Government investment would be stopped in 75 remote Aboriginal communities and very limited in 53 more under a new funding strategy proposed by Western Australia's housing department.

The draft discussion paper, seen by the ABC, used 15 specific criteria to determined the risks to further investment and viability of communities, before placing them in five separate funding categories.

Indigenous Affairs Minister Peter Collier said no final funding decision had been made and the final framework would much more effectively deliver services.

The July 2013 document was prepared to help the State Government develop a plan for the future of remote communities.

It would "promote the development of safe, healthy and sustainable Aboriginal communities and improved socio-economic outcomes for remote residents".

Premier Colin Barnett has previously suggested up to 150 communities could close following the Federal Government's decision late last year to stop funding essential services, after more than a decade of negotiations with WA.

There have been growing calls for the Government to explain how it will determine which communities are affected and speed up consultation with increasingly concerned Aboriginal communities.

But it has said no framework had been finalised, and on March 3 Indigenous Affairs Minister Peter Collier said to assume "there's a line in the sand, a pre-determined criteria for the sustainability of those communities is naive in the extreme and it is false."

However, the housing department paper suggested a hierarchy of service provision where larger, low-risk and "more economically sustainable communities" received the most funding.

Communities which did not meet the definition of an Aboriginal settlement as containing no fewer than five dwellings, or were only seasonally occupied, would no longer receive state funded infrastructure and services except in "exceptional circumstances".

"Further investment will not be considered in communities that are not permanently occupied, which present an unacceptable risk to public health and wellbeing, or where there is very limited access to sustainable employment or enterprise activities," the document states.

Biridu in the West Kimberley with 30 people, Jundaru in the Pilbara with four people, and Robe River Junction near Halls Creek with four people are all communities which may no longer receive government investment.

Mr Collier said the final strategy would be released "very soon".

"It will be an all-of-government approach as opposed to having this silo approach in the past which hasn't worked," he said

He would not say if the final plan would include criteria or five funding categories.

"We're going to change the shape and form of service delivery in remote communities," the Minister said.

"We're doing something that is bold, that is visionary, that hasn't been done before.

"Now, in terms of isolating or alienating or identifying communities which will or will not have that service delivery, I can't do that because that decision hasn't been made."

Mr Collier said there would be "extraordinary" consultation with Aboriginal people.

Welfare reform, alcohol management are factors

The discussion paper said that communities' willingness to participate in welfare reform, alcohol management and the "development of personal social norms" would be key factors in investment decisions.

"Investment in remote communities and towns will actively support strategies to improve childhood development and educational outcomes," it said.

The discussion paper recognised the proposal was a potentially significant shift in government policy and Aboriginal people should be "pivotal" to its design and delivery.

"Aboriginal people will need to be closely consulted and have a legitimate opportunity to influence its development and implementation," it said.

It noted many Aboriginal people had strong traditional and cultural links to their land, and "these rights and cultural connections need to be recognise and respected", although "many may feel coerced into relocating".

Despite recommending funding be stopped or limited to scores of communities, the document stated its assessment process could only measure the accessibility or services and "not the adequacy of the service or whether the service is adequately accessed".

Remote Aboriginal communities ranked

Using pre-existing planning guidelines, the Department of Housing made "desktop assessments" of 222 remote Aboriginal communities against 15 development and planning "indicators", including drinking water, the provision of electricity, transport infrastructure and access to fresh food, education and health services.

How communities are ranked: Drinking water

Drinking water Provision of a reliable electricity supply

Provision of a reliable electricity supply Flooding and flood mitigation issues

Flooding and flood mitigation issues Security of land tenure

Security of land tenure Treatment of sewerage/wastewater

Treatment of sewerage/wastewater Transport (roads, airfields)

Transport (roads, airfields) Governance

Governance Heritage

Heritage Waste management

Waste management Planning

Planning Access to fresh food

Access to fresh food Education

Education Employment

Employment Health and emergency services

Communities were given a score and ranked: 19 were regarded as developed, 78 were developing (low risk), 70 were developing (high risk), and 55 were underdeveloped.

There was a clear link between community size and performance, with all communities with populations over 200 assessed as developed or developing (low risk).

Communities were then placed in categories, with 16 communities of 200 or more people in category one which would be a major focus of State Government investment.

These were likely to include Bidyadanga, Balgo, Bayulu and Looma.

The 18 communities in category two have a population between 100 to 200 and have been assessed as low risk. They would receive "moderate to significant" government investment, and could include Tjuntjuntjara, Parnngurr (Cotton Creek) and Mulan.

Category three would comprise 89 estimated communities assessed as medium to low risk and with a normal population between 30-100. They would have limited to moderate government investment and could include Mt Margaret, Karalundi, Dodnun and Koorabye.

Fifty-three communities in category four, with a population of less than 30 and assessed as high risk, would have very limited Government investment "with focus on asset maintenance and training for self-reliance". Billard, Alligator Hole, Morapoi and Monbon could be among them.

The 75 category five communities were non-permanently occupied and assessed as high risk. There would be no further investment; only private investment would be possible. They could also include Goodalargin and Yallet.

Dr Hames told Parliament people who chose to stay in country would do so without government support.

The discussion paper said people who opted to relocate should be supported through long-term and flexible programs, and possibly new housing.

It also predicted "potential conflicts with existing populations, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, as resources are diluted and there is increased competition for limited opportunities".

Loading...