets

Access Roads

Most community access is via the public road system maintained by MRWA or a Shire:

� Great Northern Highway (GNHW) � Cape Leveque Road � Gibb River Road � Tanami Road � Duncan Road � Camballin Road � Knoonkabah Road � Cherrabun Road � Beef Wood Park Road

Great Northern Highway. � MRWA controlled road.

Cape Leveque Road

� Controlled by the Shire of Broome � Public Road � MRWA sealed the northern 50 km to provide all weather access to

the Cape communities to the sealed airstrip at Lombadina. � The middle 50 km section consists of gravel and natural surface

sections that become badly corrugated and expensive to maintain at a trafficable standard.

� Concern expressed that newly sealed section has encouraged speeding and more accidents.

� Concern that sealing the road will increase tourist traffic opposed to desire for increased economic benefits.

� Reduced vehicle maintenance costs.



Gibb River Road

� Controlled by Main Roads WA. � Public Road � Sealed at the western end. � Provides access to Kalumburu via the Kalumburu Road.

Tanami Road

� Controlled by Shire of Halls Creek � Public Road � Inter-State connector � Very poor condition – traffic is forced to travel in the table drain. � Shire resources committed to western section reconstruction. � Eastern section neglected � Inadequate Shire resources � Lifeline to Balgo, Mulan and Billiluna

Duncan Road

� Controlled by the Shire of Halls Creek, Shire of Wyndham/East Kimberley and N.T. Government.

� Public Road � Inter-State connector � Reasonable condition at time � Inadequate Shire resources

Kalumburu Road

� Controlled by the Shire of Wyndham/East Kimberley � Public Road � Conditions vary � Inadequate Shire resources



Derby-West Kimberley Access Roads (Looma; Camballin; Cherrabun; Beefwood Park)

� Controlled by Shire � Public Roads

Community Access Roads

- Bidyadanga – 8 km of gravel and sealed section. - Beagle Bay – 8 km of natural surface and sealed section. - Lombadina – 2 km of sealed and natural surface. - Djarindjin – 2 km of sealed and natural surface. - One Arm Point – sealed access (Cape Leveque Road) - Mowanjum – 1 km sealed access - Looma – 2 km sealed access from Camballin Road - Yungngora – 70 km natural surface and gravel (Knoonkanbah

Road) - Junjuwa – adjacent to Fitzroy Crossing - Bayulu – 1 km off GNHW - Yakanarra – 40 km of natural surface off Cherrabun Road - Wangkatjungka – 1 km natural surface and sealed section off

Beefwood Park Road - Yiyili – 10 km natural surface/gravel off GNHW - Mardiwah Loop – 2km sealed Shire Road - Balgo – 35 km natural surface off Tanami Road - Mulan – 30 km natural surface from Balgo - Billiluna – 1 km natural surface off Tanami Road



- Ringer Soak – 52 km natural surface off Duncan Road - Warmun – Adjacent to GNHW - Mirima – Kununurra townsite - Nulleywah – Kununurra Townsite - Oombulgurri – 200+ km of un-trafficable track to Gibb River

Road - Kalumburu - 263km off Gibb River Road on the Kalumburu

Road.

Public Road Maintenance The majority length of access roads to the communities consists of public roads that are subject to the Shire’s normal road maintenance program and annual requirements and resources. Ideally these should be subject to three grades per year:

- Opening up after the wet - Mid season heavy grade - Closing Grade

Grading consists of a mix of Shire resources and contract grading and is constrained by funding, resources, length of road and time. Reconstruction of these roads is subject to overall Shire priority and resource allocations.

Short Community Access The remaining sections into communities are generally relatively short (1 to 10 kilometres) and a mix of sealed and unsealed natural surface.

The maintenance of these sections of road should occur as part of a normal scheduled grading program and to a similar standard. Due to the limiting factors of plant availability, funding, length of road and time, every opportunity should be taken to maximise local plant resources where available. Many of the remote communities such as Mulan and Balgo have a Grader and should be used where possible to reduce the demand on other resources. Quality control and training will be required. The opportunity exists in the longer term to establish a road maintenance unit based on Balgo/Mulan/Billiluna communities to maintain the Tanami Road east to the NT border and the central section. Similarly, an opportunity exists for the Lombadina community plant to serve the other Peninsular communities. It is already used on a contract basis by the Shire. The Tanami Road classification should be upgraded to a State or National road with direct funding grants to maintain its full length in a reasonable condition.



The details of these internal access roads are not included in the Shire ROMAN road databases and require survey. The short sections of natural surface road are maintained through a mix of:

- Shire/contractor - Community plant - Neighbouring Pastoral Station Plant

Responsibility and funding for resealing the short sealed sections requires special attention.

Long Community Access The following sections of access road are significant:

- Access to Yakanarra from Cherrabun Road - - Access to Balgo from Tanami Road – maintained by the Shire-

contractor or community - Access to Mulan from Balgo – maintained by the Shire –

contractor or community. - Access to Kalumburu from Gibb River Road (via Kalumburu

Road which is a gazetted road that leads directly to the community). A significant distance and difficult terrain. Requires special consideration.

- Access to Oombulgurri from Gibb River Road. A significant

distance and difficult terrain. Requires special consideration.



Internal Streets The internal streets of the communities mainly consist of a network of sealed streets with some kerbed. Generally the total length of a community sealed road is about 2kms each. The main purpose for sealing the streets was based upon health factors and dust suppression. Most communities also have a network of dirt tracks through the community that create dust and traffic control issues. The community layout normally involves dispersed residential units and wide verges. This creates a considerable “public” open area that requires maintenance and a litter clean up problem. A significant problem noted was the amount of washed sand on the streets. This is a result of the wide verges and heavy rainfall but also seems to be a design problem. The worst example noted was a community which had its streets sealed in late 2007 yet already badly covered in sand. The streets are not included in the Shire ROMAN databases and require special survey. There was very little evidence of any structured road maintenance and some streets were badly potholed.

The community sealed streets raise the following issues:

1. The lack of ROMAN data and asset control. 2. The requirement for any “normalisation” process to include basic

equalisation of services and for the remaining communities without sealed streets to be sealed before local government responsibility. (e.g. Yiyili; Mulan; Billiluna, Lombadina, Djarindjin)

3. Funding and resources for maintenance and asset preservation. 4. Funding for future resealing.

The problem of washed sand build-up requires an initial street cleaning program using suitable street sweeping plant. An engineering solution may be required to reduce future washed sand build-up if possible. On-going street cleaning will be a necessary task that is best suited to a locally based workforce. Crack patching and pothole repair will also be a necessary task that is best suited to a locally based workforce.

Outstations



The number of outstations is too numerous to address individually. The Dampier Peninsular is teeming with small outstation communities and small sites including commercial activities such as tourism. Each of these communities would require investigation, particularly in respect of any rating issue. These communities are generally serviced by natural surface two wheel tracks and relatively short lengths. There are a number of outstations using Beagle Bay as a base, particularly for school. One access track serving several communities crosses a tidal creek near Beagle Bay. Other communities, such as Mowanjum, act as a centre for smaller remote communities located a considerable distance away along the Gibb River Road. Even a small community such as Yiyili is home to several outstations communities located from 2 or 3kms away to 50 or more. In extreme cases a community may have a remote outstation located over 100 km’s away.

The take-up of information related to the number, names and locations of outstations is inadequate to make informed comment. Generally the shorter, natural surface type tracks are negotiable by only 4WD vehicles that can assist in keeping the access open. The longer lengths of natural surface remote tracks are a problem to be considered further. For example, one outstation is located approximately 108kms from the Yungngora community and has been graded at a cost of approximately $45,000.

They are considered a low priority for scarce grading plant capacity (time/funds) and should only be considered on a demonstrated needs basis. However, the existence of such remote outstation communities raises several issues in respect of responsibility and basic care and awareness of the residents’ health and well-being. That should not be a local government responsibility. The status of individual outstation roads needs to be clearly defined from the start of any agreement and communities need to be appropriately advised of planned actions and associated impacts.

Waste Services

Rubbish Collections The domestic rubbish removal function is a common and fundamental municipal service carried out within the communities as a normal

Rubbish collection is ideally suited for a local workforce.



activity. Oombulgurri services are not currently consistent due to community issues but being improved. The collection in one large community was being carried out by the acting CEO and the community Chairman. The Yiyili independent school headmaster organises the rubbish collection using the schools trailer. Most communities utilise SULO Type mobile bins. The cost of providing this type of bin was high. A small number of communities use 44 gal type bins. Some community’s streets, particularly those not kerbed, have a high camber and steep shoulders. This creates a problem with the stability of the bins and leads to them being knocked over by dogs or blown over, with a subsequent major litter problem. The number of collections varied from one service a week, to a daily service. Apart from the necessity of removing domestic waste, the rubbish collection activity was seen as an activity for CDEP workers. The number of workers involved was about 3. A number of communities are equipped with small compactor type rubbish trucks with mechanical arms. One community provided with such a truck is unable to use it effectively due to the streets not being sealed and it bogging in washed sand. Nearby, another community with sealed streets has not been provided with a truck and uses a tractor/trailer and hand pick up.

The number of collection days should be limited to twice per week and on the basis of community health. It is likely that there are Occupational Health & Safety issues associated with the hand collection methods being used. The opportunity exists for some rationalisation of pick-up services in the Dampier Peninsular communities with one operation servicing Beagle Bay, Lombadina, Djarindjin and One Arm Point. The town based communities such as Mowanjum, Junyuwa, Mardiwah Loop, Mirima and Nulleywah are, or can be, serviced by existing Shire services.



Communities not provided with a rubbish truck rely upon local plant such as tractor/trailer or a utility or light truck and manual lift. There were also signs of rubbish trucks not in use through lack of maintenance or requiring repair.

Landfill The community landfill sites are generally fenced and in a reasonable condition. The disposal system is a trench and burn regime. Most tips had been recently pushed up and the site relatively clean and one community had recently formed and graded its access road. Another community had been unable to push up its tip due its backhoe being stranded on a broken down truck on the community access road. Most sites had room for expansion and adequate for the immediate future. The majority of tip sites are in close proximity to the community. The Yiyili tip site is not well defined, is too close to the community and was in a poor condition. A well maintained tip is situated about 3kms away at Ganiniyi and perhaps could be used for Yiyili. The tip at Warmun is on Shire land. It is understood that these community tips are not subject to the same rigorous licensing controls as municipal waste disposal sites. There was at least one example of building waste being dumped outside a tip site.

Every endeavour should be made to coordinate the excavation of new pits with the availability of heavy dozing equipment. The extent of the car body problem requires a coordinated response similar to that being developed by the Shire of Halls Creek with a waste metal collector being organised to remove car bodies from all communities, big or small. A significant problem may exist with the disposal of asbestosis products and other noxious materials. It is strongly recommended that local government is indemnified from any responsibility for contaminated sites and unknown pollution. Any landfills taken on by the local government will need to be licensed in accordance with DEC regulations and guidelines.



A common problem was the disposal of car bodies. In most communities there were a number of derelict vehicles either inside property fencelines or in vacant land. Most tips also had a separate location for car bodies.

Drainage and Sewerage

Drainage It is suspected that all communities have a significant drainage problem, but it is of a nature and occurrence that it is not recognised as such. It is also noted that the communities are subject to torrential rain events. There was little or no proper street drainage systems noted, with the majority of streets being served by simple surface water drains and sumps. A few communities have narrow footbridges across house fence lines across open drainage lines to the street. The lack of drainage and the design and nature of the sealed streets and wide verges is contributing to the washed sand build up on the streets. There are some specific individual drainage problems identified by some communities.

The drainage problems arise from an apparent lack of any previous consideration, design or construction of specific drainage infrastructure. It is possible that the cost, as well as the lack of any apparent community pressure has contributed to the lack of drainage. The specific needs of each community would require individual survey. Improvements may be achieved through cheap surface diversion works to fix localised problems. Long term infrastructure would depend upon priority and funding.

Sewerage Almost all the communities are serviced by a reticulated sewerage system.

Responsibility for sewerage systems is not a core local government function and often provided by the Water Authority (e.g. Halls Creek).



However, some of the community systems are connected through the old septic tank system, which continues to fill and block up requiring pumping out. In most cases the existing sewerage ponds are maintained by external essential service providers such as KRSP. Most ponds looked to be in a reasonable condition. All the sewerage pond sites were fenced but some were either unlocked or had holes in the fence. No information was obtained on the licensing arrangements.

The community sewerage systems have been provided by government agencies. These agencies hold the plans and information such as pumping equipment etc. Currently these facilities are managed under the Essential Services banner and involve some degree of technical knowledge and equipment. It is recommended that local government not assume responsibility for a non-core service.

Dog and animal control Multiple dog “ownership” is a traditional trait of aboriginal people and most communities had a large number of dogs wandering the streets, including in and around the community Store. Most communities reported that there was no significant dog problem and that the respective Shires already provided a visiting control service through the EHO, AEHW or a Ranger. Some communities also received a visiting Vet service. The control over dog numbers, disease and dog attacks is a difficult task on a visiting basis, but there are barriers to local enforcement. It is likely that a conflict will arise between the enforcement of the Dog Act and the local community, including any local by-law.

Dog control is a statutory regulatory function of local government. The provision of dog control services in a community requires a staged approach involving consultation with the community council and agreed control measures. In particular these should be aimed at:

� Destruction of wild or diseased dogs. � Control of dogs from public places � Control over the number of dogs allowed. � Vet services � Licensing and compliance with the Dog Act � Community by-laws � Education

Specific arrangements and approval/protocols need to be in place to allow destruction or detention of dogs that attack persons or other animals.



No community had a pound facility. There was a limited problem with other animals and particularly from feral horses.

Use of other resources such as any local police may be an option. However compliance with legislative requirements such as a pound at each community, and the associated management issues is a major issue and cost. The current visiting service by EHO and AEHW type personnel seems to be adequate in the short term, but it is not in keeping with normalisation requirements.

Aerodrome Management Most communities are responsible for a local airstrip. The regional airstrip located near Lombadina was a government initiative to provide a central regional all weather airstrip. Approximately 50kms of road connecting the communities of One Arm Point, Cape Leveque, Djarindjin and Beagle Bay was sealed to provide all season access. The airstrip caters for RFDS and general charter flights and its facilities are being upgraded. The airstrip has recently been resealed due to problems with the original seal and this was funded by government and resource company funding. The One Arm Point airstrip is located adjacent to the community and is a difficult strip for landing due to its orientation and proximity to the coast creating strong cross winds. This airstrip is being used for FIFO local workers in the resource industry. All the airstrips looked to be in a reasonable condition with some being regularly dragged or graded.

Local airstrips are an essential community infrastructure item due to the location and distances involved. They play a vital role in respect of RFDS and visiting doctor services as well as general charter flights. Generally the number of flights is insufficient to impose any landing fee. Kalumburu and Oombulgurri are the two most remote communities and depend upon their airstrip for a wide range of services and supplies, including local government service delivery. Responsibility for these airstrips will impose a considerable impost on local government including:

� Inspection, maintenance and reporting regimes � Refuelling facilities (if any) � Lighting � Annual audit � Insurances



Most are used by the RFDS and some charter flights. Management of the airstrips is required to CASA standards. Mowanjum is near the Derby light airstrip. Mardiwah Loop use the Halls Creek airstrip. Mirima and Nulleywah use Kununurra. Looma uses the Camballin airstrip. Wangkatjungka is adjacent to a Station airstrip. Bayulu and Junyuwa are near the Fitzroy Airstrip Yiyili is near a Station airstrip. The Kalumburu airstrip has just been upgraded and sealed by the Australian Army. Airstrip maintenance requires a local presence for checking the strip surface. Light maintenance such as surface dragging or grading can be performed by local workers. Major resurfacing would require coordination of plant and funding.

A key issue is the LG/CEO responsibility for a remote risk facility.

This will require well developed local inspection regimes, documented procedures and external supervisory inspections that will require additional funding.

Civic buildings and public toilet maintenance The communities all have a range of community facilities, including: � Community Office � Community Store � Health Clinic � Works Depot/Workshop

The proposed introduction of local government municipal service delivery raises several crucial issues. Past service provision has been under the general umbrella of the community corporation with it controlling the community assets such as buildings and plant, albeit that actual legal ownership may rest



� Telecentre The standard of the buildings range from quite good to poor. One community CEO has a desk in the corner of a small general office reception area. Other communities such as Mirima and Nulleywah do not have office facilities and are administered through a separate Waringarri Aboriginal Corporation. Looma has built a new office/community complex building. Lombadina is building a new office/community centre building. Initial expectations that community infrastructure would be available for local government purposes ignored the fact these facilities have been provided for community use and are used and occupied by community members. In general terms the buildings are “owned” by the community, although actual legal ownership probably rests with the ALT. Issues such as insurances are unclear. A similar situation exists with community plant. The plant, such as graders, loaders, trucks and 4WD’s have been funded by government agencies but ostensibly transferred to the corporation for community purposes. In the short term the two most important buildings for future local government purposes would be the community office and the community workshop/depot.

elsewhere. These assets and particularly the office building will continue to be required for its community purposes. Any future use by an external service provider such as the Shire would require community council approval. But a further fundamental issue is the future of the local community council and the corporation. Funding cuts and changes in service delivery have the real potential to derail the existing governance structure, whether good or bad. This situation extends to the future of the community CEO position and other key staff such as the ESO. The current proposal before local government is to take over responsibility for certain local government service delivery – not to take over de facto responsibility for the community. The service model being developed is based upon the service delivery function, and is reliant upon the presence of a sound community governance organisation, that is responsible for the delivery of a wide range of other community programs, and a management resource that may be able to undertake some limited local government service delivery role. Given the above role of the corporation and CEO it is unlikely that local government would simply gain access or control over a community office. If that did occur it would require consultation and agreement.



Access to, or the use of these facilities would be presumptuous and premature. The community office is generally the centre of the community life and fulfils a wade range of community service delivery functions, including: � Governance support and accounting for the corporation � Centrelink � CDEP � Postal Services Most offices are functional but small and filled to capacity with existing employees. Many of these functions and services will still be required by the community regardless of municipal service delivery changes. The community office/workshop is also used for existing community works including CDEP programs. In some cases the community have traditionally direct access to the workshop for fixing privately owned vehicles. Some communities such as Kalumburu, Bidyadanga, Lombadina and Beagle Bay seem to have specific community purpose and secure facilities. Others were un-manned and open to external use.

Few communities had specific public toilet facilities. Beagle Bay had a new purpose built small tourist toilet block.

The use of the community depot/workshop raises a similar problem where the community has previously had access to the premises and its equipment. Local government will require access to a secure depot/workshop. There are two basic options:

� Either use existing resources � Provide new resources

The second option raises significant funding issues. A similar situation exists with community held plant. However there is greater scope for hiring or contracting plant. Maximum use of available local resources will be the most effective, efficient and cheaper option. For example, local employees are already housed. Other buildings are generally not specifically related to the current project. Cleaning of public toilets is best suited to a local workforce.

Emergency services

Fire Control

A basic fire control response capacity is required for each Community.



The Kimberley region regular experiences significant wild fires that start from both natural causes, burning off and deliberately lit fires during the dry. The climatic conditions ensure very heavy undergrowth. The distances, remoteness and very low density populations create a significant difficulty in combating these fires and most are allowed to burn themselves out. There is a risk of these fires threatening remote communities and little opportunity for external support. A number of communities have been provided with a small slip on or trailer fire unit. The provision of these units seems to be ad hoc with some purchased from community funds and some apparently by FESA or DHW. It also appeared that some communities had requested a unit to no avail. A few communities mentioned fire hydrants but it is not clear to what extent and what limited capacity is available to fight a house fire. Some communities prepare a firebreak system. One community had a fire burning up to its boundary without any apparent response. Emergency Management Planning FESA are involved in working with some communities in regards to emergency planning and establishment of Community Emergency Management Committees.

This capacity will require the presence of on-site supervision. The presence of a small municipal services permanent Workforce would form a nucleus for a wider community capacity. A strong training requirement will be required. Wild fire control requires a community defence plan and strategic firebreaks. Normally local fire protection is based upon a local trained volunteer response. A small fire unit is considered essential. Similarly, any plant such as a grader, loader or dozer would greatly assist if available. The question of protection and capacity to fight house fires requires consideration. It is doubtful that any existing infrastructure is suitable or adequate and that there is any trained personnel available. The emergency response function is a real risk area for local government. It requires coordination with FESA and the provision of all required equipment by the current responsible agencies. The question of insurance and liability needs to be addressed, including the responsibility of the land “owner”.



General The proposed local government service delivery process is a significant change for both local government and the remote communities. The key local government issues are:

1. That any service delivery model is fully funded and does not impact on current service delivery or Shire finances.

2. That service delivery is dependent upon the existing community governance structures remaining in place and is sufficiently funded to manage community affairs. The “glue” factor.

3. That any change is carefully managed and introduced in a planned and consultative manner, and that this process be funded by government sources.

4. That Federal and State governments remain responsible for the social welfare, health and economic development of the communities.

The current proposal to change municipal service delivery to local government is being introduced with unrealistic timelines and expectations. Changes to community funding arrangements, reductions, uncertainty and lack of consultation is causing concern and distress in communities and a significant risk exists of a breakdown in community structures and subsequent escalation of community disintegration and social collapse.

Local government has a responsibility to ensure that any change it is involved with is to the benefit of the remote communities and the Shire community, and that there is no structural damage to existing community cohesion.


3.3 Regional Model The following financial model provides the indicative funding costs that are associated to the proposed municipal service standards. This includes the funding required to form the regional local government. The indicative costs have been based upon the non-provision of employee housing. It is important to note that the financial estimates have been based on the communities relevant to this study, and is not necessarily reflective of all the communities within the Kimberley region.

Municipal Service Area Funding and Preliminary Indicative Costs (based upon the non-provision of employee housing)

Regional local government formation The regional local government service delivery model is based upon full cost recovery (excluding replacement of infrastructure) and the maximum use of available local resources to enable a practicable and pragmatic approach. A key component of the model is a strong local community governance structure and access to community infrastructure and plant. Regional local government planning, supervision and reporting processes will be essential components in ensuring service delivery is efficient and effective. The model is based upon the regional local government contracting out the service delivery as far as possible to:

� The local community

The model presumes a stable community governance structure with a community CEO and other support staff to provide the cohesion or “glue” factor for all other community services, and a community council to provide local community representation. There is an incomplete understanding of the total current and historical funding to the communities and the funding required to ensure they are capable of providing all other necessary services and the “glue” factor. If community stability cannot be assured local government risks being landed with a role that is not envisaged in this arrangement. The model also presumes that existing Essential Services arrangements remain and that the ESO position is externally funded.

Indicative Local Community Cost Contribution from the regional local government

Office Space Contribution $30,000 CEO 50% $50,000 Administration Support $25,000



� NGO Service Providers � The Shire

The significant difference in efficiency and effectiveness will be the governance and supervision provided by the regional local governmentorganisation. A key will be the appointment of a contracts officer. The employment of community services officers is aimed at achieving a high degree of local supervision and interaction with all the communities on a regular basis and to provide a resource for reporting and statistical monitoring of communities and service delivery. Non – performance of contractual arrangements will result in changed delivery. Regional local government establishment The establishment of a regional local government is a major project that will require considerable development and consideration by the four local governments concerned, together with consultation with all the affected communities and the development of the proposed model and service

Overhead Costs $30,000 Supervision ESO 50% $40,000 Total $175,000

This expense will be negotiable with each community and will depend upon space availability and the needs of the regional local government service provision for each community. It is paramount that each community is funded to a sufficient degree to maintain its local governance and cohesiveness role. If that funding is withdrawn by other funding agencies it will be necessary for the regional local government to make up that shortfall from its funding sources.

Regional local government Establishment Costs

Regional local government formation consultancy $60,000 - $100,000 $100,000 Travel – consultant $20,000 $20,000 Travel – elected members $10,000 $10,000 Consultation – Communities On-site $50,000 $50,000 Consultation – regional $50,000 $50,000 Regional local government establishment expenses $200,000 $200,000 Total $430,000

Regional local government – Indicative Management Budget

Governance Regional local government – allowances x 8 $60,000 Regional local government – Travel $20,000 Regional local government - Communications $2,000 Regional local government - Conference $5,000 Refreshments and Entertainment $5,000



delivery programs. The process will be extensive and time consumingand beyond the resources of the existing Shire management capacity without significant impact on normal operations. In particular, there will be considerable costs associated with the communication and consultation process undertaken between the members of the regional local government. An external, funded resource will be required and it is expected that process will require between 6 and 12 months to develop the regional agreement and structure. A regional local government is subject to an establishment agreement between the participating councils. That agreement needs to be developed between the parties to establish:

� The make-up of the council � The structure � The service functions � The terms of one or more parties pulling out.

There are considerable costs involved in establishing a new major service provider and a reasonable period should be required for initial operation. Three years would be a minimum requirement.

Public Relations $5,000 Meeting Venue expenses $2,000 Community Consultation $50,000 Insurance $4,000 Subscriptions $2,000 $155,000 Management CEO Recruitment $30,000 CEO Remuneration $175,000 - $200,000 Other Employees (see table below) $1,040,000 Other Employee Recruitment $40,000 Allowances $10,000 Sick Leave $10,000 Housing Allowances $15,000 Relocation Expenses $50,000 Workers Compensation $10,000 FBT $5,000 Vehicle Running Expenses $50,000 Staff Uniforms $2,000 Staff Training $5,000 Travel and Accommodation - regional $50,000 Travel and Accommodation - State $20,000 Office maintenance $5,000 Printing & Stationery $15,000 Communication Expenses $30,000 Postage & Freight $5,000 Utility Charges $7,000 Office Leasing costs $20,000 - $40,000 Office fit out costs $50,000 Advertising $10,000



The regional local government establishment and operation is based upon total external funding and there is no provision for individual Shire contribution.

Office Equipment Purchase/lease $50,000 Office equipment Maintenance $10,000 IT equipment purchase /lease $100,000 Insurances $20,000 Bank Charges $2,000 Sundry Office expenses $2,000 $1,838,000 Total $1,993,000

Chief Executive Officer $150 - $200,000 $200,000 PA $40 - $60,000 $60,000 Contract Manager $120 - $150,000 $150,000 Finance Manager $120 - $150,000 $150,000 Services Manager $120 - $150,000 $150,000 Finance Officer – expenditure $40 - $60,000 $60,000 Administration Officer /Reception $30 - $40,000 $40,000 Administration Officer $30 - $40,000 $40,000 Records/Statistics Officer $50 - $70,000 $70,000 Community Service Officers x (6) $50 - $70,000 $420,000 Total $1,240,000

Health

Environmental Health EHO services are a statutory responsibility. EHO services are being provided on a visiting basis

The regulatory nature and importance of the EHO role requires a local government service delivery response. The existing service level requires expansion to ensure all communities are visited at least quarterly. Town based communities should be serviced by existing resources.



as time and resources exist. These services can include some elements of wider service delivery e.g. dog control and building control. The public health of the community is a high priority. The EHO professional officer presence provides an important link between the community and the Shire. The EHO service can be significantly expanded through the AEHW program. Building Control This function has not been considered at this stage. A similar arrangement is required for additional building control associated with remote communities as outlined above for EHO’s. Likely additional total requirements are for two extra officers. Planning The relationship between the Community Plans and local government planning has not been considered at this stage. It is possible that a planning officer could be appointed at a regional local government level to

The AEHW scheme needs to be expanded to provide a regional hub service based upon the larger communities. E.g. Bidyadanga; One Arm Point; Looma; Fitzroy Crossing, Balgo, Warmun and Kalumburu. The number of additional EHO’s (say two) required should be determined by the regional local government based upon the identified gaps and needs and that complement existing resources and an expanded AEHW scheme.

Remuneration $60,000 - $80,000 $80,000 On-costs $40,000 - $60,000 $60,000 Vehicle $40,000 - $50,000 $50,000 Travel $10,000 - $20,000 $20,000 Total x 2 $210,000 Say $420,000

Expanded AEHW Scheme An expanded AEHW scheme with personnel located at strategic centres to service other communities will greatly improve the environmental health of communities and provide a resource for other service delivery functions such as dog control.

Remuneration $30,000 - $40,000 $40,000 On-costs $20,000 - $30,000 $30,000 Vehicle $40,000 $40,000 Travel $20,000 $20,000 Total X 7 $130,000 $910,000

These costs represent a cost to be incurred by individual Shires. No provision has been made for



liaise with the Shire planners and also fulfil a strategic planning role.

office accommodation or housing, with the ideal arrangement being the recruitment and training of local people. Funding for these positions should be via the regional local government direct to the local governments and do not represent a community cost.

Roads and Streets

The majority of key access roads are currently maintained as public roads. Significant external funding is required to improve the:

� Cape Leveque Road � Gibb River/Kalumburu Road � Tanami Road

Community access roads and streets are not included on Shire ROMAN databases and are not Shire assets. Work on these roads will be based on a private work basis. The shorter access roads into communities will require specific funding. Town based communities with sealed streets require street cleaning and pothole repairs. Resealing should be considered in conjunction with a programmed requirement and funded.

Road maintenance is currently carried out through a mix of Shire, contractor and local community resources. This is a pragmatic approach to the use of available resources and recognising the unique regional environment including distances, remoteness, reduced time capacity and limited resources. The proposed regional service delivery model retains this approach but on the basis that it will be able to provide strong organisational and supervisory capacity to ensure appropriate standards. Access to local community assets such as depots and existing plant is required. Maximum use of locally housed workforces is essential to avoid significant capital expenditure.

Access Road Grading Opening up; heavy grade with back cut and drains minimum. Light grade end of season.

$200 - $400 km $200 - $300 km

Indicative Costs $50,000

Access Road bitumen repairs. Material, labour and plant

$500 km $10,000

Access Road reconstruction $50,000 - $100,000 km Access Road Resealing $100,000 km



All communities without sealed streets should be brought up to standard before take-over. An opportunity exists for the creation of work units in the Cape Leveque and Balgo regions to carry out community and public road works.

Town Community Street Cleaning - contract

$100 - $200 km

Town Community bitumen repairs

$250 km $5,000

Community Street cleaning - initial

$10,000 $10,000

Community Street cleaning - quarterly

$500 km $4,000

Community Street pothole repairs - quarterly

$500 km $4,000

Outstation grading $200 km $10,000 ROMAN Survey $10,000 - $20,000 $20,000 Works Depot $20,000 $20,000 Materials $40,000+ $40,000 Training $20,000 $20,000 Sundry Plant $20,000 $20,000 Sundry Tools $20,000 $20,000 Security $10,000 $10,000 Uniforms and Protective $3,000 $3,000 Total $236,000

Waste Services

Rubbish collection is based upon local workforce availability (3). Collection based upon twice weekly services in recognition of climatic conditions.

Collection $30,000 - $40,000 Tip Maintenance $30,000 Bins $2,000 Total $72,000



Drainage and Sewerage

Existing drainage systems consist of open surface drains. Communities experience seasonal torrential downpours and drainage problems exist.

Sewerage Sewerage systems are currently classed as an essential service item and maintained by service providers. That arrangement should continue.

Initial drainage system clean out $5,000 Quarterly drainage clean up $1,000 Drainage improvements (minor) $5,000 Drainage improvements (major) $100,000+ Total $11,000

Dog and animal control Dog control is a statutory obligation. Dog control in communities is problematic due to traditional values and lack of previous control. Enforcing the Dog Act will require consultation and consideration of local by-laws. There is a lack of pounds. Construction of a pound

Dog Control - monthly $1000 $12,000 Travel $300 $3,600 Sundry Expenses $200 $2,400 Pound Construction $50,000 - $100,000 Pound Maintenance/security $1000+ $1,000 Total $19,000



and on-going security will be prohibitive. Dog Control depends upon visiting services such as EHO, or the appointment of a suitable local authorised person. An expansion of the AEHW role could assist.

Aerodrome management

Aerodrome management and maintenance demands local control. Inspection required weekly at a minimum. Surface maintenance grading as required but at least annually. Interim surface levelling by towed drag. Windsock, marker and light inspection and replacement. Compliance Insurance responsibility- Land not Shire.

Airstrip Management and inspection weekly $6,000 Grading $2,000 Interim surface management $1,000 Airstrip furniture replacement/repair $5,000 Annual Compliance Inspection $3,000 Insurance $5,000 Total $22,000



Civic building and public toilet maintenance

Current Civic buildings are under the care and control of the community corporation. Local government has no existing buildings to maintain. The Community Office facility is essential for maintaining the community “glue”/cohesiveness. It is not envisaged that local government will take over any community building without extensive consultation with the community and for an essential purpose. The change to local government municipal service provision requires a permanent management component present in the community and a contribution should be made towards the office accommodation aspect. The capital cost of providing accommodation is prohibitive. Few communities have dedicated public toilet facilities but maintenance and cleaning of these is suited to a local workforce.

Contribution towards Management Office $30,000 Public Toilet cleaning $5,000 Building maintenance Insurance Security Total $35,000



Emergency Services

All communities should be equally equipped with small fire units before take-over. Management and coordination of local emergency requirements with the community and FESA. Formation of local emergency response capacity. Community Firebreaks Insurance and management issues – Shire bushfire coverage Training and supervision

Local emergency capacity building $40,000 Training and supervision $10,000 Insurance $5,000 Firebreaks $3,000 Minor equipment $2,000 Protective Clothing $1,000 Total $61,000

SUMMARY OF MODEL

Description Total Start Up/Other Indicative Community Indicative Community Funding $175,000 Establishment Costs $430,000 $430,000 Regional local government Budget $1,993,000 $1,993,000 Additional EHO positions (2) $420,000 $420,000 Expanded AEHW Scheme (7) $910,000 $910,000 Roads and Streets (per community) $236,000 $236,000 Waste Management $72,000 $72,000 Drainage and Sewerage $11,000 $11,000 Dog and animal control $19,000 $19,000



Regional local government Operation Year One

$1,993,000 $1,993,000

Example Community x 24 $ 456,000 $10,944,000 Total $12,937,000

Note: Indicative community only. Basically there are three categories:

1. Large remote community 2. Small remote community 3. Town based community

Note: *Excludes all capital plant and equipment and major items such as resealing. *Excludes any initial establishment costs within each community. *Comparison with selected small “normal” small local governments.

Cue Menzies Murchison Sandstone Population 372 353 110 119 Rates $890,000 $561,000 $77,000 $557,000 Revenue $3,031,000 $3,592,000 $3,515,000 $3,342,000

This table only provides a broad comparison with local governments of similar populations and cannot be used for direct comparison. The $456,000 indicative requirements to provide selected municipal services is significantly less than the total funds available to “normal” remote Shires with small populations.

Aerodrome Management $22,000 $22,000 Civic buildings $35,000 $35,000 Emergency Services $61,000 $61,000 Total $4,394,000 $456,000


3.4 Cost of service delivery The cost of service delivery to remote communities is difficult to estimate due to the myriad of different factors that are applicable. The community consultation process did not adequately provide detail of current financial and operational information, particularly details of activities and human and plant/equipment resources. A perusal of the audited accounts submitted by the various corporations to ORIC did not readily provide the level of detailed information required to assist in the feasibility study. This supports the need for transparency of funding and service delivery costs through a single service delivery model. The proposed regional local government service delivery model is based upon the maximum utilisation of existing local resources. This is based on the pragmatic view that the implementation phase will require a gradual transition from existing arrangements and that it is necessary to make maximum use of existing assets due to the significant (difficult to calculate cost) and other factors of providing new assets (plant, buildings etc). In particular the model depends upon the employment of local labour and other management resources where possible due to the availability of an accommodated workforce and recruitment issues. The recent difficulty in recruiting suitably skilled personnel, such as Environmental Health Officers, within the regions may be somewhat be eased due to the current economic environment and the reduced demand for personnel by the mining industry. It is likely that the delivery model will evolve over a period of time as knowledge and experience is obtained and changes can be implemented in a planned fashion. A key objective should be the training and skilling of local residents to undertake a wide range of services, including but not limited to, local emergency response. The existing plant and equipment provides a base upon which an expanded service model can be developed. That plant and equipment is controlled by the local corporation and is presumably adequate (in most cases) for basic service provision. This will require consultation and negotiation with each community with the intent that it has the first option on continuing to provide (an expanded) local service delivery in accordance with the contractual agreements developed by the regional local government. This raises the issue of tendering for contracts in excess of $100,000. Individual service functions, such as rubbish collection, could see (subject to LG F&G reg 12) a number of individual agreements to overcome that requirement, but ideally one complete service agreement is required. Local Government (F&G) regulation 11 (f) below also provides some limited option:

“(f) the local government has good reason to believe that, because of the unique nature of the goods or services required or for any other reason, it is unlikely that there is more than one potential supplier;”


There are likely to be other potential service providers in the region. The requirement to tender for service delivery creates the opportunity for competition and this may, or may not, result in reduced cost delivery. However, any service delivery model should require a high degree of local community participation to avoid contributing to social and economic problems in the community. For example, each community requires an inflow of funds to support its local store and any significant outflow will have unintended social and financial consequences. A further factor is that much of the existing service delivery labour is provided by a pool of CDEP workers allows considerable flexibility in job allocation. The lack of detailed data and understanding of community funding and resources is a constraint on the development of service modelling. The relevant existing local resources include:

� Housing � Labour � Plant � Equipment � Buildings � Management/Supervision

Local government will be unable to duplicate these resources and the cost of future service delivery will rest heavily on the use of them to provide mutual benefits. Where external service provision is necessary this will involve additional establishment and travelling costs and result in a visiting service regime. The development of a service delivery model requires maximum use of available skills. A key requirement in each community will be a capable and responsible supervisor position to coordinate local service delivery. Currently that role is carried out by a mix of CDEP supervisors, Municipal Service Officers, Building Maintenance Officers and/or the community CEO depending upon the individual community. There is also an Essential Services Officer present in some communities. It is essential that this resource is funded to provide the base for all other service delivery.


A further constraint is access to and the operation of a works deport/workshop and availability of mechanical skills for repairs and maintenance. Most communities have a workshop/depot facility but the recruitment and retention of qualified mechanics means that the plant maintenance function is problematic. A further issue is that often the workshop is a community workshop and is the only facility available to maintain and repair private community members vehicles, often with themselves doing the work. Others have a mechanic and may charge for such work. A few communities had well organised and secure depots. Resolving the dilemma of a traditional use of community infrastructure will require agreement with the community. Access to these existing facilities for local government service provision raises issues of security and control over the depot, and supplies such as fuel and tools. This supports the view that at least in the short and medium term local government service delivery requires a contractual arrangement with the community or other service provider. Any infrastructure provision will be costly and time consuming. An example of a municipal service delivery structure proposal developed by a reasonably large and remote community is outlined below for indicative purposes: Position Salary Government Infrastructure Services Officer (GISO) (formerly Operational Manager funded by CDEP to be funded 50% Housing and 50% Municipal Services

$75,000

Building Maintenance Officer (BMO) funded by Housing. 80% DHW and 20% Shire

$54,000

Truck Driver – new position. 30 hour week x 5 days $35,000 Plant Operator – new position. 30 hour week x 5 days $40,000 Leading Hand – (funded by CDEP) 30 hour week x 5 days $32,000 Total $236,000 Note: *GISO – plus on-costs; superannuation, remote allowances, leave loadings and LIOT travel, relocation and recruitment costs. *Positions recruited locally would not require annual leave travel and LIOT travel, relocation or recruitment. The proposal noted opportunity for apprenticeships.


The funding proposal included: � 50% of current Municipal Services R&M budget to GISO and 50% retained with corporation � 100% of R&M budget from DHW � Some CDEP on-costs.

Administration budget: � Payroll by Shire � Office rental, essential services, office supplies, telephone etc funded by 25% of MS budget & 25% Housing Support budget moved to GIS or the

corporation charge administration levy of 25% of the total GIS budget. � Workers report to the Corporation workshop. � Plant repairs on a FIFO basis.

Capital Plant requirements: � New Grader � Rubbish collection truck

Note: The proposal underlined that it was based upon a short window of opportunity while a strong governance structure was in place. A further example of a total new service provider delivery model for a remote middle size community is shown below: Detail Cost Immediate establishment cost $130,000 Management and administration $352,000 Service provision $118,000 Capital – new plant and equipment $502,000 Total $2,704,000 Recurrent Costs Office $10,400 Staff 0.5 FTE $24,700 Admin Support $12,350 Field Crew 2 x FTE $98,800 Field Crew 2 x 0.5 FTE $49,440 Supervision $135,000


Insurances $14,000 Audit/accounting $7,500 Total $352,000 Service Delivery Waste – Tip Site $27,000 Waste - Collections $22,500 Emergency $3,000 Airstrip $24,000 Community $10,000 Street and verge cleaning $11,500 Light equipment $10,000 Depot $10,000 Total $118,000 This model does not include access road or internal road maintenance apart from cleaning. An indicative cost model for proposed local service delivery requires the following components: Detail Estimate Local Office contribution $30,000 - $50,000 Local Management/administration costs $60,000 - $100,000 Local Supervision $40,000 - $100,000 Field workers – 3 to 4 workers based on FTE status and 30 hour week (6 hours x 5 days) including training, protective clothing etc

$120,000 - $200,000

Works Depot $20,000 - $40,000 Sundry plant and tools $10,000 - $20,000 Fuels and Oils $50,000 - $100,000 Plant maintenance and repair $100,000 - $200,000


Materials $30,000 - $50,000 Basic Plant 4WD – 40 hours/week x $15/hr x 52 weeks $31,200 Light Crew Cab Tip Truck – 30 hours x $50 x 30 $45,000 Light Loader/Backhoe – 20 hours x $60 x 30 $36,000 Rubbish Truck – 10 hours x $50 x 52 $26,000 Light tractor/trailer – 20 hours x $30 x 30 $18,000 Fire Unit - $1,000 Street Sweeper $2,000 Slashing Unit $2,000 Additional Plant Road Grader – 40 hours x $150 x 20 $120,000 Bulldozer – 20 hours x $250 x 10 $50,000 There is a structural in-efficiency associated with the plant requirements due to the remote nature of the communities and the long distances involved between other service centres. There may be some limited scope for greater sharing of resources (such as graders and dozers) through overall coordination, but in most cases local light plant in particular is required on-site. There is also potential for creating work-hubs based on the Dampier Peninsular and Balgo areas for larger projects, including contracting for remote Shire works. The establishment and development of permanent local work units should have a positive, albeit limited, permanent employment benefit for local residents. It is envisaged that an absolute minimum of two local field workers would be required for very small communities with three being preferred. It is expected that a maximum of four workers would be required for the larger communities and on the basis that additional casual workers could be engaged for specific tasks. Emphasis should also be given to increasing the total number of available trained workers through job-sharing and reduced permanent hours to, say, 15 or 20 hours/week to ensure there is pool of suitable employees. There are compelling reasons for a strong emphasis on training and development with a focus on establishing a recognised branding of the municipal worker through badge-ing and uniforms as a future local employment prospect, particularly where skills can be developed to enable future promotion to


supervisor level. The CDEP program should be a suitable vehicle for providing a pool of potential employees and the synergy between CDEP and municipal work needs to be developed, particularly if service delivery is to be expanded in the future to include recreation and other functions. The recruitment of these employees would be by the local community corporation or service provider and in accordance with specified requirements as part of the agreement. Employment by the regional local government or local Shire would be a last resort and would depend upon the supervisory capacity available. A further relevant factor is that the municipal tasks, apart from rubbish collection, are not all a regular programmed daily or weekly event. The regional communities can be broadly categorised as:

� Town based � Small remote � Large

Category Community Comment Estimated

Recurrent Cost Town Based � Junyuwa

� Mardiwah Loop � Mirima � Nulleywah

These communities are situated in close proximity to normal Shire town services and facilities. Rubbish collection should be by normal service delivery and charged. The main additional service will be street maintenance and contribution towards town services.

$100,000 $400,000

Small Remote � One Arm Point � Djarindjin � Beagle Bay � Mowanjum � Lombadina

These communities are small distinct communities located away from direct access to normal service delivery. The remoteness adds to the cost of service

$450,000


Category Community Comment Estimated Recurrent Cost

� Bayulu � Yungngora � Yakanarra � Wangkatjungka � Yiyili � Mulan � Billiluna � Oombulgurri � Ringer Soak

delivery. $6,300,000

Large � Bidyadanga � Looma � Balgo � Warmun � Kalumburu

These communities are both larger and remote from normal service delivery and generally have more infrastructure. There is an element of economy of scale achieved that does not require a significant increase in resources.

$600,000 $3,000,000

Total Estimated Recurrent (rounded)

$10,000,000

The estimated total indicative cost structure for the proposed regional local government model including establishment costs is shown below: Establishment Cost $ 430,000 Regional local government $ 2,000,000 Additional EHO’s $ 420,000 Expanded AEHW $ 910,000 Recurrent Community Service delivery $10,000,000 Total $13,760,000


81

3.5 Indicative financial comparison data The following financial comparison data table provides an indicative comparison of the following:

� Four local government shires based on total municipal services. � Three regions in the Northern Territory based on all municipal and essential

services. � Shire of Barkly, Northern Territory (includes housing and essential services) � Four small remote Western Australian shires (showing total revenue and

selected service expenditure).

District Area Population Road Km Total Rev

Shire of Broome 56,000 14400 703 $20,000,000

Shire of Derby/WK 103,000 9000 1900 $17,000,000

Shire of Halls Creek 143,000 4500 1800 $8,000,000

Shire of Wyndham/EK 121,000 7800 1952 $16,000,000

Total 423,000 35700 6355 $61,000,000

Source: WALGA Directory 2008

Per Capita $1,708

Total revenue taken as indicative expenditure. Population and expenditure includes the remote communities. Road kilometers are only current Shire ROMAN lengths.

Northern Territory Expenditure

Central Region (3 LG's) 361,000 24,000 2315 $80,000,000

Southern Region (4 LG's) 874,000 45,000 6366 $84,000,000

Northern Region (9 LG's) 95,000 135,000 5454 $190,000,000

Total 1,330,000 204,000 14135 $354,000,000

Note: Northern includes City of Darwin - Deduct 95,000 135,000 5454 $190,000,000

Total 1,235,000 69,000 8681 $164,000,000

Source: NT LGD Website Regions

Per Capita $2,376

Expenditures presumed to include wider essential and community service delivery costs

Northern Territory Area Population

Shire of Barkly - some 15 towns and communities plus minor and outstations 323514 7531

WA Relevance

Admin Local Boards $337,549.00 $337,000

Admin Local Laws $128,099.00 $128,099

Advocacy/Representation $127,953.00 $127,953

Asset Management $93,252.00 $93,000

Cemeteries $55,000.00 $55,000


Civic Cultural $42,250.00

Animal Control $60,000.00 $60,000

Planning and reporting $185,261.00 $185,000

Financial Management $254,260.00 $254,000 Fleet, plant equipment maintenance $1,331,306.00 $1,331,000

Governance $1,129,082.00 $1,129,000

HR $20,000.00 $20,000

IT and communications $29,325.00 $29,000

Library and Culture $181,148.00

Street Lighting $60,000.00

Emergency Management $30,000.00 $30,000

Local Road upgrade $100,000.00 $100,000

Local Road Maintenance $1,079,120.00 $1,079,000

Maintain Council buildings $119,277.00

Parks $780,724.00

PR $69,214.00

Risk Management $200,000.00

Shire Services Management $1,532,961.00 $1,532,961

Traffic Management $30,000.00 $30,000

Training and Employment $43,563.00 $44,000

Waste Management $168,636.00 $168,000

Weed and Fire Hazard $60,000.00 $60,000

Aged and Disabled $1,486,581.00

Airstrips $100,000.00 $100,000

Centrelink Agencies $384,004.00

Family $621,498.00

Night Patrols $1,197,296.00

Outstation municipal $476,720.00

Sport and Recreation $549,760.00

Housing and Infrastructure Maintenance $3,379,554.00

Power, water, sewerage $367,963.00

Visitor accommodation $35,000.00

Swimming Pools $100,000.00

Total $16,946,356.00 $6,893,013

Source: NT LGD Website Shire Plans

Per Capita $2,250

Example of expanded Shire service delivery and mini regional local government indicative costs. Note $17M for 7500 population.

WA Small Local Governments Sandstone Menzies Cuballing Murchison

Area 28218 128353 1250 49500

Length of Road 1052 2200 630 1950

Population 119 353 850 110

Total Revenue 3,342,000 3,596,000 2,000,000 3,500,000

No. Employees 12 7 16 19

Selected Expenditures

Governance 178,532 386,500 227,000 190,000

Law Order Safety 19,000 65,000 92,685 2,050


Health 19,788 34,000 23,200 10,000

Housing

Household Rubbish 25,500 3,000

Sewerage 2,500

Planning 15,000

Aerodromes 9,000

Building Control 500

Total 269,820 485,500 342,885 205,050

Source: WALGA Directory and Shire Budgets

Per Capita 28,084.00 10,186.00 2,352.00

Note: Indicative only. Cost comparisons difficult due to incomplete detail and different accounting methods but demonstrates different service delivery standards and economy of scale for normal small local government activities. High level of governance costs. Excludes transport and other functions. A significant issue is the total revenue/expenditure and staffing levels associated with the operation of a small "normal" remote local government, and which includes the wider range of functions, far exceeds that proposed for the delivery of the basic service delivery proposed for this regional model.

FaHCSIA INDICATIVE FUNDING FOR MUNS IN THE KIMBERLY REGION

2008/2009

MUNS funding for remote indigenous communities by LG

SW/EK Halls Creek SD/WK Broome

Known 1,678,000 461,293 5,481,749 2,411,319

Approximate - population 1,824,949 2,561,948

Total by LG District 3,502,949 3,023,241 5,481,749 2,411,319

Source: FaHCSIA The total FaHCSIA funding for 2008/2009 is $14,419,258. The information has been provided by FaHCSIA and allocated to the four local government districts. The individual allocations to remote communities is not known but believed to be allocated on a loose population basis. The MUNS funding covers the provision of both municipal and essential services to remote indigenous communities. FaHCSIA advise that in WA the break-up of expenditure is about: 81% on essential services; 2% on environmental health services (rubbish, tips, dust); 1% on internal roads, airstrips and fire control and 16% on community governance/administration of the MUNS program. Local government type services are only a small proportion of the MUNS program. It is noteworthy that MUNS is only one funding source and it demonstrates the low level of funding that has been allocated to this task. This information provides some insight into funding levels but a clear understanding of the total funding and how these other funds (such as CDEP) are melded into service provision is lacking.

FaHCSIA FUNDING PRIORITIES AND AVAILABILITY FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA

High Priority

Power, water and sewerage operation and maintenance including powerhouse fuel

Assistance with operational costs and essential routine repairs and maintenance to water, electricity and sewerage systems in discrete communities and includes assisting in shortfalls in


Medium Priority

operational costs of energy supplies where communities are making significant efforts to collect revenue from users.

Waste Disposal

Supplementary funding for waste removal services and tip maintenance.

Road maintenance

Supplementary assistance for routine and essential maintenance to internal roads and drainage in discrete communities that are clearly not a State or LG responsibility. Access roads on Aboriginal community land can be considered for supplementary funding.

Aerodrome maintenance

Supplementary funding for routine and essential maintenance of aerodromes in discrete communities.

Environmental health activities

Supplementary assistance for activities and strategies to reduce environmental health risks and related diseases in communities.

Management of infrastructure and municipal services

Low Priority

Fair contribution towards MUNS related operational costs such as administration costs, running costs of municipal services vehicles, repairs and maintenance to essential community buildings used for the provision of MUNS services.

Landscaping and dust control

Supplementary assistance for essential and effective landscaping and dust control services in communities including routine management and maintenance of community ovals, parks and playgrounds.

Other municipal services

Supplementary assistance for other necessary municipal services such as fire prevention, and insurance on selected non fixed assets used specifically to provide municipal services.

The FaHCSIA indicative priority above shows that local government type services only receive a medium or low priority and is based upon either a ‘supplementary’ or ‘fair contribution’ level of funding and to "discrete" communities. The source of the other funds required to provide these services, and the standard of the service provision is not known.


3.6 Risk assessment The following table provides a detailed overview of the risks applicable to deliver municipal services under the proposed regional local government model. It is noted that several of these risks are not necessarily isolated to the design of the regional local government model, rather they are associated with all service delivery models. Several of the risks identified can be treated through being provided with sufficient time and resources, to ensure appropriate planning in order to develop and implement strategies.

Risk Details Impact

1. Cost of delivering municipal services exceeds agreed funding

The cost of delivering the services significantly exceeds the level of funding received.

The regional local government would be placed in a difficult situation of either having to reduce/cut back on service delivery and/or have to negotiate with government for more funding.

2. Ability to engage, maintain and manage community staff.

There is a risk associated with the ability of the regional local government to appropriately engaged, maintain and manage the community staff who are delivering services at a community level.

The service delivery at the community level may not be delivered appropriately or to the standard required.

3. Service level remains below the ‘normalised’ level.

The municipal service delivery to the communities may improve, however may remain below the ‘normalised’ level for non-Indigenous communities.

The regional local government is criticized for not delivering services to an acceptable standard.

4. Change in Government policy and funding environment.

The Government’s changing of policy and funding environment can have a dramatic affect on the ability for the regional local government to deliver municipal services. Particularly any changes in the agreed funding received by the regional local government from the Government.

The change in policy by government can greatly affect the level and scope of service delivery delivered by the regional local government.

5. Loss of key administrator (coordinator) at the community level.

There has been uncertainty re the ongoing provision of funding from government for the community CEO position. In this environment, the sustainability of key individuals in these roles is problematic. The community administrator or coordinator is fundamental to the success of municipal service delivery coordination at the individual communities.

A coordinated and quality municipal service delivery may be compromised, as there is no facilitator or administrator to ensure that personnel are carrying out their required tasks, contracts are managed and services delivered.

6. Disagreement between the members of the

There is a potential risk to the ability of the regional local government to effectively operate

The effectiveness of the regional local government to deliver its core functions may


Risk Details Impact

regional local government.

given the individual interests of the four Shires that form the regional local government. Decision making protocols and strategies would need to be developed to minimise this risk.

be diminished if disputes arise.

7. Transition period The regional local government may encounter significant issues/barriers when negotiating and forming contracts due to the existing contracts and agreements that are in place between communities and different levels of government. This would include: shared responsibility agreements; regional partnership agreements; sale contracts; service provider agreements; leases and funding agreements.

Without appropriate identification and planning, there may be a duplication of services provided, a service not being provided or dilution of funding transfer.

8. Land tenure The ability to deliver services to the communities is a risk in some cases, due to the land tenure issue.

The provision of municipal services on ALT/Crown land may be impacted by matters such as inability to reach agreement for access, issues of reluctance/inability of local government to deliver municipal services on ALT/Crown land etc.

9. Timing of funding There have been concerns historically by communities (and possibly service providers to communities), in relation to the timing/delay of funds being received from government. There is a risk that delay’s in funding could adversely impact on a regional local government (On the assumption the regional local government receives funding from the Australian and/or State Governments.

Delays in funding will result in a delay of municipal service delivery.

10. Logistics and size of service delivery area.

The size of the area for municipal service delivery proposed for the regional local government is significant. The logistics involved in the delivery of municipal services to the communities has significant issues particularly due to environmental/climate, distance to travel and conditions of the roads.

The ability to deliver quality municipal services to the communities is impacted on by the time, cost and logistics associated with servicing remote communities spread over a large area.

11. Suitable plant and equipment not available within the communities.

The requirement for community’s or the service providers to have sufficient plant at the community to deliver the service presents a risk.

The inability to source appropriate plant and machinery may result in the service not being delivered, or being delivered at a level below the prescribed service delivery standard.

12. Insufficient There is a risk that the regional Insufficient repairs and


Risk Details Impact

funding for cyclical infrastructure, R&M and capital works.

local government may not receive, or budget for, sufficient funding to undertake cyclical repairs, repairs and maintenance and capital works (including plant replacement).

maintenance of infrastructure and plant may result in a higher frequency of replacement and could compromise service delivery.

13. Multiple roles and responsibilities being placed on the regional local government.

A risk that the regional local government is called upon by other government agencies and departments, to be associated with/assume responsibility for activities that are outside its prescribed role.

Limited resources are “spread” over a larger area of activities that leads to a reduction in the effectiveness of the regional local government to operate for the purposes of delivery municipal services.


3.7 Establishment Process Each of the Kimberley Councils needs to consider this report and to determine its preliminary position on the regional local government model. The Kimberley Councils may see merit in engaging the authors of the Report to provide detailed briefings during the consideration phase of the proposed regional local government model. Following consideration by each individual council, the existing Kimberley Ward group should meet to consider the proposed regional local government model. In view of the intricacies and scope of the Report and its importance to the region, it is suggested that a minimum of three months is required for that process. However, the position of the individual councils is only part of the overall scope, as a regional local government could be established with as little as two of the shires participating, with provisions (including a possible penalty) for later membership. The other essential element and one that will be of prime importance for the local governments support is the position of the Federal and State agencies to this Report and the level of political support for the regional local government model, including the level of funding to be made available. An essential element of the formation of a regional local government model will be the initial period that member councils must commit to, and the process for winding it up should the model fail or lack future support. This is particularly important as the future of the regional local government model is at the whim of the policy position of future members of the local governments, as well as future government support and specifically the level of funding commitment. The proposed model contained within the Report refers to an initial three year period but it may be necessary, in view of the establishment costs and other factors, to increase that to four or five years. Due to the 2006 Bilateral Agreement being super ceded and the need to progress the recommendation of this Report, it is crucial that the Australian and State governments’ consideration of the Report and the determination of their position and support should be determined concurrently during the same three month period. This is essential so that the Kimberley Shire ward meeting has the opportunity of being aware of the governments’ position and funding arrangements before reaching any formal decision to proceed with the formation of a regional local government. The new State committee headed by Lt. General Sanderson would be a crucial element of that process. Ideally the decision to proceed with the formation of a regional local government (with government support) should be made within a period of four to five months of the release of the Report. An important element of that process would be the formation of an establishment committee consisting of representation from each of the four shires (ideally being the potential regional local government members) and government representation, and on the basis that the committee is funded externally to manage the process of establishing a regional local government, including the establishment agreement, consultation and external support resources required. The establishment committee and external resources should be in position to commence within six months of the report release or mid-year. The aim of the establishment committee should be to form the basis for the regional local government within a further six month period (by 31 December 2009) and include the preliminaries for appointing a CEO and other staffing and management


requirements in readiness for the new regional local government to make formal appointments and commence operations. The establishment committee should also, concurrently, conduct consultation processes with the local communities affected by the regional local government model to explain the proposed changes and to determine the service delivery requirements and method(s) to be implemented. A critical issue will be the determination of the existing contracts and arrangements in place and how these will fit within the proposed new service delivery arrangements. Given a high priority by the Federal, State and the involved local governments, together with the required levels of financial support and external resources, the establishment of the regional local government model could be achieved by early 2010 if the political will exists. The table below outlines the broad processes and timeline involved.

Period Steps Outcomes

Jan – Mar 2009 � Consideration of the Report and determination of the preliminary position by each Shire

� Consider briefing by consultants

� Concurrent determination of Federal and State governments support and funding.

Preliminary position determined in respect of the regional local government model. Government support for the model.

April 2009 � Meeting of the Kimberley Ward Councils

� Consider briefing by the consultants.

� Briefing by Government agencies

Consultation and awareness of the model, support and funding. Formal determination by each Shire of support for regional local government model. Commitment in principle.

May – June 2009 � Formation of Establishment Committee

� External resources to commence the formal establishment of the regional local government and support Establishment Committee.

Establishment Committee

July – December 2009

� Proceed with the statutory requirements for the establishment of the regional government.

� Consultation with the affected communities on regional local government model and issues

� Determine the existing

Development of Statutory establishment agreement. Consultation with affected communities. Management arrangements developed.


Period Steps Outcomes

contracts and arrangements for each community.

� Consult and determine service delivery arrangements with each community.

� Commence recruitment and other management arrangements for regional local government.

December 2009 � Formal decision to form regional local government and enter into establishment agreement.

� Establishment of the Regional Local Government.

Regional Local Government established.

January 2010 � Regional Local Government meets and appoints CEO.

� Commences representation and policy development.

� CEO appoints other employees.

Regional Local Government becomes operational. Service delivery rolled out during 2010.


91

4. Recommendations and key considerations

4.1 Recommendations The following recommendations have been framed within the context of the four Shires and the associated communities. The recommendations have been developed to assist the Shires and other stakeholders to appropriately and effectively deliver municipal services through a regional local government model.

Recommendation 1: A regional local government model for the delivery of solely municipal services to remote communities represents an appropriate model.

The model the factors that contribute to the appropriateness of the model include:

�� A single and dedicated entity that is focused on representation and municipal service delivery, and which has a uniform approach, rather than four different delivery models (if individual shires delivered the services).

�� The limited capacity of the existing Shires to deliver municipal services to remote communities, and the economies-of-scale that are achieved through the regional approach.

�� Enhanced transparency and accountability as a result of all specific funding, accounting uniformity and reporting being managed through a single entity.

Recommendation 2: A regional local government should be established for an initial three year period.

The regional local government should be established for an initial three year period, and that commitments be provided to ensure an appropriate level of funding indexation occur and that the four participant Shires will remain a member of the regional local government over that period.

Recommendation 3: A consultation framework be developed and implemented (to clearly explain the proposed service delivery arrangements, commitments and approval required with the respective communities) prior to changes in service delivery arrangements.

The success of a regional local government model is dependent upon establishing and agreeing on the scope, extent and measurement of performance of municipal service delivery with each of the respective communities. This requires the allocation of sufficient time and resources in order to consult and reach agreement with each of the communities.


4.2 Key considerations 4.2.1 The feasibility of the regional local government model is subject to the

service delivery objectives being fully funded.

The regional local government should be fully funded based on the following:

�� The limited resource capacity of the existing Shires.

�� The service delivery is to be provided to remote communities with special requirements and circumstances, and on land that is not under the control of the Shires.

�� Proposals for an ‘augmentation’ approach to funding would have a detrimental impact on existing service delivery and standards, and rating levels.

4.2.2 Regional local government will require an appropriate level of resourcing

for the development and implementation phase.

The regional local government should be fully funded and resourced in order to negotiate the establishment agreement, liaise with the community councils and senior management, consult with the communities, assist with the set-up and recruitment required to establish the office and develop the individual service delivery plans with each community.

The following considerations should be noted:

�� Recent changes in the Northern Territory involved the negotiation of service plans with individual communities at a cost of some $50,000 each and requiring some 6 months or so.

�� The establishment process will create a considerable additional workload for the existing elected members and senior staff not withstanding the addition of external resources.

�� There is a need to consider all the various transition requirements and to take into account all of the various existing legal agreements, contracts and other formal commitments held by the communities.

4.2.3 Service delivery is contingent on maintaining individual community

stability, and assumes the continuation of senior administration officers (CEO) at the communities.

In particular, it will be essential to have a responsible organisation and locally housed management resources available for representation and local service delivery.

4.2.4 Further negotiation and resolution is required regarding access to

property, uniform existing infrastructure, and transfer ownership of infrastructure.

The following matters will require further attention and resolution:


�� Land tenure and access to property required for municipal service purposes.

�� All community infrastructure be brought up to a uniformed standard in the interest of fairness and equity.

�� The process for transferring existing community infrastructure, where necessary, to regional local government after being brought up to an appropriate standard.

4.2.5 Regional local government is indemnified from any responsibility

associated with contaminated sites and unknown pollution.

Issues may exist with contaminated sites and unknown pollution due to historical factors e.g. significant problems may exist with the disposal of asbestosis products and other noxious materials. Therefore the regional local government should be indemnified of responsibility associated with consequences of historical actions relating to contaminated sites and unknown pollution.


Appendix A – List of stakeholders consulted Stakeholders consulted during community site visits

Community/Organisation Name

Shire of Broome

Beagle Bay Kim Norrish

Bidyadanga Peter Yip

James Yanawana

Djarindjin Andrew McDaw

One Arm Point Andrew Carter

Lombadina Caroline Sibodasi

Shire of Derby-West Kimberley

Bayulu Karen Worth

Junjuwa Karen Worth

Looma Michelle Skinner

Roger McIver

Mowanjum Steve Austin

Wangkatjungka Rhonda Wilcomes

Luigi

Yakanarra Adam Johnson (Turtle)

Yungngora Damian

Shire of Halls Creek

Balgo Maggie (Co-ordinator) and George (Chair)

Billiluna Steve Bond

Mulan Jamie (Chair)

Margaret (CEO)

Chris (Supervisor)

Mardiwah Loop Kath Bell (DHW)

Ringer Soak Chris Wilkin

Yiyili Les Boyle (School headmaster)

Shire of Wyndham / East Kimberley

Kalumburu Leonie Cameron

Mirima and Nulleywah Bernadette Shields

Oombulgurri Peter McReady

OIC Neville Ripp

Other stakeholders consulted


Dept. of Local Government and Regional Caroline Tuthill



Development

Western Australian Planning Commission Thomas Dellavedova

Dept. of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA)

Jeff De Souza

Western Australia Local Government Association

Jodie Holbrook

Maria Usedo

Centre for Appropriate Technology Craig Dunster

ACIL Tasman Bob Smillie

Kimberley Regional Service Providers Robert Imber

Shire of Broome CEO Kenn Donohoe

Shire of Derby – West Kimberley President Elsia Archer

Cr Iris Prouse

A/CEO Shane Burge

Warren Fryer EHO

Shire of Halls Creek President L (Jim) Craig)

CEO Warren Olsen

ICC Broome Tony Familari


96

Appendix B – Community service profiles

The Community Service Profiles that are provided have been compiled from a combination of data and information collected during the community site visits, and data sourced from the following:

�� WAPC Community Layout Plans

�� Environmental Health Needs of Indigenous Communities in Western Australia Survey (2004)

�� Community Housing and Infrastructure Needs Survey 2006

Shire of Broome

Community: Beagle Bay

COMMUNITY PROFILE Community Location: The Beagle Bay community is located approximately 120km north of Broome. Population: The community has a population of approximately 200. Community infrastructure/buildings:

Education: - High school - Pre-school

Health: - Health clinic

Housing: - Approximately 33 houses.

Other: - Community Office - Old Community Hall


- Women’s Centre - Wardens Office - Community Centre

Outstations:

There are approximately 44 outstations, with approximately 8-10 people at each. Access to some outstations is over a tidal creek crossing near Beagle Bay, which can cause problems with access for children attending school during periods of flooding.

MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREAS

Health Medical: The Health Clinic is operated through the Broome Aboriginal Medical Service. As part of the service, doctors visit the community two days per week. There is not an ambulance service.

Roads and street (incl. internal and access roads)

Access roads: The access road into the community is sealed for 4kms from the Cape Leveque Road and the remainder is a gravel road. Main Access The main access is via the Cape Leveque Road. The road is sealed at the Broome end and from Beagle Bay north with the middle section of some 80 kilometres remaining as a badly corrugated unsealed road maintained by the Shire. There is mixed feelings as to whether it should be fully sealed, as accidents due to speed and unfamiliarity are occurring on the newly sealed section of the road, and conflicting views of the community benefit from increased tourist traffic. Improved road conditions would be beneficial from reduced freight and local vehicle maintenance costs. Outstation access roads: There are some 44 outstations that are serviced by 2 wheel natural surface tracks.


Internal roads: The community internal roads are all sealed and kerbed (conducted in 2002).

Waste services (incl. waste collection and landfill)

Rubbish collection: The rubbish collection is undertaken by KSRP and there are two services per week. The community has new SULO bins, and there are approximately 80+ services. The community has a rubbish truck that was funded by FaHCSIA, an old rubbish truck, Canter truck, Loader, compound and workshop. Landfill: The community’s tip site is in a good condition with an approximate lifespan of 5years.

Draining and sewerage Drainage: The community has significant rainfall, but does not have an issue with drainage. The drainage system includes culverts and open drains. Sewerage: The community houses are connected to the sewerage system via old septic tanks. The system is in working order. The sewerage ponds need an extension, as they overflow into the community and this causes an environmental health problem.

Dog and animal control

Dogs The community has a policy of two dogs per house, and does not have a dog control problem.


Mosquito Control Nirrumbuk is contracted, but is not funded for a Fogger and as such no spraying is currently occurring.

Aerodrome management:

The community airstrip is a dirt airstrip, does not have lighting and is maintained by KRSP. The main use for the airstrip is for direct charter purposes. The Royal Flying Doctor Service and other medical flights now use the major regional sealed airstrip at Lombadina. The airstrip is inspected by Airport Management Services.

Civic buildings and public toilet maintenance

Community Office

� The Community Office caters for current purposes and is in a good condition.

Visitor Toilet

� A new public toilet has been provided to cater for tourists. � External public toilets facilities are also located at the Community Office.

Emergency services Police services: The nearest police service is located at Lombadina. Fire services: The community does not currently have a fire service, however KRSP has provided a 2000L water tanker/trailer for the community. The Shire and FESA are currently working on developing a fire service for the community.


General

The community currently does not have a community corporation council to govern the community. KRSP has been engaged on contract to provide municipal services.

Community: Bidyadanga

COMMUNITY PROFILE Community Location: The community is located approximately 190km south of Broome. Population:

The population for Bidyadanga is approximately 850.

Community infrastructure/buildings:

- Community office - Health clinic - School - Supermarket - Telecentre - Depot - Centrelink - Police - Day-care - Woman’s centre - Radio/TV - Sport and recreation centre - Takeaway store - Workshop - Maintenance Support Workshop

Outstations: The community has strong links to the following nine outstations: Wanamulnydong; Kalyadan; Malu pirti; Rollah;


Yandarina; Brunbrunganjal; Nygah Nygah; Pelling Pelling; and Yardoogarra.

MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREAS Health Medical:

The community has one health clinic which is staffed by three senior staff, and a doctor from the Broome Regional Aboriginal Medical Service (BRAMS) who provides a fly-in clinic one day per week.


Access roads: The access to the community is on approximately 13kms of graded road that is in good condition. The 1km of the road is sealed. Internal roads: The internal roads and streets are all sealed and kerbed (in 2006).


Rubbish collection: The community has approximately 100+ SULO bins that are collected twice per week by the Housing Officer and Community Chair. The community has a compactor rubbish truck. Landfill: The rubbish tip is a fenced pit, which the Shire hires out for excavation.

Draining and sewerage Drainage: The community has a drainage problem that is caused by sand being washed onto the road surface, causing pot holes. The drainage system Is based on a closed roadside drains, and large open drains. Sewerage:


The community has a reticulated deep sewerage system, with two pumps. The reticulated piping leads the sewerage to the sewerage ponds that are fenced. Some areas of the community have individual effluent disposal systems.


The dog control is managed by the Shire, and a VET visits the community on a quarterly basis. The mosquito control is financed through CDEP, which covers several days of mowing and spraying.


The aerodrome is not sealed, and is approximately 1,200m of gravel, which is dragged regularly by the community. The airstrip is used twice a week by the Royal Flying Doctor Service.

Emergency services

Police services: The community has a police station which has three associated police houses. Fire services: The community has a Landcruiser Fire Unit that is used for burning off and fire control. FESA and SES visit the community for fire and emergency service facilitation.


Community: Djarindjin Community Location: Djarindjin is located adjacent to Lombadina on the western side at the north end of the Dampier Peninsular at

16.30.50 S and 122.53.43 E. Population:

The community has a population of approximately 320


- New regional Police station - Administration Office - Community Store - Community Hall - Cemetery - Basketball Court - WACHS clinic

Outstations: There are approximately 12 outstations.


There is a WACHS clinic and a flying doctor visits the community.


Access roads: Cape Leveque Road Access to the community is via the Cape Leveque Road from Broome. The southern and northern sections are sealed for some 20 and 50 kilometres respectively, with the middle section of approximately 80 kilometres remaining as a gravel and natural surface road which becomes badly corrugated from heavy traffic. The northern sealed section links Djarindjin with Cape Leveque (Tourist Resort), and Beagle Bay communities and the regional airstrip at Lombadina.

There are conflicting views as to whether the Cape Leveque Road should be fully sealed, as there is likely to be


an increase in speeding and accidents as well as the increase in tourists, which is seen to have negative and positive effects. Access to Community The access road into the community is partly sealed from the Cape Leveque Road into the “T” junction boundary Internal roads: The community roads are currently unsealed and consist of natural surface Pindan sand. This results in a build up of washed sand on the streets and track system. Some bull dust type holes and damage from lack of drainage. The community is about to commence their own road improvement program using gravel, which has been self-funded by the community. Outstations: The outstations are accessed on sand tracks.


Rubbish collection: The rubbish is collected twice weekly. The SULO bins are all hand lifted on to a truck, as the compactor rubbish truck is unable to operate in sand, as it gets bogged. The town has a monthly Tidy Towns Program, however this is affected by the stray dogs that knock over the rubbish bins which are unstable due to the surface conditions. As a result, the rubbish spreads in the community and there is difficulty in re-collecting the rubbish due to the sand. Visible litter on verges. Rubbish Disposal Site Tip site in a poor condition and required a push-up. There are also car bodies at the site.


Draining and sewerage Drainage: The community does not have a drainage system. The natural soil that forms the drainage system must cater for heavy run offs and washed sand build-up, which is a significant issue. Sewerage: The community has part sewerage which is maintained by KRSP along with the ponds. The remaining parts of the community operate on septic tanks. The septic tank pumping is contracted to a contractor in Broome.


Dog Control The community has self-control, on a needs basis for dog control. Mosquito Control There is no mosquito control.


The nearby regional aerodrome was originally sealed in 2000, however apparently it was not properly rolled. As a result the seal failed, and this has now just been resealed (50% funded by Inpex under a commercial arrangement). The regional airstrip was sealed to provide an all weather airstrip for the Dampier Peninsular communities.


Community Office Community Workshop – unmanned Open air community centre

Emergency services Police services: The regional police station has three police officers, however on most occasions it is rare to have three officers available at one time. Fire services:


Nil – there are plans for FESA to visit the community in relation to this.

General

Djarindjin is co-located with Lombadina community with no visible boundary or border separating the two communities. Both communities act as separate governance units with some shared service arrangements but separate waste disposal facilities and services.


107

Community: Lombadina

COMMUNITY PROFILE Community Location: Lombadina is located approximately 170km from Broome at 16.30.50 S and 122.53.43 E. The community is

adjacent to Djarindjin. Population:

The community has a population of approximately 50-60.


- 2 x Transportable office complex - New office and community centre under construction - Store/bakery - Women’s centre - Health Clinic - Tourist Accommodation units -


The community has one health clinic. The clinic is owned by the Health Department and run by WA Country Health Service in association with Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Services Council. Environmental Health Services


Access roads: Cape Leveque Road Access to the community is via the Cape Leveque Road from Broome. The southern and northern sections are sealed for some 20 and 50 kilometres respectively, with the middle section of approximately 80 kilometres remaining as a gravel and natural surface road which becomes badly corrugated from heavy traffic. The northern sealed section links Lombadina with Cape Leveque (Tourist Resort), One Arm


Point and Beagle Bay communities and the regional airstrip at Lombadina. There are conflicting views as to whether the Cape Leveque Road should be fully sealed, as there is likely to be an increase in speeding and accidents as well as the increase in tourists, which is seen to have negative and positive effects. Access to Community The access road into the community is partly sealed from the Cape Leveque Road into the “T” junction boundary with Lombadina and Djarindjin. Internal roads: The roads are not sealed and consist of natural surface pindan sand.


Rubbish collection: The rubbish is collected three times per week using a towed trailer. Three men are engaged for this service. The rubbish is collected in drums. Landfill: The tip is well laid out and maintained, with regularly burn offs. The tip is pushed up regularly with the community’s loader. The access road had recently been graded by the community.

Draining and sewerage Drainage: The community does not have a drainage system. The natural soil that forms the drainage system is similar to Djarindjin. Drainage improvement is a high priority for the community. Sewerage: The community has an all septic system which is managed by the community.


Some connection with the Djarindjin sewerage ponds. Dog and animal control

Dogs There are only approximately six dogs in the community and this does not pose a problem. Mosquito Control The community has its own fogger for mosquito control.


The regional sealed airstrip is located nearby.


Community Office New Community Centre and Office under construction. Well equipped and well maintained workshop Outdoor basketball courts

Emergency services Police services: A multifunction police station that is servicing the northern Dampier Peninsula sub-region. Fire services: There are no fire services in the community. FESA is currently planning to undertake emergency training.

General

Lombadina is a well managed and attractive small community with grassed verges and clean streets The community is involved in economic service delivery including tourist accommodation and plant contracting. The community maintains a small but effective plant capacity including grader, loader, truck and backhoe. The community has recently been engaged by the Shire of Broome on a contract basis to grade road Shoulders on the Cape Leveque Road.


Community: Ardyaloon (One Arm Point)

COMMUNITY PROFILE Community Location: One Arm Point is located at the northern terminus of Cape Leveque road at 16.26.52 S and 123.03.45 E.

Population:

The population of One Arm Point is approximately 550.


Community Office Community Store Community Centre

Outstations: There are approximately nine outstations associated with One Arm Point: - Barringbarr - Bulgin - Goobading - Gumbarnun - Goolarrgon - Gulaweed - Jayedi - Mudnunn - Nillargoon

MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREAS Health

Health


The community has a health clinic with a morgue attached. Health promotion classes are run through the clinic. Food Inspection There are no food inspections as the shop only sells pre-packaged food. Environmental Health


Access Access to the community is via the Cape Leveque Road from Broome. The southern and northern sections are sealed for some 20 and 50 kilometres respectively, with the middle section of approximately 80 kilometres remaining as a gravel and natural surface road which becomes badly corrugated from heavy traffic. The northern sealed section links One Arm Point with Cape Leveque (Tourist Resort), Lombadina/Djarindjin and Beagle Bay communities and the regional airstrip at Lombadina.

Internal roads: The internal roads are sealed and have kerbing, however they require maintenance as potholes have developed and some washed sand. CAT has been contracted to undertake the maintenance, and there have been requests for street sweeping to improve the condition of the roads. Outstation Access roads: The access roads are tracks, currently in poor condition.


Rubbish collection: The rubbish collection is for approximately 120 SULO bins and is collected three times per week. The rubbish is collected using a flat top truck as the community does not have a proper rubbish truck. Note: Djarindjin has a proper rubbish truck that cannot be used due to the truck bogging in washed sand.


Landfill: The community tip is located approximately 4.5kms from the community. The community tip is adequate for several years to come, and is used by the outstations and tourists.

Draining and sewerage Drainage: The community has street kerb drainage, with open kerb sections, but no underground drainage. Sewerage: Sewerage is controlled by KRSP and there are plans to use the grey water for the redevelopment of the community oval (WAWA proposal).


Dog control is organised by the Shire EHO, who conducts de-sexing and destruction of the dogs if required. The community does not have a dog pound. Mosquito control is also organised by the EHO annually.


The community aerodrome is a dirt strip with lighting. The airstrip is maintained by grading and dragging but is poorly located adjacent to the community and the alignment creates a problem with cross winds. However the airstrip is being used for FIFO local workers involved with oil and gas and the iron ore industry. The main airstrip for RFDS etc is the sealed regional airstrip located at Lombadina.

Emergency services There is no police station located in the community. The closest police station to the community is Lombadina. The community only has a slip on fire unit purchased through municipal funding, and is having discussions with FESA in relation to service provisions for fire and cyclone management.

General

Ardyaloon Community Corporation distributes community funding to Lombadina and Djarindjin communities. The community is involved with the Kooljaman Resort at Cape Leveque. The Community CEO position is vacant.


One Arm Point – sealed and kerbed street with washed up sand One Arm Point – Sewerage Ponds One Arm Point – Waste disposal site Lombadina – Community plant


Lombadina – community natural surface street scene Djarindjin – Unmanned community workshop Djarindjin – Unused rubbish compactor truck Djarindjin – Waste disposal site


Shire of Derby / West Kimberley

Community: Bayulu

COMMUNITY PROFILE Community Location: Approximately 13 kilometres east of Fitzroy Crossing and near the Great Northern Highway at 18.18.09 S and

125.35.45 E. Population: The community population is approximately 260. Community infrastructure/buildings:

The community has approximately 47 dwellings.

MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREAS Health Roads and street (incl. internal and access roads)

Access Via the Great Northern Highway approximately 13 kilometres east of Fitzroy Crossing and a sealed access road into the community approximately 2 kilometres. Internal Streets Sealed streets and some kerbed. Washed sand build up. Numerous dirt track network. Potholes. Litter.


Rubbish Disposal Site The rubbish tip is located south of the community, in close proximity to the wastewater treatment ponds. The tip is currently in a poor condition and requires a push up. There is a build up of rubbish on the fence lines.

Draining and sewerage Drainage


There is poor street drainage, and no piped stormwater drainage in the community. As a result of the poor street drainage, there is a high level of wash sands on the roads.

Sewerage The wastewater and sewerage is collected by 150mm PVC piping that is pumped through to the sewerage ponds. The sewerage ponds currently have a build up of growth.


There are no details of a community airstrip.


Community Office Community Store Community Clinic Large locked Shed Locked Shed – appeared to have been potentially a Fire Unit Playground Open air community centre Depot - loader

Emergency services Fire services: The community appears to have a fire shed.

General

CEO was departing the community at the time of the visit and was not interviewed. The community is situated in close proximity to Fitzroy Crossing and has access to normal services such as Police, Hospital etc.


Community: Junjuwa

COMMUNITY PROFILE Community Location: The community is situated approximately one kilometre north of Fitzroy Crossing and is a “town” community. Population:

The community population fluctuates, however it estimated that the population is approximately 450.


The community has the following infrastructure and buildings: - Government operated school - Community health clinic - Community store - Community administration office (old community hall) - Sports oval - Women’s centre - Aged persons accommodation - Church - Swimming Pool - 81 community houses

Outstations: The community has seven outstations.


The community has a health clinic which is attended by a community health nurse. Environmental Health Services

Roads and street

Access Road


(incl. internal and access roads) Access to the community is via a sealed road from Fitzroy Crossing which is maintained by the Shire. The community is located adjacent to this access road. A sealed cycle/footpath also services the community with access to Fitzroy Crossing.

Internal roads: The community roads are kerbed and sealed, approximately 6m in width. The roads are in poor condition, with sand build up on the roads.


Rubbish collection: The community manages their own rubbish collection, which is then taken to the Fitzroy Crossing Shire tip.

Draining and sewerage Drainage: Drainage is not seen as a major issue in the community. Sewerage: The community houses are connected to a deep sewer system which connects to a single sewerage pump. The pump discharges effluent to the Town of Fitzroy Crossing sewerage scheme.


Adjacent to the Shire operated community sealed airstrip at Fitzroy Crossing.


Community Office Community Store Sporting oval School complex Community workshop and depot Women’s centre


Emergency services Town based services.

General

The community corporation did not have a CEO. A visual inspection was carried out. Currently management is provided by Marra Worra Worra Aboriginal Corporation located at Fitzroy Crossing.


Community: Looma

COMMUNITY PROFILE Community Location: Looma is located approximately 130kms east of Derby on the Myroodah-Luluigai Road at 18.02.24 S and 124.08.54

E. The nearest towns are Camballin and Jarlmadangah Burru. New Looma is situated some 5 kilometres away.

Population:

The 2006 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) population statistics recorded 391 permanent living at Looma.


Education: Looma Remote Community School (Looma RCS), caters for K-12 Health: Looma Health Clinic Housing:

- 63 houses (approximately 6 persons per dwelling) - 27 houses in Camballin (Normal townsite)

Other: - Community shop, - Community workshop (vehicle maintenance) - Looma Council Office - Public toilets - Arts centre - Child day care centre - Youth Centre - Women’s Centre

Outstations: There are three outstations that are only accessible on 4WD tracks: - Yarri Yarri - Djulinbidi - Mowla Bluff (pastoral lease)


VIEWS ON REGIONAL SERVICE DELIVERY Governance: The introduction of a regional local government would introduce an extra layer of governance that would not be

desired. It would be preferred that local community representation was on the Shire council.

Rates:

The community would require consultation with the Shire to ensure that there was sufficient funding and service provisions for the community.


Looma has a Health Clinic which is operated by WA Country Health. The clinic services Looma, Camballin and Liveringa. The Health Clinic has two permanent nurses, and a doctor drives from Derby to visit the community every Wednesday. Other health: Health inspections are carried out on the Community Store by the Shire EHO several times annually.


Outstations: The outstations (Yarri Yarri, Djilinbidi and Mowla Bluff) are located on access roads that can only be accessed by 4wd. The roads were recently graded by Looma, and the total length of the road is estimated at as much as 300km. Access roads: The main access road from the Great Northern Highway to the boundary of the Looma community (approximately 27kms) is gazetted and has been maintained by the Shire as it also services the townsite of Camballin.. Currently Buckley Contracting is carrying out roadworks for the Shire on the road into Camballin


and preparing for sealing of 3.7km of road from the Power House to the Creek, Camballin entrance and the teacher’s street (250m). Internal roads: The internal roads of Looma are sealed, however they are in an old condition. It is estimated that the sealing took place approximately 10 years ago. There is some build up of washed sand. The central part of the internal roads in Looma are 6m wide with kerbing. Kerbing only occurs in this area. The internal roads have some potholes and patching is required in some sections. Other: The community has recently undertaken a road audit, which has identified some road signs to be replaced.


Rubbish collection: Rubbish collection is undertaken twice weekly, using a compactor truck purchased in 2007 by DHW. The scope of the rubbish collection is approximately 80 SULO bins. Landfill: The existing rubbish tip is located south of the sewerage ponds. There is capacity available for future expansion of the tip.

Draining and sewerage Drainage: Drainage in Looma is open surface drains only. There are currently issues with the drainage provisions within the centre, near the playground. Sewerage:


Looma and Camballin both have reticulated sewerage systems that lead to an existing sewerage pond. The sewerage system is maintained by KRSP and is in good working order.


Dog control is undertaken on a quarterly basis by the Shire, with assistance from the Environmental Health Officer. The dog control is partially funded by the Health Department, and is topped up through CDEP. There is currently no pound in the community. There is limited pest control operating in the community.


The aerodrome is funded by the Shire and is located on private property in Camballin. The grading is undertaken by the community and formed part of a training program for employees. The aerodrome is used for chart flights and community use, but is not used by the Royal Flying Doctor Service. The aerodrome currently does not have lights, markers, and windsock and is not fenced.


New Community Office complex

Emergency services Fire services: The community currently has a 500L fire trailer unit. The community prepares its own firebreaks for the community as well as for the outstations. Law: The community has its own bylaws which issues fines of $100 to $300. The fines are enforced by the local Warden.


Looma is also scheduled for a new Multi Function Police Facility, in response to a key recommendation of the 2002 Gordon Inquiry. The requirements of the facility include:

- Minimum land area no less than 4000m² - Positioned close to, but not within, the community. - Positioned in a place with high natural surveillance.

General

The Looma community consists of the larger Looma and a smaller (new) Looma situated some 5 kilometres away. The communities share the same rubbish disposal site and sewerage ponds. Looma presents well as a community with a grassed oval and its new Community Office complex. The community is situated about 10 kilometres away from the (normal) townsite of Camballin.


Community: Mowanjum

COMMUNITY PROFILE Community Location: The community is located approximately 12 kilometres from the town of Derby and just off the Gibb River Road

at 17.21.34 S and 123.41.55 E. Population:

The community population ranges from 270-300, however this can fluctuate up to 500.


Other: - Administration Office - Community Store - Public toilets - Aged care centre - Health clinic - Arts centre (very good condition)

Outstations: There are six outstations; Borninyun; Majaddin; Djiliwa; Marnebulurnge; Larinyuwar; Marunbubidingari. These

outstations are up to 500km’s away from Mowanjum. There is limited access to the outstations.

MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREAS Health Other health:

Food inspections are undertaken by the Shire EHO.


Access roads: The access road to the community from the Gibb River Road is approximately 2 kilometres in length and 7m in width, sealed and is showing signs of cracking. Internal roads: There are approximately 16 internal streets, of which most are sealed but there is no kerbing. The width of the


main entry road is approximately 7m, whilst the other streets are approximately 4m. The internal roads are built up with a high camber and narrow steep shoulders. There is also a ad hoc network of dirt tracks throughout the community. Outstations Several outstations are located at considerable distances from Mowanjum.


Rubbish collection: Rubbish collections are currently conducted weekly by the Shire. The community has a rubbish collection trailer and intends to do its own rubbish collection for self-employment. Due to the nature of the internal roads with high shoulders and a narrow surface, bins are difficult to place on the edge, and then are unstable and easily knocked over. A team of 5 people conduct the rubbish collection, funded through CDEP. There was a visible build up of rubbish on the street verges. Landfill: The community is unable to have a rubbish tip due to the pastoral lease. Currently they use the Shire tip.

Draining and sewerage Drainage: There is a significant draining issue. The drainage system is all natural drainage, and is not effective, particularly due to the high shoulders on the roads. Sewerage: The wastewater system is in a poor condition, with KRSP conducting repairs paid for from the community’s municipal budget.


Dog and animal control The dog control is facilitated by the Shire and there is not pound in the community. Aerodrome management:

There is no airstrip in the Community. The community uses the Shire airstrip.


Community Office Community Art Gallery Outdoor open Basketball Courts Community Store Community Depot Playground

Emergency services Fire services: The community has a slip-on fire unit, however this is not sufficient to meet the needs of the community. Police Serviced from Derby

General

Mowanjum is closely located to Derby and serviced by a sealed access road. Although it is a distinct and separate community it can be classified as a “town” community due to its proximity to Derby for most services.


Community: Wangkatjungka

COMMUNITY PROFILE Community Location: Wangkatjungka is located approximately 120km south-east of Fitzroy Crossing and close to the Great

Northern Highway at 18.52.34 S and 125.55.17 E.

Population:

The community population fluctuates, however is estimated at 160.


Education: - There is one school which caters for Kindergarten to Year 12. There are approximately 114

students attending the school which sources students from neighbouring communities. Health:

- There is a health clinic within the community. Housing:

- 34 community houses including: o 4 houses for teachers

Other: - Community office - Community store - Community hall


There is a health clinic that is visited by a nurse twice weekly from Fitzroy and a doctor visiting every second week. Other health:


An Environment Health office from the Shire conducts food inspections on a quarterly basis.


Access roads: The main access road to the community is via the public road to Beefwood Pastoral Station and about 19 kilometres from the Great Northern Highway and is maintained by the Shire. The short access into the community is natural surface road but this also services a pastoral station and it is currently being used by a Drilling Company. This through road utilises part of the external community street and the heavy traffic is causing damage to the road and creating a problem for the community. Internal roads: The internal roads of the community are generally kerbed and sealed. Potholes have developed in the road due to the poor drainage. There is a washed sand build up. Note: currently there is a high level of traffic (approximately 30 road trains) due to a new station and oil drill rig. This is having an affect on the conditions of the roads.


Rubbish collection: Rubbish collections are conducted weekly by two men who are employed through CDEP. The weekly service is to approximately 30 houses, and equates to approximately 50 SULO bins. The rubbish is collected using a compactor truck. Landfill: There is a rubbish tip, however it is nearly at capacity and is located too close to the community. At this stage there is no equipment in the community able to push the rubbish up, CAT is seeking funding for a new tip.

Draining and sewerage Drainage:

There is surface draining due to the sealing of the roads and a major drainage path exists from the north to the south of the community.


Due to the drainage system, there is localised flooding which results in pot holes and sand build up on the roads. Sewerage: The sewerage system is maintained by KRSP and CAT, and is of a good standard.

Dog and animal control: Dog control is undertaken by the Shire every 3-4 months. Aerodrome management:

The aerodrome not a community responsibility and is located on Christmas Creek Station (approximately 2kms from the community). The airstrip is not well maintained and has a black soil problem in the wet. The airstrip is used by the Royal Flying Doctor Service.


Community Office Community Store

Emergency services Fire services: The community has previously prepared firebreaks, however the funding has now been cancelled. The community does not have any emergency service equipment. The community does however have hydrants located around the community, including one standpipe hydrant to flush the system.

General

The community is small and reasonably remote as it is situated almost midway between Fitzroy Crossing and Halls Creek, despite the fact that it is near the highway.


Community: Yakanarra

COMMUNITY PROFILE Community Location: Yakanarra is located approximately 60km south of Fitzroy Crossing at 18.40.19 S and 125.17.41 E

Population:

The community population is approximately 160.


Education: - one school that caters for kindergarten to Year 10. - Yakanarra has an adult education centre, Karrayilli.

Health: - Nindillingarri Cultural Health Service is based in Fitzroy Crossing and provides community

health education, training and preventative health programs at Yakanarra. Housing:

- 23 community houses - 7 houses for teachers and administration personnel.

Other: - Community store - Telecentre - Centrelink - Clinic - School - Mechanics Workshop - Community Council - Homemaker centre

Outstations: There are two outstations associated with Yakanarra: Kurlku and Ngaranjadtu.



There is a medical clinic (Nindillingarri Cultural Health Service) located in Fitzroy Crossing, which is accessible to the community. The Royal Flying Doctor Service operates on a fortnightly basis. Other health: An Environment Health office from the Shire conducts food inspections and conducts food safety courses. Health checks and adult courses are run through Karragali from Kimberley


Access roads: The main access road to Yakanarra is situated 45km along the Great Northern Highway (east of Fitzroy) and then south down Cherrabun Road for some 40 kms. The Cherrabun Road is a gravel and natural surface road maintained by the Shire. A new gravel and natural surface access road of some 40 kms has been constructed from the Cherrabun Road (near the Station boundary) to Yakanarra. Note: This new road does not show on maps used during the community visits and requires sign-posting. The access track that does show on maps is a pastoral station track to a stockyard and along fencelines and not suitable for public traffic. The access road is in reasonable condition, although it is corrugated in sections. However the access road during the wet is very poor. Marra Worra in Fitzroy is arranging for the grading to occur by contract. The community can currently be cut off for 3-4 months a year. Internal roads:


The internal roads of Yakanarra are in good condition, with all roads being sealed and kerbed in 2003. However there is a washed sand build up and some potholes.


Rubbish collection: Rubbish collections are conducted twice weekly, occurring on Monday and Friday. The rubbish is currently collected using a Ute and trailer, which is unsuitable. SULO bins are used, as well as 44 gallon drums. Four to five men are required for the rubbish collection and require a small compactor truck. There are approximately 80 bins for the community. Landfill: The rubbish tip is currently unsatisfactory. The rubbish tip requires pushing up, however the backhoe that is usually used is currently stranded on the back of a community truck that is broken down on the access road in to the community.

Draining and sewerage Drainage: There is surface draining from the sealing of the roads, however there is a build up of sand that has built up and requires sweeping. Sewerage: The sewerage system is maintained by KRSP and is of a good standard.

Dog and animal control The dog control is undertaken by the Shire every 3-4months. Aerodrome management:

The airstrip was well maintained. The aerodrome is an essential service during the wet to ensure access to the community. It is an all weather airstrip that has emergency battery powered lights. Funding is provided through Marra Worra Worra for the grading of the airstrip.



Community Office and Store There is a basketball court that is used by the community. However, due to the expenses associated with the court lighting, Marra Worra Worra has ceased funding the electricity and therefore the court is not used at night time by community members.

Emergency services Fire services: The community has a fire fighting trailer, and members of the community have received some training through the Shire and FESA.

General

Yakanarra is a small and remote community situated about 100 kms from Fitzroy Crossing. The community can be cut off during the “Wet”. Changes in funding and high power costs are causing concern.


Community: Yungngora-Noonkanbah

COMMUNITY PROFILE Community Location: Yungngora is situated approximately 73 kilometres south of the Great Northern Highway west of Fitzroy

Crossing and at 18.29.54 S and 124.49.58 E. Population: The community population is approximately 265, however this does fluctuate. Community infrastructure/buildings:

Education: there is one school and a kindergarten. Health: there is one health clinic Housing:

- 44 community houses - 10 houses for teachers and administration personnel.

Other: - Community store - Outdoor recreation centre - HACC - Public toilets - Telecentre

Outstations: There is one outstation which has four houses located about 108kms from Yungngora


The health clinic operates four times per week by a nurse who is based in Fitzroy. The Royal Flying Doctor Service operates each Friday in the community.


Access roads: The access road into the community is approximately 75 kilometres in length and gravel and natural surface


and is maintained by the Shire, of which the first 50km is in a reasonable condition, however the remaining 20km is in a poor condition. The road also services Noonkanbah Station. Outstations: The outstation is located approximately 108kms from the community. The access road has been graded at a cost of approximately $45,000. Internal roads: The internal roads of Yungngora-Noonkanbah are mostly sealed with natural drains, however there is a significant number of potholes and the road is without kerbing. The seal is old and covered with washed sand and dirt build up and badly pot-holed. There is also a network on internal tracks.


Rubbish collection: Rubbish collection is undertaken on a daily basis by three men. The collection is undertaken using a new rubbish truck funded by DHW, however the community pay for insurance and maintenance. The scope of the rubbish collection is approximately 60 SULO bins. There is some verge litter and car bodies. Landfill: A tip is located at the community and was in a reasonable condition. A bulldozer from the Pastoral Station is used to push the tip up.

Draining and sewerage Drainage: Natural drainage occurs along the road lines. There is evidence of an internal drainage problem, including the build up of material on the sealed roads. Sewerage:


The sewerage ponds are lined with some vegetation build-up and the system is maintained by KRSP and is in an adequate standard.


Dog control is undertaken by the Shire however there is no pound in the community. There are approximately 100 dogs in the community.


The aerodrome is an all-weather airstrip that is used by the Royal Flying Doctor Service and for charter purposes. The aerodrome has portable battery powered lighting.


Community Office Community Store Depot Fabrication Workshop Telecentre As part of a shared responsibility agreement, the community received an ablutions block and Laundromat.

Emergency services Fire services: The community has a Toyota Ute with a pump and tanks for fire purposes only. Law: The community has its own local bylaws.

General

A large proportion of the community receives CDEP employment for the purposes of rubbish collection, the metal workshop and the school. The metal workshop is used to produce and build cattle yards etc to be sold commercially. A courier/freight service operates to Derby or Broome and charges the relevant user (shop, Station etc). Approximately $2,500 of diesel is burnt per day on power including air-conditioning etc.


Looma – access road intersection to Camballin Townsite Looma – part sealed access road (requires repairing) Looma – sealed, but no kerbing. Yakanarra – waste disposal trailer and 44gal drums


Yakanarra – broken down community truck with backhoe Wangkatjungka – drainage issues Wangkatjungka – community sewerage ponds Wangkatjungka – pot holes


Shire of Halls Creek

Community: Balgo

COMMUNITY PROFILE Community Location: The community is located approximately 260 kilometres south of Halls Creek at 20.08.29 S and 127.59.06 E. Population:

The community has a population of approximately 350.


� Approximately 64 houses. � Community Office � Community Store

Outstations: There is one outstation, Kearney Range which is about 10km by graded truck.


� The community has one health clinic.

� RFDS emergency service

� Occasional EHO visit


Access roads: Tanami Road The main access road, the Tanami Road is in a very poor condition and this causes considerable problems for the community with vehicle repairs and the cost of freight. This road is classified as a local road under the control of the Shire of Halls Creek but it a major link road between the Kimberley region and Alice Springs and


beyond the capacity of the Shire to maintain. The road caters for pastoral, mining, tourist, freight and remote communities. The Shire was carrying out major reconstruction works at the northern sections of the road. The section to the Balgo turn-off was badly corrugated and forcing traffic to drive in the watertable drain. The section east of the Balgo turn-off to the NT border is in a particularly poor condition and this could warrant closure for safety purposes. The potential exists for the future development of a road maintenance team based upon the Balgo, Mulan and Billiluna communities to maintain the middle and eastern sections of the road. Balgo Road Approximately 40 kilometres of gravel and natural surface road from the Tanami Road to Balgo is occasionally maintained by the Shire – sometimes by the community grader. Mulan Road Approximately 40 kilometres of gravel and natural surface road between Balgo and Mulan, this mainly services the Mulan community. Internal roads: The community has sealed roads and some kerbing.


Rubbish collection: There are approximately 60 SULO bins that are collected twice per week. A trailer is currently used which is unsuitable, and the rubbish truck is not in a working condition.

Draining and sewerage Drainage:

The community does not appear to have any formal drainage system. Sewerage:


The sewerage system is connected to sewerage ponds that have a capacity for 700 people in the community.

Dog and animal control: Dog control is facilitated through the Environmental Health Officer from the Shire and the local AEHW. Aerodrome management:

The airstrip has manual lights and a new PAL system; however the airstrip does require maintenance. The airstrip is quite busy with charter flights from government and service agencies and RFDS.


Community Office Community Store

Emergency services Fire services: The community has a new fire trailer for emergency services. Police: The community has a police complex.

General Balgo is currently involved in the Shire of Halls Creek Pilot study.


Community: Billiluna

COMMUNITY PROFILE Community Location: Approximately 154 kilometres south of Halls Creek via the Tanami Road at 19.33.38 S and 127.39.47 E.

Population:

The community has a population of approximately 180+.


- Community office - Community shop - Crèche - Garage/Workshop - Telecentre/IPA - Housing:

1 accommodation centre; 2 visitor's houses; 1 guest quarters; 1 stockman's quarters; 1 nurse's house; 1 coordinator's house; single men's quarters; single women's quarters.

Outstations: The community has one small outstation approximately 15kms away. No services are delivered to the outstation.


Health Medical: There is a Health and Community Care Centre in the community however there are no staff. Other health: Food inspections are carried out by the Shire EHO occasionally. AEHW from Balgo.

Roads and street Access roads:


(incl. internal and access roads)

Tanami Road The main access road, the Tanami Road is in a very poor condition and this causes considerable problems for the community with vehicle repairs and the cost of freight. This road is classified as a local road under the control of the Shire of Halls Creek but it a major link road between the Kimberley region and Alice Springs and beyond the capacity of the Shire to maintain. The road caters for pastoral, mining, tourist, freight and remote communities. The Shire was carrying out major reconstruction works at the northern sections of the road. The section to the Balgo turn-off was badly corrugated and forcing traffic to drive in the watertable drain. The section east of the Balgo turn-off to the NT border is in a particularly poor condition and this could warrant closure for safety purposes. The potential exists for the future development of a road maintenance team based upon the Balgo, Mulan and Billiluna communities to maintain the middle and eastern sections of the road. Access The short 1 kilometre natural surface access road off the Tanami Road is graded by the community. Billiluna is situated at the northern end of the Canning Stock Route, which is a two wheel track heading south from the community. Internal roads: The community roads are currently unsealed. The streets have some camber.


Rubbish collection: The community collects 50-60 SULO bins on a daily basis. Three people are employed (CDEP) to collect the rubbish by a trailer or by ute. The daily service is mainly a job creation initiative than a health necessity. Visible rubbish on verges.


Rubbish Disposal Site Required pushing up.

Drainage and Sewerage Drainage: The streets are not sealed. Drainage is natural surface. Sewerage: The sewerage is managed by KRSP.


Dog Control Dog control is facilitated through the Environmental Health Office from the Shire and the AEHW from Balgo. There is currently an issue with a horse biting children.


The natural surface airstrip has solar powered lights and maintained through CDEP. The airstrip is used by the Royal Flying Doctor Service and is in a reasonable condition.


Community Office Community Store Community Workshop – it does not appear to be currently manned. Dirt Oval Outdoor Basketball Clinic Youth Centre

Emergency services Fire services: The community has a new fire trailer unit. Police: The nearest police service is at Balgo.


General

The Community CEO position is vacant with an Acting CEO to the end of 2008. Old depot area with collection of old plant including rubbish trucks. Community Bus – unserviceable. Plant Backhoe


Community: Mulan

COMMUNITY PROFILE Community Location: Mulan is located approximately 340km south east from Halls Creek at 20.06.05 S and 127.35.42 E. Population:



- 33 community houses - Community Office - Community Store - Community Centre - Arts Centre - Workshop

Outstations: The community has no functioning outstations

MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREAS Health Other health:

The Shire EHO conducts irregular food inspections in the community.


Access roads: Tanami Road The main access road, the Tanami Road is in a very poor condition and this causes considerable problems for the community with vehicle repairs and the cost of freight. This road is classified as a local road under the control of the Shire of Halls Creek but it a major link road between the Kimberley region and Alice Springs and beyond the capacity of the Shire to maintain. The road caters for pastoral, mining, tourist, freight and remote


communities. The Shire was carrying out major reconstruction works at the northern sections of the road. The section to the Balgo turn-off was badly corrugated and forcing traffic to drive in the watertable drain. The section east of the Balgo turn-off to the NT border is in a particularly poor condition and this could warrant closure for safety purposes. The potential exists for the future development of a road maintenance team based upon the Balgo, Mulan and Billiluna communities to maintain the middle and eastern sections of the road. Access The access to the community is along the Tanami Road and the Balgo Road to Balgo, then by approximately 40 kilometres of gravel and natural surface road which is maintained by the Shire of Halls Creek, although sometimes this is contracted to the community. An alternative back road to Billiluna via the north end of the Canning Stock Route and to Halls Creek is in poor condition for approximately 70km, the remaining 30km has been graded by the community in July, 2008. Internal roads: The community roads are currently unsealed. There was a plan to seal the roads in 2006 however this did not eventuate. .


Rubbish collection: The community has two SULO bins for each house, and the rubbish is collected weekly. The rubbish is collected using ute and trailer funded through CDEP. Landfill: The rubbish tip is in a good condition. There is a truck and backhoe which are used to push up the tip.

Drainage and Sewerage Drainage: The community has an issue with water runoff at the west end of the community, whereby the water runs off the natural surface through the houses. There are plans to construct a levy to divert the water from the nearby


airstrip and hills. Sewerage: The community has a gravity collection sewerage pond system. The sewerage is pumped through to sewerage ponds located less than 500m from dwellings.


Dogs Dog control is facilitated through the Aboriginal Environmental Health Worker (AEHW) from the Shire and Balgo. A local community member assists with the dog control.


The community airstrip is in good condition and maintained with a local grader. A new automatic light system is ready to be installed.


Community Office Community Recreation Centre Community Store

Emergency services Fire services: The community does not have any emergency service provisions. A fire trailer was requested however was rejected by DHW. The fire hydrants are underground but the community does not have standpipes or hoses. The community currently prepares its own fire breaks. Police Serviced from the Balgo Police Station.

General

Mulan is a small and very remote community with an active leadership and aspirations for improvement and economic development including contracting. A community member is a Councillor on the Shire of Halls Creek.


The community has the potential to develop a tourist attraction/camp at nearby Lake Gregory and tap into large number of tourists arising from the unique location near the junction of the Tanami Road and the Canning Stock Route. Plant Grader Tractor


Community: Warmun

COMMUNITY PROFILE Community Location: The community is located approximately 1km south of Turkey Creek. Population:

The community has a core population of approximately 450-500, however this increases during the wet season.



Access road The formal access to the community is through the Great Northern Highway. Internal roads The internal road network is formed by mainly sealed and unkerbed roads.


Rubbish collection: Rubbish tip: Shire controlled rubbish tip

Drainage and Sewerage Drainage: The community experiences significant run-offs from roads and houses in the communities. There does not appear to be an established stormwater system in place. Sewerage: The CLP identified that each dwelling is connected to an underground reticulation sewerage system. The sewerage pump then disposes of the effluent to the wastewater disposal area.


Aerodrome management The community has an airstrip. Civic buildings and public toilet maintenance

- Medical clinic - K – Y10 school - Shop and petrol filling station - Oval - Basketball courts - Airstrip - Amusement parlour - Approximately 62 residences


Community: Mardiwah Loop

COMMUNITY PROFILE Community Location: Mardiwah Loop is located along 1.1km access road off the Great Northern Highway. Population:



- 24 community houses, including numerous shacks and sheds. - Basketball and tennis courts - Civic hall - Race course and Rodeo Grounds - Sports oval - Golf course


Health The community access Halls Creek for its health service needs. Roads and street (incl. internal and access roads)

Internal roads: The community’s internal roads are sealed. Internal roads: The access road to the community is Roberta Avenue which is a sealed road.


Rubbish collection: The community used SULO bins for the rubbish collection, which is collected by the Shire.

Drainage and Sewerage Drainage: The community has natural drainage lines which run through the community. Flooding occurs in heavy rain and pools in the watercourse areas north and east of the community.


Sewerage: The community does not have a sewerage system. The houses are connected to a septic system.


- 24 community houses, including numerous shacks and sheds. - Basketball and tennis courts - Civic hall - Race course and Rodeo Grounds - Sports oval - Golf course

Emergency services Fire services:

The community does not have any emergency service provisions. A fire trailer was requested however was rejected by DHW. The fire hydrants are underground but the community does not have standpipes or hoses. The community currently prepares its own fire breaks.


Community: Kundat Djaru (Ringer Soak)

COMMUNITY PROFILE Community Location: Kundat Djaru is a small remote community situated east of Halls Creek and near the WA/NT State border at

18.47.43 S and 128.36.58 E. Population:

The community has a population of approximately 93 (56 adults and 37 children)


- There are a total of 37 houses (28 community houses and 9 staff houses) - Community Office (Good condition) - School (Good condition) - Community Store (Good condition) - Community Clinic (Reasonable condition) - Arts Centre (New condition) - Community Laundry - Basketball Court (Poor condition) - Oval (Dirt surface)

Outstations: The community does not have any outstations.

MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREAS Health The community has a health clinic which is manned by 1.5FTE nurses, and operated by Kimberley Aboriginal

Medical Service. A doctor visits the community fortnightly. Roads and street (incl. internal and access roads)

Access roads: Via the Duncan Highway (gravel and natural surface) and a 50km access road (gravel and natural surface) and both were in a good condition. The Shire grades both roads but this is irregular and often only annually. Internal roads: Buckley Contracting from Derby sealed and kerbed the town streets in 2007 at a cost of approximately


$850,000. There is already a considerable build up of washed sand.


Rubbish collection: The community has 100 SULO bins, approximately 2 per household. The bins are collected twice weekly by two CDEP employees and a Toyota compactor truck. Litter build up on streets and verges. Number of car bodies Rubbish tip: The rubbish tip was upgraded in 2006 and fenced. There are two pits that are currently at approximately 30% capacity. The tip is regularly pushed up by a tractor.

Drainage and Sewerage Drainage: The community has a major drainage problem with the streets being clogged with washed sand that has come on to the newly sealed roads after rain. Sewerage: The community sewerage system is managed by KRSP and was upgraded in 2006/2007. Fencing requires repair and a build up of grass.


Dog control is on a request basis to the Shire however there is need for a regular service. The dogs are causing issues with litter being spread out in the community.


The airstrip is an all weather gravel 1,100m strip. The airstrip is in a good condition with 42 solar lights. The airstrip is used by the Royal Flying Doctor Service and charter planes.



Community Office Community Store Telecentre Dirt oval Open air basketball courts Covered playground equipment

Emergency services Fire services: The community has funded their own new fire unit. FESA does not currently have any arrangement for emergency service provision in the dry season.

General

The community is quite remote from all others and is the most easterly of all the communities. It has some association with the Balgo, Mulan and Billiluna communities and is included in the proposed Halls Creek Pilot Project. The deterioration to the newly sealed town streets is a concern. Road access via the Duncan Road and access road was quite good at the time of the inspection but this can deteriorate to a very poor condition and the community can be cut off for long periods. The acting CEO has previously been the CEO at the community for some years, but was due to leave it by the end of 2008.


Community: Yiyili

COMMUNITY PROFILE Community Location: Yiyili is located approximately 109km west of Halls Creek and approximately half way between Fitzroy Crossing

and Halls Creek at 18.43.10 S and 126.45.18 E. Population:

The community has a population of approximately 200.


Community School Arts Centre Community Store Community Telecentre

Outstations: The community outstations include Ganiniyi, Girriyoowa, Rocky Springs, Goolgaradah, Kurinyah and

Mooongardie.


Health Health The community has a Doctor/Nurse visit the community each Wednesday. The Allied Health professionals from Kununurra visit monthly. There are irregular visits from the Environmental Health Officer from the Shire.


Access road: The community is situated approximately 5km from Great Northern Highway and is gravel and natural surface road that graded is graded by nearby Louisa Downs Pastoral Station.


Outstations Natural surface access tracks. Mooongardie is located further west along Great Northern Highway.

Ganiniyi is located some 5 kilometres from Yiyili and is adjacent to Louisa Downs Station and the airstrip.

Internal roads: The community streets are all unsealed natural surface roads. The roads are not regularly graded, however maintenance is done to ensure the school bus can travel on the roads.


Rubbish collection: The community rubbish collection is organised through the Independent School headmaster. The community members use 44 drums which are shared between the houses. The school uses SULO bins. The bins are collected using the school vehicle and trailer. Rubbish tip: The community has a rubbish tip which is in a very poor condition and is situated quite close to the school. A fenced tip in reasonable condition is located close to Ganiniyi.

Drainage and Sewerage Drainage:

The community does not have a major drainage issue. The community is only cut off for one to two days. Sewerage: The community’s sewerage system is managed by KRSP. The sewer ponds were quite dry when inspected.


Dog control is managed by the Shire when necessary, and is generally on a request basis.


The airstrip is in a good condition and maintained by the Louisa Pastoral Co. to the standard for the Royal Flying Doctor Service.


Community Store


Telecentre Art Centre School Open Air roofed Basketball Courts The civic buildings and public infrastructure is generally managed through the Independent School. The School arranges applications for funding on behalf of the community Corporation name.

Emergency services Fire services: The Project Office from Marra Worra Worra has organised a fire trailer unit. A large bush fire was burning out of control along the Great Northern Highway to the west of the community. Police Serviced from Halls Creek.

General

The community does not appear to be managed by an Aboriginal Corporation with the main local management thrust being provided by the long serving local independent school headmaster who was interviewed during the site visit. The Yiyili independent school has provided a stable proactive focus for the community and is the “glue” that holds the community together. Projects include a school market garden and a very active community art centre. The long serving Headmaster is not expected to stay at the community.


Yiyili – internal network dirt streets Yiyili – sewerage ponds (poor condition) Yiyili – school oval Balgo – unserviceable compactor truck


Balgo – unserviceable loader Balgo – sealed streets, with no kerbing Billiluna – old plant including compactor trucks Billiluna – town street


Mulan – town streets Mulan – rubbish tip Mardiwah Loop – internal street Mulan – town street


Ringer Soak – internal street sealed in 2007 Ringer Soak – internal street with washed sand Tanami Road – track in table drain Tanami Road – track in table drain


Shire of Wyndham / East Kimberley

Community: Kalumburu

COMMUNITY PROFILE Community Location: Kalumburu is located in the remote and isolated northern tip of Western Australia. It is located approximately

565kms from Kununurra and 560km from Wyndham at 14.17.38 S and 126.38.45 E. Population:

The community has a population that fluctuates between seasons of 450 – 550. Two-thirds of the community are under 16 years of age.


- 72 community houses and 15 GEHA. - Community Office (reasonable condition) - Indoor courts (reasonable condition) - New public toilets - Community store

Outstations: The community outstations include Truscott, Narra Garra, McGowan Island, Honeymoon Beach, Carson River

and Pago.

MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREAS Health The food inspections are facilitated by the Environmental Health Officer from the Shire. Two local community

members have just been certified to provide Environmental Health Officer services through funding provided by WA Health. The community has a health clinic which is visited regularly by the Royal Flying Doctor Service and a remote area dentist.


Access roads: The community is located 267km north of the Gibb River Road. The road is graded twice per year, and has


seasonal access which has a developing popularity with 4WD tourists. Internal roads: The internal roads have recently been resealed and kerbed by the Australian Army under its AACP. Additionally, the gravel and natural surface road that leads to the barge landing has been upgraded.


Rubbish collection: The rubbish is collected on a daily basis by CDEP using a tip trailer. The community has SULO bins. Rubbish tip: The rubbish tip is in a good condition, it is a new tip that has been built by the Army, however it is filling up quickly. There is land for an expansion of the tip.

Drainage and Sewerage Drainage: There are high floods during the wet season, which can cause the sewerage ponds to overflow and feedback into the town. Sewerage: The community has a functioning sewerage system which is adequate. The sewer system operates from individual septic tank systems that require pumping out. The sewerage is pumped to treatment ponds adjacent to the runway. The community is purchasing their own septic pump out unit for houses.


Dog control is managed by the Shire, with the Environmental Health Officers visiting the community 2-3 times per year. Mosquito control is not a problem for the community, however there is pest control for cockroaches, fleas and ticks.


The aerodrome has been recently sealed by the Army and is an all weather airstrip. The airstrip has lights and is solar powered. There is a $15 landing fee applied to the airstrip.



Community Office Community Store Community Clinic (New) being constructed by the Army. Secure depot and workshop. The community buildings have been managed the Community Asset Manager.

Emergency services Fire services: The community does not have fire hydrants, however a new FESA trailer has arrived in the community. Police Manned Police Station

General

The community is very remote and requires access by air charter flights. Most freight is transported by a barge service operating from Darwin and landed at a beach situated approximately 18 kilometres from the community. Any road freight, including blue metal for road and airstrip construction, is trucked from Kununurra. The CEO was departing the community. The Community Asset Manager was departing the community.


Community: Mirima

COMMUNITY PROFILE Community Location: Mirima is located on the outer edge of Kununurra townsite at approximately 15.45.32 S and 128.45.02 E. Population:

The community has a fluctuating population between 150 to 250 depending on the season.


- Approximately 34 houses. - Community kitchen - Public open space - Play equipment - Workshop

The community is a “Town based community” and infrastructure and buildings is limited due to the proximity to Kununurra.

Outstations:

Several outstations are serviced by Waringarri Aboriginal Corporation – Municipal Services Project.

MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREAS Health

The community has access to the town based health services. Health inspections are carried out by the Shire, this includes water testing.


Access roads: Access to the community is located along a sealed road that services it and Nulleywah community and is maintained by the Shire.

Internal roads: The internal roads are sealed and have kerbing. There is some build up of washed sand and some potholing.

Waste services


MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREAS (incl. waste collection and landfill) Rubbish collection:

The rubbish is in SULO type bins and collected by the Shire on a weekly basis. Rubbish tip: The rubbish tip is located outside of the Community.

Drainage and Sewerage Drainage: The community drainage system includes open unlined stormwater drains that collect and divert water flows.

Sewerage: The community sewerage system is linked together through a 150mm poly gravity collector sewer. The sewerage is collected at Nulleywah and pumped to the sewerage ponds.




Warringarri Aboriginal Corporation Office Warringarri Aboriginal Corporation Works Depot Warringarri AC Radio Station and Arts Centre Playgrounds

Emergency services Town based emergency services General

Mirima and Nulleywah are both town based communities that enjoy the normal services and facilities of the Kununurra town-site. The Waringarri Aboriginal Corporation is located at Mirima and this includes a Municipal Service Provider project for the two communities and several outstations, some relatively close to Kununurra and some further


MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREAS away. The WAC has a large depot and plant resources.

Community: Nulleywah

COMMUNITY PROFILE Community Location: Nulleywah is located on the outer edge of Kununurra townsite at approximately 15.45.32 S and 128.45.02 E. Population:

The community has a fluctuating population between 200 and 300 depending on the season.


- Approximately 30 houses. - Public open space - Play equipment - CDEP Shed - Community Office

The community infrastructure and buildings is limited due to the proximity to Kununurra.


Health The community has access to all the normal health services in Kununurra. Health inspections are carried out by the Shire, this includes water testing.


Access roads: Access to the community is located along a sealed road that is maintained by the Shire. Outstation access roads: The community outstations are along gravel or natural surface road. Internal roads: The internal roads are sealed and kerbed. There is a build up of washed sand and some pot holing.



Rubbish collection: The rubbish is collected from SULO type bins by the Shire on a weekly basis. Rubbish tip: The rubbish tip is located outside of the Community.

Drainage and Sewerage Drainage: The community drainage system is connected to Kununurra’s. Channel drains have been excavated within the south western and western boundaries of Nulleywah. Heavy annual rains place additional pressure on Nulleywah’s drainage system. Sewerage: The community sewerage system is linked together with Mirima through a 150mm poly gravity collector sewer.




Nulleywah has no special purpose community buildings and is serviced by Waringarri Aboriginal Corporation at nearby Mirima and the normal community infrastructure in Kununurra.

Emergency services Serviced by Kununurra town based services.

General

Serviced by Waringarri Aboriginal Corporation. Considerable litter on street verges.


Community: Oombulgurri

COMMUNITY PROFILE Community Location: Forrest River Population:

The community has a population of approximately 80


- 34 community houses and about 5 GEHA for teachers - Community Office (poor condition) - Nil indoor courts (reasonable condition) - Nil public toilets - Community store

MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREAS Health Health

Clinic Very good. Healthy community. Environmental Health Average. Improvements in collecting rubbish required. Several houses in squalid condition due to residents not looking after them. Some over crowding.


Access road Impassable currently. Internal roads Some sealed the majority dirt - but sufficient Transport In Air or barge only Transport Out Air or barge



Rubbish collection: Collected sporadically under CDEP Rubbish tip: Maintained sporadically by community under CDEP

Drainage and Sewerage Drainage: Not bad considering the amount of water in the rainy season Sewerage: Sewerage system is good. Maintained by KRSP but some houses have sewerage problems due to the installation of plastic tanks (they virtually melt in the heat).


Dog Control Done under contract from Kununurra twice per year Mosquito Control Done under contract from Kununurra three times per year at total cost of $18,000


Managed by community. Currently training for management of airstrip is required. Maintenance required but awaiting repair of plant.


Supposed to be maintained by community without funds - no public toilets. Legal issues involved on actual ownership of land and civic buildings.

Emergency services Fire services: Trailer with pump on it - to be repaired shortly Other Nil Police

Permanent police presence


Mirima – kerbed street Mirima – public open space Kalumburu – new health clinic Kalumburu – waste disposal site


175

Appendix C – Regional local government establishment overview

Regional Local Government Establishment Overview For the purposes of the below commentary, the Local Government Act 1995 is referred to as ‘the Act’. Establishing a regional local government is governed by section 3.61 of the Act.

(1) Two or more local governments (‘participants’), may, with the Minister’s approval, establish a regional local government to do things, for the participants, for any purpose for which a local government can do things under this Act or any other Act.

(2) An application for the Minister’s approval is to be –

(a) in a form approved for that purpose by the Minister; and (b) accompanied by a copy of an agreement between the participants

to establish the regional local government (the established agreements).

(3)

The participants are to supply the Minister any further information about the application that the Minister asks for.

(4)

If the Minister approves the application the Minister is to declare, by notice in the Gazette, that the regional local government is established - (a) on the date, (b) under the name, (c) for the purpose set out in the notice

Constitution and purpose of a regional local government (section 3.62 of the Act)

(1) A regional local government — (a) is a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common

seal; and (b) is to have as its governing body a council established under the

establishment agreement and consisting of members of the councils of the participants.


176

(2) The purpose for which a regional local government is established is set out in the establishment agreement.

Dissolution or partial dissolution of a regional local government (section 3.63 of the Act)

(1) A regional local government is to be wound up —

(a) at the direction of the Minister; or (b) in accordance with the establishment agreement.

(2) A participant may, in accordance with the establishment agreement, withdraw from the regional local government and cease to be a participant.

The establishment agreement is to contain the following matters – either to be set out or provided for in the establishment agreement for a regional local government (section 3.64 of the Act)

(a) the name of the regional local government; (b) a description of the region for which the regional local government

is established; (c) the number of offices of member on the council of the regional

local government and, in respect of each participant, the number of members to be appointed by that participant;

(d) the appointment and tenure of members of the council of the regional local government;

(e) the election or appointment of a chairman and deputy chairman of the regional local government from amongst members of its council and the term of office of a chairman and deputy chairman, which is not to exceed 2 years;

(f) the purpose for which the regional local government is established;

(g) a means of determining the financial contributions of the participants to the funds of the regional local government;

(h) procedures for the winding up of the regional local government or for the withdrawal of a participant from the regional local government;

(i) procedures for the division of assets and liabilities between the participants in the event of the regional local government being wound up or a participant withdrawing from the regional local government;

(j) a means of resolving disputes between participants as to matters relating to the regional local government; and

(k) any other prescribed matter. Amendment of establishment agreement (section 3.65 of the Act)

(1) The participants may amend the establishment agreement for a regional local government by agreement made with the Minister’s approval, and a reference in this Division to the establishment agreement includes a reference to the establishment agreement as so amended.


177

(2) The establishment agreement can be amended under subsection (1) to include another local government as a further participant if that local government is a party to the amending agreement.

(3) Section 3.61(2) and (3) apply, with any necessary modifications, to an agreement amending the establishment agreement.

Application of enabling Acts to a regional local government (section 3.66 of the Act)

(1) Except as otherwise stated in this section, this Act and any other Act under which anything can be done for the regional purpose apply in relation to a regional local government as if —

(a) the participants’ districts together made up a single district; and (b) the regional local government were the local government

established for that district.

(2) A regional local government can only do things for the regional purpose, and the application of this Act or any other Act under subsection (1) is limited accordingly.

(3) The following provisions of this Act do not apply in relation to a regional local government —

(a) Part 2 (other than sections 2.7, 2.26, 2.29 and 2.32(e) and Division 7);

(b) Part 4; (c) Part 5, Division 2, Subdivision 4; (d) Part 6, Division 6; and (e) any provision prescribed for the purposes of this subsection.

(4) Part 6, Division 5, Subdivision 3 does not apply in relation to a regional local government unless the establishment agreement provides that it does.

(5) The provisions that do apply in relation to a regional local government apply to it subject to any prescribed modifications and any other necessary modifications.

Inconsistency between regional and other local laws (section 3.67 of the Act) To the extent that a local law made by a regional local government is incosistent with a local law made by a local government, the local law by the regional local government prevails.

Other arrangements not affected (section 3.68 of the Act)

(1) Nothing in this Division prevents local governments from making arrangements under which -

(a) a local government performs a function for another local government; or

(b) local governments perform a function jointly.


178

Appendix D – Bibliography ACIL Tasman, 2008, Regularising of Local Government Services in the Shire of Halls Creek Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2004. Census of Population and Housing 2001. [accessed online at] http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Latestproducts/2032.0Media%20Release72001?op endocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=2032.0&issue=2001&num=&view= Australian Bureau of Statistics 2002, Community Housing and Infrastructure needs Survey (CHINS), [accessed online at] http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/0/FF02FE65B252BDB2CA25706800802658?Open Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2004. National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey 2002. (No. 4714.0). Canberra, Australian Capital Territory. Commonwealth Government. Cth. Govt, 2006, Bilateral Agreement on Indigenous Affairs – Relating to Indigenous Affairs Arrangements and Enhanced Effort for Indigenous Service Delivery. Department of Commerce and Trade. 1999. Living in the Regions: The Views of Western Australians: The State Report. February 1999. Government of Western Australia. Department of Indigenous Affairs, 2002, Services to discrete Indigenous Communities in Western Australia – Discussion Paper. Department of Indigenous Affairs, 1999, The provision of Local Government Services to Indigenous communities – A Focus Paper. Environmental Health Needs Coordinating Committee, 2004, Environmental Health Needs of Indigenous Communities in Western Australia: The 2004 Survey and its Findings. Government of Western Australia, Perth. Stephen Goode Consulting, 2005, An Investigation of the options for the formation of a Regional Local Government: Executive Summary. Western Australian Planning Commission, Community Layout Plans. WALGA, 2008, Local Government Advisory Board Inquiry into Government Service Delivery to Indigenous Communities: Interim WALGA Submission.

Shire of Derby / West Kimberley...Executive summary Background It is widely recognised that the...

Documents

Transcript of Shire of Derby / West Kimberley...Executive summary Background It is widely recognised that the...