Territory Stories

This week @ LGANT newsletter



This week @ LGANT newsletter


Local Government Association of the Northern Territory


This Week @ LGANT; E-Journals; PublicationNT; This Week @ LGANT






This publication contains may contain links to external sites. These external sites may no longer be active.; Made available via the Publications (Legal Deposit) Act 2004 (NT).




Local Government Association of the Northern Territory; Local government; Politics and government; Periodicals

Publisher name

Local Government Association of the Northern Territory

Place of publication



This Week @ LGANT


Newsletter, 14/11/2008

Now known as

What's on : LGANT

File type




Copyright owner

Local Government Association of the Northern Territory



Parent handle


Citation address


Page content

3 There is no structured process for providing comments on the Interim Report. The Chair of the Committee, Catherine King, acknowledges in the Forward that the interim report has been released "as a means of assisting the Government in its decision making process" in relation to the RLCIP in the context of the current global economic crisis. The Committee believes that the RLCIP "has the potential to help stimulate growth at the local level and contribute to nation building in Australia." The Committee makes 24 recommendations about the administrative arrangements for the RLCIP based on public submission and the Australian National Audit Office report on the Regional Partnership Program. The recommendations in some cases provide alternative approaches to some issues. There is also a dissenting report from Paul Neville. The Committee notes that there was very little consensus on how a program should operate. The report acknowledges the ALGA submission that pointed out the backlog in community infrastructure identified in the PricewaterhouseCoopers Report and emphasises that regional and local level community infrastructure has "a vital role in a community's wellbeing and sustainability". The key recommendations, from local government's perspective, are that: local government be the key agency for applications in a region with a requirement that local government contribute (whether by way of capital, maintenance or operational funding); Not-for-profit organizations that do not require a local government contribution would require a letter of support from local government and then be able to apply directly; the focus of funding should be on physical infrastructure, cover all regions of Australia; the program be applications based with closed funding rounds; for-profit entities be excluded from the RLCIP and that a separate program be established for them; and there be a sliding scale of complexity of forms and information requirements for applications and suggests three streams: o less than $50,000; o $50,000 to $250,000; and o more than $250,000. These recommendations place local government in a pivotal role and ensure that councils are not left with legacy costs from grants to not-for-profit groups. In terms of assessing projects, the Committee recommends a centralised assessment process for the RLCIP. The Committee also recommends establishing panels in each state and territory, with delegates from the three tiers of government and others (peak community organisations, economic development bodies, philanthropy groups and people with particular expertise), to provide recommendations on applications to the Ministerial decision-maker. ALGA is generally supportive of the approach in the Interim Report looks forward to see how the Government may use the recommendations in the Interim Report in structuring the RLCIP. The Interim Report can be found at www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/itrdlg/regionaldevelopment/report.htm ALGA President discusses settlement services with Parliamentary Secretary Story 3

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are advised that this website may contain the names, voices and images of people who have died, as well as other culturally sensitive content. Please be aware that some collection items may use outdated phrases or words which reflect the attitude of the creator at the time, and are now considered offensive.

We use temporary cookies on this site to provide functionality.
By continuing to use this site without changing your settings, you consent to our use of cookies.