lead to better optimised delivery standards and better performance. It is our view that the communities deserves this. Consultations revealed, and it was apparent, that is a lack of inter service provider knowledge sharing and even knowledge of services available. This was evidenced by some individuals not knowing who other service providers were or what the role of the service provider is. Again this is further evidenced by the number of services/programs present in Aurukun. Refer to section 6 and annexure G. Barriers and facilitators to change responses It is important to note our view on the (short-term) stage of the Trial when reviewing responses in this area of service delivery. Refer to section 8. Service delivery representatives consulted had varying views on what was classed as a barrier or facilitator in services/programs towards individuals/families taking responsibility. This in itself is a barrier and needs to be addressed. Do any existing services or service components act as barriers to individuals/families taking responsibility? If so, how? And how could they be reformed or changed further? Many individuals consulted agreed with the view that the CYWR is in a very stage of development. A majority of service providers were of the view that competing priorities between all service providers was a major barrier to a holistic approach to service delivery being achieved. Competing priorities was apparent in ‘Lip service’ (an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction) being performed with service providers openly admitting to one another that this occurs too much. The overwhelming majority agreed that the two primary factors contributing to the level and degree of service’ and competing priorities included: ‘Lip the lack of long-term commitment from Government towards the support of the CYWR; and service provider’s security of tenure for services/programs. There is an opportunity for the Government to make good on its past investment in the CYWR and lock into a long-term agreement and plan to support Welfare Reform and its benefits. Without long-term commitment service providers will continue to focus on the short-term and the gains their organisation can achieve without supporting Welfare Reform goals and the long-term benefits to be achieved. At present is no requirement in Government tendering processes for service providers to align with the Welfare Reform agenda. This is viewed as a barrier towards achieving Welfare Reform goals.
lead to better optimised delivery standards and better performance. It is our view that the communities deserves this. Consultations revealed, and it was apparent, that is a lack of inter service provider knowledge sharing and even knowledge of services available. This was evidenced by some individuals not knowing who other service providers were or what the role of the service provider is. Again this is further evidenced by the number of services/programs present in Aurukun. Refer to section 6 and annexure G. Barriers and facilitators to change responses It is important to note our view on the (short-term) stage of the Trial when reviewing responses in this area of service delivery. Refer to section 8. Service delivery representatives consulted had varying views on what was classed as a barrier or facilitator in services/programs towards individuals/families taking responsibility. This in itself is a barrier and needs to be addressed. Do any existing services or service components act as barriers to individuals/families taking responsibility? If so, how? And how could they be reformed or changed further? Many individuals consulted agreed with the view that the CYWR is in a very stage of development. A majority of service providers were of the view that competing priorities between all service providers was a major barrier to a holistic approach to service delivery being achieved. Competing priorities was apparent in ‘Lip service’ (an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction) being performed with service providers openly admitting to one another that this occurs too much. The overwhelming majority agreed that the two primary factors contributing to the level and degree of ‘Lip service’ and competing priorities included: the lack of long-term commitment from Government towards the support of the CYWR; and service provider’s security of tenure for services/programs. There is an opportunity for the Government to make good on its past investment in the CYWR and lock into a long-term agreement and plan to support Welfare Reform and its benefits. Without long-term commitment service providers will continue to focus on the short-term and the gains their organisation can achieve without supporting Welfare Reform goals and the long-term benefits to be achieved. At present is no requirement in Government tendering processes for service providers to align with the Welfare Reform agenda. This is viewed as a barrier towards achieving Welfare Reform goals.
Consultation_Paper.docx